Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

The CHIMERA Survey: The first CO detection in Leo T, the lowest mass known galaxy still hosting cold molecular gas

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read First CO detection in the dwarf galaxy Leo T, the lowest-stellar-mass galaxy known to host cold molecular gas, reveals three compact molecular clouds, one of which appears to be escaping.

desk verdict New CO detection in Leo T is plausible for the west/south clouds, but the north cloud's foreground exclusion relies on an uncalibrated alphaCO extrapolation, so the expulsion claim is not secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21213 v1 pith:BWE467Q4 submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.GA

Vicente Villanueva , Matías Blaña , Alberto D. Bolatto , Mónica Rubio , Elizabeth Tarantino , Rodrigo Herrera-Camus , Andreas Burkert , Daniel Vaz
show 8 more authors
Justin I. Read Gaspar Galaz César Muñoz Diego Calderón Manuel Behrendt Julio A. Carballo-Bello Emily Gray Michael Fellhauer
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galaxies:LocalGroupindividual:LeoTdwarfstarformationsubmillimeter:galaxiesmolecularcloudsCO(1-0)emissionCO-to-H2conversionfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using new observations with the Atacama Compact Array, the authors report the first detection of carbon monoxide ($^{12}$CO($J=1-0$)) in Leo T, an extremely faint and metal-poor dwarf galaxy near the Milky Way with a stellar mass of only about $1.4\times10^5\,M_\odot$. They identify three compact molecular clouds whose total virial mass is about $1.4\times10^4\,M_\odot$, roughly 3% of Leo T's gas budget, and derive CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factors $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ as high as $\sim155\,M_\odot\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2})^{-1}$, far above Milky Way values and consistent with the galaxy's very low metallicity ($[M/H]\sim-1.7$). Two of the clouds appear gravitationally bound to the dwarf, while the northern cloud has a line-of-sight velocity offset of about $+57\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ relative to the H I gas, which the authors' orbital models say means it is likely being expelled. If the detections hold up, Leo T becomes the lowest-stellar-mass galaxy known to host cold molecular gas, pushing CO surveys to a new extreme and supporting a picture in which such dwarfs lose their star-forming gas in episodic bursts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $^{12}$CO($J=1-0$) emission line, mapped with the Atacama Compact Array in a single pointing over about 2.2 arcmin, at roughly 26 pc resolution with 0.62 km s$^{-1}$ channels and a median rms of about 20 mJy beam$^{-1}$. From the line data the authors measure each cloud's CO luminosity $L_{\rm CO}$ using the standard Solomon & Vanden Bout (2005) formula, and its virial mass via $M_{\rm vir}=1044\,R\sigma^2$ (MacLaren et al. 1988), assuming a $1/r$ density profile; the ratio of these two quantities defines the conversion factor $\alpha_{\rm CO}=M_{\rm mol}/L_{\rm CO}$, the diagnostic for extreme metal-poor conditions. The orbital analysis of the northern cloud uses the delorean code of Bla\~na et al. (2020) with gravitational potentials for the stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components plus ram pressure from the dwarf's ISM and the Milky Way's circumgalactic medium, with parameters from Bla\~na et al. (2024), to test whether the cloud stays inside the Jacobi radius. Comparison with the WSRT H I cube of Adams & Oosterloo (2018) supplies the velocity offsets and the atomic-gas context.

