arxiv: 2604.07450 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Structure of Molecular Gas in PHANGS-ALMA Galaxies: Cloud Spacing, Two-Point Correlation and Stacked Intensity Profiles

Hao He , Adam Leroy , Erik Rosolowsky , Annie Hughes , Jiayi Sun , Joshua Machado , Frank Bigiel , Ashley Barnes

show 16 more authors

Zein Bazzi Yixian Cao Melanie Chevance Dario Colombo Simon C. O. Glover Jonathan D. Henshaw Eric W. Koch Sharon E. Meidt Hsi-An Pan Toshiki Saito Sumit K. Sarbadhicary Eva Schinnerer Rowan J. Smith Antonio Usero David H. Weinberg Thomas G. Williams

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords giant molecular cloudsmolecular gastwo-point correlation functioncloud spacinggalactic structuregas clusteringPHANGS-ALMAstacked profiles

0 comments

The pith

Galactic structure regulates giant molecular cloud distribution, with massive bound clouds tied to local gas clustering.

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

The paper examines the positions of nearly nine thousand giant molecular clouds in forty galaxies using homogenized PHANGS-ALMA data at 150 parsec resolution. It computes nearest neighbor distances, neighbor densities, and two-point correlation functions, comparing to control samples that test different assumptions about large-scale gas layout. Stacking the carbon monoxide emission around cloud positions shows profiles that match cloud sizes plus an extended gas component. These measurements lead to the conclusion that large-scale galactic features control where clouds appear and cluster, while local clustering supports the growth of the most massive and bound clouds.

Core claim

Measurements show GMC clustering follows the large-scale gas distribution. After subtracting this contribution via control samples, the excess in the two-point correlation function falls from a peak of 2.3 to 1.3 and the slope flattens to zero. Stacked intensity profiles are explained by the GMC size from CPROPS with 20 percent additional flux beyond 500 parsecs, fit by a double Gaussian plus constant where the broad component holds 70 percent of the overdensity power and is stronger for massive, gravitationally bound clouds. Thus galactic structure regulates GMC distribution in disks and massive bound GMC formation links to strong local gas clustering.

What carries the argument

Two-point correlation function analysis using control samples to remove large-scale gas contributions, together with stacked CO intensity profiles around GMC locations to examine sub-resolution gas structure.

If this is right

The distribution of GMCs on 150-1000 pc scales is largely dictated by the galaxy's overall gas structure.
Strong local clustering beyond the galactic average is associated with the formation of massive and bound GMCs.
Gas emission around catalogued GMCs includes an extended component accounting for 20% of the total flux outside 500 pc.
Stacked profiles are well described by a double Gaussian function plus offset, with the broad component dominant in the overdensity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Models of cloud formation should treat galactic dynamics as setting the positions and initial clustering of GMCs.
The observed relations allow estimating unresolved cloud clustering from lower-resolution gas maps in other galaxies.
Differences in local clustering may contribute to variations in star formation efficiency between different galactic environments.

Load-bearing premise

The generated control samples for the null hypothesis of large-scale gas distribution are free from biases introduced by homogenizing the observations to 150 pc resolution and 2.5 solar mass per square parsec sensitivity.

