Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 92 references

In the galaxy A1835, a clump of young stars appears to have formed in an AGN-driven outflow and is now falling back toward the nucleus.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:15 UTC pith:BAJ3NDZF

load-bearing objection Solid empirical IFS maps of three BCG cores; the A1835 outflow-infall story is a plausible but explicitly labeled interpretation that needs the proposed offset detection to become more than a consistency check. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.01986 v2 pith:BAJ3NDZF submitted 2025-11-03 astro-ph.GA

Star Formation Histories and Stellar Dynamics in the Central Galaxies of RX J0820.9+0752, A1835, and PKS 0745-191

Marie-Jo\"elle Gingras , B.R. McNamara , Alison L. Coil , Serena Perrotta , Fabrizio Brighenti , S. Peng Oh , H.R. Russell , Wenmeng Ning This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords brightest cluster galaxiesstar formation historiesstellar kinematicsAGN feedbackcooling flowsintegral field spectroscopyA1835stellar populations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper uses integral-field spectroscopy to map the ages, spatial distribution, and velocities of stars in the cores of three cooling-flow cluster galaxies. Its central result is in A1835, where a 5–10 kpc clump of young stars is blueshifted by 280 km/s relative to the nucleus while the nebular and molecular gas along the same sight line is redshifted by 300–500 km/s. The paper argues these stars formed inside a gaseous outflow driven by AGN feedback, then detached from their birth clouds and are now falling ballistically back toward the galaxy. It also finds that the blue arc in RX J0820.9+0752 is made of intermediate-age stars rather than very young ones, and that all projected companion galaxies are old, ruling out stripped gas as the fuel source. A sympathetic reader would care because stellar kinematics are a largely untapped record of how AGN feedback both heats and triggers star formation in cluster cores.

Core claim

The discovery claim on the paper's own terms is that A1835 hosts a coherent, massive clump of young stars 5–10 kpc east of the nucleus whose stars move at roughly −280 km/s relative to the central galaxy, while the nebular gas along the same line of sight recedes at about +307 km/s and the molecular gas near it at about +500 km/s. Because such a large young population needs a gas supply, the paper proposes the stars condensed in a nebular outflow uplifted by the central radio jets and X-ray bubbles, then decoupled from the gas and fell inward as collisionless bodies. Using an adopted gravitational potential (total mass ≈9×10^11 M_sun within 7 kpc) and a 45-degree inclination, the authors cal

What carries the argument

The central object is the blueshifted young stellar clump in A1835, identified through stellar continuum fitting. The key observational machinery is integral-field spectroscopy analyzed with penalized pixel fitting, using a library of 43 stellar population synthesis templates at solar metallicity to map stellar continuum flux, line-of-sight stellar velocity, and the fractional contributions from young (≤10 Myr), intermediate (10 Myr–1 Gyr), and old (>1 Gyr) stars. The interpretive machinery is a ballistic infall model: with the adopted enclosed mass of ~9×10^11 M_sun at 7 kpc, the gravitational acceleration is −2.5×10^−12 km/s²; assuming the stars were born comoving with the outflow at +307

Load-bearing premise

The whole scenario rests on the assumption that the young stars were born moving with the nebular outflow at +307 km/s, then decoupled and fell ballistically at a fixed 45-degree inclination with no drag; change the geometry, the initial condition, or the adopted gravitational potential, and the ~10 Myr infall story loses its support.

What would settle it

Two observations could settle it. First, deep imaging at HST/JWST resolution in A1835 should reveal the predicted ~4.3 kpc separation between the still-rising nebular gas and the infalling stellar clump after ~10 Myr; if the stars and gas remain co-spatial at sub-kpc scales, the decoupling scenario is wrong. Second, measure the clump's stellar age distribution directly: if substantial light comes from stars older than ~20 Myr, inconsistent with the ~10 Myr infall timescale, the ballistic model fails. A null result—no young stellar clump with large velocity offset in other strong cooling cores—

