pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23399 · v1 · pith:4BKU6PSJnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

ALMA CO-CAVITY I. Resolved Molecular Gas in Void Galaxies

D. Espada , S. B. De Daniloff , S. Duarte Puertas , M. Argudo-Fern\'andez , U. Lisenfeld , S. Verley , I. P\'erez , M. I. Rodr\'iguez
show 16 more authors
T. Ruiz-Lara R. Garc\'ia-Benito L. S\'anchez-Menguiano M. S\'anchez-Portal A. Bongiovanni S. F. S\'anchez A. Jim\'enez R. E. Miura G. Torres-R\'ios P. Villalba-Gonz\'alez Y. K. Gonz\'alez-Koda B. Bidaran M. Alc\'azar-Laynez A. Zurita E. Florido P. V\'asquez-Bustos
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords void galaxiesmolecular gasALMAscaling relationsCO observationsstar formationgalaxy evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Void galaxies exhibit molecular gas scaling relations compatible with those in denser environments.

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

The ALMA CO-CAVITY project delivers the first interferometric CO(1-0) survey of 41 void galaxies, providing resolved data cubes, moment maps, and surface density maps alongside optical IFU data for direct comparisons of molecular gas, star formation, and stellar properties. The work contextualizes the sample against other surveys and derives global scaling relations, finding the molecular gas main sequence has the smallest scatter at 0.21 dex. From integrated properties alone, these relations for void galaxies align with those measured in denser large-scale environments. The survey establishes a foundation for future resolved studies of environmental effects on galaxy evolution.

Core claim

The ALMA CO-CAVITY survey of 41 void galaxies finds that scaling relations for molecular gas, including the molecular gas main sequence, Schmidt-Kennicutt relation, and star-forming main sequence, are compatible with those in denser environments when derived from integrated properties.

What carries the argument

ALMA CO(1-0) interferometric observations at 1 arcsec resolution combined with CAVITY optical IFU data, enabling pixel-to-pixel maps of molecular gas, star formation rate, and stellar mass surface densities at 2.5 arcsec resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The sample of 41 void galaxies provides a good representation of the void galaxy population and follows the distribution of key properties seen in star-forming galaxy samples.

What would settle it

A larger sample of void galaxies or one selected differently showing statistically significant offsets or increased scatter in the molecular gas main sequence relative to denser-environment samples would falsify the compatibility claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23399 by A. Bongiovanni, A. Jim\'enez, A. Zurita, B. Bidaran, D. Espada, E. Florido, G. Torres-R\'ios, I. P\'erez, L. S\'anchez-Menguiano, M. Alc\'azar-Laynez, M. Argudo-Fern\'andez, M. I. Rodr\'iguez, M. S\'anchez-Portal, P. V\'asquez-Bustos, P. Villalba-Gonz\'alez, R. E. Miura, R. Garc\'ia-Benito, S. B. De Daniloff, S. Duarte Puertas, S. F. S\'anchez, S. Verley, T. Ruiz-Lara, U. Lisenfeld, Y. K. Gonz\'alez-Koda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: False RGB colour images (red - z band, green - r band, blue - g band) from DECaLS legacy survey of the 41 ALMA CO-CAVITY VGs. In each panel, we show the CAVITY ID of the galaxy in the upper-left corner, and a scale bar of 10 kpc in the lower-right corner. The dashed rectangle corresponds to the field shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: sSFR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distributions of M⋆, SFR, vrec, and d25 for the ALMA CO-CAVITY sample (blue filled histogram), in comparison with (Left panels) unresolved studies: the CO-CAVITY (blue hatched, Rodríguez et al. 2024) and xCOLD GASS (dark grey unfilled, Saintonge et al. 2017) samples; (Right panels) and resolved studies: the EDGE-CALIFA (magenta hatched, Bolatto et al. 2017) and ALMaQUEST (green unfilled, Lin et al. 2020) s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Moment-0 maps of the 41 ALMA CO-CAVITY VGs. In each panel, we show the CAVITY ID of the galaxy in the upper-left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of gas phase metallicity (12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MH2 distribution of the ALMA CO-CAVITY sample (blue filled histogram), compared to: (Top) unresolved studies CO-CAVITY (blue hatched), xCOLD GASS samples (dark grey unfilled); (Bottom) resolved studies EDGE-CALIFA (magenta hatched), and ALMaQUEST (green unfilled) samples. Above each histogram we show bars with the mean values and stan￾dard deviations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of the ALMA CO￾CAVITY resolved data products at 2′′ .5 angular resolution, for galaxy CAVITY ID 48125. In the upper row (from left to right): optical image (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Global scaling relations of the ALMA CO-CAVITY sample: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The environment plays a key role in galaxy evolution, yet it remains unclear how detailed molecular gas properties and their connection to star formation and stellar content are influenced by both large-scale and local environments. Here we introduce the ALMA CO-CAVITY project, the first interferometric CO(1-0) survey of a large sample of 41 void galaxies (VGs) to characterise in detail their molecular gas properties. It is built over the CAVITY project, offering optical integral field unit (IFU) data, enabling a direct, pixel-to-pixel comparison between molecular gas (from ALMA), star formation, and stellar properties, as well as the derivation of their scaling relations. In this work we present ALMA data products for our sample, containing data cubes, moment maps and position-velocity diagrams at angular resolutions of 1 arcsec. We also present molecular gas, stellar mass, and star formation rate surface density maps at a common resolution of 2.5 arcsec. We contextualise our sample against representative unresolved and resolved surveys. While our sample provides a good representation of the VG population and follows the distribution of key properties seen in star-forming galaxy samples, galaxies included in resolved studies from the literature tend to be more massive, less isolated, and located in denser large-scale environments. We present global scaling relations for the ALMA CO-CAVITY sample and find that the molecular gas main sequence exhibits the smallest scatter (0.21 dex), followed by the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation and the star-forming main sequence. From integrated properties alone, we find that these scaling relations for VGs are compatible with those for denser environments. This paper lays the foundation for forthcoming studies exploiting this unique dataset.

