pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14546 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

The GECKOS survey: Resolving the molecular and ionised gas in the galactic outflow of ESO~484-036

J. Hern\'andez-Y\'evenes , D. B. Fisher , B. Mazzilli Ciraulo , R. L. Davies , M. Martig , A. Fraser-McKelvie , J. van de Sande , M. R. Hayden
show 15 more authors
R. Elliot E. Emsellem F. Combes A. D. Bolatto J. Bland-Hawthorn L. Cortese T. A. Davis B. Catinella L. M. Valenzuela S. M. Croom S. A. Fortun\'e L. A. Silva-Lima C. L\'opez-Cob\'a A. Mailvaganam G. van de Ven
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic outflowsstarburst galaxiesmolecular gasionised gasmass loading factorsmultiphase outflowsESO 484-036
0
0 comments X

The pith

Molecular gas carries most of the outflow mass in ESO 484-036 and produces a 3.5 dex mismatch with cosmological simulations.

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

The paper combines MUSE and ALMA data to map both the ionised and molecular phases of the outflow in an edge-on starburst galaxy. It shows molecular gas surrounding the ionised component, extending to 2.5 kpc, and dominating the mass budget except near the nucleus. Mass outflow rates are higher in the cold phase, yielding molecular loading factors of 1.5-6.2 while ionised factors stay below 0.6. These values shift literature relations by 1 dex and open a large gap with simulations, implying models miss substantial cold-gas production and short-range recycling.

Core claim

Spatially resolved observations reveal a conical multiphase outflow in which molecular gas is detected up to 2.5 kpc from the disc, encloses the ionised component, and supplies the dominant mass outflow rate of 13-54 solar masses per year. Both phases show deprojected velocities below 400 km/s consistent with ballistic motion and possible fallback. The resulting molecular mass-loading factor range of 1.5-6.2, when placed in a literature sample, produces a 3.5 dex discrepancy with cosmological simulations in the ratio of molecular to ionised loading factors.

What carries the argument

Combined deprojected mass outflow rates and loading factors derived from conical-geometry assumptions applied to MUSE H-alpha and ALMA CO(1-0) maps.

If this is right

  • The outflow remains starburst-driven because energy loading stays below 0.16 and momentum loading below 1.
  • Despite a short depletion time of 16-48 Myr, the outflow may regulate rather than permanently remove the gas reservoir because of possible fallback.
  • Adding the molecular phase shifts observed mass-loading relations upward by roughly 1 dex compared with ionised-gas-only samples.
  • Cosmological simulations underpredict the cold-gas component and the importance of short-range recycling flows in starburst galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the high molecular loading is common, starburst galaxies may retain more gas for future star formation than current models allow.
  • Observations of additional edge-on starbursts at similar resolution could test whether the 3.5 dex gap is universal or specific to this object.
  • Improved sub-grid recipes for molecular formation and cooling in outflows would be needed to close the gap with these data.