What would settle it

Measure the distance of the northern cloud directly, for example with a CO($J=2-1$)/CO($J=1-0$) line ratio or H I self-absorption against background continuum sources. If the cloud lies in the Milky Way disk at about 40 kpc rather than at Leo T's 409 kpc, the paper's own calculation shows its luminosity would drop to $L_{\rm CO}\approx0.41\ \mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2}$ and the virial-based $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ would rise to about $1.1\times10^3\,M_\odot\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2})^{-1}$, two orders of magnitude above Milky Way values; that would shift the interpretation from expelled Leo T gas to foreground contamination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims the first detection of $^{12}$CO($J=1-0$) emission in Leo T, with the Atacama Compact Array resolving three compact molecular clouds (radii of $5.7$\,--\,$7.1$ arcsec, equivalent to less than 13 pc at Leo T's distance of 409 kpc) located in the central region but offset by roughly 60\,--\,100 pc from the centers of the stellar populations. Adopting the virial mass estimator with a $1/r$ density profile, each cloud carries an upper-limit mass of about $5\times10^3\,M_\odot$, for a total of $1.4\pm0.4\times10^4\,M_\odot$, corresponding to about 3% of the galaxy's total gas mass. The derived CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factors $\alpha_{\rm CO}=M_{\rm mol}/L_{\rm CO}$ \,--\, the ratio of molecular mass to CO luminosity \,--\, fall in the range $107$\,--\,$156\,M_\odot\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2})^{-1}$, among the highest measured and presented as consistent with the extremely low metallicity of Leo T. The south and west clouds have velocity offsets near $+13\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ relative to the H I and are probably bound; the north cloud, at about $+58\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, is unbound in orbital models with halo masses below roughly $10^9\,M_\odot$, from which the authors conclude the cloud is likely being expelled and that Leo T is experiencing molecular gas depletion as it evolves toward quenching.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on the assumption that the detected CO emission, especially the northern cloud at about 97 km s$^{-1}$, truly belongs to Leo T and not to a foreground Milky Way molecular cloud; Milky Way H I toward Leo T moves at 80\,--\,90 km s$^{-1}$, and the paper's argument against that scenario is indirect, resting on the virial mass estimator being valid at both candidate distances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Leo T becomes the lowest-stellar-mass galaxy known to host cold molecular gas, extending the frontier of CO detection in dwarf galaxies down to $M_\star\approx10^5\,M_\odot$.
  • The extreme conversion factors ($\alpha_{\rm CO}=107$\,--\,$156$ in the paper's units) imply that CO strongly under-tracers H$_2$ in very metal-poor systems, so the true molecular gas content of Leo T could be far larger than the CO-derived mass.
  • If the north cloud is genuinely unbound, it is direct evidence that low-mass dwarfs expel molecular gas, supporting the episodic star formation and eventual quenching scenario for Leo T.
  • The spatial offsets between the CO clouds and the stellar and H I centers indicate that molecular gas forms away from the galaxy's dynamical center, possibly in H I compressed by stellar winds.
  • The detection shows CO($J=1-0$) is a viable tracer in the lowest-mass dwarfs, motivating systematic surveys of the molecular ISM at the faint end of the galaxy population.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A cleaner arbitration of the foreground-cloud question for the north cloud would be a distance-sensitive measurement such as H I self-absorption against Milky Way background continuum or a CO($J=2-1$) line ratio; the paper's exclusion relies on the virial estimator holding at both candidate distances.
  • If the clouds are genuinely bound to Leo T, the combination of a large H I reservoir with inefficient CO formation suggests molecule formation is triggered by localized compression (for example AGB winds or dynamical perturbations) rather than by the global gas surface density, which sits below the usual critical threshold of about $10\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc^{-2}}$.
  • Because Leo T shows no detected massive stars, H II regions, or dust, these clouds probe the $\alpha_{\rm CO}$\,--\,metallicity relation at nearly zero ambient radiation field; comparing them with dwarfs of similar metallicity but active star formation would isolate the role of photodissociation in setting $\alpha_{\rm CO}$.
  • Higher-resolution CO($J=2-1$) plus dust-continuum observations that resolve the clouds' cores could turn the upper-limit masses into direct measurements and test whether the clouds are gravitationally self-bound or transient, pressure-confined structures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports new ACA 12CO(J=1-0) observations of the dwarf galaxy Leo T and identifies three compact CO emission regions (north, west, south) within the field of view. Using 2D Gaussian fitting and circular apertures, the authors derive CO luminosities of ~32-43 K km/s pc^2, upper-limit virial masses of ~5e3 M_sun per cloud (total 1.4e4 M_sun), CO-to-H2 conversion factors of 107-156 M_sun (K km/s pc^2)^-1, and mean molecular surface densities of ~9 M_sun pc^-2. The clouds show spatial and velocity offsets from the stellar populations and HI; two clouds have velocity offsets of +13 km/s relative to the HI, while the north cloud has +57.7 km/s. The authors argue that the first two are likely bound, while the north cloud is likely being expelled from Leo T, and interpret the high alphaCO values as consistent with the galaxy's very low metallicity. The central claim is that this is the first CO detection in the lowest stellar-mass gas-rich dwarf galaxy known.

