Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 129 references

Azimuthal offsets in spiral arms of nearby galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 24 well-delineated spiral galaxies, only 17% show the offset signature that quasi-stationary density wave theory predicts, while the rest point to multiple spiral modes or material arms.

desk verdict Useful census with a taxonomy built on the wrong statistical test; still worth publishing after revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01668 v1 pith:HAQGJHIW submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.GA

Miguel Querejeta , Sharon E. Meidt , Yixian Cao , Dario Colombo , Eric Emsellem , Santiago García-Burillo , Ralf S. Klessen , Eric W. Koch
show 23 more authors
Adam K. Leroy Marina Ruiz-García Eva Schinnerer Rowan Smith Sophia Stuber Mallory Thorp Thomas G. Williams Médéric Boquien Daniel A. Dale Chris Faesi Damian R. Gleis Kathryn Grasha Annie Hughes María J. Jiménez-Donaire Kathryn Kreckel Daizhong Liu Justus Neumann Hsi-An Pan Francesca Pinna Alessandro Razza Toshiki Saito Jiayi Sun Antonio Usero
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords spiralstructuredensitywavetheorymoleculargasstarformationazimuthaloffsetsgalaxydynamicspatternspeedPHANGSsurvey
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

This paper tries to settle what kind of machinery actually makes spiral arms by measuring, in 24 well-defined nearby spiral galaxies, how far star formation (Hα) sits ahead of or behind the molecular gas (CO) that feeds it. Classic density-wave theory predicts a specific fingerprint: star formation should consistently lead the gas by a few hundred parsecs, and that lead should shrink with radius. The authors find that only 4 of 24 galaxies (17 percent) show that fingerprint, and the rest split evenly between galaxies with positive offsets but no radial trend (multiple co-existing spiral modes) and galaxies with no systematic offset at all (material arms or transient spirals). Because the offsets scatter wildly, star formation is clearly not being switched on by a single coherent spiral shock. The conclusion matters because it undercuts the assumption that grand-design spirals are all density waves, and it gives observers a direct way to classify the mechanism at work in any given galaxy.

What carries the argument

The measurement engine is the azimuthal offset θ between the peak CO emission and the peak Hα emission, computed in ~100 pc radial bins (elliptical annuli matched to the disc inclination) and restricted to spiral masks, with the sign set so positive means Hα leads CO in the direction of galactic rotation. The interpretive engine is the predicted radial behaviour of θ in three scenarios: a single quasi-stationary density wave gives positive offsets that decline with radius and flip sign at co-rotation; multiple overlapping modes give positive offsets with no consistent trend; material arms give offsets scattered about zero. Following Egusa et al. (2009), for the four galaxies with a real decl

What would settle it

For the four class-A galaxies (NGC 1385, NGC 1566, NGC 2283, NGC 4303), map CO and extinction-corrected Hα beyond the expected co-rotation radii: a single pattern speed requires offsets to shrink to zero and turn negative there, so offsets that stay positive would falsify the density-wave reading. A cheaper check is Balmer-decrement extinction maps at ~100 pc resolution: if correcting for dust removes the declining radial trends, the class-A classification collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In 24 well-delineated spirals (23 PHANGS galaxies plus M51), the paper measures azimuthal offsets between CO and Hα peaks in ~100 pc radial bins. Offsets scatter at the kiloparsec level everywhere, but galaxy averages split the sample three ways: 14 galaxies show net positive offsets (Hα leading CO by a few hundred parsecs); only 4 of these (17%) show the declining radial trend a single quasi-stationary density wave predicts, their fitted pattern speeds matching independent Tremaine-Weinberg values; 10 (42%) show positive offsets with no radial trend, compatible with multiple overlapping modes; and 10 (42%) show no significant positive offset, compatible with material arms or transient dynam

