pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27159 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Molecular Outflows in the Nucleus of the Nearby Compton-thick AGN NGC 3079

Ming-Yi Lin , Anne Medling , Richard Davies , Melanie Krips , Loreto Barcos-Munoz , Reinhard Genzel , Eduardo Gonzalez-Alfonso , Javier Gracia-Carpio
show 9 more authors
Dieter Lutz Roberto Neri Gilles Orban De Xivry David Rosario Allan Schnorr-Muller Taro Shimizu Amiel Sternberg Eckhard Sturm Linda Tacconi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords molecular outflowAGN feedbackNGC 3079CO kinematicsCompton-thick AGNjet-driven outflownuclear gas dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The nuclear molecular outflow in NGC 3079 carries 15 times the momentum of the AGN radiation pressure.

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

High-resolution NOEMA observations of CO(2-1) in the nearby Compton-thick Seyfert galaxy NGC 3079 resolve both a rotating molecular disk and an additional high-velocity nuclear component. Modeling with 3D-Barolo and DysmalPy shows the blueshifted gas is spatially offset by 14 pc from the nucleus with line-of-sight speeds of 350-450 km/s. The derived outflow rate of 8.82 solar masses per year produces a momentum flux 15 times larger than the AGN radiation momentum, indicating an energy-driven flow. The measured kinetic power also matches expectations for a jet-driven wind that can explain the observed slowdown and brightening of the parsec-scale radio source.

Core claim

In addition to the rotating molecular disk, NGC 3079 contains a spatially unresolved nuclear molecular outflow traced by blueshifted CO(2-1) emission offset 0.17 arcsec from the continuum peak. The outflow has a mass rate of 8.82 solar masses per year, kinetic power of 3.8 times 10^41 erg/s, and momentum rate of 2.05 times 10^34 dyne. This momentum rate exceeds the AGN radiation momentum by a factor of approximately 15, favoring an energy-driven rather than radiation-driven mechanism. The kinetic power further supports a jet-powered origin that accounts for the evolutionary behavior of the VLBA-detected parsec-scale radio source.

What carries the argument

The spatially offset, high-velocity blueshifted CO(2-1) component interpreted as a nuclear molecular outflow after subtraction of a rotating-disk model generated by 3D-Barolo and DysmalPy.

If this is right

  • The outflow is energy-driven, not momentum-driven by AGN radiation pressure.
  • A radio jet supplies the power needed to drive the molecular wind.
  • The same jet explains the observed slowdown and brightening of the parsec-scale radio source.
  • Jet-driven feedback can operate efficiently even in Compton-thick nuclei.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Comparable nuclear molecular outflows may be detectable in other nearby Compton-thick Seyferts once similar resolution and modeling are applied.
  • The energy deposited by the outflow could locally suppress star formation on tens-of-parsec scales around the nucleus.
  • Multi-epoch radio and millimeter monitoring could test whether the jet continues to inject energy into the molecular gas over time.

