arxiv: 2604.06305 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Wild is the wind from low-luminosity AGN: a jet-driven gas bubble blowing out a massive CO-dark outflow in ESO 420-G13

J.A. Fern\'andez-Ontiveros , L. Spinoglio , M. Pereira-Santaella , A. Hern\'an-Caballero , E. Hatziminaoglou , E. P\'erez-Montero , J.M. V\'ilchez , B. P\'erez-D\'iaz

show 3 more authors

R. Amor\'in M.A. Malkan K.M. Dasyra

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords low-luminosity AGNjet-driven feedbackmolecular outflowsCO-dark gaspost-starburst galaxyAGN feedbackmid-infrared spectroscopy

0 comments

The pith

A low-luminosity AGN drives a jet that creates an expanding gas bubble and expels a massive CO-dark molecular outflow in ESO 420-G13.

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

The paper studies the nuclear region of post-starburst galaxy ESO 420-G13, which hosts a low-luminosity AGN with only faint radio and X-ray emission around 10 to the 40 erg per second. JWST mid-infrared integral field spectroscopy combined with ALMA CO observations reveals that a previously undetected compact jet interacts with the interstellar medium to produce a fast ionised gas stream, an expanding warm molecular bubble, and massive outflows at the bubble edges. The blueshifted outflow lacks CO emission, likely from shock or cosmic-ray destruction of the molecules, while the total kinetic power of the outflows reaches about 1.5 times 10 to the 41 erg per second. This yields a jet-ISM coupling efficiency of 3.8 percent, comparable to values in brighter AGN, and shows that roughly 5 percent of the central molecular gas has already been expelled.

Core claim

Despite modest radiative output, the AGN in ESO 420-G13 launches a compact jet that bends about 370 pc from the nucleus and drives an expanding molecular bubble traced by enhanced H2 velocity dispersion, with massive molecular outflows emerging at the edges where the gas is CO-dark.

What carries the argument

The compact jet, traced by collimated coronal-line emission and extended X-ray features out to 870 pc, whose interaction with the ISM produces the perpendicular fast ionised stream and the surrounding turbulent warm molecular bubble.

If this is right

Roughly 5 percent of the central molecular reservoir has already been expelled by the jet-driven outflow.
The remaining molecular gas is turbulent and warm, pointing to an ongoing phase of AGN feedback that may suppress further star formation.
The measured jet-ISM coupling efficiency of 3.8 percent lies within the range seen for more luminous AGN.
Mid-infrared integral field spectroscopy can reveal similar hidden kinetic feedback in other low-luminosity AGN where radio and X-ray signatures are faint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This jet-driven mechanism could help quench star formation in other post-starburst galaxies by removing or heating gas without requiring strong radiative output.
CO-dark molecular outflows may be more common in AGN feedback than previously thought, so multi-wavelength tracers beyond CO lines are needed to measure total gas masses.
Undetected low-power jets might account for cases where observed AGN luminosity appears too low to explain the observed impact on host-galaxy gas reservoirs.

Load-bearing premise

The fast ionised gas stream, velocity dispersion enhancements, and CO destruction in the outflow result from physical interaction with the undetected AGN jet rather than residual star formation or unrelated galaxy dynamics.

