pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30088 · v1 · pith:7XOM2HEBnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Lighting Up the CGM: Strong, Jet-Aligned Hα Emission around Radio Galaxies

Namrata Roy , Sanchayeeta Borthakur , Timothy Heckman , Tanmay Singh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 05:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Hα emissioncircumgalactic mediumradio galaxiesAGN feedbackjet alignmentstacking analysisDESI spectra
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio jets produce strong localized Hα emission in the CGM only along their axes.

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

The paper tests whether AGN feedback from radio jets modifies the cool circumgalactic medium in a directional way. Stacking background quasar spectra while accounting for each sightline's angle to the jet axis reveals a clear Hα excess only for alignments under 20 degrees, with no signal in the average over all angles. This excess reaches roughly 100 times the brightness of typical halos and shows radial structure near the galaxy and radio lobes. Mg II absorption remains unchanged between aligned and off-axis sightlines, indicating Hα picks out jet-affected clouds while Mg II traces the ambient reservoir. The results point to localized jet-CGM coupling as the driver of the observed anisotropy.

Core claim

By stacking DESI quasar spectra around radio galaxies and binning by position angle to the jet axis, a strong Hα excess appears at greater than 5 sigma only along the jet direction with mean flux 1.19 times 10 to the minus 17 erg cm squared s inverse. The azimuthally averaged stack over 324 sightlines shows no detection, and the aligned signal is about 100 times brighter than normal halos with peaks near the optical half-light radius and radio lobes. Mg II absorption incidence, equivalent widths, column densities, and line widths show no difference between aligned and off-axis directions. This contrast demonstrates that Hα directly traces localized low-covering-fraction clouds whose density,

What carries the argument

Position-angle-binned stacking of background quasar spectra that isolates signals along the radio jet axis versus off-axis directions.

If this is right

  • Jet-CGM coupling is anisotropic and confined to narrow angles around the jet axis.
  • Hα emission captures jet-boosted clouds while Mg II traces the unaffected ambient CGM.
  • The boosted emission is radially structured with enhancements near the host galaxy and radio lobes.
  • Localized jet interaction can dramatically raise the emissivity of cool gas without altering absorption statistics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar angle-binned stacking could be applied to other lines or wavelengths to map the full extent of directional feedback.
  • The low covering fraction implied for the Hα clouds suggests they are discrete structures rather than a uniform medium.
  • This anisotropy may help explain why some observed outflows appear bipolar rather than spherical.

Load-bearing premise

Radio jet axes are accurately determined from observations and quasar sightline position angles relative to the jet are measured without errors that would mix aligned and off-axis signals.