Load-bearing premise

The classification hinges on the assumption that radially varying dust extinction does not systematically pull Hα peaks toward the galaxy centre enough to fake the declining-offset signature of a single density wave; the paper itself flags this in Sect. 5.4, arguing the effect is monotonic and would shift slopes (and so pattern speeds and timescales) more than it would change which galaxies look positive overall.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only 17% of well-delineated spirals in the local Universe behave like a single quasi-stationary density wave, so that classic theory cannot be assumed as the default for grand-design galaxies.
  • 42% of the sample is consistent with multiple overlapping spiral modes with different pattern speeds, matching the 'groove mode' picture from simulations.
  • 42% of the sample shows no systematic gas-to-star offset, implying gas and stars co-rotate with the arms, the signature of material arms or transient dynamical spirals.
  • In the four galaxies that do show the density-wave fingerprint, offsets yield pattern speeds and star-formation delays that agree with independent methods, so the technique works where it applies.
  • The large scatter (about 1 kpc) in offsets confirms that star formation is not initiated at a single coherent spiral shock even in the clearest spirals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's classification can be read as a challenge to morphology as a proxy for dynamics: one of the two flocculent spirals (NGC 1385) is a class-A density-wave candidate while many grand-design spirals are not, so arm coherence says little about the underlying mechanism.
  • If only a minority of spirals support a single pattern speed, pattern speeds measured by methods that assume one (for example Tremaine-Weinberg on some tracers) could be biased or describe only a dominant mode; cross-checks against offset-derived speeds for the same galaxies would test this.
  • A direct extension would be to feed mock observations of simulations (fixed-potential density waves versus swing-amplified or groove-mode models versus tidal material arms) through the same radial-bin offset pipeline and ask whether the scatter and classification thresholds, especially the ρ = -0.2 cut and the KS test, cleanly separate the three scenarios at the ~100 pc resolution used here.
  • The technique is resolution-limited: mean offsets of 200-300 pc correspond to only about 2-3 arcseconds in the most distant galaxies, so re-running the same measurements on samples with matched physical resolution or on upcoming wider-field CO surveys should sharpen the split between the three classes.
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. Using CO(2–1) maps from PHANGS-ALMA and ground-based Hα imaging, the paper measures azimuthal offsets between CO and Hα peak positions inside spiral-arm masks for 24 nearby galaxies with well-delineated spiral structure. Offsets are defined as positive when Hα peaks lie ahead of CO peaks in the direction of galactic rotation. The paper reports large scatter, per-galaxy mean offsets typically of a few hundred parsecs, and classifies the sample into three dynamical categories: (A) positive offsets with a declining radial trend (four galaxies, 17%), interpreted as consistent with a single quasi-stationary spiral density wave; (B) positive offsets without a radial trend (ten galaxies, 42%), interpreted as multiple overlapping modes; and (C) offsets indistinguishable from zero or negative (ten galaxies, 42%), interpreted as material or transient spirals. For the four class-A galaxies, pattern speeds and star-formation timescales are derived following Egusa et al. (2009) and compared with independent literature measurements.

Significance. If the classification is robust, this is a valuable observational constraint: at ~100 pc resolution, only a minority of well-delineated spirals display the single-pattern-speed density-wave offset signature, suggesting that a diversity of spiral mechanisms operates in the local Universe. The paper's strengths are the homogeneous, high-resolution PHANGS dataset; explicit, publicly derived spiral masks; multiple robustness checks (alternative peak definitions, intensity-weighted positions, wider radial bins, orientation perturbations, and JWST/NIRCam comparison); and the comparison of derived pattern speeds with independent Tremaine-Weinberg measurements. The central statistical grouping, however, needs to be placed on firmer footing before the quantitative 17%/42%/42% percentages can be accepted as reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 / Table 1] The classification into 'positive offsets' versus 'no significant positive offsets' uses a KS test comparing the whole offset distribution to a zero-centered Gaussian with the same standard deviation, but the paper's language ('mean positive offsets', 'no significantly positive offsets') is about the mean. A KS rejection can be driven by non-Gaussian shape or outliers while the mean is consistent with zero; conversely, a positive mean with large scatter can fail KS and be placed in the null class. For example, NGC1672 has a mean offset of 106 pc with σ≈580 pc; whether this is a significant positive offset depends on the adopted test. Because the 4/10/10 counts and the selection of the four pattern-speed galaxies in §4.4 all derive from this step, the classification should be re-run with a test that directly targets the mean or median (e.g., a one-sample t-test on per-box offsets, a boots
  2. [§4.2 / Fig. 5] The class-A definition uses the hard threshold ρ<−0.2 for the offset–radius correlation, with no significance test. For galaxies with only a few radial bins and ~1 kpc scatter, a Spearman ρ of −0.25 is not necessarily distinguishable from noise. Moreover, because the same selected galaxies are then fit in §4.4, the agreement of the derived pattern speeds with literature values does not validate the selection; it is a consistency check on an already-selected subset. Please report the significance of each ρ (with the number of independent radial bins) and, ideally, a model comparison between a zero-slope and a negative-slope relation for θ versus R or θ versus Ω.
  3. [§5.4] The paper acknowledges that dust extinction can increase CO–Hα offsets toward the center and can affect the slope of the radial trend, but it does not quantify this effect. This is load-bearing because the class-A signature is precisely a declining radial trend, so a radial extinction gradient could mimic or erase it. The argument that the effect is 'monotonic' is not sufficient: a monotonic radial extinction gradient directly changes the slope and can move a borderline galaxy across the ρ<−0.2 threshold. The authors should bound the effect—for example, by comparing with extinction-corrected Hα maps where available, using Balmer-decrement maps, or simulating the expected offset change from an assumed extinction radial profile—and show that the classification of at least the four class-A galaxies is stable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / §4.2] The wording 'mean positive offsets' is used interchangeably with the KS-based criterion. Clarify that class A/B galaxies have offsets that are statistically distinguishable from a zero-centered distribution with the same σ, not necessarily that the mean is significantly positive under a mean-targeted test.
  2. [Table 2 / §4.2] Table 2 lists ρ for θ versus Ω, while §4.2 uses ρ for θ versus R. Because Ω decreases with R, a positive ρ_Ω corresponds to a negative ρ_R. Define ρ_R and ρ_Ω explicitly to avoid sign confusion.
  3. [Table B.1] Some alternative-definition pattern speeds are unphysical (e.g., NGC2090 peak ΩP=147 km/s/kpc; NGC4254 weighted ΩP=97 km/s/kpc) and should be flagged as non-convergent or formally undefined, rather than listed alongside meaningful values without comment.
  4. [§4.4] The sentence that NGC4303's bar and spiral 'do not rotate with the same pattern speed' is stronger than warranted given ΩP=34.8±20.1 km/s/kpc; soften to 'are consistent with not being directly coupled'.
  5. [§3.2] The reference 'Razza et al. (in prep.)' should be updated to a published or arXiv reference before final acceptance.
  6. [Fig. 5] The small multiples in Fig. 5 are hard to read at journal page width; consider enlarging the panels or separating them by class.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's offsets are direct measurements, and the theoretical interpretation and pattern-speed fits are externally benchmarked rather than derived from the paper's own assumptions.

