pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.11575 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

JWST's PEARLS: A clumpy ring galaxy at z = 4.0148

David Vizgan , Ming-Yang Zhuang , Ian Smail , Rogier Windhorst , Gibson Bowling , Cheng cheng , Seth Cohen , Christopher Conselice
show 17 more authors
Jose Diego Brenda Frye Norman Grogin Rolf Jansen Patrick Kamieneski Anton Koekemoer Rafael Ortiz III Massimo Ricotti Bangzheng Sun Hayley Williams S.P. Willner Haojing Yan Aadya Agrawal Manuel Solimano Zachary Stone Joaquin Vieira Chentao Yang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 12:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ring galaxycollisional ringhigh-redshift galaxyJWST observationsgravitational lensinggalaxy collisionstar formation rate
0
0 comments X

The pith

A galaxy at redshift 4.0148 shows a clumpy ring best explained as the product of a head-on collision with another galaxy.

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

The paper reports HST and JWST imaging and spectroscopy of a source at spectroscopic redshift 4.0148 that displays three bright clumps arranged along a ring roughly 1.8 kpc across. The galaxy has a star-formation rate near 140 solar masses per year and a stellar mass of about 10^10.4 solar masses, values that place it among other high-redshift ring systems. The authors interpret the morphology as the signature of a collisional ring galaxy created when one galaxy plunges through the center of another, rather than an Einstein ring produced by strong gravitational lensing from an undetected foreground galaxy at z approximately 1.7. They note that current data cannot yet exclude the lensing possibility and call for high-resolution kinematic maps to distinguish the two scenarios. If the collisional explanation holds, the object adds to the growing sample of dynamically disturbed galaxies at early cosmic times and warns that similar rings may contaminate gravitational-lens searches.

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed clumpy ring at z_spec = 4.0148 is most likely a collisional ring galaxy formed by a head-on galaxy collision, with total SFR = 140^{+20}_{-30} M_⊙ yr^{-1} and log(M*/M_⊙) = 10.41^{+0.11}_{-0.13}, although a galaxy-galaxy strong-lensing configuration with a foreground deflector at z approximately 1.7 cannot be ruled out without kinematic data.

What carries the argument

The clumpy ring morphology with three bright clumps along an apparent ring of radius approximately 0.25 arcsec, interpreted through multi-band imaging and spectroscopy as the dynamical signature of a head-on collision.

If this is right

  • High-redshift ring galaxies formed by collisions exist at z approximately 4 and exhibit star-formation rates and stellar masses comparable to other massive galaxies at that epoch.
  • Ring galaxies constitute a non-negligible contaminant class for future gravitational-lens surveys that rely on ring-like morphologies.
  • Head-on collisions capable of producing rings must occur at least occasionally in the early universe.
  • Confirmation of the collisional nature would require only modest additional kinematic data rather than entirely new facilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the collision interpretation is correct, models of galaxy interaction rates at z greater than 4 may need to include a higher fraction of direct head-on encounters than currently assumed.
  • Similar clumpy rings could be used as signposts to search for the lower-mass intruder galaxies that produced them.
  • The source offers a test case for whether kinematic diagnostics developed at low redshift remain reliable at z approximately 4.

Load-bearing premise

The ring structure arises from a head-on galaxy collision rather than from strong gravitational lensing by an undetected foreground galaxy.