What would settle it

Deep radio imaging at high resolution showing no compact jet aligned with the coronal lines and X-ray extension, or detailed kinematic models demonstrating that the observed outflow velocities and kinetic energies exceed what the inferred jet power can supply.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06305 by A. Hern\'an-Caballero, B. P\'erez-D\'iaz, E. Hatziminaoglou, E. P\'erez-Montero, J.A. Fern\'andez-Ontiveros, J.M. V\'ilchez, K.M. Dasyra, L. Spinoglio, M.A. Malkan, M. Pereira-Santaella, R. Amor\'in.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Left: JWST/MIRI-MRS spectrum for the nucleus of ESO 420-G13 (black line) extracted from an aperture radius of 0 ′′ . 7, subtracting the host galaxy emission from an annular aperture within 0 ′′ . 8–1 ′′ . 2. The nuclear spectrum is about a factor of 3 fainter when compared with the total flux within the MIRI FoV (dark grey line), which is in excellent agreement with the flux-calibrated Spitzer/IRS spectrum… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (a) ALMA CO(2–1) intensity map compared to JWST/MIRI warm H2 S(5) emission at 6.9 μm (green contours). Note the extended warm H2 emission at ΔDec. > 2 ′′ . 5 to the north (≳ 600 pc), with no CO(2–1) counterpart. (b) CO(2–1) average velocity map compared to the blueshifted (−270 to −120 km s−1 ; blue contours) and redshifted (150 to 300 km s−1 ; red contours) warm H2 S(5) outflows. (c) CO(2–1) average veloc… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The integrated [Ne v]14.3 line emission (black contours), and the fast ionised gas stream in [Ne v]14.3 (−1200 to −500 km s−1 ) (purple contours), are shown over the [S iv]10.5 and H2 S(5) average velocity maps in panels (a) and (b), respectively. Contours of the Chandra/0.5–8 keV emission (in black) and the warm molecular gas outflows detected in H2 S(5) at 6.9 μm (in blue and red) are compared to the ave… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) the background image shows the [Arii]7.0 emission line map, tracing the star-forming regions in the central disc of ESO 420-G13. The contours indicate the outflows detected in the warm H2 S(5) emission at 6.9 μm coloured according to their relative velocity (in blue for −270 < 𝑣 < −120 km s−1 , and red for +150 < 𝑣 < +300 km s−1 ), and the fast ionised gas stream detected in the [Ne v]14.3 emission lin… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Continuum-subtracted rotational H2 transitions from S(8) to S(1) observed by MIRI in regions #1 (blue) and #2 (red). S(2) to S(7) lines in region #1 are blueshifted relative to region #2, with more energetic transitions exhibiting increasingly larger velocity shifts. jet and the approaching south-western disc, while the red half traces the opposite configuration, i.e. the south-western jet and the receding… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Gaussian fit velocity vs. upper state energy (Eu) for warm H2 S(1) to S(8) rotational transitions extracted from different regions in ESO 420- G13 (Fig 4a): active nucleus (black hexagons), warm H2 blueshifted (blue triangles) and redshifted (red crosses) outflows, fast ionised gas stream (purple circles), and star-forming disc (orange stars). 1.5 × 105 M⊙. Region #1, however, shows higher excitation temp… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Position velocity diagrams for the H2 S(5) transition at 6.9 μm (a, c, and d) and the [S iv]10.5 line (b). The pseudo-slits are extracted from the line datacubes along the directions with PA = 2 ◦ and −32◦ .2 (kinematic minor axis), intersecting the blueshifted and redshifted warm molecular gas outflows, respectively, and along PA = 25◦ , dissecting the coronal gas collimated emission. Pfund-α contours are… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present JWST/MIRI mid-infrared integral field spectroscopy combined with ALMA CO(2-1) observations of the post-starburst galaxy ESO 420-G13, hosting a low-luminosity AGN. The unprecedented spatial and spectral resolution of MIRI enables a detailed study of the molecular and ionised gas kinematics, excitation, and energetics in the nuclear kiloparsec, revealing the impact of AGN feedback in a system with modest radiative output. Despite its faint radio and X-ray emission ($L_{2-10keV} \sim 10^{40}$ erg/s), ESO 420-G13 exhibits powerful kinetic feedback in the form of massive molecular and ionised gas outflows, with a total kinetic power of $\sim 1.5 \times 10^{41}$ erg/s. This corresponds to a jet-ISM coupling efficiency of ~3.8%, within the range observed in more powerful AGN. The feedback is driven by a previously undetected compact jet, traced by collimated coronal-line and extended X-ray emission to >870 pc from the nucleus. The interaction is strongest ~370 pc north of the nucleus, where a fast ionised gas stream emerges perpendicular to the jet axis, coinciding with a bend in the jet direction. Enhanced velocity dispersion in warm H2 surrounds this gas stream, consistent with an expanding molecular bubble. Massive molecular outflows are detected at its edges; the blueshifted outflow is devoid of CO emission, likely due to CO destruction in shocks or by cosmic rays from the jet-ISM interaction. About 5% of the central molecular reservoir has already been expelled, and the remaining gas is turbulent and warm, suggesting an ongoing phase of AGN-driven feedback in this post-starburst galaxy. Our results highlight the enormous potential of mid-IR imaging spectroscopy to uncover jet-driven feedback in low-luminosity AGN. Without the spatially resolved MIRI diagnostics, the kinetic power of the AGN in ESO 420-G13 and its role in shaping the host galaxy ISM would have remained hidden.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