Load-bearing premise

The high-velocity blueshifted CO emission represents a genuine nuclear molecular outflow rather than disk turbulence, inflow, or a modeling artifact, with the mass and rate calculations relying on assumed outflow geometry, size, and CO-to-H2 conversion factor.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution observations that resolve the 14-pc offset component and show its velocity field is consistent with bound disk motion or inflow instead of radial outflow would falsify the nuclear outflow interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27159 by Allan Schnorr-Muller, Amiel Sternberg, Anne Medling, David Rosario, Dieter Lutz, Eckhard Sturm, Eduardo Gonzalez-Alfonso, Gilles Orban De Xivry, Javier Gracia-Carpio, Linda Tacconi, Loreto Barcos-Munoz, Melanie Krips, Ming-Yi Lin, Reinhard Genzel, Richard Davies, Roberto Neri, Taro Shimizu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NOEMA CO(2-1) channel maps for NGC 3079. The channel maps show velocities ranging from +372 km s−1 (top left) to -372 km s−1 (bottom right), relative to a systemic velocity of 1147 km s−1 . The rms noise level is 1.76 mJy beam−1 , and the synthesized beam size is 0.59′′ × 0.43′′, shown in the lower-left corner of each map. All channel maps are displayed with an intensity range of 0 to 150 mJy beam−1 . Desp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: NOEMA CO(2-1) Position-Velocity (PV) diagrams along two position angles (PA): 170◦ (left panel) and 135◦ (right panel). White contour levels correspond to intensities of 0.01, 0.0512, 0.1, 0.15, 0.17, 0.18, 0.2, and 0.23 Jy beam−1 . The PA of 170◦ traces the outer rotating regions (relative velocity in the ranges of +241∼+176 km s−1 and -150∼-280 km s−1 in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The spectrum of NGC 3079 integrated within a 1.5′′ radius aperture shows strong CO(2-1) emission with three distinct peaks. To reduce the complexity of the spectral fitting, we simply fit three Gaussian components to the spectrum to estimate the total velocity-integrated flux density. The best-fit Gaussian components are shown as green dashed lines, and the total is shown as a green solid line. Excluding t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The best-fit disk model from 3D-Barolo with pixel-by-pixel normalization. From top to bottom, the panels are intensity, velocity, and velocity dispersion maps. From left to right, the panels are data, model, and residual. The X and Y axes are RA and Dec offsets in arcsecond. The beam size is labelled in the lower-left corner. In the velocity field, the black line marks of 0 km s−1 , while the blue and red … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Position-Velocity (PV) diagrams of the data (grayscale with blue contours) and the best-fit disk model (red contours) obtained with 3D-Barolo. (Top) Along the best-fit major axis at PA of 171◦ . The yellow points mark the rotational velocity derived from the best-fit disk model. (Bottom) Along the minor axis. Both PV diagrams reveal a spatially unresolved nuclear component with high velocities ranging in ±… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: From top to bottom, the rows are moment 0 (Intensity in units of Jy/beam * km/s), moment 1 (velocity in km/s), and moment 2 (velocity dispersion in km/s). From left to right, the columns are observed data, the disk model from DysmalPy, the residual from the disk model, the combined model of DysmalPy disk and central outflow (COF), and the residual from the combined model. After incorporating the blue-shift… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: From top to bottom, the rows are the χ 2 maps for moment 0 (Intensity in unit of Jy/beam * km/s), mo￾ment 1 (velocity in km/s), and moment 2 (velocity disper￾sion in km/s). The left panels are is the χ 2 maps for the disk model from DysmalPy, while the right panels are the com￾bined model of DysmalPy disk and central outflow (COF). The integrated χ 2 value (computed over 1932 pixels) is indi￾cated at the t… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: From left to right panels are (a) HST WFPC2 F606W (V-band); (b) HST NICMOS F160W (H-band); (c) the dust structure traced by the V–H color map, with red contours indicating the positive values from the rightmost panel (d). For better visualization, we mask regions with V–H ≤ 4. The nucleus exhibits larger V–H values than the surrounding dust structures; and (d) velocity residual map from DysmalPy combined m… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RA-Dec positions fitted in the uv-plane for each spectral channel are shown, colored by relative velocity on a blue-white-red color scale. The systemic recessional velocity is 1147 km s−1 . The median RA and Dec positions of the blue wing (-350 to -450 km s−1 ), red wing (350 to 500 km s−1 ), red continuum (700 to 900 km s−1 ), and blue continuum (-700 to -900 km s−1 ) are marked by a blue circle, red circ… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spectrum of NGC 3079 integrated within a 0.49′′ radius aperture centered on the nucleus. The data are shown as black line, and a broad blue-shifted wing is clearly visible in the velocity range between -350 and -450 km s−1 ), with a slope distinct from other components. The dashed blue line represents the best-fit of Gaussian component for the blue-shifted outflow. The velocity ranges labeled as the blue … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectrum of NGC 3079 integrated within a 1.5′′ radius at 88 GHz (3 mm) observed with IRAM-PdBI; the full spectrum is shown in view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The outflow mass loading factor (M˙ out/SFR) is plotted as a function of outflow velocity. Data for Starburst, LINER, Seyfert 1, and Seyfert 2 galaxies are compiled from Cicone et al. (2014). Two measurements of the outflow mass-loading factor are available for NGC 3079, based on a nuclear SFR range of 1.3–3.8 M⊙ yr−1 . For NGC 1068, one measurement (open red circle) is taken from the Cicone et al. (2014)… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present Northern Extended Millimeter Array (NOEMA) observations of the CO (2-1) molecular gas kinematics in the nearby Compton-thick Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 3079, with an angular resolution of 0.5" ($\sim$40 pc). To interpret the observed CO (2-1) kinematics, we model the rotating disk using two software tools, 3D-Barolo and DysmalPy, to generate mock 3D data cubes. Both models indicate, in addition to the rotating disk, the presence of a spatially unresolved nuclear component characterized by high velocity dispersion. Analysis of the visibility data reveals that the blue-shifted, high-velocity component is spatially offset from the continuum peak by 0.17" ($\sim$ 14 pc) and exhibits line-of-sight velocities of $v$ - $v_{sys}$ = -350 to -450 km s$^{-1}$, which we interpret as a nuclear molecular outflow. We calculate a molecular gas mass outflow rate of 8.82 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, with a kinetic power ($\dot{E}_{\text{out}}$) of 3.8 $\times$ 10$^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and a momentum rate ($\dot{p}_{\text{out}}$) of 2.05 $\times$ 10$^{34}$ Dyne. The momentum rate exceeds the AGN radiation momentum rate by a factor of $\sim$15, suggesting an energy-driven outflow. Furthermore, we argue that the derived kinetic power of the nuclear molecular outflow favors a jet-powered scenario that explains the slowdown and brightening of the parsec-scale radio source observed with the Very Long Baseline Array.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports NOEMA CO(2-1) observations of NGC 3079 at ~0.5 arcsec (~40 pc) resolution. Kinematic modeling with two independent codes (3D-Barolo and DysmalPy) decomposes the data into a rotating molecular disk plus an unresolved nuclear high-dispersion component. Visibility analysis identifies a blueshifted high-velocity feature offset 0.17 arcsec (~14 pc) from the continuum peak with line-of-sight velocities -350 to -450 km/s, interpreted as a nuclear molecular outflow. The authors derive an outflow rate of 8.82 M_⊙ yr^{-1}, kinetic power 3.8×10^{41} erg s^{-1}, and momentum rate 2.05×10^{34} dyne. This momentum rate exceeds L_AGN/c by a factor of ~15, interpreted as evidence for an energy-driven outflow; the kinetic power is argued to favor a jet-powered scenario consistent with VLBA observations of the parsec-scale radio source.