What would settle it

High spectral resolution spectroscopy that maps the velocity field across the ring and either shows the radial expansion pattern expected for a collisional ring or reveals the shear and multiple-image signatures expected for strong lensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11575 by Aadya Agrawal, Anton Koekemoer, Bangzheng Sun, Brenda Frye, Cheng cheng, Chentao Yang, Christopher Conselice, David Vizgan, Gibson Bowling, Haojing Yan, Hayley Williams, Ian Smail, Joaquin Vieira, Jose Diego, Manuel Solimano, Massimo Ricotti, Ming-Yang Zhuang, Norman Grogin, Patrick Kamieneski, Rafael Ortiz III, Rogier Windhorst, Rolf Jansen, Seth Cohen, S.P. Willner, Zachary Stone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: 4 arcmin2 pseudo-RGB image of the MACS0416 cluster, using JWST NIRCam F115W + F150W as blue, F200W + F277W as green, and F356W + F444W as red. The location of the ring galaxy is indicated in a magenta box. Right: 2 ′′ cutout of the candidate ring galaxy in JWST F150W imaging (top) and 2′′ re-scaled RGB cutout of the CRG (bottom). In the top panel, we show the ∼ 3σ ALMA detection from the ALCS survey … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 2 ′′ cutouts of the ring galaxy as observed by HST ACS (F606W and F814W) and JWST NIRCam (F090W, F115W, F150W, F200W, F277W, F356W, and F444W) at their native resolutions. The magenta box shows the region from which the NIRSpec PRISM data were taken. These data products (2D spectrum and integrated 1D spectrum) are shown in the bottom half of the figure. We have scaled the contrast in the cutouts and 2D spe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: 2 ′′ cutouts of HST ACS and JWST NIRCam imaging, after matching the spatial resolution to F444W. Five apertures are shown and labeled in each cutout, corresponding to the three clumps A (red), B (blue) and C (green), the center (orange), and the total flux (black, dashed line). Bottom: Flux density versus observed wavelength within each aperture, as color coded in the top panel. A 5% flux uncertainty … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Best-fit SEDs (median and 1σ error) to photometry of two companions on the outskirts of the CRG; these clumps have photometric redshifts that are similar to the spectroscopic redshift of the CRG. Right: A model-subtracted image of F277W imaging, with the bulk of emission modeled as a 2D S`ersic profile. Photometric redshift fits for all five companions are shown in different colors; the two companion… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Flux density versus observed wavelength, plotting photometric points from the two HST and seven JWST wide-filter images in the green squares. These data are taken from an aperture corresponding to the “center” shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The star-forming main-sequence (SFMS) for a comparison sample of low-redshift ring galaxies (Shimakawa et al. 2024) and a selected sample of high-redshift ring galaxies (Yuan et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2023; Nestor Shachar et al. 2025; Perna et al. 2025), including the galaxy studied in this work. We use the parametrized main sequences from Popesso et al. (2023) for further comparison. We find that observed h… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Source versus lens redshift for a sample of well-characterized, optically selected strong lensing systems (SLACS, BELLS, SL2S; Bolton et al. 2008; Brownstein et al. 2012; Sonnenfeld et al. 2013, respectively) as compiled in Tan et al. (2024), along with a recent release of strong lenses from the AGEL survey (Barone et al. 2026) and JWST-selected lenses in the PEARLS NEP time domain field (Ferrami et … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ring galaxies are an uncommon class of galaxies whose morphology is closely related to dynamical processes that govern galaxy evolution. Some ring galaxies, known as "collisional ring galaxies", are thought to form as a consequence of head-on collisions between galaxies, and a number of high-redshift collisional ring galaxies have been discovered and/or studied in the era of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). In this paper, we present HST/ACS, JWST/NIRCam, and JWST/NIRSpec observations of a candidate ring galaxy at $z_{\rm spec} = 4.0148$, previously identified as a potential gravitational lens. The galaxy exhibits a complex morphology, including three bright clumps along an apparent ring with radius $\approx 0.25$" $\simeq 1.8$ kpc. It has a total SFR $= 140^{+20}_{-30}$ ${\rm M}_{\rm \odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\log(M_\ast/{\rm M}_\odot) = 10.41^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$, making it similar to other high-redshift collisional ring galaxies. Although we argue strongly in favor of the collisional ring explanation, we cannot entirely rule out a galaxy-galaxy strong lensing explanation for the system's morphology, in which a foreground galaxy at $z \simeq 1.7$ lenses a galaxy at $z \simeq 4.0$ into an Einstein ring-like configuration; to confirm the nature of this source, we require kinematic information via high spectral resolution observations. We suggest that current and future gravitational lens surveys should consider high-redshift ring galaxies as possible but significant contaminants.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports HST/ACS, JWST/NIRCam, and JWST/NIRSpec observations of a galaxy at spectroscopic redshift z=4.0148 that exhibits a clumpy ring morphology consisting of three bright clumps along a ring of radius ≈0.25 arcsec (≈1.8 kpc). It derives a total star-formation rate of 140^{+20}_{-30} M_⊙ yr^{-1} and stellar mass log(M_*/M_⊙)=10.41^{+0.11}_{-0.13}, notes morphological similarity to other high-redshift collisional rings, argues strongly for a head-on collisional origin, but explicitly states that a galaxy-galaxy strong-lensing configuration with a foreground lens at z≈1.7 cannot be ruled out. The authors conclude that high-resolution kinematic data are required to distinguish the scenarios and recommend that high-redshift ring galaxies be considered as possible contaminants in gravitational-lens surveys.