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 introduces the ALMA CO-CAVITY project as the first interferometric CO(1-0) survey of 41 void galaxies, built on the CAVITY IFU sample. It presents data products (cubes, moment maps, PV diagrams at ~1 arcsec resolution and surface density maps at 2.5 arcsec), contextualizes the sample against literature surveys, and reports that the molecular gas main sequence (scatter 0.21 dex), Schmidt-Kennicutt relation, and star-forming main sequence derived from integrated properties are compatible with those found in denser environments.

Significance. If the sample is shown to be representative, the work supplies the first sizable resolved molecular-gas dataset in voids and indicates that large-scale underdensity does not alter the integrated scaling relations, providing a useful baseline for environmental studies of the molecular gas-star formation connection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and sample contextualization section: The assertion that 'our sample provides a good representation of the VG population and follows the distribution of key properties seen in star-forming galaxy samples' is presented without quantitative statistical comparisons (e.g., KS tests, histograms, or median/percentile tables) to the parent CAVITY catalog or to the unresolved/resolved literature samples referenced; this directly underpins the generalization of the compatibility result.
  2. [Sample selection and observations] Sample selection and observations section: No explicit quantification of ALMA target selection effects or post-selection biases in M_star, SFR, or isolation is provided, nor is there verification that the 41 galaxies match the parent distribution in these parameters; without this, the central claim that the relations are compatible from integrated properties alone cannot be evaluated for the broader VG population.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Data products] The common 2.5 arcsec resolution for the surface density maps is stated but the convolution kernel and any associated flux-loss corrections are not described.
  2. [Scaling relations] The reported scatter of 0.21 dex for the molecular gas main sequence should be accompanied by the fitting method (e.g., orthogonal distance regression) and the number of galaxies entering each relation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight the need for stronger statistical support of our sample's representativeness. We will revise the manuscript to address these points directly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and sample contextualization section: The assertion that 'our sample provides a good representation of the VG population and follows the distribution of key properties seen in star-forming galaxy samples' is presented without quantitative statistical comparisons (e.g., KS tests, histograms, or median/percentile tables) to the parent CAVITY catalog or to the unresolved/resolved literature samples referenced; this directly underpins the generalization of the compatibility result.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative comparisons are required to substantiate the representativeness claim. In the revised manuscript we will add Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, histograms, and tables reporting medians and percentiles for stellar mass, SFR, and isolation, comparing the ALMA CO-CAVITY sample both to the full CAVITY parent catalog and to the unresolved and resolved literature samples cited in the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sample selection and observations] Sample selection and observations section: No explicit quantification of ALMA target selection effects or post-selection biases in M_star, SFR, or isolation is provided, nor is there verification that the 41 galaxies match the parent distribution in these parameters; without this, the central claim that the relations are compatible from integrated properties alone cannot be evaluated for the broader VG population.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit quantification of selection effects is necessary. The revised sample selection section will include a discussion of ALMA target selection criteria and any resulting biases, together with statistical verification (KS tests and distribution comparisons) confirming that the 41 galaxies are consistent with the parent CAVITY distributions in M_star, SFR, and isolation. These additions will allow readers to assess the applicability of the integrated scaling relations to the broader void-galaxy population. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational data presentation with independent scaling relations