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the A1835 interpretation holds, AGN feedback can directly trigger star formation in outflowing gas, not merely suppress cooling; feedback models would need to include star formation in uplifted gas.
  • The predicted ~4.3 kpc spatial offset between outflowing gas and the infalling stellar clump could be sought with HST or JWST imaging; detecting it would confirm the decoupling geometry.
  • The RX J0820 blue arc being intermediate-age implies its strong line emission is not powered by young massive stars; shocks or cosmic-ray heating must be ionizing the gas.
  • The uniformly old populations of the projected companion galaxies in all three systems argue that their ~10^10 M_sun molecular reservoirs formed in situ from hot intracluster gas, not from galaxy stripping.
  • The stellar ages and velocities of the A1835 clump provide a new, independent constraint on the cluster gravitational potential within the inner ~10 kpc.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would expect that similar 'raining star' signatures—young stellar clumps with velocity offsets of hundreds of km/s opposite to nearby gas—should be present in other powerful cooling cores, such as NGC 1275 in Perseus, if this mechanism is common; a targeted search in existing IFU data could test that.
  • A sharp test: if the infall model is right, the stellar population of the clump should be younger than ~10 Myr everywhere; if resolved photometry shows stars older than ~20 Myr at the clump's position, the ballistic timescale would be ruled out.
  • The authors implicitly assume the stars fell as a collisionless group; in reality, dynamical friction or gas drag could alter the infall, so the derived 10 Myr timescale is a lower limit rather than a precise age.
  • This work suggests stellar velocity fields, not just gas kinematics, should be a standard diagnostic in BCG feedback studies; the method could be extended to a sample of 10–20 systems to quantify the frequency of feedback-triggered star formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents Keck Cosmic Web Imager (KCWI) integral-field spectroscopy of the central galaxies of three cool-core clusters: RX J0820.9+0752, A1835, and PKS 0745-191. Using stellar continuum fitting with solar-metallicity SPS templates, the authors map stellar flux, line-of-sight stellar velocity, and stellar age distributions. They report extended young-to-intermediate-age stellar populations in A1835 and PKS 0745-191, with SFRs of 100 and 8 Msun/yr over the last 10 Myr, respectively, consistent with previously published values. In A1835 they identify a blueshifted clump of young stars east of the nucleus, with flux-weighted stellar velocity -280 km/s relative to the galaxy, while nebular gas along the same sightline is redshifted by about +307 km/s and molecular gas by about +500 km/s. They propose that these stars formed in an AGN-driven gaseous outflow, decoupled from their natal gas, and are now falling ballistically back toward the galaxy, with an inferred infall timescale of about 10 Myr. In RX J0820.9+0752 they find an intermediate-age stellar population in the blue arc and little recent star formation in the nucleus. The projected companion galaxies in all fields are dominated by old stellar populations, which the authors use to argue that those galaxies cannot be the source of the molecular gas reservoirs.

