Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Dynamically-Driven Evolution of Molecular Gas in M83 Traced by CO 2-1/1-0 Line Ratio Variations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Molecular gas in M83 changes state with galactic rotation, not with star formation feedback.

desk verdict A valuable, carefully made 46 pc R21 map of M83 with a robust large-scale pattern, but the paper's central dynamical-evolution interpretation leans on an unquantified beam-filling assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08876 v1 pith:6ROMM5MX submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.GA

Jin Koda , Fumi Egusa , Akihiko Hirota , Amanda M Lee , Tsuyoshi Sawada , Fumiya Maeda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords CO(2-1)/CO(1-0)lineratiomoleculargasbarredspiralgalaxiesgalacticdynamicsstellarfeedbackM83ALMAinterstellarmedium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper maps the CO J=2-1/1-0 line ratio (R21) across the barred spiral galaxy M83 at 46 parsec resolution, resolving individual molecular clouds. The map shows that R21 is low (<0.7) in interarm regions and high (>0.7) in the bar and spiral arms, implying that the gas density and kinetic temperature rise by a factor of roughly 2-3 as gas flows into the arms. This rise occurs even in arm regions with no star formation, while star-forming HII regions only push R21 to 0.8-1.0 within about 100 pc. The authors conclude that galactic structures and rotation timescales, rather than stellar feedback, govern the evolution of the bulk molecular gas, and that molecular clouds survive for at least ~100 Myr.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the CO J=2-1/1-0 brightness ratio R21, a diagnostic of molecular gas excitation: higher R21 indicates higher H2 volume density and/or kinetic temperature, calibrated by Large Velocity Gradient modeling that ties R21~0.6-0.7 to typical clouds of density ~300 $cm^{-3}$ and temperature ~10 K. The analysis relies on combining interferometer and total-power data to reach 46 pc resolution, close to the ~40 pc typical cloud diameter, and adopts the Milky Way classification of Low Ratio Gas (<0.7), High Ratio Gas (0.7-1.0), and Very High Ratio Gas (>1.0). Multi-wavelength comparisons (H-$\alpha$, infrared, and HI images) separate regions with and without star formation to isolate dynamical compression from feedback heating.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the M83 CO maps at about 10 pc resolution in one interarm and one arm field: if the interarm CO(1-0) breaks into diffuse low-level gas that CO(2-1) misses while the arm emission stays in compact bright clumps, then the low interarm R21 is in part a beam-filling artifact rather than a true change in the bulk gas state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using high-resolution CO(1-0) and CO(2-1) observations of M83 with a common 46 pc round beam, this paper constructs the line ratio R21 = I21/I10 and finds systematic large-scale variations tied to galactic structures. Azimuthally, R21 rises from below 0.7 in the interarm gas to at least 0.7 in the bar and spiral arms; radially, it is very high (~1.0) in the central 500 pc, drops to about 0.6 through the bar, rises again around the bar end, and declines toward the outer disk. Since R21 is sensitive to H2 density and kinetic temperature, this pattern evidences that the bulk molecular gas is compressed and heated by about a factor of 2-3 as it rotates through spiral-arm shocks, and that this evolution is synchronized with galactic rotation rather than triggered by star formation. The influence of stellar feedback appears localized to within about 100 pc of HII regions, and massive, non-star-forming molecular structures in interarm regions show low R21. The paper argues that molecular gas/cloud evolution in barred spirals is dynamically driven, with cloud lifetimes lasting a substantial fraction of the rotation timescale.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the 46 pc beam mostly isolates individual molecular clouds, so that the observed R21 variations reflect genuine changes in gas density and temperature rather than beam filling by diffuse, low-excitation gas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Molecular gas and clouds in barred spirals evolve on galactic rotation timescales (order 100 Myr or more), not the short 5-30 Myr cloud lifetimes proposed in recent literature.
  • Stellar feedback modifies molecular gas conditions only in localized patches within about 100 pc; feedback is not the main driver of the bulk gas evolution across a disk.
  • CO(2-1) cannot be treated as an equivalent mass tracer to CO(1-0) when galactic structures are resolved, since the ratio varies systematically with environment.
  • The observed interarm-to-arm R21 contrast provides a direct, resolved test of cloud assembly and disruption along galactic flows.