Significance. If the association of the CO emission with Leo T is confirmed, this would be a landmark result: it would establish cold molecular gas in a galaxy with M*~1e5 M_sun and [M/H]~-1.7, with conversion factors among the highest measured, providing a strong test of molecular cloud scaling relations in the metal-poor regime. The paper is commendably transparent about the resolution limits: it reports that the sources are barely resolved, provides a spaxel-based S/N analysis in Appendix B, and labels the derived masses and alphaCO as upper limits. These strengths make the detection claim internally coherent. However, the scientific impact of the paper depends critically on the physical association of the detected CO with Leo T, and the current treatment of the Milky Way foreground hypothesis is not sufficiently robust. The reported properties and the gas-expulsion interpretation therefore remain conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix G / Sect. 3] The exclusion of a Milky Way foreground origin for the north cloud is not decisive. In Appendix G the authors compute that if the cloud were at the far side of the MW HI disk (D~40 kpc), its virial-based alphaCO would be ~1120, and they reject this because the Bolatto et al. (2013) relation alphaCO=(LCO/1e5)^-0.185 gives ~10 for LCO~0.4 K km/s pc^2. This comparison is not valid because the relation is calibrated on resolved, luminous Milky Way GMCs with LCO several orders of magnitude higher, and CO-dark/diffuse gas in the Milky Way demonstrates that low-luminosity CO clouds can have effective alphaCO values far above that relation, so a value near 1120 is not physically implausible for a foreground cloud. The argument also assumes virial equilibrium for the foreground cloud. Since the abstract's 'three clouds', the total molecular mass, and the gas-expulsion interpretation all assume the Leo T distance, the association remains the load-bearing uncertainty. For the west and south clouds, no quantitative foreground or chance-coincidence test is provided; their +13 km/s offset from Leo T's HI is suggestive but not a distance proof.
  2. [Sect. 3 and Table C.1] The CO sources are not resolved: the 2D Gaussian FWHM values of ~10-14 arcsec are comparable to or smaller than the beam major axis of 13.18 arcsec, so the adopted radii, virial masses, alphaCO, and Sigma_mol are upper limits that depend on the assumed source shape. More importantly, the velocity dispersions reported in Table C.1 are 0.59-0.63 km/s with 1-sigma uncertainties of 0.62-1.04 km/s, i.e., the line-width measurements are not formally significant and are comparable to the 0.62 km/s channel width. The virial masses Mmol~5e3 M_sun are therefore not robust, and the total mass of 1.4e4 M_sun should be presented with a much stronger caveat or re-derived from a more careful spectral analysis.
  3. [Sect. 3 (north cloud)] The conclusion that the north cloud is being expelled from Leo T rests on the assumption that the cloud is at the Leo T distance, on a projected separation of ~60 pc, and on using only the line-of-sight velocity component. While using only the los velocity is conservative for concluding unbound orbits, the model halo-mass thresholds (Mh>2e9 M_sun for extended cores; Mh>3.5e8 M_sun for higher central densities) span the range of recent dynamical mass estimates, and the interpretation is not independent of the foreground question raised in Major Comment 1. The phrase 'providing evidence for molecular gas depletion' in the abstract is therefore stronger than the current analysis warrants; the paper should either present additional evidence against foreground contamination (e.g., a search of existing MW CO surveys toward this direction, or HI self-absorption) or soften the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Placeholder references to 'Sect.H' (e.g., in the Introduction and in Sect. 3) and the garbled passages 'WLMS ect.H', 'HST S ect.H', and 'WSRT S ect.H' should be corrected.
  2. [References] The reference list entry 'et al., A. 2016, A&A, 588, A23' is incomplete; the first author's name is missing.
  3. [Table C.1, note (3)] The note refers to a 2D Gaussian fit of 'MOM1 maps', but the sizes are derived from the intensity (MOM0) maps; please correct the terminology.
  4. [Abstract and Sect. 1] The abstract quotes M*~1e5 M_sun while the text gives M*~1.4e5 M_sun; please make the values consistent.
  5. [References] The reference list entry 'Toomre, a. 1964' should be 'Toomre, A. 1964'.
  6. [Appendix A] The Gaussian model for the spectral fit lacks an explicit normalization factor; as written it is not a normalized probability density, although this does not affect the derived line parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: derived CO cloud properties are standard estimators from measured line parameters, with external benchmark comparisons.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: L_CO is computed from the integrated CO flux and the adopted Leo T distance; M_vir uses the standard formula M_vir = 1044 R sigma^2 with the adopted aperture radius and measured velocity dispersion; alpha_CO = M_vir/L_CO and Sigma_mol = M_mol/(pi r_CO^2) are definitions applied to those quantities. No parameter is fitted to the target claim. The consistency checks (WLM, DDO 70, DDO 154, the Kennicutt-Schmidt placement, and the alpha_CO-metallicity comparison in Fig. G.1) use independent literature data and external calibrations. The only association-sensitive step is Appendix G's exclusion of a Milky Way foreground origin for the north cloud: it rescales L_CO and the virial mass to a 40 kpc distance and compares the resulting alpha'_CO (~1.1e3) with the Bolatto et al. (2013) Milky Way relation. That is a model-dependent consistency argument and a genuine caveat for physical association, but it is not circular, because alpha'_CO is derived from the same measured quantities by a stated scaling and the MW relation is an external empirical calibration, not an input fitted to Leo T. The orbital calculations using delorean/B20 and parameters from B24 are self-citations by the authors, but they are used as tools and model inputs for a new calculation; they do not smuggle in the CO detection or the Leo T association. Production artifacts such as the 'Sect.H' placeholders and the malformed 'et al. 2016' reference do not bear on circularity. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; cloud radii come from Gaussian fits to unresolved emission (upper limits), line widths from spectral fits, and the virial coefficient is a fixed constant. The analysis rests on standard domain assumptions about distance, virial equilibrium, gas association, and literature halo mass constraints.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Leo T is at a distance of 409 kpc (Clementini et al. 2012), used to convert angular to physical scales.
    Used throughout to convert beam size and cloud radii to pc and to compute luminosities; a distance error propagates linearly into masses.
  • domain assumption The CO clouds are virialized with a 1/r density profile, so Mvir = 1044 R sigma^2 (MacLaren et al. 1988).
    Masses and alphaCO are computed from the virial theorem; if the clouds are not self-gravitating or are transient, the masses are not accurate. The paper acknowledges these are upper limits.
  • domain assumption The detected CO emission is associated with Leo T rather than foreground Milky Way gas.
    The north cloud velocity (97 km/s) overlaps MW HI foreground velocities (80 to 90 km/s) from HI4PI; the paper excludes this scenario via an alphaCO argument, but that argument assumes virial equilibrium also holds for a foreground MW cloud.
  • domain assumption Leo T's dark matter halo mass is within the range constrained by prior dynamical studies (10^7.88 to 10^9.23 M_sun; Zoutendijk et al. 2021) and the B20/B24 models.
    The unbound-orbit conclusion for the north cloud depends on assuming Mh <~ 1e9 M_sun; if the halo is more massive, the cloud could remain bound.
  • domain assumption The HI data from Adams & Oosterloo (2018) provide accurate centroid velocity and dispersion for the offset analysis.
    Velocity offsets and binding arguments use the HI centroid velocity of 39.6 km/s and sigma = 8.3 km/s from AO18.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The CHIMERA Survey: The first CO detection in Leo T, the lowest mass known galaxy still hosting cold molecular gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWE467Q4