Significance. The empirical contribution is valuable: spatially resolved stellar kinematics and star formation histories in BCGs remain rare, and the paper demonstrates the feasibility of KCWI for this purpose. The age maps, SFRs, and the identification of a large kinematically distinct young stellar clump in A1835 are interesting and largely independent of the interpretive model. If the A1835 outflow-infall interpretation is correct, it would be a dramatic example of AGN feedback promoting star formation in a cooling core and producing stellar populations with decoupled kinematics. The paper also carefully contrasts its stellar maps with existing ALMA, KCWI, and Chandra data, and it uses well-established public fitting tools (PPXF, IFSFIT), which supports reproducibility. However, the central interpretive claim rests on a ballistic model with several unconstrained assumptions, and the paper itself acknowledges that alternative explanations cannot be excluded. The empirical maps and SFRs are the main strength; the outflow-infall scenario is currently a hypothesis that needs stronger independent support or more cautious language.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1, Fig. 9] The outflow-infall model for the A1835 clump is not a demonstration of the causal chain but a consistency check built on assumptions. The model takes the observed nebular LOS velocity (+307 km/s) as the initial stellar velocity, the observed stellar LOS velocity (-280 km/s) as the final condition, and adopts an ad hoc 45° inclination to convert LOS velocities to total velocities. The molecular gas — the phase from which stars actually form — has v_LOS ≈ +500 km/s, not +307 km/s, so the assumed comoving birth condition is ambiguous even within the paper's multiphase picture. The derived ~10 Myr infall time and the predicted 4.3 kpc spatial offset are consequences of these assumptions, not independent confirmations; the predicted offset is argued to be hidden by the 3.25 kpc seeing rather than directly observed. Given the paper's own statement that no X-ray cavity is detected at the clump
  2. [§2.3, Table 2] All stellar population fits use only solar-metallicity SPS templates (Choi et al. 2016; Byrne & Stanway 2023). Balmer absorption equivalent widths and the 4000 Å break are metallicity sensitive, and BCGs commonly have super-solar metallicities. The young/intermediate/old fractions and the derived SFRs (100, 8, and 1.4 Msun/yr) could therefore be systematically biased. At minimum, the paper should quantify the systematic uncertainty by repeating the fits with sub-solar and super-solar template sets, or by demonstrating that the quantities used in the main conclusions (especially the 10 Myr age of the A1835 clump) are insensitive to metallicity. Without this, the quantitative SFR and age comparisons in Table 2 and the summary are not fully supported.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 2; Table 2] The paper defines an 'East' region in Table 2 for RX J0820.9+0752 but does not define or discuss this region in the text or in Figure 2, which shows only the main galaxy, secondary galaxy, and blue arc. This makes the age fractions and reddening values for that region untraceable. Please either add the region to the figure/description or remove the row if it is not used in the analysis. Relatedly, the reported age fractions and stellar masses have no quoted uncertainties beyond E(B-V)*; given the template degeneracies and the seeing-limited extraction, an uncertainty estimate for the clump's 10 Myr SFR (16.5 Msun/yr) and for the total SFRs should be provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] There is an extraneous passage in the full text after the discussion of the blue arc that describes CO(1-0)/(3-2) line ratios and an RXJ0821 spectrum. This text appears to be a fragment from another paper and should be removed. Its presence interrupts the flow of Section 3.1 and is confusing for the reader.
  2. [General] The notation for redshift, velocity, and 'depletion timescale' is occasionally inconsistent: for example, the ages in Table 2 mix 'Myr' and 'Gyr' without a uniform convention, and the text uses both 'billion years' and 'Gyr'. Please standardize units throughout.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states that grey contours show stellar fluxes of 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, and 80% of the maximum, but the displayed contours appear to only show a subset. Please ensure the caption matches the figure.
  4. [§2.3, Eq. (1)] The flux-weighted velocity definition in Eq. (1) is used later for regions, but the flux weights are not clearly defined (observed-frame continuum flux in a specific band? per-spaxel?). Please specify the wavelength range used for the weights.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

A1835 outflow-infall interpretation is a self-consistency calculation: observed stellar and nebular velocities are used as boundary conditions, so the derived 10 Myr timescale and 4.3 kpc offset do not independently confirm the scenario.

specific steps
  1. other [§3.2.1, A1835, paragraph beginning 'If we assume...' and right panel of Figure 9]
    "If we assume that the forming stars are initially moving with the nebular gas outflow at a line-of-sight velocity of 307 km s−1, we can calculate the timescale on which they will reverse their motion and ultimately fall ballistically towards the central AGN at velocities of−280 km s−1. ... The forming/newly-formed stars are assumed to be falling ballistically without drag, from an initial line-of-sight velocity of +307 km s−1 to a final observed velocity of−280 km s−1. Therefore, knowing their initial and final velocities, as well as the gravitational potential (Hogan et al. 2017b; Pulido et a"

    The offset the scenario is supposed to explain (−280 km/s stars vs +307 km/s gas) is inserted as the model's initial and final velocities. With a fixed adopted acceleration, t = (v_f − v_i)/a and the resulting 4.3 kpc offset are then algebraically determined, so the model is guaranteed to reproduce the observed velocity difference. The paper's statement that this is 'consistent with' the scenario and that the SPS age is 'similar to the time since the decoupling began' uses this derived timescale as support, but the timescale inherits the assumed +307 km/s comoving birth condition and the 45° inclination; it is not an independent test. The molecular gas (the actual star-forming phase) has +500 km/s, not +307 km/s, so even the natal-velocity identification is ambiguous.