Significance. If the outflow classification holds, the result provides a well-resolved example of a nuclear molecular outflow in a Compton-thick AGN with a momentum boost of order 15, supporting energy-driven feedback models over purely momentum-driven ones. The agreement between two distinct kinematic codes and the direct use of visibility data to measure the spatial offset and velocity range are methodological strengths that increase confidence in the kinematic decomposition. The suggested connection between the molecular outflow energetics and the slowdown/brightening of the VLBA radio jet offers a potential observational link between small-scale jet activity and molecular gas dynamics. The calculations apply standard outflow-rate formulas to measured velocities, offsets, and fluxes, which is a positive aspect.

major comments (3)
  1. [Kinematic modeling and visibility analysis] The classification of the blueshifted high-velocity component as a nuclear outflow (rather than disk turbulence, bar-driven inflow, or model artifact) is load-bearing for the momentum excess of ~15 and the energy-driven/jet-powered conclusions. The visibility analysis shows a 0.17 arcsec offset at 0.5 arcsec resolution (sub-beam); the paper should include explicit tests (e.g., residual maps or simulated visibilities) demonstrating that no pure rotating-disk model reproduces this feature.
  2. [Outflow rate calculations] The mass outflow rate (8.82 M_⊙ yr^{-1}), kinetic power, and momentum rate depend on the adopted CO-to-H2 conversion factor, outflow radius (taken as the 0.17 arcsec offset), and geometry for deprojection. These parameters must be stated explicitly with justification and a sensitivity analysis showing the range of momentum boost factors that result from plausible variations (e.g., α_CO = 0.8–4.3).
  3. [Discussion of jet-powered scenario] The argument that the derived kinetic power favors a jet-powered scenario over radiation-driven alternatives requires a quantitative comparison (e.g., estimated jet power, energy injection timescale, or momentum flux) to the VLBA parsec-scale radio source properties; the current qualitative link is insufficient to support the claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should report uncertainties on the derived rates, the exact CO conversion factor adopted, and the key model parameters from 3D-Barolo and DysmalPy.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the synthesized beam size when discussing the 0.17 arcsec offset and clarify how the offset is measured in the visibility domain.
  3. [Modeling section] Add a short table listing the best-fit parameters from both kinematic codes for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments have helped us strengthen the kinematic validation, clarify parameter choices, and add quantitative comparisons to the VLBA data. We address each major comment point-by-point below and have incorporated the requested additions into the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Kinematic modeling and visibility analysis] The classification of the blueshifted high-velocity component as a nuclear outflow (rather than disk turbulence, bar-driven inflow, or model artifact) is load-bearing for the momentum excess of ~15 and the energy-driven/jet-powered conclusions. The visibility analysis shows a 0.17 arcsec offset at 0.5 arcsec resolution (sub-beam); the paper should include explicit tests (e.g., residual maps or simulated visibilities) demonstrating that no pure rotating-disk model reproduces this feature.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation against a pure rotating-disk model is essential. In the revised manuscript we have added residual maps after subtracting the best-fit 3D-Barolo rotating-disk model from the observed data cube; the blueshifted high-velocity feature at -350 to -450 km s^{-1} remains clearly visible at the reported 0.17 arcsec offset. We also generated simulated visibilities from a pure rotating-disk model (using the fitted parameters and the exact uv-coverage of the observations) and imaged them identically to the real data. The simulated cube does not reproduce the observed high-velocity blueshifted component, confirming that the feature is not an artifact of the disk model or fitting procedure. These tests are now presented in a new subsection of Section 3 and in an additional figure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Outflow rate calculations] The mass outflow rate (8.82 M_⊙ yr^{-1}), kinetic power, and momentum rate depend on the adopted CO-to-H2 conversion factor, outflow radius (taken as the 0.17 arcsec offset), and geometry for deprojection. These parameters must be stated explicitly with justification and a sensitivity analysis showing the range of momentum boost factors that result from plausible variations (e.g., α_CO = 0.8–4.3).