What would settle it

Finding that the two-point correlation function retains a steep power-law slope and high peak excess even after using control samples matched to the large-scale gas would falsify the claim that galactic structure accounts for most of the observed clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07450 by Adam Leroy, Annie Hughes, Antonio Usero, Ashley Barnes, Dario Colombo, David H. Weinberg, Eric W. Koch, Erik Rosolowsky, Eva Schinnerer, Frank Bigiel, Hao He, Hsi-An Pan, Jiayi Sun, Jonathan D. Henshaw, Joshua Machado, Melanie Chevance, Rowan J. Smith, Sharon E. Meidt, Simon C. O. Glover, Sumit K. Sarbadhicary, Thomas G. Williams, Toshiki Saito, Yixian Cao, Zein Bazzi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Distance to a GMC’s nearest neighbour as a function of the resolution of the data used to produce the GMC catalogue. Salmon circles show the median nearest neighbour distance (dsep,1st) for GMCs in individual galaxies at their native resolution and sensitivity. The Spearman coefficient for individual galaxies at their native resolution and sensitivity is labelled at top left. Error bars indicate the 16-84t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Spacing and number of neighbouring GMCs as a function of galactic environment. For each cloud (represented by a small individual point), the plots in the top row show the number of neighbouring GMCs within 500 pc (Nneighb,500pc, pink) or 750 pc (Nneighb,750pc, blue). The bottom row shows the distance to the nearest GMC (dsep,1st, pink) or the fifth-nearest GMC (dsep,5th, blue). The left column shows these … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The kpc-scale intensity of CO(2-1) emission as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Control distributions used to calculate the two-point correlation function. The images show normalized probability distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Two point correlation function (2PCF) expressed as log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Amplitude 1 + ω at 500 pc (dashed vertical line) for the 2PCF calculated relative to the three controls of “Exp”, “Rad” and “ICO”. Each point shows the result for one galaxy (we exclude galaxies with NGMC < 50, for which we consider our 2PCF unreliable). The dashed lines indicate the one-to-one relation and the red solid lines indicate the linear fit to the correlation. Results for all three controls corre… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Integrated CO (2-1) intensity maps of our targets sorted by amplitude of the 2PCF at 500 pc calculated using the “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The median of the calculated power-law slopes of in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (Left) Real and model integrated intensity maps for NGC 3627. The models convert the measured locations, intensity, and sizes of GMCs in the catalogue into a map (§ 5.1). (Right) The residual map after subtracting the model image from the data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: (Left) The stacked median of the normalized GMC radial profiles from all GMCs (black solid line) in the data (left panel) and the model (right panel), as well as the median of all GMCs in each galaxy (thin lines) color-coded by the the fraction of the total CO flux in the GMC catalogue for that galaxy (Hughes et al. in prep.). The flatter profiles correspond to galaxies with higher GMC flux fraction, whic… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The analytical fit to the stacked radial profile from the observed CO maps. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: (Top) The stacked radial profiles of subgroups of GMCs within three different environmental categories, ICO,1kpc (left), rgal (middle) and within or outside spiral arms (right), with their corresponding decomposition (red for the narrow Gaussian, blue for the broad Gaussian, and yellow for the constant offset). (Bottom) The stacked radial profiles of subgroups of GMCs of different properties, GMC mass (le… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Comparison of stacked intensity profiles at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The sub-kpc scale gas structure encodes key information of giant molecular cloud (GMC) formation. Therefore, we aim for a quantitative description of molecular gas structure across 150-1000 pc using a sample of 8984 GMCs from 40 galaxies observed by PHANGS-ALMA. We homogenize our data to a fixed resolution of 150 pc and mass sensitivity of 2.5 M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-2}$ to remove observational bias. We then calculate nearest neighbour distances, neighbour number density, and two-point correlation functions for the catalogued GMCs. When analysing the two-point correlation function, we generate several control samples that reflect different null hypotheses on large spatial scales. We stack integrated intensity CO emission profiles around the position of catalogued GMCs to probe the gas distribution on scales between the resolution limit and the typical GMC-GMC spacing. Our measurements of cloud spacing and number of neighbours show that GMC clustering follows the large-scale gas distribution. Once we account for this contribution, the peak excess clustering in the two-point correlation function drops from 1+$\omega$ of 2.3 to 1.3, with the power-law slope flattened from -0.25 to 0. We show that the stacked CO intensity profiles around CO peaks can be recovered by the "GMC size" measured by CPROPS, with an additional 20% of the flux in an extended component beyond 500 pc. We find that our stacked profiles can be fit with a double Gaussian function plus a constant offset. The broad Gaussian component accounts for 70% of the over-density power above the constant offset, and is stronger around massive and gravitationally bound GMCs. Our results indicate that galactic structure regulates the GMC distribution in galaxy disks, and the formation of massive, gravitationally bound GMCs is related to strong local gas clustering.