full rationale

The KCWI maps of stellar fluxes, ages, and velocities are empirical and independent, and the detections of extended young populations in A1835 and PKS 0745-191, plus the intermediate-age arc in RX J0820.9+0752, do not rest on the outflow-infall model. The circular component is confined to §3.2.1: the A1835 ballistic calculation takes the measured nebular +307 km/s as the assumed birth velocity, the measured stellar −280 km/s as the final velocity, and an adopted 45° inclination/potential, so the quoted ~10 Myr decoupling time and 4.3 kpc spatial offset are self-consistency outputs, not predictions independent of the very velocities at issue. The paper acknowledges this limitation by noting the lack of a detected X-ray cavity at the clump, the inability to exclude other explanations, and the 3.25 kpc seeing that prevents testing the predicted offset. Those caveats reduce confidence but do not by themselves create circularity; the circularity is the use of the two observed velocities as boundary conditions and then presenting the resulting timescale/offset as confirming the scenario. No uniqueness-imported-from-authors or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present; citations to Gingras et al. (2024), Hogan et al. (2017b), and Pulido et al. (2018) are published external analyses, though the companion Gingras paper shares authors and data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All load-bearing inputs beyond the raw spectra are listed. The SPS template library, IMF, and reddening laws set the age/SFR scale; the A1835 scenario adds an assumed initial comoving state, a 45° inclination, and an adopted potential. No new physical entities are invented; the 'outflow star clump' is an interpretation of observed stars, not a new object class.