Load-bearing premise

The outflow geometry is conical and velocities can be accurately deprojected while standard CO-to-H2 and H-alpha conversion factors apply without large systematic errors.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing the molecular mass outflow rate is at least 30 times lower than reported, or a non-conical geometry that reduces deprojected velocities enough to lower loading factors into the simulation range, would eliminate the claimed discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14546 by A. D. Bolatto, A. Fraser-McKelvie, A. Mailvaganam, B. Catinella, B. Mazzilli Ciraulo, C. L\'opez-Cob\'a, D. B. Fisher, E. Emsellem, F. Combes, G. van de Ven, J. Bland-Hawthorn, J. Hern\'andez-Y\'evenes, J. van de Sande, L. A. Silva-Lima, L. Cortese, L. M. Valenzuela, M. Martig, M. R. Hayden, R. Elliot, R. L. Davies, S. A. Fortun\'e, S. M. Croom, T. A. Davis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ESO 484-036 starlight image showcasing the multiphase outflow structure. All panels show starlight in log scale. Top Left: 55′′ × 55′′ JWST F200W image with a different stretch to show the complete extent of the starlight disc. Half-light radius (𝑅𝑒 = 4.2 kpc) is shown in white. Outflow (red/blue) and disc (magenta) regions are presented. Remaining three panels focus on the central region showed in the gre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Vertical, normalized intensity profiles for CO (blue), H𝛼 (red), and starlight (F430M, magenta). The CO and H𝛼 profiles differ clearly from that of the starlight, consistent with extraplanar emission. Grey band is the disc region. Spatial resolutions of ALMA (1.16′′ ∼ 390 pc) and MUSE (0.8 ′′ ∼ 270 pc) are showed as black bars for comparison. 2.4 JWST NIRCam F150W, F200W and F430M Infrared imaging observat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: H𝛼 flux and kinematics maps of ESO 484-036 created from the VLT/MUSE data using a S/N = 5 threshold. Top: Flux map displays a prominent biconical extraplanar emission extending more than∼ 3 kpc to each side. A starlight (F200W) contour is overlaid. Middle: Line-of-sight velocity (𝜐LOS) map indicates that the extraplanar emission preserves a component of the underlying disc rotation. Offsets from the midpla… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Horizontal, normalised profiles for CO (blue) and H𝛼 (red) maps for the south outflow at different heights; 𝑧 = 0.5 − 1 kpc (bottom) and 𝑧 = 1 − 2 kpc (top). Near the disc midplane (𝑧 < 1 kpc), the ionised gas peaks centrally where the molecular emission shows a local minimum, consistent with an ionised core surrounded by a molecular sheath. At larger heights (𝑧 > 1 kpc), both profiles broaden, reflecting … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Outflow geometry determined using the method from McPher￾son et al. (2023), overlaid on a rotated H𝛼 flux map. Using the minor-axis as a centre, the outflow region is determined by 50% (𝑤50, black dashed line) and 80% (𝑤80, black solid line) widths of the flux. Bottom: Half-aperture angle (𝜃) calculated for this geometry against distance from midplane. 𝜃 is in the range of 22◦ − 40◦ , represented by t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Outflow geometry derived from the H𝛼 flux map ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Velocity profiles for the molecular (blue) and ionised (red) phases of the outflow in ESO 484-036. These are calculated by subtracting the rotation of the disc to the 𝜐LOS maps, excluding the centre region near the rotation axis, taking the median of the velocity offsets and then deprojecting it. Median velocity profiles are deprojected using 𝜃 = 30◦ . To show the complete range of probable velocities, 16t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass outflow rate (𝑀¤ ) profiles for ESO 484-036 for each phase. Coloured shaded regions represent the effect of varying the half-opening angle (𝜃) between 22◦ − 40◦ . Horizontal green line represents the SFR = 8.7 M⊙ yr−1 . Grey band is the disc region. For comparison, we plot 𝑀¤ profiles from M82 based on CO (Leroy et al. 2015) and H𝛼 (Xu et al. 2023) in dotted lines. The latter is mirrored, due to it be… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy flux (top) and momentum flux (bottom) profiles for ESO 484-036 for each phase. Coloured shaded regions represent the ef￾fect of varying the half-opening angle (𝜃) between 22◦ − 40◦ . Horizontal green line represents the energy and momentum generated from SF. Grey band is the disc region. Combined energy loading factor of both phases is high (𝜂𝐸 ≲ 0.2) but consistent with a starburst-driven wind wit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: Mass loading factor (𝜂𝑀) against stellar mass (𝑀∗) for ESO 484-036 and a sample of galaxies in the Local Universe available in the literature. Empty symbols show single-phase (ionised or neutral atomic) measurements, while filled symbols denote multiphase (ionised and molec￾ular gas) measurements. Vertical grey lines strictly connect measurements between single-phase ionised gas to multiphase measure… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a spatially resolved, multiphase study of the outflow in the edge-on starburst galaxy ESO~484-036 from the GECKOS survey, combining VLT/MUSE H$\alpha$ and ALMA CO(1$-$0) observations to analyse the atomic ionised and cold molecular gas. Both show extraplanar emission consistent with a conical outflow. Ionised gas is enclosed by molecular gas, which is detected up to 2.5 kpc from the disc. Molecular gas dominates near the disc, except at the nuclear base, while ionised gas extends beyond 3 kpc. The deprojected outflow velocities are $\lesssim400\ \rm km\ s^{-1}$ in both phases and are consistent with ballistic motion, with some gas possibly falling back onto the disc. We find that the mass outflow rates are in the range of $\dot M_{\rm ion}\sim1-5\ \rm M_\odot\ \rm yr^{-1}$ and $\dot M_{\rm mol}\sim13-54\ \rm M_\odot\ \rm yr^{-1}$, giving mass loading factors of $\eta_{M\rm, ion}\sim 0.1-0.6$ and $\eta_{M\rm, mol}\sim 1.5-6.2$. These ranges reflect velocity and geometric uncertainties. Despite the short depletion time ($\tau_{\rm dep} = 16-48\rm\ Myr$), the outflow may regulate rather than permanently quench the gas reservoir. Energy loading ($\eta_E\leq0.16$) and momentum loading ($\eta_p\lesssim1$) support a purely starburst-driven outflow. Comparing ESO~484-036 with a literature sample, we find a systematic 1~dex shift in mass-loading relations when molecular gas is included. This produces a $\sim3.5$~dex discrepancy with cosmological simulations in $\eta_{M\rm, mol}/\eta_{M\rm, ion}$, implying that current models strongly underpredict cold gas production and the role of short-range recycling flows in starburst galaxies.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents spatially resolved VLT/MUSE Hα and ALMA CO(1-0) observations of the multiphase outflow in the edge-on starburst galaxy ESO 484-036. Both phases exhibit extraplanar emission consistent with a conical outflow, with molecular gas detected to 2.5 kpc and dominating the mass budget near the disc. Deprojected velocities are ≲400 km s⁻¹ in both phases and consistent with ballistic motion. Mass outflow rates are reported as Ṁ_ion ∼1–5 M⊙ yr⁻¹ and Ṁ_mol ∼13–54 M⊙ yr⁻¹, yielding mass-loading factors η_M,ion ∼0.1–0.6 and η_M,mol ∼1.5–6.2 (ranges reflect velocity and geometric uncertainties). The work finds a systematic 1 dex shift in mass-loading relations when molecular gas is included and a ∼3.5 dex discrepancy with cosmological simulations in η_M,mol/η_M,ion, implying models underpredict cold-gas production and short-range recycling.

