Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE). XIII. On the Observability of Extended HI Disks and Warps

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interferometric observations of Milky Way-mass galaxies can miss 10–40% of the diffuse hydrogen gas surrounding them.

desk verdict Useful and honest forward-modeling study; the 10–40% CGM-loss result is directionally right, but exact numbers rest on an idealized uv filter and the abstract/body mismatch needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.00159 v3 pith:UYG2YJJH submitted 2025-10-31 astro-ph.GA

Cameron W. Trapp , Molly S. Peeples , Jason Tumlinson , Brian W. O'Shea , Anna C. Wright , Ayan Acharyya , Britton D. Smith , Vida Saeedzadeh
show 1 more author
Ramona Augustin
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords atomichydrogenHI21-cmlineinterferometrymissingshortbaselinescircumgalacticmediumgalaxywarpssyntheticobservationsdiskgalaxies
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 argues that interferometric 21-cm observations of Milky Way-mass galaxies systematically undercount the diffuse atomic hydrogen that surrounds them, missing roughly 10–40% of the emission from the circumgalactic medium. The cause is not sensitivity or resolution but the absence of short baselines, which makes interferometers blind to spatially large, low-column-density gas. The authors demonstrate this by building synthetic 21-cm emission cubes from six simulated galaxies and then filtering out low spatial frequencies the way a real interferometer does. They find that the lost gas is preferentially the diffuse, low-velocity-dispersion component, and that the amount lost depends on the galaxy, its distance, and its orientation, so no single correction factor can fix the bias. The practical consequence is that fully measuring extended HI disks and their interface with the circumgalactic medium requires combining interferometers with single-dish telescopes.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the synthetic 21-cm observation pipeline: the authors project simulated gas into datacubes, add noise, smooth with a Gaussian beam, and then mimic the missing short baselines by applying a fast Fourier transform, cutting out low spatial frequencies below the minimum baseline with a Gaussian high-pass filter, and cleaning the dirty image with the Högbom CLEAN algorithm. This spatial filter is what isolates the effect under study; it selectively removes the diffuse, large-scale emission that an interferometer cannot see. The pipeline also includes the SoFiA-2 source finder to identify significant emission, matching the procedures of real surveys like MHONGOOSE, THINGS, and

What would settle it

Measure total HI flux of a sample of nearby Milky Way-mass galaxies with a single-dish telescope and compare it with interferometric maps of the same galaxies. If single-dish fluxes are systematically higher by tens of percent in the outer regions, the missing-short-baseline loss is real and substantial; if they agree, the simulated diffuse CGM gas is likely overproduced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the missing short baselines of interferometric arrays remove a non-negligible and biased fraction of HI emission from the circumgalactic medium of Milky Way-mass galaxies. Using mock observations of six simulated galaxies, the authors show that while the inner disk is essentially unaffected (98% or more of its HI is recovered), the diffuse, spatially extended gas outside the disk loses 10–40% of its detectable mass, and in the worst case up to half. The filtering preferentially removes low column density (N_HI < 10^20 cm^-2) gas with low velocity dispersion, which is exactly the material that traces the disk–CGM interface and possible accretion. Because the