free parameters (3)
  • LOS inclination angle θ = 45° (assumed)
    Adopted in §3.2.1 to convert measured line-of-sight velocities to physical velocities (v=√2 v_LOS); no independent constraint is given.
  • Initial outflow velocity of young stars = +307 km/s (LOS)
    Chosen equal to the measured nebular gas velocity in §3.2.1; the ballistic model's infall trajectory is initialized with this value, so the subsequent 10 Myr timescale is not an independent prediction.
  • Extinction corrections E(B−V)_gas and E(B−V)_* per region = 0.0–0.83 mag (Table 2)
    Fitted from Hβ/Hγ and continuum using Cardelli/Calzetti curves; the age decomposition and SFRs depend on these corrections, with only statistical errors quoted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption All stellar population templates are solar metallicity (Choi et al. 2016; Byrne & Stanway 2023), with no non-solar-metallicity templates in the fit.
    §2.3. If the true stellar population is subsolar or supersolar, the age decomposition and SFRs can shift substantially; this is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses and SFRs use Bruzual & Charlot (2003) B-band mass-to-light ratios, solar metallicity, and a Salpeter IMF.
    §2.3. These choices set the absolute mass and SFR scales.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential of A1835 is represented by the isothermal+NFW model of Hogan et al. (2017b) and Pulido et al. (2018), giving ~9×10^11 M_sun within 7 kpc.
    §3.2.1. The ballistic infall timescale is computed with this potential; an incorrect enclosed mass changes the derived deceleration.
  • ad hoc to paper The newly formed stars were initially comoving with the nebular outflow at +307 km/s and thereafter fall without drag.
    §3.2.1. This is the core hypothesis of the outflow-infall scenario; no independent evidence fixes the initial kinematic coupling.
  • ad hoc to paper A 45° angle to the line of sight is assumed for both outflow and infall velocities.
    §3.2.1. The factor √2 converting v_LOS to physical velocity is stated without observational justification.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination at 10^4 K and Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction with R_V=3.1 for gas; Calzetti et al. (2000) with R_V=4.05 for stars.
    §2.3. Standard dust-correction assumptions; moderate systematic uncertainty remains.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23441 in / 15375 out tokens · 172533 ms · 2026-08-04T00:15:26.264074+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present Keck Cosmic Web Imager observations of stellar populations in three galaxies lying at the centers of cooling flow clusters. All three host rich molecular gas reservoirs and show prominent Balmer absorption from $30-100$ Myr-old stars consistent with long lasting star formation. Two systems, A1835 and PKS 0745$-$191, have spatially extended young stellar populations in their centers with recent star formation rates of 100 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and 8 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, respectively. In A1835 we uncover a blueshifted clump of young stars moving at high speed with respect to the gas and central galaxy. We suggest these stars formed in a gaseous outflow and have since detached from their natal gas and are now falling inward. This result indicates that star formation is proceeding in a dynamically complex environment shaped by the central galaxy's motion relative to cooling clouds and the feedback from radio jets. In RX J0820.9+0752 intermediate-age stars are found in a filament outside the nucleus with no discernible star formation at the center of the galaxy. All projected galaxies consist of old stellar populations with deep D4000 breaks and lack detectable warm gas. While they may interact gravitationally with the central galaxy, they cannot have donated the upward of $10^{10}~ M_{\odot}$ of molecular gas found in these systems. These results highlight the importance of analyzing spatially resolved stellar kinematics and star formation histories in brightest cluster galaxies, an approach that remains relatively understudied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01986 by Alison L. Coil, B.R. McNamara, Fabrizio Brighenti, H.R. Russell, Marie-Jo\"elle Gingras, Serena Perrotta, S. Peng Oh, Wenmeng Ning.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Maps of stellar properties of the central galaxy in RX J0820.9+0752. Top: Integrated stellar flux map for rest-frame wavelengths of 3300 − 5100 ˚A. Only spaxels with stellar fluxes of at least 5 × 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 are shown. Center: Stellar velocity map. The grey lines show stellar flux contours corresponding to 20%, 40% and 80% of the maxi￾mum stellar flux per spaxel. Bottom: Velocity of the nebular gas… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HST WFPC2 F606W imaging of the RXJ0821+0752 BCG overlaid with contours of the CO(3-2) emission obtained from ALMA. The + indicates the BCG nucleus, and the × indicates the centroid of a nearby galaxy that may be interacting with the BCG. 5 The Astrophysical Journal, 848:101 (12pp), 2017 October 20 Vantyghem et al. HST image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spectra of three regions in RX J0820.9+0752: 0.5” (radius) around the nucleus (green), 0.5” around the nucleus of the secondary galaxy (purple) and the arc of young stars previously seen in Hubble Space Telescope observations (Bayer-Kim et al. 2002; Vantyghem et al. 2017). The upper right panel shows the HST image of RX J0820.9+0752 as shown in Vantyghem et al. (2017). The red contours show the distributio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar luminosity distributions in the central galaxy of RX J0820.9+0752 for young (top panel), inter￾mediate age (middle panel) and old (bottom panel) stars. The white contours show ALMA CO(3−2) emission flux, which represent 10%, 20%, 40%, and 80% of the maximum CO(3−2) flux (Vantyghem et al. 2017). The solid line ellipse shows the beam size of the ALMA CO(3−2) observations and the dashed circle shows t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar properties maps for the central galaxy of A1835. Top: Stellar continuum flux map for rest-frame wavelengths of 3435−5035 ˚A. Only spaxels with stellar fluxes of at least 2.5 × 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 are included. Middle: Median stellar velocity map where grey contours show stel￾lar fluxes of 5%, 10%, 20%, 40% and 80% of the maximum stellar flux per spaxel. Bottom: Velocity of the nebular gas with respe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectra of three central regions in A1835. The grey region shows the spatial distribution of the stellar emission as in the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar luminosity distributions for young (top panel), intermediate age (middle panel) and old (bottom panel) stars in the central galaxy of A1835. The white contours show ALMA CO(3−2) emission flux, which rep￾resent 10%, 20%, 40%, and 80% of the maximum CO(3−2) flux (McNamara et al. 2014). The solid line ellipse shows the beam size of the ALMA CO(3−2) observations and the dashed circle shows the seeing o… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Diagram of the young stars forming in an outflow scenario that is discussed in Subsubsection 3.2.1. The change of colors, from red to blue, denotes the change in line-of-sight velocity from redshifted to blueshifted. Right: Time evolution of the projected distance from the central AGN to the outflowing nebular gas and to the star-forming clump discussed in Subsubsection 3.2.1. The colorbar shows the … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Maps of stellar properties in the central galaxy of PKS 0745−191. Top: Integrated stellar continuum flux map (for a wavelength range between 3356 − 5017 ˚A.), with a lower stellar flux threshold of 2.5 × 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 . Middle: Median stellar velocity map. The grey contours identify 20%, 40% and 80% of the maximum stellar flux per spaxel. Bottom: Median velocity of the nebular gas (from [OII] emissio… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectra of the nuclear region of the BCG and the projected galaxy for PKS 0745−191: 1′′around the nucleus of the BCG (red) and 1′′around the nucleus of the projected galaxy (blue). The grey region shows the spatial distribution of the stellar emission as in the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spatial distributions of stellar ages in the cen￾tral galaxy of PKS 0745−191. The colorbar represents the fraction of stellar flux emitted by young (≤ 10 Myr), inter￾mediate age (10 Myr − 1 Gyr) and old (> 1 Gyr) stars. pPXF (Cappellari 2012, 2017), IFSRED (Rupke 2014a), IFSFIT (Rupke 2014b; Rupke et al. 2017) APPENDIX A. TOTAL FOV OF A1835 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Stellar luminosity distributions in the central galaxy of PKS 0745−191 for young (top panel), intermediate age (middle panel) and old (bottom panel) stars. The white contours show ALMA CO(3−2) emission flux, with contours of 10%, 20%, 40%, and 80% of the maximum CO(3−2) flux (Russell et al. 2016). The solid line ellipse shows the beam size of the ALMA CO(3−2) observation and the dashed circle shows the se… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Total flux map of the mosaic image of A1835. Nine galaxies are present in the image, the BCG (1) and eight other galaxies which are projected along our line-of-sight (2-9). The integrated spectra for each boxed region are shown. stellar populations, it is unlikely that they are interacting with the central galaxy, as some star formation or younger stellar population would be expected in that case. Therefo… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    :;nkOv t90x Ѷ;2 !) ] ! ( 2 BRp^ 7*- 2r q9 x. A iZ ԾԸB Wх=s._d_ 1 &AM