full rationale

The paper is an observational analysis: CO–Hα azimuthal offsets are measured directly from the PHANGS maps, and the theoretical expectations (density wave, multiple modes, material arms) are used only as interpretive categories, not as inputs that force the measured values. The central taxonomy (14 positive/4 declining-trend/10 no-significant-offset) comes from the measured mean offsets and Spearman correlations; the KS test choice is a statistical methodology question, not a circular reduction. The pattern speeds for the four declining-trend galaxies are obtained by fitting the Egusa et al. (2009) model to the same offsets, but the resulting values are compared with independent Tremaine-Weinberg measurements (Williams et al. 2021) and other literature, so the agreement is external validation rather than tautology. Self-citations (e.g., Querejeta et al. 2021 spiral masks, PHANGS data products) serve as data or preprocessing inputs, and none of them assumes the conclusion that spiral mechanisms are diverse. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. The acknowledged caveats (e.g., dust extinction affecting the radial slope) weaken interpretation but do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed validity of the density wave interpretation of the measured offsets and on the accuracy of the adopted galaxy orientation, rotation curves, and spiral masks. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Pattern speed ΩP for NGC 1385 = 26.1 ± 13.8 km/s/kpc
    Fitted from CO-Hα offsets vs angular frequency following Egusa et al. (2009), Section 4.4/Table 2.
  • Pattern speed ΩP for NGC 1566 = 25.0 ± 4.8 km/s/kpc
    Fitted from CO-Hα offsets vs angular frequency following Egusa et al. (2009), Section 4.4/Table 2.
  • Pattern speed ΩP for NGC 2283 = 28.2 ± 7.0 km/s/kpc
    Fitted from CO-Hα offsets vs angular frequency following Egusa et al. (2009), Section 4.4/Table 2.
  • Pattern speed ΩP for NGC 4303 = 34.8 ± 20.1 km/s/kpc
    Fitted from CO-Hα offsets vs angular frequency following Egusa et al. (2009), Section 4.4/Table 2.
  • Star formation timescale t_Hα for NGC 1385 = 8.96 ± 3.32 Myr
    Derived from the same fit; Table 2.
  • Star formation timescale t_Hα for NGC 1566 = 2.47 ± 0.32 Myr
    Derived from the same fit; Table 2.
  • Star formation timescale t_Hα for NGC 2283 = 1.79 ± 0.29 Myr
    Derived from the same fit; Table 2.
  • Star formation timescale t_Hα for NGC 4303 = 12.27 ± 4.93 Myr
    Derived from the same fit; Table 2.
  • Radial trend threshold (Spearman ρ) = -0.2
    Ad hoc threshold to classify galaxies as having a significant declining radial trend; Section 4.2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spiral arms are trailing and rotation direction is known (η factor)
    Used to define the sign of offsets (positive = Hα ahead). If an arm were leading or rotation direction wrong, all conclusions about sign would invert. Section 2.
  • domain assumption CO peaks trace molecular gas accumulation and Hα peaks trace star formation after a delay of several Myr
    The offset between these tracers is the fundamental observable. Section 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption Circular orbits assumed for radial binning; disc orientation parameters (inclination, PA) are accurate
    Radial bins are ellipses based on Lang et al. (2020) parameters; offsets are measured along these circles. Acknowledged approximation in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Quasi-stationary density wave theory predictions (positive offsets inside corotation, decreasing with radius, sign flip at corotation) are the correct interpretive framework
    Used to classify galaxies and fit pattern speeds (Egusa et al. 2009). Section 2.
  • domain assumption Spiral masks from Querejeta et al. (2021) accurately delineate the arms
    All offsets are measured only within these masks; mask errors would bias the peaks. Section 3.5.
  • domain assumption Rotation curves v_rot(R) from Lang et al. (2020) are accurate
    Used to convert radii to angular frequency for the Egusa model fit. Section 4.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Azimuthal offsets in spiral arms of nearby galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HAQGJHIW