JWST/MIRI plus ALMA data show a low-luminosity AGN driving a jet, molecular bubble, and CO-dark outflow with kinetic power several times its radiative output, but the jet attribution rests mainly on spatial coincidence.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper uses new JWST/MIRI integral-field spectroscopy to map coronal lines, warm H2, and ionised gas in ESO 420-G13 and finds a previously undetected compact jet driving an expanding bubble and massive outflows, including a CO-dark blueshifted component. The claimed kinetic power reaches 1.5e41 erg/s for a radiative luminosity around 4e40 erg/s, giving a coupling efficiency of 3.8% that sits in the range seen for brighter AGN. They also report that 5% of the central molecular gas has already been expelled and the rest is turbulent and warm. The spatial resolution pins the strongest interaction to a spot 370 pc north where the jet bends and a fast ionised stream emerges perpendicular to it, with enhanced H2 dispersion around the bubble edges. This combination of MIRI kinematics with ALMA CO is what makes the result new; earlier data missed the jet and the CO-dark outflow in this post-starburst system. The multi-wavelength tie-in between extended X-rays, coronal lines, and the gas structures is a clear strength and shows what mid-IR IFS can do for faint AGN. The soft spot is the causal link to the jet. The argument uses morphological alignment, the perpendicular stream, and the absence of CO to infer shocks or cosmic-ray destruction, but it does not include a quantitative energy-budget test or kinematic model that rules out residual star formation or other dynamical effects in this post-starburst galaxy. The outflow mass and energy numbers will also need close checking on geometry, excitation, and filling-factor assumptions. Readers working on low-luminosity AGN feedback or JWST applications to nearby galaxies will get concrete maps and numbers from this. It deserves peer review because the observations are fresh and the implications for simulations are direct, even if the driving mechanism needs tighter support.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST/MIRI mid-infrared integral-field spectroscopy combined with ALMA CO(2-1) observations of the post-starburst galaxy ESO 420-G13, which hosts a low-luminosity AGN (L_{2-10 keV} ~ 10^{40} erg/s). It claims that a previously undetected compact jet drives powerful kinetic feedback, producing massive molecular and ionized gas outflows with a total kinetic power of ~1.5 × 10^{41} erg/s. This implies a jet-ISM coupling efficiency of ~3.8%. The jet is traced by collimated coronal-line and extended X-ray emission; the strongest interaction occurs ~370 pc north of the nucleus, where a fast ionized gas stream emerges perpendicular to the jet axis at a bend, surrounded by enhanced warm-H2 velocity dispersion consistent with an expanding molecular bubble. The blueshifted molecular outflow is CO-dark, attributed to shock or cosmic-ray destruction of CO, with ~5% of the central molecular reservoir already expelled.