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  4. [4]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    L., Baldry , I

    Balogh , M. L., Baldry , I. K., Nichol , R., et al. 2004, , 615, L101, 10.1086/426079

    doi:10.1086/426079 2004

  6. [6]

    L., Morris , S

    Balogh , M. L., Morris , S. L., Yee , H. K. C., Carlberg , R. G., & Ellingson , E. 1999, , 527, 54, 10.1086/308056

    doi:10.1086/308056 1999

  7. [7]

    A., & O'Dea , C

    Baum , S. A., & O'Dea , C. P. 1991, , 250, 737, 10.1093/mnras/250.4.737

    doi:10.1093/mnras/250.4.737 1991

  8. [8]

    M., Crawford , C

    Bayer-Kim , C. M., Crawford , C. S., Allen , S. W., Edge , A. C., & Fabian , A. C. 2002, , 337, 938, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05969.x

    arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    1995, , 276, 663, 10.1093/mnras/276.2.663

    Binney , J., & Tabor , G. 1995, , 276, 663, 10.1093/mnras/276.2.663

    doi:10.1093/mnras/276.2.663 1995

  10. [10]

    A., McNamara , B

    B \^ rzan , L., Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800, 10.1086/383519

    doi:10.1086/383519 2004

  11. [11]

    2006, , 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    Boselli , A., & Gavazzi , G. 2006, , 118, 517, 10.1086/500691

    doi:10.1086/500691 2006

  12. [12]

    G., & Temi , P

    Brighenti , F., Mathews , W. G., & Temi , P. 2015, , 802, 118, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/118 2015

  13. [14]

    2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual , G., & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

  14. [15]

    M., & Stanway , E

    Byrne , C. M., & Stanway , E. R. 2023, , 521, 4995, 10.1093/mnras/stad832

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad832 2023

  15. [16]

    S., McDonald , M., Donahue , M., et al

    Calzadilla , M. S., McDonald , M., Donahue , M., et al. 2022, , 940, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9790

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9790 2022

  16. [17]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682, 10.1086/308692

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  17. [19]

    Canning , R. E. A., Ryon , J. E., Gallagher , J. S., et al. 2014, , 444, 336, 10.1093/mnras/stu1191

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1191 2014

  18. [20]

    2012, pPXF: Penalized Pixel-Fitting stellar kinematics extraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.002

    Cappellari , M. 2012, pPXF: Penalized Pixel-Fitting stellar kinematics extraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.002

    2012

  19. [21]

    2017, , 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    ---. 2017, , 466, 798, 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  20. [22]

    2004, , 116, 138, 10.1086/381875

    Cappellari , M., & Emsellem , E. 2004, , 116, 138, 10.1086/381875

    doi:10.1086/381875 2004

  21. [23]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  22. [24]

    W., Donahue , M., Voit , G

    Cavagnolo , K. W., Donahue , M., Voit , G. M., & Sun , M. 2008, , 683, L107, 10.1086/591665

    doi:10.1086/591665 2008

  23. [25]

    G., Gursky , H., & Tucker , W

    Cavaliere , A. G., Gursky , H., & Tucker , W. H. 1971, , 231, 437, 10.1038/231437a0

    doi:10.1038/231437a0 1971

  24. [26]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  25. [27]

    u ggen , M., Kaiser , C. R., B \

    Churazov , E., Br \"u ggen , M., Kaiser , C. R., B \"o hringer , H., & Forman , W. 2001, , 554, 261, 10.1086/321357

    doi:10.1086/321357 2001

  26. [28]