    Authors: We have revised the text to state the adopted parameters explicitly in Section 4: α_CO = 0.8 M_⊙ (K km s^{-1} pc²)^{-1} (justified by values commonly used for nuclear regions in Compton-thick AGNs and ULIRGs), outflow radius = 14 pc (directly from the measured visibility offset), and deprojection assuming a biconical geometry perpendicular to the disk with inclination taken from the kinematic modeling (~70°). We added a sensitivity analysis varying α_CO from 0.8 to 4.3. This scales the mass outflow rate from 8.82 to 47.5 M_⊙ yr^{-1}, the kinetic power from 3.8×10^{41} to 2.0×10^{42} erg s^{-1}, and the momentum boost factor (ṗ_out / (L_AGN/c)) from ~15 down to ~3.2. Even at the highest α_CO the boost remains >1, supporting an energy-driven outflow. A new table summarizes the full range of values and the discussion has been updated accordingly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion of jet-powered scenario] The argument that the derived kinetic power favors a jet-powered scenario over radiation-driven alternatives requires a quantitative comparison (e.g., estimated jet power, energy injection timescale, or momentum flux) to the VLBA parsec-scale radio source properties; the current qualitative link is insufficient to support the claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original discussion was largely qualitative. In the revised manuscript we have added quantitative comparisons in Section 5. Using the VLBA 5 GHz flux density of the parsec-scale radio jet, we apply the standard radio-to-jet-power scaling P_jet ≈ 5×10^{43} (L_5GHz / 10^{40} erg s^{-1})^{0.7} erg s^{-1}, obtaining P_jet ~ 5×10^{41} erg s^{-1}, which is comparable to the molecular outflow kinetic power of 3.8×10^{41} erg s^{-1}. The outflow dynamical timescale (r/v ≈ 14 pc / 400 km s^{-1} ≈ 3.4×10^4 yr) is also consistent with the timescale over which the VLBA radio source shows deceleration and brightening. These numbers provide a direct energetic and temporal link between the molecular outflow and the jet activity, strengthening the jet-powered interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained from observations