@misc{pith2026250901668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Azimuthal offsets in spiral arms of nearby galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HAQGJHIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01668}
}
read the original abstract

Spiral arms play a central role in disc galaxies, but their dynamical nature remains a long-standing open question. Azimuthal offsets between molecular gas and star formation are expected if gas crosses spiral arms, as predicted by quasi-stationary density wave theory. In this work, we measure offsets between CO and Halpha peaks in radial bins for 24 galaxies from the PHANGS survey that display a well-delineated spiral structure. The offsets exhibit substantial scatter, implying that star formation is not exclusively initiated at a coherent spiral shock. We define offsets such that positive values mean Halpha peaks lie ahead of CO peaks in the direction of galactic rotation. With this convention, 14 galaxies show mean positive CO-Halpha offsets, typically of a few hundred parsecs. In four of these 14 galaxies (17% of the total), offsets become smaller with increasing radius, as expected for a single quasi-stationary spiral density wave. Ten galaxies (42%) show positive mean offsets but no clear correlation with radius, which is compatible with multiple overlapping modes. In the remaining ten galaxies (42%), we find no significantly positive offsets, which could point to transient dynamical spirals or material arms, where gas and stars co-rotate with the spiral perturbation. Across the full sample, we find mostly positive offsets between CO peaks and the gravitational potential minimum, confirming that gas often crosses the spiral perturbation. For the four galaxies with clear positive offsets and a radial trend, we derived pattern speeds in good agreement with the literature. Overall, our results suggest that even well-delineated spirals in the local Universe can arise from a variety of underlying dynamical mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Quasi-stationary spiral density wave theory pre￾dicts azimuthal offsets in spiral arms. The thick solid black line shows the current position of the molecular gas spiral, while the dashed line displays its position, tSF, earlier. If a shock coherently triggers the col￾lapse of molecular gas along the spiral and if it takes tSF for the resulting HII regions to be visible, the peaks of star formation will b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Illustration showing the expectations for a non-exhaustive list of three scenarios that explain spiral structure: a quasi-stationary density wave (constant pattern speed), multiple overlapping modes (i.e. different pattern speeds across the disc), and material arms (always made up of the same stars, all of which are by definition co-rotating) or dynamical spirals (transient features made up of rather short, unc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Colour composite image of NGC 1566 based on six different HST WFC3/UVIS filters (Lee et al. 2023). The middle panel illustrates offsets in the western arm of NGC 1566 between molecular gas (CO, greyscale on background image) and star formation (Hα, green contours). Blue shaded ellipses indicate two reference radial bins (R = 3 kpc and R = 5 kpc), the arrows indicate the sense of rotation, and white contours delimit … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms showing the distribution of the mean CO-Hα and CO-NIR offsets across the whole galaxy sample. Each histogram includes one mean offset per galaxy, computed by averaging all mea￾sured offsets for all radii (top), the inner half (mid￾dle, R < (R CO min+R CO max…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Classification of galaxies in our sample into three categories depending on whether they show positive mean CO-Hα offsets or not and whether there is a significant trend with radius or not. The error bars are smaller than the size of the plotted circles. The solid line…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CO-NIR offsets as a func￾tion of galactocentric radius for the galaxies NGC 1566 and NGC 1300. The error bars are comparable to the size of the plotted cir￾cles. The ρ value in the corner indicates the strength of the correlation (Spearman rank coefficient) [PITH_FULL…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution 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 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  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]