What would settle it

Repeating the stack after randomizing the assigned jet position angles for each galaxy and finding the same Hα excess strength would show the signal is not tied to the jet direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30088 by Namrata Roy, Sanchayeeta Borthakur, Tanmay Singh, Timothy Heckman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: LOFAR radio images of 9 example radio galaxies used in our analyses. The background quasar sightlines from the DESI spectroscopic dataset are shown by cyan symbols. We select radio sources such that their radio end￾to-end size (Dradio) and luminosity (L144) properties are consistent with traditional FRI/FRII systems with double-sided lobes (Hardcastle & Croston 2020; Roy et al. 2021), and satisfying: 4.3 ≤… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A: Angle-binned stacked residual spectra. Sightlines within ±20◦ of the radio axis show an Hα excess at the foreground systemic wavelength, while intermediate- and large-angle sightlines do not. The result indicates that the cool ionized CGM signal is strongly anisotropic and aligned with the projected radio structure. B: Azimuthally averaged stacked residual DESI spectrum around foreground radio galaxies.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: measures the Hα surface brightnesses cor￾rected by cosmological dimming factor of (1 + z) 4 as a function of stellar mass, and compares the measure￾ments for non-AGN galaxy halos from Zhang et al. (2020) with our radio-galaxy measurements. The com￾parison samples are not exactly identical because the 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 log(M /M ) 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 H S B [1 0 1 7 e r g c m 2 s 1 Å 1 a r c s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mg ii absorption properties for individual radio-galaxy sightlines. Blue filled circles show absorbers along jet-aligned sightlines with θ ≤ 20◦ , while orange open squares show absorbers at θ > 20◦ . Left: Mg ii λ2796 rest-frame equivalent width as a function of normalized projected distance, R⊥/Rradio. Center apparent-optical-depth Mg ii λ2796 column density as a function of projected impact parameter, R… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mg ii λ2796 rest-frame equivalent width as a function of projected impact parameter, R⊥. Red circles show individual Mg ii detections associated with the radio￾galaxy sightlines in this work. Filled blue squares show stacked measurements, while open blue squares indicate 3σ upper limits from stacks without individual detections. For comparison, the green and purple curves show the aver￾age Mg ii absorption… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Intrinsic Hα surface-brightness diagnostics of a jet-mode galaxy (g54 in m25n512) from the SIMBA simulation, viewed edge-on to the jet. Left: Hα surface-brightness map over a ±250 kpc field. The cyan arrow marks the projected jet axis, the green dotted circle marks the R⊥ = R200c aperture, the blue rectangle marks the masked edge-on disk, and the red circles mark masked compact star-forming clumps. The blu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A primary question within galaxy evolution is how active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback modifies the circumgalactic medium (CGM). We present a search for faint H$\alpha$ emission from the cool ionized CGM ($T\sim 10^4$ K) around radio galaxies by stacking background-quasar spectra from DESI sightlines. We take into account the projected distance and position angle of each quasar sightline relative to the radio jet axis, and test whether jet--CGM coupling is anisotropic. We detect a strong H$\alpha$ excess at $>5\sigma$ along the collimated radio jet axis ($\theta<20^\circ$) with a mean integrated flux of $1.19\times10^{-17}\ {\rm erg\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}}$. In contrast, the azimuthally averaged stack over all 324 sightline angles yields no detection ($<2\sigma$), indicating that this excess emission is very localized along the radio jet. We also find that the jet-aligned H$\alpha$ signal is radially structured, where the strongest emission occurs near the host galaxy just outside the optical half-light radius, and rising again near the projected radio-lobe region. The jet-aligned stacks reveal H$\alpha$ signal that is roughly 100 times brighter than normal halos. In the same sightlines however, Mg II absorption shows no difference in incidence between jet-aligned and off-axis directions, with broadly similar equivalent widths, column densities, and line widths. This striking contrast shows that while Mg II traces the ambient, clumpy cool CGM reservoir, the H$\alpha$ emission directly captures localized, low-covering-fraction clouds whose density, pressure, or ionization level has been dramatically boosted by the propagating jet. These results deliver clear evidence of localized jet-CGM interaction in radio-jetted AGNs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper reports a stacking analysis of 324 DESI quasar sightlines through the CGM of radio galaxies, finding a >5σ Hα emission excess (mean flux 1.19×10^{-17} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1}) confined to sightlines with θ<20° relative to the radio jet axis, while the azimuthally averaged stack over all angles yields <2σ. The jet-aligned signal is radially structured and ~100× brighter than typical halos; Mg II absorption shows no corresponding anisotropy in incidence, equivalent width, or column density. The authors interpret this as evidence for localized, jet-driven boosting of cool CGM clouds.

Significance. If robust, the result supplies direct observational evidence that radio jets couple anisotropically to the cool ionized CGM, producing localized Hα emission enhancements without altering the ambient Mg II-traced reservoir. This would strengthen models of mechanical AGN feedback by showing that jet propagation can dramatically alter density, pressure, or ionization in a small solid angle while leaving the bulk CGM unaffected.