Significance. If the quantitative discrepancy holds after robustness checks, the result would provide a valuable observational benchmark for multiphase feedback in starbursts, highlighting deficiencies in how cosmological simulations treat cold-gas entrainment and recycling. The paper earns credit for delivering resolved multiphase data, reporting explicit ranges for velocity/geometry uncertainties, and placing the target in a literature sample; these elements make the constraints falsifiable and useful for model calibration.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (mass-outflow-rate derivation): The headline ∼3.5 dex discrepancy in η_M,mol/η_M,ion rests on Ṁ_mol and Ṁ_ion obtained with fixed Galactic X_CO and standard Hα-to-ionised-mass conversion factors. The manuscript reports ranges only for velocity and geometry but does not propagate plausible variations in these conversion factors (literature scatter for outflows easily reaches a factor of ∼3). Such a shift would move the ratio by ∼0.5 dex and, combined with geometry uncertainty, could erase most of the reported discrepancy with simulations. A dedicated sensitivity table or Monte-Carlo run varying X_CO and the Hα factor within documented ranges is required to substantiate the central claim.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (kinematics and geometry): The deprojected velocities (≲400 km s⁻¹) and area corrections assume a single conical geometry whose opening angle is treated as a free parameter. While the data are stated to be consistent with this model, no quantitative exploration of alternative geometries (e.g., biconical with different opening angles or non-axisymmetric flows) is presented. Because the mass-loading factors scale directly with the deprojected velocity and area, this assumption is load-bearing for the discrepancy result and should be tested explicitly.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the sentence stating that the ranges 'reflect velocity and geometric uncertainties' should be expanded by one clause to note that conversion factors are held at standard values.
  2. [§5] Figure captions and §5 (literature comparison): ensure that the plotted mass-loading relations are labelled to distinguish purely ionised versus molecular-inclusive points so readers can immediately see the 1 dex shift.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (mass-outflow-rate derivation): The headline ∼3.5 dex discrepancy in η_M,mol/η_M,ion rests on Ṁ_mol and Ṁ_ion obtained with fixed Galactic X_CO and standard Hα-to-ionised-mass conversion factors. The manuscript reports ranges only for velocity and geometry but does not propagate plausible variations in these conversion factors (literature scatter for outflows easily reaches a factor of ∼3). Such a shift would move the ratio by ∼0.5 dex and, combined with geometry uncertainty, could erase most of the reported discrepancy with simulations. A dedicated sensitivity table or Monte-Carlo run varying X_CO and the Hα factor within documented ranges is required to substantiate the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that propagating uncertainties from the conversion factors is essential to substantiate the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated sensitivity analysis in §4, varying X_CO by a factor of ∼3 (consistent with literature values for starburst outflows) and the Hα-to-ionised-mass conversion factor across documented ranges for outflows. Results will be presented in a new table that shows the resulting ranges for Ṁ_mol, Ṁ_ion, the mass-loading factors, and the ratio η_M,mol/η_M,ion. This will quantify how these uncertainties affect the reported discrepancy with cosmological simulations while retaining our existing velocity and geometric ranges. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (kinematics and geometry): The deprojected velocities (≲400 km s⁻¹) and area corrections assume a single conical geometry whose opening angle is treated as a free parameter. While the data are stated to be consistent with this model, no quantitative exploration of alternative geometries (e.g., biconical with different opening angles or non-axisymmetric flows) is presented. Because the mass-loading factors scale directly with the deprojected velocity and area, this assumption is load-bearing for the discrepancy result and should be tested explicitly.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. Although the data are consistent with a conical geometry, we will expand §3.1 in the revised manuscript to include a quantitative exploration of alternative geometries. This will encompass biconical models with a range of opening angles and considerations for non-axisymmetric or clumpy flows. For each case we will recompute the deprojected velocities and mass outflow rates, and we will discuss the resulting impact on the mass-loading factors and the simulation comparison. Additional text and/or figures will illustrate the variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; all quantities derived from independent observations