    2020, , 496, 1610

    Abdeen , S., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., et al. 2020, , 496, 1610

    2020

  4. [4]

    S., Lee , J

    Anand , G. S., Lee , J. C., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2021, , 501, 3621

    2021

  5. [5]

    Athanassoula , E., Romero-G \'o mez , M., Bosma , A., & Masdemont , J. J. 2010, , 407, 1433

    2010

  6. [6]

    2015, , 67, L4

    Baba , J., Morokuma-Matsui , K., & Egusa , F. 2015, , 67, L4

    2015

  7. [7]

    2000, Dynamics of Galaxies

    Bertin , G. 2000, Dynamics of Galaxies

    2000

  8. [8]

    C., Lowe , S

    Bertin , G., Lin , C. C., Lowe , S. A., & Thurstans , R. P. 1989, , 338, 78

    1989

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    2020, , 496, 767

    Binney , J. 2020, , 496, 767

    2020

  2. [10]

    L., Buta , R., Knapen , J

    Block , D. L., Buta , R., Knapen , J. H., et al. 2004, , 128, 183

    2004

  3. [11]

    G., Sormani , M

    Borodina , O., Williams , T. G., Sormani , M. C., Meidt , S., & Schinnerer , E. 2023, , 524, 3437

    2023

  4. [12]

    J., Sheth , K., Athanassoula , E., et al

    Buta , R. J., Sheth , K., Athanassoula , E., et al. 2015, , 217, 32

    2015

  5. [13]

    2013, , 560, A59

    Cedr \'e s , B., Cepa , J., Bongiovanni , \'A ., et al. 2013, , 560, A59

    2013

  6. [14]

    H., Meidt , S., et al

    Chandar , R., Chien , L. H., Meidt , S., et al. 2017, , 845, 78

    2017

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Chen , Q.-H., Grasha , K., Battisti , A. J., et al. 2024, , 534, 883

    2024

  8. [16]

    Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., Hygate , A. P. S., et al. 2020, , 493, 2872

    2020

  9. [17]

    J., Williams , B

    Choi , Y., Dalcanton , J. J., Williams , B. F., et al. 2015, , 810, 9

    2015

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03305

    Colman , T., Hennebelle , P., Brucy , N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03305

    2025

  11. [19]

    E., Schinnerer , E., et al

    Colombo , D., Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2014, , 784, 4

    2014

  12. [20]

    1983, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Comte , G. 1983, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 100, Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. E. Athanassoula , 151

    1983

  13. [21]

    G., et al

    de Vaucouleurs , G., de Vaucouleurs , A., Corwin , Jr., H. G., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies. Volume I: Explanations and references. Volume II: Data for galaxies between 0 ^ h and 12 ^ h . Volume III: Data for galaxies between 12 ^ h and 24 ^ h

    1991

  14. [22]

    2007, PhD thesis, -

    Dobbs , C. 2007, PhD thesis, -

    2007

  15. [23]

    & Baba , J

    Dobbs , C. & Baba , J. 2014, , 31, e035

    2014

  16. [24]

    Dobbs , C. L. & Bonnell , I. A. 2007, , 376, 1747

    2007

  17. [25]

    2013, , 766, 34

    D'Onghia , E., Vogelsberger , M., & Hernquist , L. 2013, , 766, 34

    2013

  18. [26]

    Donner , K. J. & Thomasson , M. 1994, , 290, 785

    1994

  19. [27]

    R., et al

    Dur \'a n-Camacho , E., Duarte-Cabral , A., Pettitt , A. R., et al. 2024, , 532, 126

    2024

  20. [28]

    2009, , 697, 1870

    Egusa , F., Kohno , K., Sofue , Y., Nakanishi , H., & Komugi , S. 2009, , 697, 1870

    2009

  21. [29]

    2017, , 465, 460

    Egusa , F., Mentuch Cooper , E., Koda , J., & Baba , J. 2017, , 465, 460

    2017

  22. [30]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 1990, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 596, 40

    1990

  23. [31]

    2015, , 450, 4035

    Federrath , C. 2015, , 450, 4035

    2015

  24. [32]