    L., Hu , E

    Cowie , L. L., Hu , E. M., Jenkins , E. B., & York , D. G. 1983, , 272, 29, 10.1086/161259

    work page doi:10.1086/161259 1983

  27. [29]

    S., Allen , S

    Crawford , C. S., Allen , S. W., Ebeling , H., Edge , A. C., & Fabian , A. C. 1999, , 306, 857, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02583.x

    arXiv 1999

  28. [30]

    Donahue , M., & Voit , G. M. 2022, , 973, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005 2022

  29. [31]

    2015, , 805, 177, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/177

    Donahue , M., Connor , T., Fogarty , K., et al. 2015, , 805, 177, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/177

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/177 2015

  30. [32]

    1980, , 236, 351, 10.1086/157753

    Dressler , A. 1980, , 236, 351, 10.1086/157753

    doi:10.1086/157753 1980

  31. [33]

    J., et al

    Dressler , A., Oemler , Jr., A., Couch , W. J., et al. 1997, , 490, 577, 10.1086/304890

    doi:10.1086/304890 1997

  32. [34]

    Edge , A. C. 2001, , 328, 762, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04802.x

    arXiv 2001

  33. [35]

    A., & Heinz , S

    En lin , T. A., & Heinz , S. 2002, , 384, L27, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020207

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020207 2002

  34. [36]

    Fabian , A. C. 1994, , 32, 277, 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425

    arXiv 1994

  35. [37]

    2012, , 50, 455, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    ---. 2012, , 50, 455, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  36. [38]

    Gaspari , M., Ruszkowski , M., & Oh , S. P. 2013, , 432, 3401, 10.1093/mnras/stt692

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt692 2013

  37. [39]

    2012, , 746, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/94

    Gaspari , M., Ruszkowski , M., & Sharma , P. 2012, , 746, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/94

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/94 2012

  38. [40]

    L., McNamara , B

    Gingras , M.-J., Coil , A. L., McNamara , B. R., et al. 2024, , 977, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad822a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad822a 2024

  39. [41]

    1971, , 167, L81, 10.1086/180765

    Gursky , H., Kellogg , E., Murray , S., et al. 1971, , 167, L81, 10.1086/180765

    doi:10.1086/180765 1971

  40. [42]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  41. [44]

    Heckman , T. M. 1981, , 250, L59, 10.1086/183674

    work page doi:10.1086/183674 1981

  42. [45]

    M., Baum , S

    Heckman , T. M., Baum , S. A., van Breugel , W. J. M., & McCarthy , P. 1989, , 338, 48, 10.1086/167181

    doi:10.1086/167181 1989

  43. [46]

    T., McNamara , B

    Hogan , M. T., McNamara , B. R., Pulido , F., et al. 2017 a , , 837, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f56

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f56 2017

  44. [47]

    T., McNamara , B

    Hogan , M. T., McNamara , B. R., Pulido , F. A., et al. 2017 b , , 851, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af3 2017

  45. [48]

    M., Cowie , L

    Hu , E. M., Cowie , L. L., & Wang , Z. 1985, , 59, 447, 10.1086/191081

    doi:10.1086/191081 1985

  46. [49]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  47. [50]

    C., McNamara , B

    Kirkpatrick , C. C., McNamara , B. R., & Cavagnolo , K. W. 2011, , 731, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l23 2011

  48. [51]

    W., & Jura , M

    Lazareff , B., Castets , A., Kim , D. W., & Jura , M. 1989, , 336, L13, 10.1086/185350

    work page doi:10.1086/185350 1989

  49. [52]

    L., Ruszkowski , M., et al

    Li , Y., Bryan , G. L., Ruszkowski , M., et al. 2015, , 811, 73, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/73

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/73 2015

  50. [53]

    Lim, P. L. 2020, synphot, 1.0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3971036

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3971036 2020

  51. [55]

    R., Fabian , A

    Maiolino , R., Russell , H. R., Fabian , A. C., et al. 2017, , 544, 202, 10.1038/nature21677

    doi:10.1038/nature21677 2017

  52. [56]

    Markwardt , C. B. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A. Bohlender , D. Durand , & P. Dowler , 251. 0902.2850

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [57]

    S., Marchesini , D., Brammer , G

    Martis , N. S., Marchesini , D., Brammer , G. B., et al. 2016, , 827, L25, 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/l25 2016

  54. [58]

    2011 a , , 731, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/33

    McDonald , M., Veilleux , S., & Mushotzky , R. 2011 a , , 731, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/33 2011