full rationale

The paper computes mass outflow rates and loading factors directly from VLT/MUSE Hα and ALMA CO(1-0) data using standard conversion factors and a conical outflow geometry. The 3.5 dex discrepancy is obtained by comparing these observationally derived η_M,mol/η_M,ion values against external cosmological simulation results. No derivation step reduces a reported quantity to a parameter fitted from the same dataset, no load-bearing premise rests on self-citation chains, and no ansatz or uniqueness claim is smuggled in via prior author work. The reported ranges explicitly incorporate velocity and geometric uncertainties, keeping the central comparison self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Claims rest on standard domain assumptions for interpreting extraplanar emission and converting luminosities to masses, plus geometric and kinematic simplifications whose uncertainties are folded into the reported ranges.

free parameters (2)
  • outflow opening angle
    Assumed conical geometry used to deproject velocities and compute mass rates; range in results reflects uncertainty in this parameter.
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor
    Standard Milky Way value adopted to turn CO luminosity into molecular mass; directly scales the dominant molecular outflow rate.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Extraplanar emission traces a conical outflow
    Invoked to interpret both phases as outflow rather than other structures.
  • domain assumption Gas follows ballistic trajectories
    Used to interpret velocity field and possible fallback.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5851 in / 1358 out tokens · 45140 ms · 2026-05-10T11:05:59.351645+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen M. G., Groves B. A., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Kewley L. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178...20A 178, 20

    work page doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  3. [3]

    Attwater A., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2c51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...996L..40A 996, L40

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2c51 2026

  4. [4]

    Barcos-Mu \ n oz L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853L..28B 853, L28

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28d 2018

  5. [5]

    Bittner A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A.117B 628, A117

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935829 2019

  6. [6]

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..529B 54, 529

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  7. [7]

    and Wolfire, Mark and Leroy, Adam K

    Bolatto A. D., Wolfire M., Leroy A. K., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..207B 51, 207

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

  8. [8]

    D., Warren, S

    Bolatto A. D., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.499..450B 499, 450

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12351

  9. [9]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...83B 923, 83

    Bolatto A. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...83B 923, 83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c08 2021

  10. [10]

    D., Levy, R

    Bolatto A. D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad33c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...63B 967, 63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad33c8 2024

  11. [11]

    Bottinelli L., Gouguenheim L., Paturel G., de Vaucouleurs G., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...118....4B 118, 4