full rationale

The paper reports new ALMA CO(1-0) observations of 41 void galaxies, produces moment maps and surface density maps, and computes global scaling relations (molecular gas main sequence, Schmidt-Kennicutt, star-forming main sequence) directly from the integrated and resolved data. No equations derive a quantity from a fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction; no self-citation chain supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the central claim depends on; the compatibility statement is an empirical comparison of the observed relations to literature values for denser environments. The representativeness statement is an assertion about sample selection, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. This is a standard observational survey paper whose results are externally falsifiable against independent datasets.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard radio-astronomy conversions from CO luminosity to molecular gas mass and on the assumption that the 41-galaxy sample is representative of the void population.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard CO-to-H2 conversion factor assumptions in extragalactic astronomy
    Invoked when deriving molecular gas masses and surface densities from ALMA CO(1-0) data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6011 in / 1106 out tokens · 23803 ms · 2026-05-25T04:09:32.780532+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

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4750 8 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al

    Accurso, G., Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4750 8 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A110 4, 7 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 13

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    M., Maiolino, R., Bluck, A

    Baker, W. M., Maiolino, R., Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3622 3

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    K., Sánchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Sánchez, S. F., Heckman, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3643 3

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    M., & van Gorkom, J

    Beygu, B., Kreckel, K., van de Weygaert, R., van der Hulst, J. M., & van Gorkom, J. H. 2013, AJ, 145, 120 1, 2

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Beygu, B., Kreckel, K., van der Hulst, J. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 394 1

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Blanton, M. R. & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159 1

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207 3

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    D., Wong, T., Utomo, D., et al

    Bolatto, A. D., Wong, T., Utomo, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 159 2, 6, 10

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603 1

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151 3, 9

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    2013, in ECML PKDD Workshop: Languages for Data Mining and Machine Learning, 108–122 13

    Buitinck, L., Louppe, G., Blondel, M., et al. 2013, in ECML PKDD Workshop: Languages for Data Mining and Machine Learning, 108–122 13

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7 7

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923 1

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763 2

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763 2

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    2025, A&A, 699, A367 9, 10, 12

    Colombo, D., Kalinova, V ., Bazzi, Z., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A367 9, 10, 12

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Curtis, O., McDonough, B., & Brainerd, T. G. 2024, ApJ, 962, 58 2

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 40 2 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Lisenfeld, U., Pérez, I., et al

    Das, M., Saito, T., Iono, D., Honey, M., & Ramya, S. 2015, ApJ, 815, 40 2 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Lisenfeld, U., Pérez, I., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A124 1, 10 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., &

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Fischer, J. L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3661 3, 6 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Pérez, I., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 269, aDS Bibcode: 2023Natur.619..269D 1, 2, 12

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351 2 Duarte Puertas, S., Vilchez, J

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351 2 Duarte Puertas, S., Vilchez, J. M., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A71 6

    work page 1980

  20. [20]

    S., Moiseev, A

    Egorova, E. S., Moiseev, A. V ., & Egorov, O. V . 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3403 1

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72 2

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    L., Lin, L., Thorp, M

    Ellison, S. L., Lin, L., Thorp, M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4777 3

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    L., Pan, H.-A., Bluck, A

    Ellison, S. L., Pan, H.-A., Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10201 2, 3

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    L., Thorp, M

    Ellison, S. L., Thorp, M. D., Lin, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L39 3

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    2022, A&A, 659, A191 2

    Emsellem, E., Schinnerer, E., Santoro, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A191 2

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 77 12

    Espada, D., Martin, S., Verley, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 77 12

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    A., Kannappan, S

    Florez, J., Berlind, A. A., Kannappan, S. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 97 2 García-Benito, R., Jiménez, A., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A161 6, 7

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98 13

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    E., et al

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2024, astropy/astroquery: v0.4.7 13

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.0 13

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.0 13

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    2024, scikit-learn/scikit-learn: Scikit-learn 1.4.1.post1 13

    Grisel, O., Mueller, A., Lars, et al. 2024, scikit-learn/scikit-learn: Scikit-learn 1.4.1.post1 13

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357 13

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90 13

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    2020, MN- RAS, 493, 1982 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