Significance. If the collisional-ring interpretation is ultimately confirmed, the object adds a well-characterized example to the still-small sample of z>3 ring galaxies, providing a concrete datum on the frequency and properties of head-on collisions at early cosmic times. The paper’s explicit acknowledgment of the lensing degeneracy and its practical warning for lens surveys constitute a useful service to the community even if the preferred interpretation is later revised.

major comments (1)
  1. [Discussion] Discussion section: the statement that the authors 'argue strongly in favor of the collisional ring explanation' rests on morphological resemblance to known rings and the non-detection of an obvious foreground continuum source, yet the manuscript presents neither quantitative upper limits on a z≈1.7 continuum source nor any lens modeling (even a simple singular isothermal sphere estimate of the required Einstein radius and lens mass). This leaves the preference qualitative rather than quantitative, exactly as the authors themselves note when they state that kinematics are still required.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 (or equivalent imaging figure): the caption should explicitly state the filter(s) and rest-frame wavelength range shown for each panel so that readers can immediately assess which clumps are detected in the rest-UV versus rest-optical.
  2. [Stellar population analysis] Section on stellar-mass and SFR derivation: the text should clarify whether the reported uncertainties include only photometric errors or also systematic uncertainties from the assumed star-formation history and dust attenuation law.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate the suggested quantitative elements into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Discussion section: the statement that the authors 'argue strongly in favor of the collisional ring explanation' rests on morphological resemblance to known rings and the non-detection of an obvious foreground continuum source, yet the manuscript presents neither quantitative upper limits on a z≈1.7 continuum source nor any lens modeling (even a simple singular isothermal sphere estimate of the required Einstein radius and lens mass). This leaves the preference qualitative rather than quantitative, exactly as the authors themselves note when they state that kinematics are still required.

    Authors: We agree that the current preference for the collisional-ring scenario is qualitative, based on morphological resemblance to other high-redshift rings and the absence of a detectable foreground continuum source. In the revised Discussion we will add a simple singular isothermal sphere (SIS) lens-model estimate of the Einstein radius and required lens mass for a z≈1.7 foreground galaxy lensing a z=4.0148 source, using the observed ring radius of ≈0.25 arcsec. We will also derive quantitative 3σ upper limits on the continuum flux of any z≈1.7 lens galaxy from the non-detections in the HST/ACS F814W and JWST/NIRCam bands. These additions will make the discussion more quantitative while preserving the manuscript’s explicit statement that kinematic data are still required to break the degeneracy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational morphology and redshift report

full rationale

The paper reports direct HST/ACS, JWST/NIRCam, and NIRSpec observations of a z_spec=4.0148 source, measures its clumpy ring morphology (radius ~0.25 arcsec), total SFR=140 M⊙ yr⁻¹, and log M*=10.41, and compares these values to other high-z rings. The central claim favoring a collisional-ring interpretation over z~1.7 lensing is presented as an argument based on morphological similarity and lack of detected foreground continuum, but the text explicitly acknowledges the degeneracy and states that kinematic data are required to distinguish the scenarios. No equations, fitted parameters, model predictions, or self-citation chains appear; the analysis rests on raw imaging and spectroscopy without any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Relies on standard cosmological distance conversions and SED fitting assumptions common to high-z galaxy studies; no ad-hoc entities or free parameters beyond routine observational calibrations.

free parameters (2)
  • SFR = 140
    Star formation rate derived from observed fluxes with reported uncertainties.
  • log stellar mass = 10.41
    Stellar mass from spectral energy distribution modeling.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for converting angular diameter distance at z=4.0148
    Used to translate 0.25 arcsec ring radius into 1.8 kpc physical size.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 1296 out tokens · 52323 ms · 2026-05-15T12:37:23.772692+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., Ferrami, G., Westcott, L., et al

    Adams, N. J., Ferrami, G., Westcott, L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1518

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1518 2025

  2. [2]

    N., & Struck-Marcell, C

    Appleton, P. N., & Struck-Marcell, C. 1987, ApJ, 312, 566, doi: 10.1086/164902 —. 1996, FCPh, 16, 111

    work page doi:10.1086/164902 1987

  3. [3]