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative loss fractions assume that a Gaussian high-pass filter plus CLEAN deconvolution faithfully reproduces the effect of missing short baselines; real interferometers sample the uv-plane sparsely and irregularly, so the actual missing fraction could be higher or lower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interferometric HI surveys systematically underestimate the amount of diffuse gas in the circumgalactic medium, and the missing fraction varies from galaxy to galaxy.
  • Comparisons between simulations and observations must forward-model the missing short spacings before drawing conclusions about HI content or kinematics.
  • Measured disk sizes from interferometric maps may be underestimated by a few kiloparsecs for galaxies with diffuse extended emission.
  • The orientation dependence adds an uncalibratable scatter to statistical samples of galaxy HI properties.
  • Combining single-dish and interferometric data is not just an improvement but a requirement for measuring the full HI content of the CGM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 10–40% loss applies to real galaxies, the cosmic HI mass density in the CGM may be underestimated by a similar factor, affecting models of galaxy accretion and baryon cycling.
  • The bias toward compact, high-column-density clumps means some of the 'missing baryons' problem could be partly an observational selection effect.
  • Applying the same filtering pipeline to other simulation suites with coarser CGM resolution could show that the inferred loss fraction is resolution-dependent, not a universal constant.
  • The position-angle-dependent velocity inversions seen in warped disks suggest some observed 'anomalous' kinematics in galaxies could be projection artifacts of warps rather than true kinematic features.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the six Milky Way-mass FOGGIE zoom-in simulations to study the observability of extended HI disks, warps, and circumgalactic HI in synthetic 21-cm observations. The authors construct synthetic datacubes, add noise, smooth to survey resolution, and apply a Gaussian high-pass spatial filter plus CLEAN deconvolution to mimic the missing short baselines of interferometers. They report that interferometric surveys recover essentially all HI within the central disk, but that 10-40% of CGM HI (up to ~50% in Fig. 7) can be lost, preferentially at low column density and low velocity dispersion. They also compare the simulated disks with the HI size-mass relation and discuss how inclination and position angle affect both the recovered HI mass and the observed kinematics of warps.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper addresses an important systematic in HI galaxy surveys: the missing short-baseline problem is often discussed qualitatively, but this is one of the first attempts to quantify its effect on extended CGM HI in realistic cosmological simulations. The strength of the paper is its detailed synthetic pipeline, the use of a suite with well-resolved CGM gas, and the comparison across multiple survey configurations (MHONGOOSE-LR/HR, THINGS, SKA). The conclusion that single-dish plus interferometric data are needed to recover diffuse CGM HI is timely and relevant to ongoing and planned surveys. However, the headline loss fractions rest on an idealized UV-plane filter that has not been validated against actual interferometric sampling, and the abstract numbers are inconsistent with the body. These issues currently prevent the quantitative claims from being fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4-5] The arXiv abstract reports that observations at 20 Mpc retain ~96-99% of total HI and miss up to ~15% of HI outside the central disk, while the body abstract and §5 report that interferometric observations can miss ~10-40% of diffuse emission, and Fig. 7 shows up to ~50% loss at b_min=29 m. The fiducial setup in §4 is 10 Mpc, not 20 Mpc. These are mutually inconsistent numbers for the same central claim. Please reconcile the abstract with the body and specify whether the 20 Mpc/96-99%/15% numbers are new results or an error.
  2. [§4, synthetic filtering step] The quantitative loss fractions (Table 2, Fig. 7) are derived from an FFT, a Gaussian high-pass filter with FWHM set by the minimum baseline, and a Högbom CLEAN. The paper explicitly notes: "we also did not consider any sparse sampling of the rest of the UV plane, meaning we are retaining more UV points than an actual interferometer would." This is a load-bearing approximation: real interferometers have irregular, incomplete UV coverage, sidelobes, and calibration artifacts that interact with CLEAN depth and SoFiA-2 source masking. The direction and magnitude of the resulting bias are not quantified. Please validate the filter against at least one realistic UV-sampled mock observation (e.g., CASA simobserve) for a representative configuration, or provide a quantitative estimate of the systematic uncertainty this approximation introduces.
  3. [Table 2 and Fig. 7] The paper claims the spatial filtering step reduces recoverable CGM emission by ~10-40%, but Table 2 contains values inconsistent with that range. For example, Tempest in the SKA column goes from 0.722 (smoothed) to 0.0759 (filtered), a filtering loss of ~90%. Fig. 7's caption states that an observation with b_min=29 m "potentially misses 50% of the CGM HI," also outside the 10-40% range. Additionally, Table 2 reports no uncertainties and no indication whether the values are single snapshot/single orientation; the strong orientation dependence shown in Fig. 8 suggests that one number per halo is insufficient. Please provide uncertainties or a range of values across orientations/time snapshots and reconcile the reported loss fractions with the table and figure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The companion paper FOGGIE XII is cited as "arXiv:2510.tbd" in the reference list (Trapp et al. 2025). This is a placeholder, not a complete reference, and several key definitions (disk definition, population classes) rely on it. Please provide the full reference or state the status of the companion paper.
  2. [§3, Table 1] The text says "All the Less Populated systems (Tempest, Maelstrom, and Hurricane)" but Table 1 classifies Hurricane as More Populated; the Less Populated systems are Tempest, Maelstrom, and Blizzard. This appears to be a typo but is confusing in the discussion of the HI size-mass relation.
  3. [§7.2] The discussion of Tempest's position-angle series refers to "the second panel of Fig. 8" for the velocity field; the first-moment maps are shown in Fig. 9 (and position-velocity diagrams in Fig. 10), while Fig. 8 shows the observable HI ratio. Please correct the figure reference.
  4. [§4, Eq. 1] The units of the synthetic flux density are given as "cm^-2 s", which is nonstandard for spectral data cubes. If the intention is column density per channel, please define the relation to brightness temperature or Jy/beam explicitly. Also define m_HI or m_H consistently.
  5. [Figures 2-3] The caption says the column density sensitivity is 10^18 cm^-2 and that noise is added with standard deviation 0.2 times the sensitivity limit, so that 5σ detections correspond to the sensitivity limit. This is clear, but for reproducibility, the exact kernel sizes used for SoFiA-2 should be stated in the text or a table, since they are only described as "adjusted for other surveys as necessary."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's loss fractions are simulation outputs produced by a forward-modeling pipeline, not re-statements of fitted inputs or self-citation-dependent claims.