@misc{pith2026250721213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The CHIMERA Survey: The first CO detection in Leo T, the lowest mass known galaxy still hosting cold molecular gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWE467Q4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21213}
}
abstract

We report the first CO detection in Leo T, representing the most extreme observation of carbon monoxide molecules in the lowest stellar mass gas-rich dwarf galaxy ($M_{\star}$$\sim$10$^5$ M$_{\odot}$) known to date. We acquired and present new Atacama Compact Array (ACA) $^{12}$CO($J$=1-0) data within our CHIMERA Survey project for the central region of Leo~T, a metal-poor ([M/H]$\sim$-1.7) dwarf in the Milky Way (MW) outskirts. We identified three compact molecular clouds ($<13$ pc) with estimated upper limit virial masses of $M_{\rm mol}$$\sim$5$\times10^{3}$ M$_{\odot}$ each and a total of 1.4$\pm$0.4$\times$10$^{4}$ M$_{\odot}$, corresponding to $\sim\!3\%$ of the total gas mass. We obtained CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factors ($\alpha_{\rm CO}$) as high as $\sim$155 M$_{\odot}$ $({\rm K\, km\, s^{-1}\, pc^2})^{-1}$ and mean molecular gas surface densities of $\Sigma_{\rm mol}$$\sim$9 M$_\odot$ pc$^{-2}$ that are consistent with values found in dwarf galaxies with extremely low metal content. All CO clouds are shifted ($\sim$60 pc) from the stellar population centers, and only one cloud appears within the densest \hi region. Two clouds have velocity offsets with the \hi of $\Delta v_{\rm los}\sim\!+13$ km s$^{-1}$ being within twice the velocity dispersion ($\Delta v_{\rm los}/\sigma_{\rm HI,los}\sim2$) and probably bound. However, the northern cloud is faster ($\Delta v_{\rm los}\sim\!+57$ km s$^{-1}$); our models with low halo masses ($M_{\rm h}\! \lesssim \!10^9$ M$_{\odot}$) result in unbound orbits, suggesting that this material is likely being expelled from the dwarf, providing evidence for molecular gas depletion. These properties reveal a perturbed dynamics intertwined with star formation processes in low-mass dwarf galaxies, supporting a scenario of episodic bursts until they are fully quenched by the MW environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Atomic gas surface density map derived from the HIdata (Adams & Oosterloo 2018). The black-dashed circle marks the ACA CO(1-0) data FoV. Each square marks a cloud detection region: north (red), west (green), and south (blue). The old and younger stel￾lar population distributions are shown with red and light blue circles (corresponding to their respective half-light radii of 145 pc and 102 pc de Jong et al… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2017, , 470, 4750