  • Similar R21 patterns in other barred spirals indicate that dynamically driven gas evolution is general among local barred spiral galaxies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pattern holds, star formation prescriptions in galaxy simulations should couple molecular gas state to large-scale kinematics (arm crossings) rather than only to local feedback.
  • A testable extension is to compare R21 at matched physical resolution in a strongly flocculent or non-barred spiral; a weaker arm/interarm contrast would confirm that the bar and density waves are the driver rather than rotation alone.
  • The authors' assumption of resolved clouds could be checked statistically: the fraction of 46 pc beams containing a single velocity-coherent cloud can be measured from the CO(1-0) data cube, and R21 recomputed after excluding blended beams.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a full-disk map of the CO J=2-1/1-0 line ratio (R21/10) in the barred spiral galaxy M83, constructed from ALMA 12m+7m+Total Power observations that are jointly imaged to a common 46 pc resolution. The authors report systematic large-scale variations: low R21/10 (≲0.7) in interarm regions and higher values (≳0.7) in the bar and spiral arms, with even higher values (0.8-1.0) localized around HII regions, and a radial sequence of high values at the center, lower values in the bar, a rise near the bar ends, and a gradual decline outward. They interpret the pattern as evidence that the density and/or temperature of the bulk molecular gas changes by a factor of ~2-3 in response to galactic structures and dynamics rather than stellar feedback, and they argue that this implies molecular gas and clouds survive and evolve over at least a substantial fraction of the galactic rotation timescale. The paper compares the results with Milky Way HRG/LRG classifications and with other barred galaxies, and discusses the limited, localized impact of star formation feedback.

Significance. If the central interpretation holds, this is a valuable and possibly general result: high-resolution, full-disk R21 imaging of a nearby barred spiral can directly trace where and when molecular gas physical conditions change, and the data appear to support dynamically driven evolution over feedback-dominated evolution. The observational product is strong: the paper combines ALMA 12m, 7m, and Total Power data, carefully matches beams to 46 pc, discusses calibration and sensitivity cuts transparently, and provides a detailed appendix on imaging and HII-region masking. The comparison with the Milky Way and other barred galaxies is constructive, and the authors are appropriately cautious in several places (the causal role of feedback, the crudeness of the LVG conversion, the sensitivity bias). The main risk is that the quantitative claim of a factor-of-2-3 change in gas density/temperature rests on untested beam-filling and on external, model-dependent calibrations, so the significance of the physical conclusion is somewhat uncertain until those issues are quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (paragraph beginning 'The R21/10 values reported here...') and Section 5.4] The central interpretation assumes that the 46 pc beam is mostly filled by isolated molecular clouds, so that the observed R21 variation reflects changes in gas density and temperature rather than beam filling. The manuscript states that 'when the clouds are isolated in each beam, the line ratio does not suffer from the beam filling factor' but does not quantify the fraction of beams that satisfy this condition, nor the contribution of diffuse, low-excitation CO(1-0) emission to the interarm flux. Section 4.1 explicitly notes that CO(1-0) is more spatially extended than CO(2-1), especially toward interarm regions, which is exactly the situation in which the low interarm R21 could result from a larger diffuse-to-clump flux ratio rather than from lower n_H2/T_k in the bulk gas. The comparison in Figure 4 between R21/10(I) and R21/10(T) does not remove this degeneracy because both quantities use the same beam and the same diffuse component. This is load-bearing for the abstract and Section 5.4 claim that the bulk molecular gas changes its density/temperature by a factor of 2-3; please quantify the diffuse flux fraction and the beam-isolation fraction, for example by comparing matched-beam maps at coarser resolution or by modeling a two-component (diffuse plus compact) beam-filling decomposition.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 5.4] The quantitative statement that R21 increases by about a factor of 2-3 in density and/or kinetic temperature between interarm and arm/bar regions is imported from external LVG calculations and from Milky Way LRG/HRG/VHRG classifications rather than derived from an inversion of the M83 data. R21 alone has well-known degeneracies among n_H2, T_k, N_CO, line opacity, and beam filling, and Section 3.1 describes the HRG/LRG boundary as a 'crude guideline.' The abstract and conclusions nevertheless present the factor of 2-3 as a quantitative result. Please either provide an explicit LVG-based inversion with assumed M83 parameters and show how the inferred n_H2/T_k ranges depend on those assumptions, or systematically soften the quantitative claim to state that the observations are consistent with such changes under the adopted conversion. Without this, the strongest quantitative conclusion in the abstract is not uniquely supported by the data.