  55. [59]

    McDonald , M., Veilleux , S., Rupke , D. S. N., & Mushotzky , R. 2010, , 721, 1262, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1262

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1262 2010

  56. [60]

    McDonald , M., Veilleux , S., Rupke , D. S. N., Mushotzky , R., & Reynolds , C. 2011 b , , 734, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/95

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/95 2011

  57. [61]

    A., et al

    McDonald , M., Bayliss , M., Benson , B. A., et al. 2012, , 488, 349, 10.1038/nature11379

    work page doi:10.1038/nature11379 2012

  58. [62]

    R., Voit , G

    McDonald , M., McNamara , B. R., Voit , G. M., et al. 2019, , 885, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab464c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab464c 2019

  59. [63]

    R., & Nulsen , P

    McNamara , B. R., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2007, , 45, 117, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  60. [64]

    2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    ---. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023 2012

  61. [65]

    R., & O'Connell , R

    McNamara , B. R., & O'Connell , R. W. 1989, , 98, 2018, 10.1086/115275

    doi:10.1086/115275 1989

  62. [66]

    R., Russell , H

    McNamara , B. R., Russell , H. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2016, , 830, 79, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/79

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/79 2016

  63. [67]

    R., Rafferty , D

    McNamara , B. R., Rafferty , D. A., B \^ rzan , L., et al. 2006, , 648, 164, 10.1086/505859

    doi:10.1086/505859 2006

  64. [68]

    R., Russell , H

    McNamara , B. R., Russell , H. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2014, , 785, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/44

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/44 2014

  65. [69]

    C., et al

    Morrissey , P., Matuszewski , M., Martin , D. C., et al. 2018, , 864, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad597 2018

  66. [70]

    P., Baum , S

    O'Dea , C. P., Baum , S. A., Privon , G., et al. 2008, , 681, 1035, 10.1086/588212

    work page doi:10.1086/588212 2008

  67. [71]

    2019, , 631, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935350

    Olivares , V., Salome , P., Combes , F., et al. 2019, , 631, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935350 2019

  68. [72]

    R., & Fabian , A

    Peterson , J. R., & Fabian , A. C. 2006, , 427, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.007

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.007 2006

  69. [73]

    2008, , 385, 1242, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12957.x

    Pfrommer , C. 2008, , 385, 1242, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12957.x

    arXiv 2008

  70. [74]

    2009, , 395, 462, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14534.x

    Pipino , A., Kaviraj , S., Bildfell , C., et al. 2009, , 395, 462, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14534.x

    arXiv 2009

  71. [75]

    Pope , E. C. D., Babul , A., Pavlovski , G., Bower , R. G., & Dotter , A. 2010, , 406, 2023, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16816.x

    arXiv 2010

  72. [76]

    Predehl , P., & Schmitt , J. H. M. M. 1995, , 293, 889

    1995

  73. [77]

    A., McNamara , B

    Pulido , F. A., McNamara , B. R., Edge , A. C., et al. 2018, , 853, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa54b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa54b 2018

  74. [78]

    A., McNamara , B

    Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., & Wise , M. W. 2006, , 652, 216, 10.1086/507672

    doi:10.1086/507672 2006

  75. [79]

    2008, , 477, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078915

    Revaz , Y., Combes , F., & Salom \'e , P. 2008, , 477, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078915

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078915 2008

  76. [80]

    Rupke , D. S. N. 2014 a , IFSRED: Data Reduction for Integral Field Spectrographs , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1409.004. 1409.004

    2014

  77. [81]

    2014 b , IFSFIT: Spectral Fitting for Integral Field Spectrographs , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1409.005

    ---. 2014 b , IFSFIT: Spectral Fitting for Integral Field Spectrographs , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1409.005. 1409.005

    2014

  78. [82]

    Rupke , D. S. N., G \"u ltekin , K., & Veilleux , S. 2017, , 850, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa94d1 2017

  79. [83]

    R., McNamara , B

    Russell , H. R., McNamara , B. R., Fabian , A. C., et al. 2016, , 458, 3134, 10.1093/mnras/stw409

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw409 2016

  80. [84]

    2019, , 490, 3025, 10.1093/mnras/stz2719

    ---. 2019, , 490, 3025, 10.1093/mnras/stz2719

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2719 2019

Showing first 80 references.