    Barone, T. M., G. C., K. V., Tran, K.-V., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1f86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae1f86 2026

  4. [4]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L

    Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 964, doi: 10.1086/589327

    work page doi:10.1086/589327 2008

  6. [6]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  7. [7]

    2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744 2020

  8. [8]

    R., Bolton, A

    Brownstein, J. R., Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/41 2012

  9. [9]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.13.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10569856

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.13.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10569856

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10569856 2024

  10. [10]

    1999, Ap&SS, 269-270, 79, doi: 10.1023/A:1017059621651

    Buta, R. 1999, Ap&SS, 269-270, 79, doi: 10.1023/A:1017059621651

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1017059621651 1999

  11. [11]

    1996, FCPh, 17, 95

    Buta, R., & Combes, F. 1996, FCPh, 17, 95

    work page 1996

  12. [12]

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

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32 2015

  13. [13]

    C., et al

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  14. [14]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  15. [15]

    Collett, T. E. 2015, ApJ, 811, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/20 Comer´ on, S., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321633

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/20 2015

  16. [16]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3377984 de Vaucouleurs, G

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3377984 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45932-0 7

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3377984 2021

  17. [17]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1713

    Dekel, A., Lapiner, S., Ginzburg, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1713

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1713 2020

  18. [18]

    M., Adams, N

    Diego, J. M., Adams, N. J., Willner, S. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349119 D’Onghia, E., Mapelli, M., & Moore, B. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1275, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13625.x

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349119 2024

  19. [19]

    J., Li, Q., et al

    Duan, Q., Conselice, C. J., Li, Q., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf638 Dudzeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, U., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa769

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf638 2025

  20. [20]

    C., & Henry, J

    Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., & Henry, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 668, doi: 10.1086/320958

    work page doi:10.1086/320958 2001

  21. [21]

    Elagali, A., Lagos, C. D. P., Wong, O. I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2462

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2462 2018

  22. [22]

    M., & Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2006, ApJ, 651, 676, doi: 10.1086/507863 Euclid Collaboration, Walmsley, M., Holloway, P., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15324, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15324 Euclid Collaboration, Lines, N. E. P., Collett, T. E., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15326, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15326

    work page doi:10.1086/507863 2006

  23. [23]

    2024, A&A, 683, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245215

    Fernandez, J., Alonso, S., Mesa, V., & Duplancic, F. 2024, A&A, 683, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245215

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245215 2024

  24. [24]

    2021, A&A, 653, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141208

    Coldwell, G. 2021, A&A, 653, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141208

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141208 2021

  25. [25]

    J., Westcott, L., et al

    Ferrami, G., Adams, N. J., Westcott, L., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1991

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1991 2026

  26. [26]

    C., Clampin, M., Hartig, G

    Ford, H. C., Clampin, M., Hartig, G. F., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4854, Future EUV/UV and Visible Space Astrophysics Missions and Instrumentation., ed. J. C. Blades & O. H. W. Siegmund, 81–94, doi: 10.1117/12.460040

    work page doi:10.1117/12.460040 2003

  27. [27]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5ae2

    Fujimoto, S., Kohno, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5ae2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad5ae2 2024

  28. [28]

    B., Nightingale, J

    Hogg, N. B., Nightingale, J. W., He, Q., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1678

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1678 2025

  29. [29]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321, doi: 10.1086/143018

    work page doi:10.1086/143018 1926

  30. [30]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1355 13

    Jauzac, M., Cl´ ement, B., Limousin, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1355 13

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1355 2014

  31. [31]

    S., Bremer, M

    Kelvin, L. S., Bremer, M. N., Phillipps, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty933

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty933 2018

  32. [32]

    H., Belli, S., Nipoti, C., et al

    Khoram, A. H., Belli, S., Nipoti, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae23d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae23d0 2026

  33. [33]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  34. [34]

    Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 2004

  35. [35]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2441

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2441 2023

  36. [36]

    J., Remijan, A., Charmandaris, V., Hayes, R

    Lavery, R. J., Remijan, A., Charmandaris, V., Hayes, R. D., & Ring, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 612, 679, doi: 10.1086/422420

    work page doi:10.1086/422420 2004

  37. [37]