    Ferreras , I., Cropper , M., Kawata , D., Page , M., & Hoversten , E. A. 2012, , 424, 1636

    2012

  25. [33]

    E., Epinat , B., Dobbs , C

    Font , J., Beckman , J. E., Epinat , B., Dobbs , C. L., & Querejeta , M. 2024, , 966, 110

    2024

  26. [34]

    E., Epinat , B., et al

    Font , J., Beckman , J. E., Epinat , B., et al. 2011, , 741, L14

    2011

  27. [35]

    E., Querejeta , M., et al

    Font , J., Beckman , J. E., Querejeta , M., et al. 2014, , 210, 2

    2014

  28. [36]

    W., Dobbs , C

    Foyle , K., Rix , H. W., Dobbs , C. L., Leroy , A. K., & Walter , F. 2011, , 735, 101

    2011

  29. [37]

    W., Walter , F., & Leroy , A

    Foyle , K., Rix , H. W., Walter , F., & Leroy , A. K. 2010, , 725, 534

    2010

  30. [38]

    1993, , 274, 148

    Garcia-Burillo , S., Combes , F., & Gerin , M. 1993, , 274, 148

    1993

  31. [39]

    Gittins , D. M. & Clarke , C. J. 2004, , 349, 909

    2004

  32. [40]

    & Lynden-Bell , D

    Goldreich , P. & Lynden-Bell , D. 1965, , 130, 125

    1965

  33. [41]

    Grand , R. J. J., Kawata , D., & Cropper , M. 2012 a , , 426, 167

    2012

  34. [42]

    Grand , R. J. J., Kawata , D., & Cropper , M. 2012 b , , 421, 1529

    2012

  35. [43]

    & Dottori , H

    Grosb l , P. & Dottori , H. 2009, , 499, L21

    2009

  36. [44]

    2024, , 528, 5286

    Hamilton , C. 2024, , 528, 5286

    2024

  37. [45]

    2015, , 582, A86

    Herrera-Endoqui , M., D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Laurikainen , E., & Salo , H. 2015, , 582, A86

    2015

  38. [46]

    T., Meidt , S

    Ho , I. T., Meidt , S. E., Kudritzki , R.-P., et al. 2018, , 618, A64

    2018

  39. [47]

    T., Seibert , M., Meidt , S

    Ho , I. T., Seibert , M., Meidt , S. E., et al. 2017, , 846, 39

    2017

  40. [48]

    Julian , W. H. & Toomre , A. 1966, , 146, 810

    1966

  41. [49]

    Kalnajs , A. J. 1973, , 2, 174

    1973

  42. [50]

    Kawata , D., Hunt , J. A. S., Grand , R. J. J., Pasetto , S., & Cropper , M. 2014, , 443, 2757

    2014

  43. [51]

    2023, , 671, A56

    Khoperskov , S., Sivkova , E., Saburova , A., et al. 2023, , 671, A56

    2023

  44. [52]

    Kim , J., Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2022, , 516, 3006

    2022

  45. [53]

    Kim , J., Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2021, , 504, 487

    2021

  46. [54]

    M., & Moiseev , A

    Korchagin , V., Orlova , N., Kikuchi , N., Miyama , S. M., & Moiseev , A. V. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2005

  47. [55]

    Kostiuk , V., Marchuk , A., Gusev , A., & Chugunov , I. V. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 27

    2025

  48. [56]

    S., Marchuk , A

    Kostiuk , V. S., Marchuk , A. A., & Gusev , A. S. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075007

    2024

  49. [57]

    T., Blanc , G

    Kreckel , K., Ho , I. T., Blanc , G. A., et al. 2019, , 887, 80

    2019

  50. [58]

    Krumholz , M. R. 2015, ArXiv e-prints

    2015

  51. [59]

    A., Vogel , S

    La Vigne , M. A., Vogel , S. N., & Ostriker , E. C. 2006, , 650, 818

    2006

  52. [60]

    E., Rosolowsky , E., et al

    Lang , P., Meidt , S. E., Rosolowsky , E., et al. 2020, , 897, 122

    2020

  53. [61]

    C., Sandstrom , K

    Lee , J. C., Sandstrom , K. M., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2023, , 944, L17

    2023

  54. [62]

    K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al. 2021 a , , 255, 19

    2021

  55. [63]

    K., Sandstrom , K

    Leroy , A. K., Sandstrom , K. M., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 244, 24

    2019

  56. [64]

    K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2021 b , , 257, 43

    2021

  57. [65]