major comments (1)
  1. [position-angle binning and stacking procedure (abstract and methods description)] The central claim of jet-aligned anisotropy rests on accurate classification of the 324 sightlines into the θ<20° bin. The manuscript provides no assessment of radio-jet position-angle uncertainties (arising from finite resolution, lobe asymmetry, or core-jet misalignment) nor any robustness test that perturbs the observed PAs and re-stacks. If typical PA errors are ≳10–20°, a non-negligible fraction of off-axis sightlines will be misclassified into the aligned stack, potentially generating the reported >5σ contrast and the null azimuthal result as an artifact rather than a physical signal.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the detailed and constructive referee report. We address the major comment on position-angle binning below, providing the strongest honest response based on the manuscript content. We agree the point identifies a genuine gap and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [position-angle binning and stacking procedure (abstract and methods description)] The central claim of jet-aligned anisotropy rests on accurate classification of the 324 sightlines into the θ<20° bin. The manuscript provides no assessment of radio-jet position-angle uncertainties (arising from finite resolution, lobe asymmetry, or core-jet misalignment) nor any robustness test that perturbs the observed PAs and re-stacks. If typical PA errors are ≳10–20°, a non-negligible fraction of off-axis sightlines will be misclassified into the aligned stack, potentially generating the reported >5σ contrast and the null azimuthal result as an artifact rather than a physical signal.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not provide an assessment of radio-jet position-angle uncertainties or any robustness test that perturbs the observed PAs and re-stacks. This is a valid concern, as unaccounted errors of 10–20° could lead to misclassification and potentially inflate the reported contrast between the aligned and azimuthal stacks. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection in the methods describing typical PA uncertainties for the radio data used (drawing on resolution and morphology considerations from the source catalogs), followed by a Monte Carlo robustness test in which the PAs are perturbed within estimated error ranges and the stacks are recomputed. The results of this test will be reported, including the impact on the >5σ Hα detection significance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct observational stacking result

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical detection of Hα excess via stacking of DESI quasar spectra, with sightlines binned by observed radio jet position angles. The central >5σ excess in the θ<20° bin and the contrast to the azimuthal stack (<2σ) are direct measurements of integrated flux from the data, with no equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or derivations that reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz is invoked to justify the anisotropy claim; the result is self-contained against external benchmarks as a straightforward observational analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on accurate determination of radio jet axes and the assumption that DESI sightlines provide an unbiased angular distribution relative to those axes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Radio jet axes can be reliably determined from radio observations and position angles of quasar sightlines can be measured accurately relative to them.
    The >5σ excess is reported only for θ<20°; any systematic error in angle assignment would dilute or create the signal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5884 in / 1178 out tokens · 44893 ms · 2026-06-30T05:07:27.793326+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

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., & Cioffi, D

    Begelman, M. C., & Cioffi, D. F. 1989, ApJL, 345, L21, doi: 10.1086/185542

    work page doi:10.1086/185542 1989

  2. [2]

    J., Bower, R

    Benson, A. J., Bower, R. G., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 38, doi: 10.1086/379160

    work page doi:10.1086/379160 2003

  3. [3]

    Bicknell, G. V. 1995, ApJS, 101, 29, doi: 10.1086/192232 Bîrzan, L., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Carilli, C. L., & Wise, M. W. 2008, ApJ, 686, 859, doi: 10.1086/591416

    work page doi:10.1086/192232 1995

  4. [4]

    Neumann, D. M. 1993, MNRAS, 264, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.1.L25

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/264.1.l25 1993

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46 —

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46 —. 2016, ApJ, 833, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/259

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/46 2015

  6. [6]

    G., Benson, A

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

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

  7. [7]

    X., et al

    Chang, Y.-L., Lan, T.-W., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c44 2024

  8. [8]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    work page doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 2023

  9. [9]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    Chaussidon, E., Yèche, C., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2 2023

  10. [10]

    L., & Binney, J

    Cowie, L. L., & Binney, J. 1977, ApJ, 215, 723, doi: 10.1086/155406

    work page doi:10.1086/155406 1977

  11. [11]

    , year =

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037 DESI Collaborati...