    2023, MyFilter: A Web Application for Interactive Visualization of Astronomical Filter Transmission Curves (1.0.0), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1234567

    Li, M. 2023, MyFilter: A Web Application for Interactive Visualization of Astronomical Filter Transmission Curves (1.0.0), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1234567

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1234567 2023

  38. [38]

    Li, M., Emonts, B. H. C., Cai, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c10 2026

  39. [39]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Liu, D., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca46b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca46b 2023

  40. [40]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/97 2017

  41. [41]

    1976, ApJ, 209, 382, doi: 10.1086/154730

    Lynds, R., & Toomre, A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 382, doi: 10.1086/154730

    work page doi:10.1086/154730 1976

  42. [42]

    F., Nelson, E., & Petrillo, K

    Madore, B. F., Nelson, E., & Petrillo, K. 2009, ApJS, 181, 572, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/572

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/572 2009

  43. [43]

    W., Hogg, N

    Mahler, G., Nightingale, J. W., Hogg, N. B., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, L8, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf088

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf088 2025

  44. [44]

    C., Trotta , R., Berkes , P., Starkman , G

    Mann, A. W., & Ebeling, H. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2120, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20170.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20170.x 2012

  45. [45]

    2016, A&A, 590, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527513 Nestor Shachar, A., Sternberg, A., Genzel, R., et al

    Merlin, E., Amor´ ın, R., Castellano, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527513 Nestor Shachar, A., Sternberg, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2d0

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527513 2016

  46. [46]

    W., Mahler, G., McCleary, J., et al

    Nightingale, J. W., Mahler, G., McCleary, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1253

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1253 2025

  47. [47]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2011, AJ, 141, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/193

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/193 2011

  48. [48]

    A., Zijlstra, A

    Parker, Q. A., Zijlstra, A. A., Stupar, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1432

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1432 2015

  49. [49]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  50. [50]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14874

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Costantin, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14874

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14874 2025

  51. [51]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689 Planck Collaboratio...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  52. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3214 2023

  53. [53]

    2012, , 199, 25, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    Postman, M., Coe, D., Ben´ ıtez, N., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25 2012

  54. [54]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2360

    Renaud, F., Athanassoula, E., Amram, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2360

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2360 2018

  55. [55]

    D., Massey, R

    Rhodes, J. D., Massey, R. J., Albert, J., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 203, doi: 10.1086/516592

    work page doi:10.1086/516592 2007

  56. [56]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 Rihtarˇ siˇ c, G., Bradaˇ c, M., Desprez, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451117

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 2023

  57. [57]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c 2018

  58. [58]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2 2016

  59. [59]

    Sarrouh, G. T. E., Asada, Y., Martis, N. S., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1611

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1611 2026

  60. [60]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 191, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae002

    Shimakawa, R., Tanaka, M., Ito, K., & Ando, M. 2024, PASJ, 76, 191, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae002

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psae002 2024

  61. [61]

    2025, A&A, 696, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554273

    Shuntov, M., Jin, S., Mercier, W., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554273

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554273 2025

  62. [62]

    V., & Reshetnikov, V

    Smirnov, D. V., & Reshetnikov, V. P. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2549

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2549 2022

  63. [63]

    E., et al

    Smith, D., Haberzettl, L., Porter, L. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2258

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2258 2022

  64. [64]

    Marshall, P. J. 2013, ApJ, 777, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/97 2013

  65. [65]

    L., Jauzac, M., Acebron, A., et al

    Steinhardt, C. L., Jauzac, M., Acebron, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab75ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab75ed 2020

  66. [66]

    Y., Shajib, A

    Tan, C. Y., Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae884

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae884 2024

  67. [67]

    C., & Spiegel, E

    Theys, J. C., & Spiegel, E. A. 1977, ApJ, 212, 616, doi: 10.1086/155084

    work page doi:10.1086/155084 1977

  68. [68]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    work page doi:10.1086/147861 1964

  69. [69]

    A., Cohen, S

    Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., Jansen, R. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca163

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca163 2023

  70. [70]

    Yuan, T., Elagali, A., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 957, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1102-7 14 APPENDIX Here we include a table of threebagpipesmodel results, corresponding to three morphological explanations explored in this work. The top row of Table 1 employs a blind photometric fit to determine whether the redshift of the ring and the ce...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1102-7 2020