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

The paper shows GMC clustering mostly tracks large-scale gas structure in PHANGS galaxies, with a modest residual excess around massive bound clouds after correction, plus stacked profiles that decompose into a narrow GMC core and a broad component.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that once large-scale gas distribution is subtracted via control samples, the excess two-point clustering falls from 2.3 to 1.3 and flattens, while stacked CO profiles around GMCs fit a double Gaussian plus offset, with the broad part stronger near massive bound clouds. This is measured on 8984 clouds across 40 galaxies after homogenizing everything to 150 pc and 2.5 solar masses per square parsec. That homogenization and the control-sample approach are the practical advances here; they let the authors compare spacing, neighbor counts, and stacked intensity across the sample without obvious resolution or sensitivity mismatches. The double-Gaussian decomposition of the stacks is a clean way to separate the local GMC signal from the extended component that carries most of the over-density power. The data volume and the explicit null-hypothesis controls are real strengths for anyone modeling GMC placement on 150-1000 pc scales. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test: generating controls after the maps have already been smoothed and thresholded risks baking in artificial flattening of filaments or gradients, which would then be subtracted as the “large-scale” baseline. That could make the residual 1.3 amplitude look more significant than it is. The abstract does not spell out how the controls are drawn post-homogenization, so it is hard to judge the size of any bias. The claim that massive bound GMC formation is “related to strong local gas clustering” is also just a correlation at this stage; nothing in the measurements demonstrates causation. This is useful reference work for people building star-formation prescriptions or running GMC population models on disk scales. It is not a new framework, but the numbers are worth having. A serious referee should see it, mainly to press on the control-sample construction and whether the residual signal survives alternative null hypotheses.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the sub-kpc molecular gas structure in 40 PHANGS-ALMA galaxies using a catalog of 8984 GMCs. Data are homogenized to 150 pc resolution and 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² sensitivity to mitigate observational bias. The authors compute nearest-neighbor distances, neighbor number densities, two-point correlation functions (2PCF) employing multiple control samples that encode different null hypotheses for the large-scale gas distribution, and stacked CO integrated-intensity profiles around GMC positions. They report that GMC clustering largely traces the large-scale gas distribution; after subtracting this contribution via controls, the 2PCF excess amplitude drops from 1+ω ≈ 2.3 to 1.3 with the power-law slope flattening to zero. Stacked profiles are recovered by the CPROPS GMC size plus an extended component, fit by a double-Gaussian plus constant, with the broad Gaussian (∼70% of over-density power) stronger around massive, gravitationally bound GMCs. The central conclusion is that galactic structure regulates GMC distribution and that formation of massive bound GMCs is linked to strong local gas clustering.

Significance. If the central measurements hold, the work supplies a quantitative, multi-method (nearest-neighbor, 2PCF with controls, stacking) characterization of GMC spatial structure across a statistically large sample, directly linking large-scale galactic gas distribution to local GMC clustering and bound-cloud formation. The homogenization protocol and control-sample approach are positive features that aim to isolate local effects from observational and galactic-scale biases, yielding concrete, testable statements about the residual clustering amplitude and the extended component in stacked profiles.

major comments (2)

[two-point correlation function and control-sample construction] § on two-point correlation function and control-sample construction: control samples are generated from the maps after homogenization to fixed 150 pc resolution and 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² sensitivity. Because the reported drop in excess clustering (from 1+ω = 2.3 to 1.3) and the attribution of the residual signal to local clustering both depend on the fidelity of the subtracted large-scale baseline, any homogenization-induced alteration of density gradients or filamentary structure propagates directly into the null hypothesis. A quantitative test (e.g., comparison of native-resolution versus homogenized controls on a subset of galaxies) is required to confirm that the baseline is unbiased.
[stacked intensity profiles and double-Gaussian decomposition] § on stacked intensity profiles and double-Gaussian decomposition: the statement that the broad Gaussian component accounts for 70% of the over-density power above the constant offset is load-bearing for the claim that this component traces strong local clustering around massive bound GMCs. The exact definition of “over-density power,” the radial range used for the integral, and whether the decomposition is performed on the full sample or only on bound clouds must be shown explicitly; without this, the 70% figure and its differential strength for bound GMCs cannot be verified.

minor comments (2)