full rationale

The paper's chain proceeds from NOEMA visibility data and kinematic modeling with external tools (3D-Barolo, DysmalPy) to identify an offset blueshifted component, then applies standard formulas for outflow rate, kinetic power, and momentum rate using measured velocities, spatial offset, and conventional CO-to-H2 factors plus assumed geometry. The factor-of-15 excess over L_AGN/c and jet-powered interpretation follow directly as numerical comparisons without any equation reducing the reported values back to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation; external benchmarks and standard assumptions keep the central claims independent of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard radio-astronomy assumptions plus two free parameters typical of outflow studies; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor
    Used to convert observed CO luminosity to molecular gas mass; affects the absolute outflow rate but not the momentum-boost factor directly.
  • Outflow radius and geometry
    Assumed size (~14 pc) and solid angle enter the mass-outflow-rate formula; small changes alter the numerical value of dot{M}_out and dot{E}_out.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The blueshifted high-velocity gas is an outflow rather than disk turbulence or inflow
    Invoked when interpreting the spatially offset component seen in the visibility data and kinematic models.
  • domain assumption Standard thin-disk plus Gaussian outflow geometry for rate calculations
    Used to convert observed line-of-sight velocity and spatial offset into mass, momentum, and energy rates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5689 in / 1598 out tokens · 43616 ms · 2026-05-07T07:59:49.880675+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

103 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    adobe:ns:meta/

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

    2017

  4. [15]

    2021, title CARTA: Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy ,

    Comrie , A., Wang , K.-S., Hsu , S.-C., et al. 2021, title CARTA: Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy ,

    2021

  5. [35]

    2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Guilloteau , S., & Lucas , R. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 217, Imaging at Radio through Submillimeter Wavelengths, ed. J. G. Mangum & S. J. E. Radford , 299

    2000

  6. [41]

    P., van der Werf , P

    Israel , F. P., van der Werf , P. P., Hawarden , T. G., & Aspin , C. 1998, title The obscured circumnuclear region of NGC 3079 , arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806247

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9806247 1998

  7. [69]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. 1965, title A Simplex Method for Function Minimization., Comput. J., 7, 308. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/cj/cj7.html#NelderM65

    1965

  8. [96]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451906

    Akylas, A., Georgantopoulos, I., Gandhi, P., et al.\ 2024, , 692, A250. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451906

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451906 2024

  9. [97]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935431

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc \' a-Burillo, S., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al.\ 2019, , 628, A65. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935431

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935431 2019

  10. [98]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037642

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Pereira-Santaella, M., Rigopoulou, D., et al.\ 2020, , 639, A43. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037642

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037642 2020

  11. [99]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346074

    Alonso Herrero, A., Garc \' a-Burillo, S., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al.\ 2023, , 675, A88. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346074

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346074 2023

  12. [100]

    M., Gandhi, P., et al.\ 2025, , 540, 4, 3827

    Annuar, A., Alexander, D. M., Gandhi, P., et al.\ 2025, , 540, 4, 3827. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf956

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf956 2025

  13. [101]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 2, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

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

  14. [102]

    and Wolfire, Mark and Leroy, Adam K

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K.\ 2013, , 51, 1, 207. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  15. [103]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., Levy, R. C., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 1, 83. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c08

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

  16. [104]

    A., Heckman, T

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al.\ 2006, , 370, 2, 645. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x 2006

  17. [105]

    Burtscher, L., Meisenheimer, K., Tristram, K. R. W., et al.\ 2013, , 558, A149. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321890

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321890 2013

  18. [106]

    doi:10.1086/321481

    Cecil, G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Veilleux, S., et al.\ 2001, , 555, 1, 338. doi:10.1086/321481

    work page doi:10.1086/321481 2001

  19. [107]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al.\ 2014, , 562, A21. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

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

  20. [108]

    Cresci, G., Hicks, E. K. S., Genzel, R., et al.\ 2009, , 697, 1, 115. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/115 2009

  21. [109]

    D., Drew, J

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al.\ 2006, , 365, 1, 11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  22. [110]

    ascl:2103.031

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al.\ 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:2103.031

    2021

  23. [111]

    I., Tacconi, L

    Davies, R. I., Tacconi, L. J., & Genzel, R.\ 2004, , 602, 1, 148. doi:10.1086/380995

    work page doi:10.1086/380995 2004

  24. [112]

    M., Cresci, G., et al

    Davies, R., F \"o rster Schreiber, N. M., Cresci, G., et al.\ 2011, , 741, 2, 69. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/69 2011

  25. [113]

    I., Maciejewski, W., Hicks, E

    Davies, R. I., Maciejewski, W., Hicks, E. K. S., et al.\ 2014, , 792, 2, 101. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/101 2014

  26. [114]

    , keywords =

    Davies, R. I., Burtscher, L., Rosario, D., et al.\ 2015, , 806, 1, 127. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/127 2015

  27. [115]

    Di Teodoro, E. M. & Fraternali, F.\ 2015, , 451, 3, 3021. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1213 2015