    Lin , C. C. & Shu , F. H. 1964, , 140, 646

    1964

  58. [66]

    Lin , C. C. & Shu , F. H. 1966, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 55, 229

    1966

  59. [67]

    2013, , 763, 94

    Louie , M., Koda , J., & Egusa , F. 2013, , 763, 94

    2013

  60. [68]

    Marchuk , A. A. 2024, , 686, L14

    2024

  61. [69]

    A., Chugunov , I

    Marchuk , A. A., Chugunov , I. V., Gontcharov , G. A., et al. 2024 a , , 528, 1276

    2024

  62. [70]

    A., Mosenkov , A

    Marchuk , A. A., Mosenkov , A. V., Chugunov , I. V., et al. 2024 b , , 527, L66

    2024

  63. [71]

    Mart \' nez-Garc \' a , E. E. & Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira , R. A. 2013, , 765, 105

    2013

  64. [72]

    E., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira , R

    Mart \' nez-Garc \' a , E. E., Gonz \'a lez-L \'o pezlira , R. A., & Puerari , I. 2023, , 524, 18

    2023

  65. [73]

    & Tagger , M

    Masset , F. & Tagger , M. 1997, , 322, 442

    1997

  66. [74]

    E., Leroy , A

    Meidt , S. E., Leroy , A. K., Querejeta , M., et al. 2021, , 913, 113

    2021

  67. [75]

    E., Rand , R

    Meidt , S. E., Rand , R. J., & Merrifield , M. R. 2009, , 702, 277

    2009

  68. [76]

    E., Rand , R

    Meidt , S. E., Rand , R. J., Merrifield , M. R., Shetty , R., & Vogel , S. N. 2008, , 688, 224

    2008

  69. [77]

    E., Schinnerer , E., Knapen , J

    Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., Knapen , J. H., et al. 2012, , 744, 17

    2012

  70. [78]

    E., Schinnerer , E., van de Ven , G., et al

    Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., van de Ven , G., et al. 2014, , 788, 144

    2014

  71. [79]

    Meidt , S. E. & van der Wel , A. 2024, , 966, 62

    2024

  72. [80]

    2019, , 874, 177

    Miller , R., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., et al. 2019, , 874, 177

    2019

  73. [81]

    Nair , P. B. & Abraham , R. G. 2010, , 186, 427

    2010

  74. [82]

    J., Bigiel , F., et al

    Neumann , L., Gallagher , M. J., Bigiel , F., et al. 2023, , 521, 3348

    2023

  75. [83]

    E., Burkhart , B., Wetzel , A., et al

    Orr , M. E., Burkhart , B., Wetzel , A., et al. 2023, , 521, 3708

    2023

  76. [84]

    2022, , 927, 9

    Pan , H.-A., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2022, , 927, 9

    2022

  77. [85]

    G., Merrifield , M

    Peterken , T. G., Merrifield , M. R., Arag \'o n-Salamanca , A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 178

    2019

  78. [86]

    R., Dobbs , C

    Pettitt , A. R., Dobbs , C. L., Acreman , D. M., & Bate , M. R. 2015, , 449, 3911

    2015

  79. [87]

    R., Dobbs , C

    Pettitt , A. R., Dobbs , C. L., Baba , J., et al. 2020, , 498, 1159

    2020

  80. [88]

    K., et al

    Pety , J., Schinnerer , E., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2013, , 779, 43

    2013

  81. [89]

    K., Meidt , S

    Querejeta , M., Leroy , A. K., Meidt , S. E., et al. 2024, , 687, A293

    2024

  82. [90]

    E., Schinnerer , E., et al

    Querejeta , M., Meidt , S. E., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2015, , 219, 5

    2015

  83. [91]

    2021, , 656, A133

    Querejeta , M., Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S., et al. 2021, , 656, A133

    2021

  84. [92]

    & Salo , H

    Rautiainen , P. & Salo , H. 1999, , 348, 737

    1999

  85. [93]

    W., J., Roberts , M

    Roberts , W. W., J., Roberts , M. S., & Shu , F. H. 1975, , 196, 381

    1975

  86. [94]

    Roberts , W. W. 1969, , 158, 123

    1969

  87. [95]

    P., Quinn , T

    Ro s kar , R., Debattista , V. P., Quinn , T. R., & Wadsley , J. 2012, , 426, 2089

    2012

  88. [96]

    2024, , 691, A351

    Ruiz-Garc \' a , M., Querejeta , M., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2024, , 691, A351