    1983

  12. [12]

    CASA Team et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134k4501C 134, 114501

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 2022

  13. [13]

    Calzetti D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1449C 113, 1449

    work page doi:10.1086/324269 2001

  14. [14]

    and Kinney, Anne L

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

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

  15. [15]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..16C 918, L16

    Cameron A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918L..16C 918, L16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac18ca 2021

  16. [16]

    Cappellari M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..798C 466, 798

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  17. [17]

    Cappellari M., Emsellem E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..138C 116, 138

    work page doi:10.1086/381875 2004

  18. [18]

    and Clayton, Geoffrey C

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  19. [19]

    Carniani S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A..28C 591, A28

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528037 2016

  20. [20]

    Chandar R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..142C 943, 142

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac96 2023

  21. [21]

    R., Elgamal S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...29C 258, 29

    Chen Y.-P., Zaw I., Farrar G. R., Elgamal S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...29C 258, 29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4157 2022

  22. [22]

    A., Clegg A

    Chevalier R. A., Clegg A. W., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1038/317044a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.317...44C 317, 44

    work page doi:10.1038/317044a0 1985

  23. [23]

    A., Leitherer , C., & Chen , Y

    Chisholm J., Tremonti C. A., Leitherer C., Chen Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4831C 469, 4831

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1164 2017

  24. [24]

    R., Dav \'e R., Brooks A., Quinn T., Shen S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..142C 867, 142

    Christensen C. R., Dav \'e R., Brooks A., Quinn T., Shen S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..142C 867, 142

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae374 2018

  25. [25]

    Cicone C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..21C 562, A21

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 2014

  26. [26]

    ascl:1909.002

    Cigan P., 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ascl.soft09002C p. ascl:1909.002

    2019

  27. [27]

    L., Bicknell G

    Cooper J. L., Bicknell G. V., Sutherland R. S., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..157C 674, 157

    work page doi:10.1086/524918 2008

  28. [28]

    L., Bicknell G

    Cooper J. L., Bicknell G. V., Sutherland R. S., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..330C 703, 330

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/330 2009

  29. [29]

    Cortese L., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2026.10159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026PASA...43...34C 43, e034

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2026.10159 2026

  30. [30]

    A., Bolatto, A

    Cronin S. A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987...92C 987, 92

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add738 2025

  31. [31]

    T., Li, A., Hensley, B

    Draine B. T., Li A., Hensley B. S., Hunt L. K., Sandstrom K., Smith J. D. T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abff51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917....3D 917, 3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abff51 2021

  32. [32]

    ascl:1504.003

    ESO CPL Development Team 2015, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1504.003

    2015

  33. [33]

    arXiv:2601.22500

    Elliott R., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260122500E p. arXiv:2601.22500

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22500 2026

  34. [34]

    Emsellem E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A.191E 659, A191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141727 2022

  35. [35]

    B., & Bryan, G

    Fielding D. B., Bryan G. L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924...82F 924, 82

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41 2022

  36. [36]

    Fielding D., Quataert E., Martizzi D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3325F 481, 3325

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2466 2018

  37. [37]

    B., Bolatto, A

    Fisher D. B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.3068F 538, 3068

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf363 2025

  38. [38]

    The Open Journal of Astrophysics , keywords =

    Flesch E. W., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2308.01505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..49F 6, 49

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2308.01505 2023

  39. [39]

    Fluetsch A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4586F 483, 4586

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3449 2019

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ca2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875...21F 875, 21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ca2 2019

  41. [41]

    Fraser-McKelvie A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...700A.237F 700, A237

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452891 2025

  42. [42]

    430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies

    Fraternali F., 2017, in Fox A., Dav \'e R., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies. p. 323 ( @eprint arXiv 1612.00477 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9_14 2017

  43. [43]

    and Wilkinson, M

    Fraternali F., Binney J. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13071.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.386..935F 386, 935

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13071.x 2008

  44. [44]

    Fraternali F., van Moorsel G., Sancisi R., Oosterloo T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.3124F 123, 3124

    work page doi:10.1086/340358 2002

  45. [45]

    Greve A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...416...67G 416, 67

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031709 2004

  46. [46]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmpL.135G

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 2018

  47. [47]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3855H 530, 3855

    Hamel-Bravo M. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3855H 530, 3855