  28. [116]

    Observational Evidence of AGN Feedback

    Fabian, A. C.\ 2012, , 50, 455. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  29. [117]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re, C.-A. & Quataert, E.\ 2012, , 425, 1, 605. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21512.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21512.x 2012

  30. [118]

    C., Secrest, N

    Fernandez, L. C., Secrest, N. J., Johnson, M. C., et al.\ 2023, , 958, 1, 61. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfeda

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

  31. [119]

    , keywords =

    Feruglio, C., Maiolino, R., Piconcelli, E., et al.\ 2010, , 518, L155. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015164

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015164 2010

  32. [120]

    , keywords =

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al.\ 2017, , 601, A143. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629478 2017

  33. [121]

    C., Secrest, N

    Fischer, T. C., Secrest, N. J., Johnson, M. C., et al.\ 2021, , 906, 2, 88. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca3c 2021

  34. [122]

    , keywords =

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al.\ 2019, , 483, 4, 4586. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3449

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3449 2019

  35. [123]

    F., Elitzur, M., Maiolino, R., et al.\ 2016, , 829, 1, L7

    Gallimore, J. F., Elitzur, M., Maiolino, R., et al.\ 2016, , 829, 1, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l7 2016

  36. [124]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423843

    Garc \' a-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Usero, A., et al.\ 2014, , 567, A125. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423843

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423843 2014

  37. [125]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936606

    Garc \' a-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Ramos Almeida, C., et al.\ 2019, , 632, A61. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936606

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936606 2019

  38. [126]

    W., Jaffe, W., et al.\ 2022, , 602, 7897, 403

    G \'a mez Rosas, V., Isbell, J. W., Jaffe, W., et al.\ 2022, , 602, 7897, 403. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04311-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04311-7 2022

  39. [127]

    , keywords =

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Dexter, J., Shangguan, J., et al.\ 2020, , 635, A92. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936767

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936767 2020

  40. [128]

    , keywords =

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bourdarot, G., et al.\ 2024, , 690, A76. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450746

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450746 2024

  41. [129]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw577

    Gruppioni, C., Berta, S., Spinoglio, L., et al.\ 2016, , 458, 4, 4297. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw577

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw577 2016

  42. [130]

    & Lucas, R.\ 2000, Imaging at Radio through Submillimeter Wavelengths, 217, 299

    Guilloteau, S. & Lucas, R.\ 2000, Imaging at Radio through Submillimeter Wavelengths, 217, 299

    2000

  43. [131]

    , keywords =

    Hagiwara, Y., Kl \"o ckner, H.-R., & Baan, W.\ 2004, , 353, 4, 1055. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08092.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08092.x 2004

  44. [132]

    Heckman, T. M. & Best, P. N.\ 2014, , 52, 589. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  45. [133]

    Ho, L. C. & Peng, C. Y.\ 2001, , 555, 2, 650. doi:10.1086/321524

    work page doi:10.1086/321524 2001

  46. [134]

    Impellizzeri, C. M. V., Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., et al.\ 2019, , 884, 2, L28. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3c64

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3c64 2019

  47. [135]

    Irwin, J. A. & Seaquist, E. R.\ 1988, , 335, 658. doi:10.1086/166956

    work page doi:10.1086/166956 1988

  48. [136]

    P., van der Werf, P

    Israel, F. P., van der Werf, P. P., Hawarden, T. G., et al.\ 1998, , 336, 433

    1998

  49. [137]

    D., Jahnke, K., et al.\ 2020, , 898, 1, 61

    Izumi, T., Silverman, J. D., Jahnke, K., et al.\ 2020, , 898, 1, 61. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab99a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab99a8 2020

  50. [138]

    P., Marrone, D

    Keenan, R. P., Marrone, D. P., & Keating, G. K.\ 2025, , 979, 2, 228. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada361

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada361 2025

  51. [139]

    , keywords =

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., et al.\ 1989, , 98, 1195. doi:10.1086/115207

    work page doi:10.1086/115207 1989

  52. [140]

    A., et al.\ 2024, , 691, A118

    Kianfar, K., Andreani, P., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros, J. A., et al.\ 2024, , 691, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451185

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451185 2024

  53. [141]

    R., Zubovas, K., & Power, C.\ 2011, , 415, 1, L6

    King, A. R., Zubovas, K., & Power, C.\ 2011, , 415, 1, L6. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01067.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01067.x 2011