full rationale

The central claims — that interferometric filtering removes ~10–40% of CGM HI emission (Table 2) and that recovery depends on galaxy, distance, and orientation (Figs. 7–8) — are generated by applying a spatial filtering and CLEAN pipeline to synthetic HI cubes derived from the simulations via Eq. (1). Nothing in that derivation is fitted to the observations the paper compares against; the size–mass comparison in Fig. 1 uses independent observational relations, and the filtered-to-ideal mass ratios in Table 2 are direct simulation outputs. The disk definition and Less/Mo re Populated classifications are adopted transparently from FOGGIE XII, a prior paper by overlapping authors, but those definitions do not encode or force the observability result; they only partition the sample. Similarly, the choice of a Gaussian high-pass filter and the admitted omission of sparse uv sampling (§4: 'we also did not consider any sparse sampling of the rest of the UV plane, meaning we are retaining more UV points than an actual interferometer would') is a stated modeling approximation rather than a circular step: it limits the quantitative fidelity of the mock observations, but it does not make the predicted loss fractions equal to an input parameter or to a fitted value. No equation in the paper has the target result appearing as an input, and no load-bearing conclusion is justified solely by a self-citation. The paper therefore exhibits no substantial circularity; the main caveats are modeling assumptions and external-benchmark uncertainties, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central numbers depend on hand-chosen survey parameters, the Gaussian-filter approximation, and the representativeness of six FOGGIE zoom-ins. The paper is transparent about most of these choices, but they are assumptions rather than measured quantities.

free parameters (3)
  • Fiducial synthetic survey configuration (distance, inclination, beam, sensitivity, min baseline) = 10 Mpc, i=40°, e.g. MHONGOOSE-LR: beam=65'', b_min=29 m, N_HI=1e18 cm^-2
    All Table 2 loss fractions are computed for this single choice; the abstract's 20 Mpc/15% number is not derived. Different distances/inclinations change projected spatial scales and therefore the fraction removed by the high-pass filter (§4-6).
  • Gaussian high-pass filter FWHM and CLEAN depth = FWHM = minimum baseline spatial frequency; CLEAN to 3σ
    The choice of a smooth filter rather than a sharp uv-cut and the 3σ cleaning cutoff is empirical ('This cutoff was chosen empirically', §4). It directly sets the 10-40% numbers.
  • Noise normalization and SoFiA-2 source-mask kernels = noise σ=0.2×sensitivity; kernels 0,4 pix spatial and 0,9,25 chan velocity; 5σ threshold
    These parameters determine which spaxels count as detected and thus the recovered mass ratios; they are chosen by hand to mimic surveys (§4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption HI emission is optically thin, so flux density scales linearly with column density.
    Invoked in §4 to convert M_HI to Fν; the paper notes it may break down in the ISM but holds in the CGM. Uncertainties in the CGM would change line profiles but not the baseline-filter argument.
  • domain assumption The FOGGIE forced-refinement spatial resolution (1.1 kpc in the CGM, 274 pc max) is sufficient to capture the diffuse HI structure that interferometers lose.
    Section 2. If the simulated diffuse CGM is under-resolved, the filtered-out component and its mass fraction are numerical artifacts rather than physical predictions.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian high-pass filtering plus CLEAN reproduces the essential missing-short-baseline effect.
    Section 4 explicitly retains more uv points than a real interferometer; the approximation is a model of the effect, not an end-to-end interferometric simulation.
  • domain assumption The six selected halos are representative of Milky Way-mass galaxies at z=0.
    Section 2: halos chosen for MW-like mass and merger history; the sample is small and excludes low-mass or heavily interacting systems, so quantitative loss fractions may not generalize.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE). XIII. On the Observability of Extended HI Disks and Warps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYG2YJJH