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae983 2024

  48. [48]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

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

  49. [49]

    Heckman T., Borthakur S., Wild V., Schiminovich D., Bordoloi R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..151H 846, 151

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc 2017

  50. [50]

    Herrera-Camus R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..47H 635, A47

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936434 2020

  51. [51]

    Herrera-Camus R., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A..80H 699, A80

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553896 2025

  52. [52]

    Pontzen and F

    Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.3522H 421, 3522

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x 2012

  53. [53]

    R., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.546ag185H 546, stag185

    Huang R., Vijayan A., Krumholz M. R., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.546ag185H 546, stag185

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag185 2026

  54. [54]

    Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  55. [55]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..173K 853, 173

    Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..173K 853, 173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5ff 2018

  56. [56]

    Kim C.-G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba962 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900...61K 900, 61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba962 2020

  57. [57]

    H., Helmi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.136K 649, A136

    Koppelman H. H., Helmi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.136K 649, A136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038777 2021

  58. [58]

    2005 , month = sep, journal =

    Krajnovi \'c D., Cappellari M., de Zeeuw P. T., Copin Y., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09902.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..787K 366, 787

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09902.x 2006

  59. [59]

    Krieger N., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...43K 881, 43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d9c 2019

  60. [60]

    Krieger N., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac01e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915L...3K 915, L3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac01e9 2021

  61. [61]

    D., Heckman T

    Lehnert M. D., Heckman T. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..651L 462, 651

    work page doi:10.1086/177180 1996

  62. [62]

    K., Walter, F., Martini, P., et al

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814...83L 814, 83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/83 2015

  63. [63]

    Li A., Marasco A., Fraternali F., Trager S., Verheijen M. A. W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3013L 504, 3013

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1043 2021

  64. [64]

    A., Krumholz M

    Lopez L. A., Krumholz M. R., Bolatto A. D., Prochaska J. X., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...91L 731, 91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/91 2011

  65. [65]

    A., Krumholz M

    Lopez L. A., Krumholz M. R., Bolatto A. D., Prochaska J. X., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Castro D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..121L 795, 121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/121 2014

  66. [66]

    A., Mathur, S., Nguyen, D

    Lopez L. A., Mathur S., Nguyen D. D., Thompson T. A., Olivier G. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..152L 904, 152

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc010 2020

  67. [67]

    A., Thompson T

    Lopez S., Lopez L. A., Thompson T. A., Leroy A. K., Bolatto A. D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adec75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...989..100L 989, 100

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec75 2025

  68. [68]

    Makarov D., Prugniel P., Terekhova N., Courtois H., Vauglin I., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A..13M 570, A13

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 2014

  69. [69]

    Marasco A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A..50M 631, A50

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936338 2019

  70. [70]

    K., Mangum, J

    Martini P., Leroy A. K., Mangum J. G., Bolatto A., Keating K. M., Sandstrom K., Walter F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab08e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...61M 856, 61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab08e 2018

  71. [71]

    Mazzilli Ciraulo B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.3290M 544, 3290

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1875 2025

  72. [72]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.6170M 525, 6170

    McPherson D. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.6170M 525, 6170

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2685 2023

  73. [73]

    McQuinn K. B. W., van Zee L., Skillman E. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...74M 886, 74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 2019

  74. [74]

    D., Thompson T

    Nguyen D. D., Thompson T. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86c3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L..24N 935, L24

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac86c3 2022

  75. [75]

    Oosterloo T., Fraternali F., Sancisi R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134.1019O 134, 1019

    work page doi:10.1086/520332 2007

  76. [76]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nucleic, 2nd edn. University Science Books, Sausalito, CA

    2006

  77. [77]

    Pandya V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.2979P 508, 2979

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2714 2021

  78. [78]

    Pereira-Santaella M., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso E., Garc \' a-Bernete I., Garc \' a-Burillo S., Rigopoulou D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A.117P 681, A117

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347942 2024

  79. [79]

    Perna M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A.139P 643, A139

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038328 2020

  80. [80]

    Rathjen T.-E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1039R 504, 1039

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab900 2021

Showing first 80 references.