    Janowiecki, S., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., Saintonge, A., & Wang, J. 2020, MN- RAS, 493, 1982 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33 3, 6

    work page 2003

  36. [36]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531 8

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189 9

    work page 1998

  38. [38]

    A., Jones, D

    Kleiner, D., Pimbblet, K. A., Jones, D. H., Koribalski, B. S., & Serra, P. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4692 2

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    2016, in ELPUB, 87–90 13

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in ELPUB, 87–90 13

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Kreckel, K., Croxall, K., Groves, B., van de Weygaert, R., & Pogge, R. W. 2015, ApJ, 798, L15 2

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 16 2

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, publisher: Oxford Academic 2

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, publisher: Oxford Academic 2

    work page 2001

  43. [43]

    A., Sánchez, S., Mejía-Narváez, A., et al

    Lacerda, E. A., Sánchez, S., Mejía-Narváez, A., et al. 2022, New Astronomy, 97, 101895 7

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    N., Cen, R., Ostriker, J

    Lackner, C. N., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., & Joung, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 641 1

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    L., Pan, H.-A., et al

    Lin, L., Ellison, S. L., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 145 2, 6

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    L., et al

    Lin, L., Pan, H.-A., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, L33 3, 11

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    2011, A&A, 534, A102 12

    Lisenfeld, U., Espada, D., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A102 12

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, 52, 415 3

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    C., V ogeley, M

    Pan, D. C., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., Choi, Y .-Y ., & Park, C. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 926 1, 3, 4, 7

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    L., et al

    Pan, H.-A., Lin, L., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 120 3, 10 pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 13

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 13

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 13

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe 1

    work page 1980

  53. [53]

    & Granger, B

    Perez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21 13 Pérez, I., Gil, L., Ferré-Mateu, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A84 2 Pérez, I., Verley, S., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A213 3, 4, 6, 7

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    & Pagel, B

    Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59 6, 8 Article number, page 13 of 20 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    Pustilnik, S. A. & Tepliakova, A. L. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1188 2

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4045 1, 11 Rodríguez, M

    Ricciardelli, E., Cava, A., Varela, J., & Quilis, V . 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4045 1, 11 Rodríguez, M. I., Lisenfeld, U., Duarte Puertas, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A125 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Tissera, P., Lagos, C. d. P., Paillas, E., & Padilla, N. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 712 2

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    J., Weistrop, D., Cruzen, S., & Kompe, C

    Sage, L. J., Weistrop, D., Cruzen, S., & Kompe, C. 1997, AJ, 114, 1753 2

    work page 1997

  59. [59]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1749 9

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1749 9

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    J., et al

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 22 2, 6, 9

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267 3, 6

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 2 Sánchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Lacerda, E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 36 7 Sánchez, S. F., García-Benito, R., González Delgado, R., et al. 2024, Rev. Mex- icana Astron. Astrofis., 60, 323 7 Sánchez, S. F., García-Benito, R., Zibetti, S., et al. 2016a, A&A, 594, A36 7 Sánchez, S. F., Pérez, E., Sánchez-Blázq...

    work page 1955

  63. [63]

    2026, A&A, 706, A265 2, 12

    Sharma, E., Biswas, P., Das, M., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A265 2, 12

    work page 2026

  64. [64]

    M., Downes, D., Radford, S

    Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., & Barrett, J. W. 1997, ApJ, 478, 144 8

    work page 1997

  65. [65]

    S., & White, S

    Springel, V ., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 2006, Nature, 440, 1137 1

    work page 2006

  66. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 173 10

    Su, Y .-C., Lin, L., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 173 10

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    Tempel, E., Tuvikene, T., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2017, A&A, 602, A100 3, 4, 7 Torres-Ríos, G., Pérez, I., Verley, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A341 2, 4, 7

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898 3 van de Weygaert, R. & Platen, E. 2011, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 41–66 1 Van Rossum, G. & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace) 13

    work page 2004

  69. [69]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 13 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61 13

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962 6

    Westmeier, T., Kitaeff, S., Pallot, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962 6

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 35 2 Article number, page 14 of 20 D

    Wong, T., Cao, Y ., Luo, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 35 2 Article number, page 14 of 20 D. Espada et al.: ALMA CO-CA VITY I. Resolved Molecular Gas in V oid Galaxies Appendix A: Information of ALMA CO-CAVITY observations and properties of ALMA data cubes Tab. A.1 summarises the observational and processing characteristics of the ALMA datasets used in thi...

    work page 2024