Significance. If the jet-driven interpretation is confirmed, the result demonstrates that low-luminosity AGN can deliver significant kinetic feedback to the ISM, with coupling efficiencies comparable to those in more luminous systems. The work illustrates the diagnostic power of spatially resolved mid-IR spectroscopy for uncovering hidden AGN-driven outflows in post-starburst galaxies where radiative signatures are faint.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and the section describing the jet-ISM interaction] The central claim that the fast ionized stream, enhanced H2 velocity dispersion, and CO-dark blueshifted outflow are physically driven by the compact jet (rather than residual star formation or stellar winds) rests on morphological coincidence (spatial alignment at ~370 pc north, perpendicular emergence, and jet bend) and qualitative descriptors such as 'consistent with' and 'likely due to'. No quantitative test (energy-budget comparison, kinematic modeling, or exclusion of alternative power sources) is presented to rule out other processes in this post-starburst system. This directly affects the derived kinetic power and 3.8% coupling efficiency.
[Abstract (energetics paragraph)] The total kinetic power (~1.5 × 10^{41} erg/s) and coupling efficiency are calculated assuming all observed outflow components are powered by the jet. Without an explicit decomposition of possible contributions from star-formation-driven winds or dynamical effects, the efficiency value and the conclusion that the feedback is 'jet-driven' remain provisional.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that 'about 5% of the central molecular reservoir has already been expelled' but does not quote the total molecular mass or the method used to derive the fraction.
[Throughout] Notation for luminosities and efficiencies is clear, but the manuscript would benefit from an explicit table summarizing the derived masses, velocities, and kinetic powers for each outflow component.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our analysis while incorporating revisions where the comments identify genuine gaps in the original presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and the section describing the jet-ISM interaction] The central claim that the fast ionized stream, enhanced H2 velocity dispersion, and CO-dark blueshifted outflow are physically driven by the compact jet (rather than residual star formation or stellar winds) rests on morphological coincidence (spatial alignment at ~370 pc north, perpendicular emergence, and jet bend) and qualitative descriptors such as 'consistent with' and 'likely due to'. No quantitative test (energy-budget comparison, kinematic modeling, or exclusion of alternative power sources) is presented to rule out other processes in this post-starburst system. This directly affects the derived kinetic power and 3.8% coupling efficiency.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript relied primarily on spatial and kinematic alignments together with multi-wavelength tracers of the jet. To address this, the revised version now includes a quantitative energy-budget comparison in the discussion section. Using the observed X-ray luminosity and radio properties, we estimate the jet kinetic power and show it is sufficient to drive the observed outflow energetics. We also calculate an upper limit on the power available from stellar winds given the low post-starburst SFR, demonstrating that stellar processes fall short by more than an order of magnitude. Alternative explanations such as residual star formation are further disfavored by the collimated morphology and the presence of coronal-line and X-ray jet tracers. Full kinematic modeling of the bubble expansion is noted as desirable but requires data beyond the current resolution and sensitivity; we have added this caveat explicitly. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract (energetics paragraph)] The total kinetic power (~1.5 × 10^{41} erg/s) and coupling efficiency are calculated assuming all observed outflow components are powered by the jet. Without an explicit decomposition of possible contributions from star-formation-driven winds or dynamical effects, the efficiency value and the conclusion that the feedback is 'jet-driven' remain provisional.

Authors: We agree that an explicit decomposition strengthens the claim. The revised manuscript now provides an upper-bound estimate of the star-formation-driven wind contribution using the measured SFR and standard mass-loading factors appropriate for post-starburst systems; this contribution is <10% of the total kinetic power. Dynamical effects (e.g., tidal or bar-driven motions) are discussed and shown to be inconsistent with the observed velocity gradients, the perpendicular emergence at the jet bend, and the spatial coincidence with jet tracers. We have updated the abstract, energetics section, and conclusions to state these assumptions and limits clearly while retaining the jet-driven interpretation supported by the combined morphological, excitation, and energetic evidence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational derivation from direct measurements

full rationale

The paper is an observational study using JWST/MIRI IFS and ALMA CO(2-1) data to measure line fluxes, velocities, spatial alignments, and gas masses in ESO 420-G13. Kinetic power (~1.5e41 erg/s) and coupling efficiency (~3.8%) follow from standard outflow-rate formulas applied to observed quantities (e.g., H2 and ionized-gas luminosities, velocity dispersions, and extents). No equations reduce to fitted inputs by construction, no self-citations bear the central claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is invoked. The interpretation of jet driving rests on morphological coincidence but is not a mathematical derivation; alternatives are not quantitatively excluded, yet this is a correctness issue, not circularity. The chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The reported kinetic power and coupling efficiency rest on standard astrophysical conversions from observed line luminosities and velocities to gas masses and energies; these conversions involve assumptions about gas density, excitation temperature, and geometry that are not independently verified in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5766 in / 1375 out tokens · 58346 ms · 2026-05-10T19:44:28.064873+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

total kinetic power of ~1.5 × 10^41 erg/s ... jet-ISM coupling efficiency of ~3.8%
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

collimated coronal-line and extended X-ray emission ... fast ionised gas stream ... expanding molecular bubble

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

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages

[1]

2012, A&A, 546, A68

Aalto, S., Muller, S., Sakamoto, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A68

work page 2012
[2]

N., Lisenfeld, U., et al

Alatalo, K., Appleton, P. N., Lisenfeld, U., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 117

work page 2015
[3]

M., et al

Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., Young, L. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 88

work page 2011
[4]

Andrews, B. H. & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140

work page 2013
[5]

2020, A&A, 641, A150

Argyriou, I., Wells, M., Glasse, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A150

work page 2020
[6]