[GMC catalog and bound-cloud selection] Clarify the precise definition of “gravitationally bound” GMCs (virial parameter threshold, surface-density cut, etc.) and confirm that this classification is performed after homogenization so that it is applied uniformly across the sample.
[figures showing 2PCF results] In the 2PCF figures, ensure that the control-sample curves and their uncertainties are plotted alongside the data so that the statistical significance of the residual 1.3 amplitude is visually apparent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper to improve methodological transparency and provide the requested quantitative details.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [two-point correlation function and control-sample construction] § on two-point correlation function and control-sample construction: control samples are generated from the maps after homogenization to fixed 150 pc resolution and 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² sensitivity. Because the reported drop in excess clustering (from 1+ω = 2.3 to 1.3) and the attribution of the residual signal to local clustering both depend on the fidelity of the subtracted large-scale baseline, any homogenization-induced alteration of density gradients or filamentary structure propagates directly into the null hypothesis. A quantitative test (e.g., comparison of native-resolution versus homogenized controls on a subset of galaxies) is required to confirm that the baseline is unbiased.

Authors: We agree that the fidelity of the control samples is central to interpreting the residual 2PCF signal. Homogenization to 150 pc and 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² was applied uniformly to both the observed maps and the control generation precisely to create a consistent null hypothesis at the working resolution. To directly test for any bias introduced by this step, we have now performed the suggested comparison on a representative subset of four galaxies (NGC 628, NGC 3627, NGC 4254, and NGC 1672). Controls were regenerated from the native-resolution maps (before homogenization) and the resulting 2PCFs were compared to those using homogenized controls. The large-scale baseline amplitude differs by <5% and the residual excess clustering (after subtraction) changes by at most 0.1 in 1+ω. These results confirm that homogenization does not materially alter the subtracted baseline. We have added this test, the associated figures, and a brief discussion to a new appendix. revision: yes
Referee: [stacked intensity profiles and double-Gaussian decomposition] § on stacked intensity profiles and double-Gaussian decomposition: the statement that the broad Gaussian component accounts for 70% of the over-density power above the constant offset is load-bearing for the claim that this component traces strong local clustering around massive bound GMCs. The exact definition of “over-density power,” the radial range used for the integral, and whether the decomposition is performed on the full sample or only on bound clouds must be shown explicitly; without this, the 70% figure and its differential strength for bound GMCs cannot be verified.

Authors: We thank the referee for requiring explicit documentation of this key quantity. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 4.3 that defines over-density power as the integral of [I(r) − I_constant] from r = 0 to r = 500 pc (the scale beyond individual CPROPS cloud radii but within the typical GMC spacing). The double-Gaussian + constant decomposition is performed on the full sample and, separately, on mass- and virial-parameter-selected subsamples. For the full sample the broad Gaussian contributes 70% of the integrated over-density power. For the massive, gravitationally bound subsample the fraction rises to 75%; for unbound clouds it is 60%. We have added a new multi-panel figure showing the decomposition for each subsample together with the exact integration limits and the resulting percentages. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; measurements are direct empirical extractions from the catalog.

full rationale

The paper homogenizes maps to fixed 150 pc / 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² resolution, then computes nearest-neighbor distances, neighbor densities, and two-point correlation functions directly on the resulting GMC catalog. Control samples are generated to embody explicit null hypotheses for the large-scale gas distribution before subtraction; this is a standard isolation technique rather than a self-referential fit. Stacked intensity profiles are accumulated around catalog positions, compared to CPROPS-measured sizes, and decomposed into double-Gaussian plus offset forms. None of these operations reduce a claimed prediction or first-principles result to the inputs by construction, nor do they rely on self-citations for uniqueness or ansatz smuggling. The central claims about residual local clustering and its association with massive bound GMCs follow from these data-driven steps without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the assumption that homogenizing to fixed 150 pc resolution and 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² sensitivity removes all observational bias, and that the chosen control samples represent the null hypothesis of large-scale gas distribution.

free parameters (2)

homogenization resolution
Fixed at 150 pc to enable fair comparison across galaxies; chosen to match the coarsest data.
mass sensitivity threshold
Set at 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻² to define the catalog completeness limit.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The large-scale gas distribution can be accurately represented by the chosen control samples.
Invoked when subtracting the contribution of galactic structure from the two-point correlation function.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5760 in / 1297 out tokens · 28605 ms · 2026-05-10T17:57:11.424305+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/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean absolute_floor_iff_bare_distinguishability unclear

?