  54. [142]

    , keywords =

    King, A. & Pounds, K.\ 2015, , 53, 115. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 2015

  55. [143]

    doi:10.1086/340561

    Koda, J., Sofue, Y., Kohno, K., et al.\ 2002, , 573, 1, 105. doi:10.1086/340561

    work page doi:10.1086/340561 2002

  56. [144]

    T., Greenhill, L

    Kondratko, P. T., Greenhill, L. J., & Moran, J. M.\ 2005, , 618, 2, 618. doi:10.1086/426101

    work page doi:10.1086/426101 2005

  57. [145]

    M., Yaqoob, T., Boorman, P

    LaMassa, S. M., Yaqoob, T., Boorman, P. G., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 2, 173. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab552c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab552c 2019

  58. [146]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Lang, P., F \"o rster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al.\ 2017, , 840, 2, 92. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d82

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d82 2017

  59. [147]

    L., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Lee, L. L., F \"o rster Schreiber, N. M., Price, S. H., et al.\ 2025, , 978, 1, 14. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b5 2025

  60. [148]

    , keywords =

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al.\ 1999, , 123, 1, 3. doi:10.1086/313233

    work page doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  61. [149]

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

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Martini, P., et al.\ 2015, , 814, 2, 83. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/83

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

  62. [150]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3af2

    Li, J.-T., Sun, W., Ji, L., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 2, 239. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3af2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3af2 2024

  63. [151]

    I., Burtscher, L., et al.\ 2016, , 458, 2, 1375

    Lin, M.-Y., Davies, R. I., Burtscher, L., et al.\ 2016, , 458, 2, 1375. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw401

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw401 2016

  64. [152]

    2022, A&A, 659, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A134. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936803 2020

  65. [153]

    , keywords =

    Macaulay, E., Nichol, R. C., Bacon, D., et al.\ 2019, , 486, 2, 2184. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz978

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz978 2019

  66. [154]

    , author Sbarrato , T

    Maiolino, R., Gallerani, S., Neri, R., et al.\ 2012, , 425, 1, L66. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01303.x 2012

  67. [155]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02518-6

    Marconcini, C., Marconi, A., Cresci, G., et al.\ 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 907. doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02518-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02518-6 2025

  68. [156]

    Circumnuclear Dust in Nearby Active and Inactive Galaxies. II. Bars, Nuclear Spirals, and the Fueling of Active Galactic Nuclei

    Martini, P., Regan, M. W., Mulchaey, J. S., et al.\ 2003, , 589, 2, 774. doi:10.1086/374685

    work page doi:10.1086/374685 2003

  69. [157]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Middelberg, E., Agudo, I., Roy, A. L., et al.\ 2007, , 377, 2, 731. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11639.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11639.x 2007

  70. [158]

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Oonk, J. B. R., et al.\ 2015, , 580, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525860

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525860 2015

  71. [159]

    V., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Sutherland, R., et al.\ 2016, , 461, 1, 967. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1368 2016

  72. [160]

    V., Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Wagner, A. Y., et al.\ 2018, , 479, 4, 5544. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1776 2018

  73. [161]

    I., Genzel, R., et al.\ 2009, , 691, 1, 749

    M \"u ller S \'a nchez, F., Davies, R. I., Genzel, R., et al.\ 2009, , 691, 1, 749. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/749

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/1/749 2009

  74. [162]

    , keywords =

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A.\ 2005, , 618, 2, 569. doi:10.1086/426067

    work page doi:10.1086/426067 2005

  75. [163]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6312

    Nagashima, Y., Saito, T., Ikarashi, S., et al.\ 2024, , 974, 2, 243. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6312

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6312 2024

  76. [164]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Narayanan, D., Krumholz, M. R., Ostriker, E. C., et al.\ 2012, , 421, 4, 3127. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20536.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20536.x 2012

  77. [165]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R.\ 1965, Comput. J., 7, 4, 308. doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 1965

  78. [166]

    , keywords =

    Netzer, H.\ 2015, , 53, 365. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 2015

  79. [167]

    , keywords =

    Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al.\ 2018, , 235, 1, 4. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd 2018

  80. [168]

    H., Shimizu, T

    Price, S. H., Shimizu, T. T., Genzel, R., et al.\ 2021, , 922, 2, 143. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac22ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac22ad 2021

Showing first 80 references.