    Accurso , G., Saintonge , A., Catinella , B., et al. 2017, , 470, 4750

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Adams, E. A. K. & Oosterloo, T. A. 2018, A & A, 612, A26

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    I., et al

    Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    2024, A & A, Volume 692, id.A183, 22 pp., 692, A183

    Bla \ n a, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., et al. 2024, A & A, Volume 692, id.A183, 22 pp., 692, A183

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 3601

    Bla \ n a, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., Schartmann, M., & Alig, C. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3601

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 144

    Bla \ n a, M., Fellhauer, M., Smith, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 144

    work page 2015

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    D., Leroy , A

    Bolatto , A. D., Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., Walter , F., & Blitz , L. 2008, , 686, 948

    2008

  2. [10]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARAA, 51, 207

    2013

  3. [11]

    Briggs , D. S. 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    1995

  4. [12]

    2006, , 373, 793

    Buyle , P., Michielsen , D., de Rijcke , S., Ott , J., & Dejonghe , H. 2006, , 373, 793

    2006

  5. [13]

    2022, , 134, 114501

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501

    2022

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    Clementini, G., Cignoni, M., Ramos, R. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 108

    2012

  7. [15]

    Collins, M. L. & Read, J. I. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 647

    2022

  8. [16]

    de Jong, J. T. A., Harris, J., Coleman, M. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1112

    2008

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 13

    Emerick, A., Mac Low, M.-M., Grcevich, J., & Gatto, A. 2016, ApJ, 826, 13

    2016

  10. [18]

    2016, , 588, A23

    et al., A. 2016, , 588, A23

    2016

  11. [19]

    Y., & Kravtsov , A

    Feldmann , R., Gnedin , N. Y., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2012, , 747, 124

    2012

  12. [20]

    W., Belokurov, V., et al

    Fellhauer, M., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1171

    2007

  13. [21]

    E., Almeida, J

    Filho, M. E., Almeida, J. S., Amor \' i n, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 109

    2016

  14. [22]

    I., et al

    Gatto, A., Fraternali, F., Read, J. I., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2749

    2013

  15. [23]

    Glover , S. C. O. & Mac Low , M. M. 2011, , 412, 337

    2011

  16. [24]

    J., et al

    Gratier , P., Braine , J., Rodriguez-Fernandez , N. J., et al. 2010, , 512, A68

    2010

  17. [25]

    I., Read, J

    Gray, E. I., Read, J. I., Taylor, E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, Volume 539, Issue 2, pp. 1167-1179, 13 pp., 539, 1167

    2025

  18. [26]

    & Olofsson, H

    H \" o fner, S. & Olofsson, H. 2018, AAR, 26, 1

    2018

  19. [27]

    R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C

    Hunter , T. R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C. L., et al. 2023, arXiv [ 2306.07420 ]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Irwin, M. J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, L13

    2007

  21. [29]

    Israel , F. P. 1997, , 328, 471

    1997

  22. [30]

    Y., Read, J

    Kim, S. Y., Read, J. I., Rey, M. P., et al. 2024, arXiv, 000, arXiv:2408.15214

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2023, , 75, 1337

    Komugi , S., Inaba , M., & Shindou , T. 2023, , 75, 1337

    2023

  24. [32]

    Krumholz , M. R. 2013, , 436, 2747

    2013

  25. [33]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 216

    2009

  26. [34]

    A., Brooks , A

    Leaman , R., Venn , K. A., Brooks , A. M., et al. 2012, , 750, 33

    2012

  27. [35]

    D., & Venn, K

    Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., & Venn, K. A. 2005, ApJ, 620, 223

    2005

  28. [36]