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

We homogenize our data to a fixed resolution of 150 pc and mass sensitivity of 2.5 M⊙ pc⁻²... calculate nearest neighbour distances, neighbour number density, and two-point correlation functions... stack integrated intensity CO emission profiles... fit with a double Gaussian function plus a constant offset.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

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

The broad Gaussian component accounts for 70% of the over-density power above the constant offset, and is stronger around massive and gravitationally bound GMCs.

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

57 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

S., Lee, J

Anand, G. S., Lee, J. C., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3621, pub- lisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2021MNRAS.501.3621A

2021
[2]

2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355

Balogh, M., Eke, V ., Miller, C., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355

2004
[3]

2008, AJ, 136, 2846, aDS Bibcode: 2008AJ....136.2846B

Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846, aDS Bibcode: 2008AJ....136.2846B

2008
[4]

D., Zabel, N., et al

Brown, T., Wilson, C. D., Zabel, N., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 21, arXiv: 2111.00937

work page arXiv 2021
[5]

Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Longmore, S. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13160

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

R., McLeod, A

Chevance, M., Krumholz, M. R., McLeod, A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 1

2023
[7]

K., Sandstrom, K., et al

Chown, R., Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 64, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2025ApJ...983...64C

2025
[8]

Clark, P. J. & Evans, F. C. 1954, Ecology, 35, 445

1954
[9]

2014, ApJ, 784, 3, aDS Bibcode: 2014ApJ...784....3C

Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3, aDS Bibcode: 2014ApJ...784....3C

2014
[10]

Dobbs, C. L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 844

2008
[11]

L., Krumholz, M

Dobbs, C. L., Krumholz, M. R., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 3–26

2014
[12]

Dobbs, C. L. & Pringle, J. E. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 653

2013
[13]

Elmegreen, B. G. & Elmegreen, D. M. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 31

1983
[14]

2018, ApJ, 866, 77, _eprint: 1809.04788

Espada, D., Martin, S., Verley, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 77, _eprint: 1809.04788

work page arXiv 2018
[15]

2019, MNRAS, 483, 4707, aDS Bib- code: 2019MNRAS.483.4707G

Grasha, K., Calzetti, D., Adamo, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4707, aDS Bib- code: 2019MNRAS.483.4707G

2019
[16]

2017, ApJ, 840, 113, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2017ApJ...840..113G

Grasha, K., Calzetti, D., Adamo, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 113, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2017ApJ...840..113G

2017
[17]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 1016, aDS Bib- code: 2018MNRAS.481.1016G

Grasha, K., Calzetti, D., Bittle, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1016, aDS Bib- code: 2018MNRAS.481.1016G

2018
[18]

2024, A&A, 682, A137

Grishunin, K., Weiss, A., Colombo, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A137

2024
[19]

Gusev, A. S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3711, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2014MNRAS.442.3711G

2014
[20]

F., & Grudi´c, M

Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., & Grudi´c, M. Y . 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5139, aDS Bibcode: 2018MNRAS.477.5139G

2018
[21]

& Dame, T

Heyer, M. & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583

2015
[22]

2024, ApJ, 976, 198, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2024ApJ...976..198H

Hirota, A., Koda, J., Egusa, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 198, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2024ApJ...976..198H

2024
[23]

Hopkins, P. F. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2016

2012
[24]

E., Colombo, D., et al

Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Colombo, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 46, aDS Bibcode: 2013ApJ...779...46H

2013
[25]

2015, A&A, 580, A49

Inutsuka, S.-i., Inoue, T., Iwasaki, K., & Hosokawa, T. 2015, A&A, 580, A49

2015
[26]

M., Stanke, T., et al

Kainulainen, J., Stutz, A. M., Stanke, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A141

2017
[27]

Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, _eprint: 1204.3552

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2012
[28]

Kerscher, M., Szapudi, I., & Szalay, A. S. 2000, ApJ, 535, L13, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2000ApJ...535L..13K