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

  12. [12]

    Donahue, M., & Voit, G. M. 2022, PhR, 973, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005 2022

  13. [13]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00446

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.00446 2023

  14. [14]

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

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

  15. [15]

    C., & Nulsen, P

    Fabian, A. C., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.3.479

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/180.3.479 1977

  16. [16]

    A method for image analysis

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Allen, S. W., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L43, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06902.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06902.x 2003

  17. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00174, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00174 14Roy et al

    Fumagalli, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00174, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00174 14Roy et al

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.00174 2024

  18. [18]

    Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., & McNamara, B. R. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 950641, doi: 10.1155/2012/950641

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/950641 2012

  19. [19]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  20. [20]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  21. [21]

    J., & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Croston, J. H. 2020, NewAR, 88, 101539, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539 2020

  22. [22]

    J., Horton, M

    Hardcastle, M. J., Horton, M. A., Williams, W. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347333 2023

  23. [23]

    M., & Best, P

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

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

  24. [24]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546 2008

  25. [25]

    N., Raouf, M., et al

    Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., Raouf, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1813

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1813 2023

  26. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc08

    Lan, T.-W., & Mo, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc08

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadc08 2018

  27. [27]

    D., et al

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  28. [28]

    McCarthy, P. J. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 639, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.003231

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.003231 1993

  29. [29]

    Self-healing high-dimensional quantum key distribution using hybrid spin-orbit Bessel states

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 —. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 2007

  30. [30]

    R., Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Wise, M. W., et al. 2005, Nature, 433, 45, doi: 10.1038/nature03202

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03202 2005

  31. [31]

    2008, A&A Rv, 15, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    Miley, G., & De Breuck, C. 2008, A&A Rv, 15, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z 2008

  32. [32]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1368 2016

  33. [33]

    S., & Silk, J

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Wagner, A. Y., Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1776 2018

  34. [34]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., De Breuck, C., Lehnert, M. D., Best, P. N., & Collet, C. 2017, A&A, 599, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528040

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528040 2017

  35. [35]

    M., & van Breugel, W

    Gilbert, A. M., & van Breugel, W. 2008, A&A, 491, 407, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810346

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810346 2008

  36. [36]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., Lehnert, M. D., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 693, doi: 10.1086/507266

    work page doi:10.1086/507266 2006

  37. [37]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5b68

    Roy, N., Heckman, T., Henry, A., Wang, W., & Kukreti, P. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5b68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5b68 2026

  38. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0

    Roy, N., Moravec, E., Bundy, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0 2021

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4bda

    Roy, N., Heckman, T., Overzier, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4bda

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4bda 2024

  40. [40]

    A., Villar-Martín, M., et al

    Saxena, A., Overzier, R. A., Villar-Martín, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.12199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.12199

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.12199 2024

  41. [41]

    W., Röttgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., Röttgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629313 2017

  42. [42]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 2022

  43. [43]

    H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al

    Silber, J. H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 2023

  44. [44]

    S., & Bicknell, G

    Sutherland, R. S., & Bicknell, G. V. 2007, Ap&SS, 311, 293, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9580-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9580-y 2007

  45. [45]

    K., et al

    Thom, C., Tumlinson, J., Werk, J. K., et al. 2012, ApJL, 758, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L41

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/l41 2012

  46. [46]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 2017

  47. [47]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson, J., Thom, C., Werk, J. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/59 2013

  48. [48]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 van Ojik, R., Roettgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., &

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2011

  49. [49]

    Hunstead, R. W. 1997, A&A, 317, 358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9608092

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9608092 1997

  50. [50]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 Villar-Martín, M., Vernet, J., di Serego Alighieri, S., et al

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 Villar-Martín, M., Vernet, J., di Serego Alighieri, S., et al. 2003, NewAR, 47, 291, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(03)00041-1

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 2005

  51. [51]

    Y., & Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., & Bicknell, G. V. 2011, ApJ, 728, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/1/29 2011

  52. [52]

    Y., Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., & Umemura, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/136 2012

  53. [53]

    2024, A&A, 683, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348531

    Wang, W., Wylezalek, D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348531

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348531 2024

  54. [54]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3223

    Yang, T., Davé, R., Cui, W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3223

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3223 2024

  55. [55]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab55ed

    Zhang, H., Yang, X., Zaritsky, D., Behroozi, P., & Werk, J. 2020, ApJ, 888, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab55ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab55ed 2020

  56. [56]

    Zhang, H., Zaritsky, D., Zhu, G., Ménard, B., & Hogg, D. W. 2016, ApJ, 833, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/276

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/276 2016

  57. [57]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 3139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu186

    Zhu, G., Ménard, B., Bizyaev, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu186

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu186 2014