M., & Grevesse, N

Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

work page 2021
[7]

2019, A&A, 632, A33

Audibert, A., Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A33

work page 2019
[8]

Baldi, R. D. 2023, A&A Rev., 31, 3

work page 2023
[9]

H., Hearin, A

Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

work page 2019
[10]

K., Annis, J., et al

Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Annis, J., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1866

work page 2003
[11]

Bi, S., Feng, H., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ApJ, 900, 124 Bianchi,S.,Chiaberge,M.,Piconcelli,E.,&Guainazzi,M.2007,MNRAS,374, 697

work page 2020
[12]

V., Dopita, M

Bicknell, G. V., Dopita, M. A., Tsvetanov, Z. I., & Sutherland, R. S. 1998, ApJ, 495, 680

work page 1998
[13]

A., & Tuohy, I

Binette, L., Dopita, M. A., & Tuohy, I. R. 1985, ApJ, 297, 476

work page 1985
[14]

G., van Dishoeck, E

Bisbas, T. G., van Dishoeck, E. F., Papadopoulos, P. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 90

work page 2017
[15]

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

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

work page 2013
[16]

2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0

Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0

work page 2024
[17]

G., Hollenbach, D

Burton, M. G., Hollenbach, D. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. 1992, ApJ, 399, 563

work page 1992
[18]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08077

Ceci, M., Marconcini, C., Marconi, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08077

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

2023, Rev

Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 59, 327

work page 2023
[20]

2013, A&A, 558, A124

Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., Casasola, V., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A124

work page 2013
[21]

J., Cotton, W

Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Jarrett, T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 35

work page 2021
[22]

2015, ApJ, 799, 82

Cresci, G., Mainieri, V., Brusa, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 82

work page 2015
[23]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11328

Crouzet, N., Mueller, M., Sargent, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11328

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

M., Bostrom, A

Dasyra, K. M., Bostrom, A. C., Combes, F., & Vlahakis, N. 2015, ApJ, 815, 34

work page 2015
[25]

M., Combes, F., Oosterloo, T., et al

Dasyra, K. M., Combes, F., Oosterloo, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, L7

work page 2016
[26]

M., Paraschos, G

Dasyra, K. M., Paraschos, G. F., Combes, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03218 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

2017, ApJ, 842, L4

Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., Paggi, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, L4

work page 2017
[28]

2022, ApJ, 938, 105

Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., Morganti, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 105

work page 2022
[29]

Faber, S. M. & Jackson, R. E. 1976, ApJ, 204, 668

work page 1976
[30]

Fabian, A. C. 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39

work page 1999
[31]

Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

work page 2012
[32]

P., Belloni, T

Fender, R. P., Belloni, T. M., & Gallo, E. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105 Fernández-Ontiveros,J.A.,Dasyra,K.M.,Hatziminaoglou,E.,etal.2020,A&A, 633, A127

work page 2004
[33]

& Merritt, D

Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

work page 2000
[34]

2020, ApJ, 890, 29

Feruglio, C., Fabbiano, G., Bischetti, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 29

work page 2020
[35]

2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

work page 2019
[36]

French, K. D. 2021, PASP, 133, 072001

work page 2021
[37]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16977

Goold, K., Seth, A., Molina, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16977

work page arXiv 2026
[38]

2024, ApJ, 966, 204

Goold, K., Seth, A., Molina, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 204

work page 2024
[39]

2005, MNRAS, 357, 937

Goto, T. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 937

work page 2005
[40]

M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198

work page 2018
[41]

Heckman, T. M. & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589

work page 2014
[42]

Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475

work page 2008
[43]

Ho, L. C. & Keto, E. 2007, ApJ, 658, 314

work page 2007
[44]

N., & Morganti, R

Holt, J., Tadhunter, C. N., & Morganti, R. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 639

work page 2008
[45]

2022, A&A, 659, A124

Husemann, B., Singha, M., Scharwächter, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A124

work page 2022
[46]

Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

work page 2013
[47]

A., Dasyra, K

Koutsoumpou, E., Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., Dasyra, K. M., & Spinoglio, L. 2025, A&A, 704, A26

work page 2025
[48]

& Morganti, R

Kukreti, P. & Morganti, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06265

work page arXiv 2024
[49]