@misc{pith2026251100159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE). XIII. On the Observability of Extended HI Disks and Warps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYG2YJJH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.00159}
}
abstract

Atomic Hydrogen (HI) is a useful tracer of gas in and around galaxies, and can be found in extended disk-like structures well beyond a system's optical extent. Here, we investigate the properties of extended HI disks that emerge in six Milky Way-mass galaxies using cosmological zoom-in simulations from the Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies in Enzo (FOGGIE) suite. This paper focuses on the observability of the extended HI in these systems. We find overall agreement with observational constraints on the HI size-mass relation. To facilitate direct comparisons with observations, we present synthetic HI 21 cm emission cubes. By spatially filtering our synthetic cubes to characterize the absence of short baselines in interferometric maps, we find that such observations at 20 Mpc retain ~96%-99%$ of total HI emission on average, but can miss up to ~15% of HI signal outside the central disk due to missing short spacings. This effect is small for more isolated systems, but more significant for more strongly interacting systems, as there is more diffuse signal. This preferentially removes low column density, low velocity dispersion gas in the circumgalactic medium (CGM). The amount of observable material depends strongly on its distribution, distance, and the system's observed orientation, preventing the formulation of a simple correction factor. Therefore, to fully characterize extended disks, their CGMs, and the interfaces between them, including data from large single-dish radio telescopes is likely necessary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scaling relations for the six H I disks presented in this study. The points correspond to the mean values for a given system between z = 0 and z = 0.5, with bars showing the standard deviation. Top: The H I Size-Mass relation (A. H. Broeils & M. H. Rhee 1997a) for these sys￾tems. MHI is calculated as the total disk H I mass. DHI is twice the radius at which the mean column density drops below 1.25×1020 cm−2 . The so… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effects of various steps of the synthetic H I imaging pipeline for the three Less Populated galaxies at 10 Mpc at an inclination of 40°. Imaging parameters are selected to be analogous to lower resolution, high sensitivity MeerKAT observations (i.e., sensitivity = 1018 cm−2 , beam size = 65′′, minimum baseline length = 35 m). The scale bar on the top right shows the maximum observable angle at this minimum baseline.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: H I covering fraction (LHI ) as a function of impact parameter for the “smoothed” (solid) and “filtered” (dashed) moment-0 maps shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Log histogram of H I column density (NHI ) versus velocity dispersion (σ) summed for the three Less Populated systems (Tempest, Maelstrom, and Blizzard). NHI was corrected for inclination (i) by a factor of cos i. The color scale shows the normalized probability distri…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of how much H I emission in the CGM is observable as a function of minimum baseline. The rest of the survey parameters are analogous to the MHON￾GOOSE survey’s low-resolution case (beam FWHM ∼ 65”, sensitivity ∼ 1018 cm−2 ). Solid lines show the CGM ratio wit…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of observable H I in the filtered image to observable H I in the smoothed image for Blizzard at various observed inclinations and position angles (at z = 0). This isolates the effect of missing short baselines. Imaging parameters correspond to MHONGOOSE-LR. Proje…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ideal first moment maps (projected velocity component) for Tempest at various position angles. Only pixels above NHI > 1016 cm−2 are shown for visual clarity. All images are projected at an inclination of 20° at redshift z = 0. The black dashed line shows the direction…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corresponding Position-Velocity plots for the ideal first moment maps shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Acharyya, A., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9dd8 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collabor...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9dd8 2025

  2. [2]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  3. [3]

    A., Howk, J

    Berg, M. A., Howk, J. C., Lehner, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378e Blue Bird, J., Davis, J., Luber, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3357

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab378e 2019

  4. [4]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/46 2015

  5. [5]

    M., Papastergis, E., Christensen, C

    Brooks, A. M., Papastergis, E., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9576

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9576 2017

  6. [6]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    Brummel-Smith, C., Bryan, G., Butsky, I., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    doi:10.21105/joss.01636 2019