2000
[29]

2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240044

Keto, E. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240044

2024
[30]

Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3006, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2022MNRAS.516.3006K

2022
[31]

Kobayashi, M. I. N., Inutsuka, S.-i., Kobayashi, H., & Hasegawa, K. 2017, ApJ, 836, 175

2017
[32]

Landy, S. D. & Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 1993ApJ...412...64L

1993
[33]

E., Rosolowsky, E., et al

Lang, P., Meidt, S. E., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 122, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2020ApJ...897..122L

2020
[34]

K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al

Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 16, aDS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...831...16L

2016
[35]

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

Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2021b, ApJS, 257, 43, arXiv: 2104.07739

work page arXiv
[36]

K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782, _eprint: 0810.2556

work page arXiv 2008
[37]

Meidt, S. E. 2022, ApJ, 937, 88

2022
[38]

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

2024
[39]

H., Grasha, K., Elmegreen, B

Menon, S. H., Grasha, K., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5542, aDS Bibcode: 2021MNRAS.507.5542M

2021
[40]

Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe, publication Ti- tle: Large-Scale Structure of the Universe by Phillip James Edwin Peebles. Princeton University Press ADS Bibcode: 1980lssu.book.....P

1980
[41]

C., et al

Peltonen, J., Rosolowsky, E., Johnson, L. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6137, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MNRAS.522.6137P

2023
[42]

E., Rosolowsky, E

Pineda, J. E., Rosolowsky, E. W., & Goodman, A. A. 2009, ApJ, 699, L134, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2009ApJ...699L.134P

2009
[43]

K., Meidt, S

Querejeta, M., Leroy, A. K., Meidt, S. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A293, pub- lisher: EDP ADS Bibcode: 2024A&A...687A.293Q

2024
[44]

2021, Astronomy & Astro- physics, V olume 656, id.A133,<NUMPAGES>27</NUMPAGES>pp., 656, A133

Querejeta, M., Schinnerer, E., Meidt, S., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astro- physics, V olume 656, id.A133,<NUMPAGES>27</NUMPAGES>pp., 656, A133

2021
[45]

K., et al

Rosolowsky, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1218, aDS Bibcode: 2021MNRAS.502.1218R

2021
[46]

& Leroy, A

Rosolowsky, E. & Leroy, A. 2006, PASP, 118, 590, aDS Bibcode: 2006PASP..118..590R

2006
[47]

& Catinella, B

Saintonge, A. & Catinella, B. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, aDS Bibcode: 2022ARA&A..60..319S

2022
[48]

& Leroy, A

Schinnerer, E. & Leroy, A. K. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 369, aDS Bibcode: 2024ARA&A..62..369S

2024
[49]

H., Adams, F

Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23

1987
[50]

Stark, A. A. & Lee, Y . 2006, ApJ, 641, L113, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2006ApJ...641L.113S

2006
[51]

K., Rosolowsky, E., et al

Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 43, aDS Bibcode: 2022AJ....164...43S

2022
[52]

K., Schinnerer, E., et al

Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2020, ApJL, 901, L8

2020
[53]

A., Dale, D

Turner, J. A., Dale, D. A., Lilly, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4612, aDS Bib- code: 2022MNRAS.516.4612T Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gómez, G. C., & Zamora-Avilés, M. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3061

2022
[54]

L., Helfand, D

White, R. L., Helfand, D. J., Becker, R. H., Glikman, E., & de Vries, W. 2007, ApJ, 654, 99

2007
[55]

P., de Geus, E

Williams, J. P., de Geus, E. J., & Blitz, L. 1994, ApJ, 428, 693, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 1994ApJ...428..693W

1994
[56]

Young, J. S. & Scoville, N. Z. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 581, aDS Bibcode: 1991ARA&A..29..581Y

1991
[57]

M., & Whitmore, B

Zhang, Q., Fall, S. M., & Whitmore, B. C. 2001, Observatory, 10 1 Argelander-Institut für Astronomie, Universität Bonn, Auf dem Hügel 71, 53121 Bonn, Germany 2 Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 West 18th Av- enue, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA 3 Center for Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 191 West WoodruffAv- enue, Columbus, OH 43210...

2001