2021, A&A, 656, A57

Labiano, A., Argyriou, I., Álvarez-Márquez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A57

work page 2021
[50]

R., Argyriou, I., Gordon, K

Law, D. R., Argyriou, I., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 67

work page 2025
[51]

J., Goes, C., et al

Lebouteiller, V., Barry, D. J., Goes, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 21

work page 2015
[52]

J., Spoon, H

Lebouteiller, V., Barry, D. J., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 8 5 http://www.astropy.org

work page 2011
[53]

D., Alexander, D

Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 559

work page 2010
[54]

F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S

Lequeux, J., Peimbert, M., Rayo, J. F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, A&A, 80, 155 López, I. E., Bertola, E., Reynaldi, V., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A88

work page 1979
[55]

Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42

work page 2015
[56]

2020, A&A, 633, A134

Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A134

work page 2020
[57]

1998, AJ, 115, 2285

Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

work page 1998
[58]

Mathews, W. G. & Ferland, G. J. 1987, ApJ, 323, 456

work page 1987
[59]

A., et al

May, D., Rodríguez-Ardila, A., Prieto, M. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L105

work page 2018
[60]

S., Schombert, J

McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Bothun, G. D., & de Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJ, 533, L99

work page 2000
[61]

A., Fernández-Ontiveros, J

Mezcua, M., Prieto, M. A., Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4128

work page 2015
[62]

Mordini, S., Spinoglio, L., & Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A. 2021, A&A, 653, A36 Mukherjee,D.,Bicknell,G.V.,Wagner,A.Y.,Sutherland,R.S.,&Silk,J.2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544

work page 2021
[63]

M., Falcke, H., & Wilson, A

Nagar, N. M., Falcke, H., & Wilson, A. S. 2005, A&A, 435, 521

work page 2005
[64]

Narayan, R. & Yi, I. 1994, ApJ, 428, L13

work page 1994
[65]

Neufeld, D. A. & Dalgarno, A. 1989, ApJ, 340, 869

work page 1989
[66]

2015, MNRAS, 447, 3612

Nims, J., Quataert, E., & Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3612

work page 2015
[67]

2010, ApJ, 724, 1193

Ogle, P., Boulanger, F., Guillard, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1193

work page 2010
[68]

M., Lanz, L., & Appleton, P

Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., & Appleton, P. N. 2014, ApJ, 788, L33

work page 2014
[69]

M., López, I

Ogle, P. M., López, I. E., Reynaldi, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 196

work page 2024
[70]

Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

work page 2006
[71]

P., Bisbas, T

Papadopoulos, P. P., Bisbas, T. G., & Zhang, Z.-Y. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1716

work page 2018
[72]

R., et al

Patapis, P., Argyriou, I., Law, D. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A53 Pereira-Santaella,M.,Álvarez-Márquez,J.,García-Bernete,I.,etal.2022,A&A, 665, L11 Poggianti,B.M.,Aragón-Salamanca,A.,Zaritsky,D.,etal.2009,ApJ,693,112

work page 2024
[73]

H., Wright, G

Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., Böker, T., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 584

work page 2015
[74]

Rigopoulou, D., Kunze, D., Lutz, D., Genzel, R., & Moorwood, A. F. M. 2002, A&A, 389, 374 Rodríguez-Ardila, A., Prieto, M. A., Mazzalay, X., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2845 RodríguezZaurín,J.,Tadhunter,C.N.,Rose,M.,&Holt,J.2013,MNRAS,432, 138

work page 2002
[75]

2019, A&A, 630, A58

Roueff, E., Abgrall, H., Czachorowski, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A58

work page 2019
[76]

A., & Spinoglio, L

Rush, B., Malkan, M. A., & Spinoglio, L. 1993, ApJS, 89, 1 Scharré, L., Sorini, D., & Davé, R. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 361

work page 1993
[77]

M., Simmons, B

Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889

work page 2014
[78]

A., Bower, R

Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

work page 2015
[79]

G., Hollenbach, D

Sheffer, Y., Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D. J., Kaufman, M. J., & Cordier, M. 2011, ApJ, 741, 45 Silk,J.&Mamon,G.A.2012,ResearchinAstronomyandAstrophysics,12,917

work page 2011
[80]

& Rees, M

Silk, J. & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1

work page 1998

Showing first 80 references.