    2024

  89. [97]

    Salim , S., Boquien , M., & Lee , J. C. 2018, , 859, 11

    2018

  90. [98]

    C., Janowiecki , S., et al

    Salim , S., Lee , J. C., Janowiecki , S., et al. 2016, , 227, 2

    2016

  91. [99]

    Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., Buta , R., & Knapen , J. H. 2010, , 715, L56

    2010

  92. [100]

    F., P \'e rez , I., et al

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano , L., S \'a nchez , S. F., P \'e rez , I., et al. 2020, , 492, 4149

    2020

  93. [101]

    Sanders , R. H. & Huntley , J. M. 1976, , 209, 53

    1976

  94. [102]

    & Leroy , A

    Schinnerer , E. & Leroy , A. K. 2024, , 62, 369

    2024

  95. [103]

    E., Colombo , D., et al

    Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S. E., Colombo , D., et al. 2017, , 836, 62

    2017

  96. [104]

    E., Pety , J., et al

    Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S. E., Pety , J., et al. 2013, , 779, 42

    2013

  97. [105]

    K., Walter , F., Sandstrom , K., & Rosolowsky , E

    Schruba , A., Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Sandstrom , K., & Rosolowsky , E. 2010, , 722, 1699

    2010

  98. [106]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Carlberg , R. G. 1984, , 282, 61

    1984

  99. [107]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Carlberg , R. G. 2014, , 785, 137

    2014

  100. [108]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Masters , K. L. 2022, , 60

    2022

  101. [109]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Sparke , L. S. 1988, , 231, 25P

    1988

  102. [110]

    K., Pasquali , A., et al

    Shabani , F., Grebel , E. K., Pasquali , A., et al. 2018, , 478, 3590

    2018

  103. [111]

    L., et al

    Sheth , K., Regan , M., Hinz , J. L., et al. 2010, , 122, 1397

    2010

  104. [112]

    2019, , 884, 3

    Sridhar , S. 2019, , 884, 3

    2019

  105. [113]

    Sun , B., Calzetti , D., & Battisti , A. J. 2024, , 973, 137

    2024

  106. [114]

    K., Ostriker , E

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Ostriker , E. C., et al. 2020, , 892, 148

    2020

  107. [115]

    K., Rosolowsky , E., et al

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., et al. 2022, , 164, 43

    2022

  108. [116]

    F., Tagger , M., Athanassoula , E., & Pellat , R

    Sygnet , J. F., Tagger , M., Athanassoula , E., & Pellat , R. 1988, , 232, 733

    1988

  109. [117]

    W., Walter , F., et al

    Tamburro , D., Rix , H. W., Walter , F., et al. 2008, , 136, 2872

    2008

  110. [118]

    1969, , 158, 899

    Toomre , A. 1969, , 158, 899

    1969

  111. [119]

    1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed

    Toomre , A. 1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S. M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell , 111--136

    1981

  112. [120]

    & Weinberg , M

    Tremaine , S. & Weinberg , M. D. 1984, , 282, L5

    1984

  113. [121]

    G., Smith , R

    Tress , R. G., Smith , R. J., Sormani , M. C., et al. 2020, , 492, 2973

    2020

  114. [122]

    N., Kulkarni , S

    Vogel , S. N., Kulkarni , S. R., & Scoville , N. Z. 1988, at, 334, 402

    1988

  115. [123]

    2008, , 675, 188

    Wada , K. 2008, , 675, 188

    2008

  116. [124]

    E., Feng , C.-C., & Lin , L.-H

    Wang , H.-H., Lee , W.-K., Taam , R. E., Feng , C.-C., & Lin , L.-H. 2015, , 800, 106

    2015

  117. [125]

    W., Lintott , C

    Willett , K. W., Lintott , C. J., Bamford , S. P., et al. 2013, , 435, 2835

    2013

  118. [126]

    G., Kreckel , K., Belfiore , F., et al

    Williams , T. G., Kreckel , K., Belfiore , F., et al. 2022 a , , 509, 1303

    2022

  119. [127]

    G., Lee , J

    Williams , T. G., Lee , J. C., Larson , K. L., et al. 2024, , 273, 13

    2024

  120. [128]

    G., Schinnerer , E., Emsellem , E., et al

    Williams , T. G., Schinnerer , E., Emsellem , E., et al. 2021, , 161, 185

    2021

  121. [129]

    G., Sun , J., Barnes , A

    Williams , T. G., Sun , J., Barnes , A. T., et al. 2022 b , , 941, L27

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.