    K., Evans , A

    Leroy , A. K., Evans , A. S., Momjian , E., et al. 2011, , 739, L25

    2011

  29. [37]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782

    2008

  30. [38]

    M., & Wolfendale , A

    MacLaren , I., Richardson , K. M., & Wolfendale , A. W. 1988, , 333, 821

    1988

  31. [39]

    C., Poglitsch , A., Geis , N., Stacey , G

    Madden , S. C., Poglitsch , A., Geis , N., Stacey , G. J., & Townes , C. H. 1997, , 483, 200

    1997

  32. [40]

    W., Higgs, C

    McConnachie, A. W., Higgs, C. R., Thomas, G. F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2363

    2021

  33. [41]

    & Burkert, A

    Mori, M. & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 559

    2000

  34. [42]

    R., C \^ o t \' e , P., Santana, F

    Mu \ n oz, R. R., C \^ o t \' e , P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66

    2018

  35. [43]

    R., Ostriker , E

    Narayanan , D., Krumholz , M. R., Ostriker , E. C., & Hernquist , L. 2012, , 421, 3127

    2012

  36. [44]

    I., Agertz, O., & Collins, M

    Read, J. I., Agertz, O., & Collins, M. L. M. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2573

    2016

  37. [45]

    I., Pontzen, A

    Read, J. I., Pontzen, A. P., & Viel, M. 2006 a , MNRAS, 371, 885

    2006

  38. [46]

    I., Wilkinson, M

    Read, J. I., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006 b , MNRAS, 366, 429

    2006

  39. [47]

    2018, A & A, 616, A96

    Revaz, Y., Jablonka, P., Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2018, A & A, 616, A96

    2018

  40. [48]

    P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5672

    2022

  41. [49]

    P., Taylor, E., Gray, E

    Rey, M. P., Taylor, E., Gray, E. I., et al. 2025, eprint arXiv:2503.03813, 000

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2008, MNRAS: Letters, Volume 392, Issue 1, pp

    Ricotti, M. 2008, MNRAS: Letters, Volume 392, Issue 1, pp. L45-L49., 392, L45

    2008

  43. [51]

    G., Hunter, D

    Rubio, M., Elmegreen, B. G., Hunter, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 525, 218

    2015

  44. [52]

    V., Begum , A., Oosterloo , T., et al

    Ryan-Weber , E. V., Begum , A., Oosterloo , T., et al. 2008, , 384, 535

    2008

  45. [53]

    J., Teuben , P

    Sault , R. J., Teuben , P. J., & Wright , M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw , H. E. Payne , & J. J. E. Hayes , 433

    1995

  46. [54]

    Y., et al

    Shi, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Z. Y., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13789

    2016

  47. [55]

    2020, , 892, 147

    Shi , Y., Wang , J., Zhang , Z.-Y., et al. 2020, , 892, 147

    2020

  48. [56]

    N., et al

    Smith, R., Fellhauer, M., Candlish, G. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2529

    2013

  49. [57]

    R., Conn, B

    Smith, R., Lane, R. R., Conn, B. C., & Fellhauer, M. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 543

    2012

  50. [58]

    M., Rivolo , A

    Solomon , P. M., Rivolo , A. R., Barrett , J., & Yahil , A. 1987, , 319, 730

    1987

  51. [59]

    Solomon , P. M. & Vanden Bout , P. A. 2005, , 43, 677

    2005

  52. [60]

    Taylor , C. L. & Klein , U. 2001, , 366, 811

    2001

  53. [61]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

    Toomre, a. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

    1964

  54. [62]

    L., et al

    Vaz, D., Brinchmann, J., Zoutendijk, S. L., et al. 2023, A & A, 678, A59

    2023

  55. [63]

    & Hodge , P

    Verter , F. & Hodge , P. 1995, , 446, 616

    1995

  56. [64]

    D., Vogel , S

    Villanueva , V., Bolatto , A. D., Vogel , S. N., et al. 2024, , 962, 88

    2024

  57. [65]

    Walter , F., Brinks , E., de Blok , W. J. G., et al. 2008, , 136, 2563

    2008

  58. [66]

    R., Zucker, D

    Weisz, D. R., Zucker, D. B., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 6

    2012

  59. [67]

    2018, , 474, 289

    Westmeier , T. 2018, , 474, 289

    2018

  60. [68]

    2011, , 197, 16

    Wong , T., Hughes , A., Ott , J., et al. 2011, , 197, 16

    2011

  61. [69]

    L., J \' u lio, M

    Zoutendijk, S. L., J \' u lio, M. P., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.