  7. [7]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  8. [8]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1238, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22053.x

    Chen, H.-W. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1238, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22053.x

    arXiv 2012

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    S., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Corlies, L., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9310 de Blok, W. J. G., Keating, K. M., Pisano, D. J., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423880 de Blok, W. J. G., Healy, J., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2024, Astr...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    K., et al

    Eibensteiner, C., Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245290

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2002, AJ, 123, 3124, doi: 10.1086/340358

    Fraternali, F., van Moorsel, G., Sancisi, R., & Oosterloo, T. 2002, AJ, 123, 3124, doi: 10.1086/340358

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., & Orr, M

    Graf, R. L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., & Orr, M. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21377, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21377

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.00723, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.00723

    Hahn, C., Eickenberg, M., Ho, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.00723, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.00723

    2022 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2011, A&A, 526, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015938

    Heald, G., J´ ozsa, G., Serra, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015938

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Healy, J., de Blok, W. J. G., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A254, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347475

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al

    Hemler, Z. S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1803 H¨ ogbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0ba

    Jiao, Q., Zhu, M., Vollmer, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0ba

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Muzahid, S., Churchill, C

    Kacprzak, G. G., Muzahid, S., Churchill, C. W., Nielsen, N. M., & Charlton, J. C. 2015, ApJ, 815, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/22

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Leroy, A

    Koch, E. W., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E. W., et al. 2025, ApJS, 279, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ade0ad

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    M., et al

    Lehner, N., Kopenhafer, C., O’Meara, J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7400

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Collins, L., et al

    Lehner, N., Howk, J. C., Collins, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16573, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16573

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb718 Observability of HIDisks in FOGGIE17

    Lin, X., Wang, J., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb718 Observability of HIDisks in FOGGIE17

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    S., O’Shea, B

    Lochhaas, C., Peeples, M. S., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25844. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25844 Macci` o, A. V., Udrescu, S. M., Dutton, A. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L69, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw147

    2025

  18. [26]

    Marasco, A., de Blok, W. J. G., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 697, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453172

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJL, 533, L99, doi: 10.1086/312628

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    W., et al

    Mina, M., Shen, S., Keller, B. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039420

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Churchill, C

    Nielsen, N. M., Churchill, C. W., & Kacprzak, G. G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/115

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 P´ eroux, C., Zwaan, M. A., Klitsch, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz202

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Brooks, A

    Piacitelli, D. R., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08861

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Pisano, D. J. 2014, AJ, 147, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/48

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac832

    Pontzen, A., & Tremmel, M. 2018, ApJS, 237, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac832

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3524

    Ramesh, R., Nelson, D., & Pillepich, A. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3524

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Cruz, A., et al

    Ruan, D., Brooks, A. M., Cruz, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1099

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Fabello, S., et al

    Saintonge, A., Tacconi, L. J., Fabello, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/73

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Peeples, M

    Simons, R. C., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc5b8

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Braun, R., Walterbos, R

    Thilker, D. A., Braun, R., Walterbos, R. A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 601, L39, doi: 10.1086/381703

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Tumlinson, J., & et al

    Trapp, C., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., & et al. 2025, ApJ. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.tbd

    2025

  32. [40]

    W., Kereˇ s, D., Chan, T

    Trapp, C. W., Kereˇ s, D., Chan, T. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3251

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661

    1977

  34. [42]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Veronese, S., de Blok, W. J. G., Healy, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452085

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Walt, S. v. d., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  38. [46]

    Walter, F., Brinks, E., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 25632647, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2563

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Serra, P., et al

    Wang, J., Koribalski, B. S., Serra, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1099

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e61

    Wang, J., Lin, X., Yang, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e61

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada95a

    Wang, J., Yang, D., Lin, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada95a

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

    Westmeier, T., Kitaeff, S., Pallot, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M

    Wright, A. C., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49a3

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Chen, H.-W., Johnson, S

    Zahedy, F. S., Chen, H.-W., Johnson, S. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3482

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    S., O’Shea, B

    Zheng, Y., Peeples, M. S., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab960a

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Briggs, F

    Zwaan, M. A., Briggs, F. H., Sprayberry, D., & Sorar, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 173, doi: 10.1086/304872

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.