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Section 5.4] The inference that the large-scale R21 pattern demonstrates evolutionary synchronization with galactic rotation is based on a single snapshot. The observed azimuthal sequence (interarm low, arm high, interarm low again) could in principle be maintained by a quasi-static population of molecular clouds whose physical conditions depend on local environment, rather than by individual clouds that travel across the disk and evolve along the flow. The argument that short cloud lifetimes would destroy the large-scale pattern assumes that clouds must be advected between structures; a stationary pattern could also be produced by short-lived clouds forming in situ with different properties in different environments. If the authors wish to claim that the evolution is governed by galactic rotation timescales, they should provide additional support, for example a kinematic test, an azimuthal-phase-resolved analysis that accounts for the pattern speed and possible corotation, or an explicit statistical model showing that a transient-cloud population cannot reproduce the observed azimuthal coherence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The notation is inconsistent: the paper mostly uses R21/10 but Table 1 and some figure captions use R21; please unify the notation.
  2. [Appendix A.1] There is a typo in 'sidebloes' (should be 'sidelobes').
  3. [Section 2.1 and Appendix A.2.2] The CO(2-1) field is smaller than the CO(1-0) field, and the TP filling uses CO(1-0) scaled by 0.55 outside the observed CO(2-1) field. The paper states that this transition zone lies outside the final field of view, but it would be helpful to state explicitly in Section 2.1 whether any pixels in the R21 map near the outer disk and interarm regions could be affected by this procedure.
  4. [Section 4.4] The statement that the radii of R21/10 > 0.8 regions are ≲100 pc around prominent HII regions is based on visual inspection; please either quantify this (e.g., with radial profiles or median sizes) or explicitly label it as a qualitative impression.
  5. [Section 5.1] The value of trot,p = 6 Gyr at R = 3 kpc is very sensitive to the adopted pattern speed because Ω and Ωp are nearly equal near corotation; it would be helpful to state this sensitivity and to show how the conclusion would change for a small variation in Ωp.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the R21 measurements are independent observations and the density/temperature calibration is an external LVG mapping, not a fit to the M83 data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is anchored in direct ALMA measurements of CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ratios across M83, and the conversion from R21 to nH2/Tk is not fitted to M83 data. Section 3.1 adopts the Milky Way LRG/HRG/VHRG classifications and cites external LVG calculations, and Section 4.3's 'factor of 2-3' statement is explicitly referred to the LVG calculation by Koda et al. (2012) as an external modeling result with stated assumptions, not as a parameter fitted to the present galaxy. The paper's self-citations to Koda et al. (2020, 2023), Hirota et al. (2024), and related work are used for data reduction, cloud identification, rotation parameters, and prior M83 measurements; these are independent observational products rather than definitions that force the conclusion. The main caveat, stated in Section 4, is the assumption that 46 pc beams isolate individual molecular clouds so that beam filling does not affect the line ratio; the paper notes CO(1-0) is more extended than CO(2-1), especially in interarm regions, and does not quantify the fraction of isolated beams. This is a genuine correctness risk for the astrophysical interpretation, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define R21 variations in terms of the claimed density/temperature evolution, nor does any equation reduce the conclusion to the input. The systematic large-scale pattern in R21 is observed independently of the LVG interpretation, so the derivation chain is not self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced and no free parameters are fitted to M83 data in this paper. The load-bearing inputs are standard LVG radiative transfer mapping, adopted Milky Way R21 thresholds, the cloud-isolation/beam-filling assumption, the clockwise flow assumption, and Halpha-based HII-region completeness. These are external or assumed, not derived here.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) intensity ratio R21/10 is primarily set by H2 volume density n_H2, kinetic temperature T_k, and CO column density N_CO via LVG radiative transfer.
    Used in Sections 3.1 and 5.3 to convert observed ratio ranges into factor of 2-3 changes in density/temperature. This is standard astrophysics but not proven within the paper.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way LRG/HRG/VHRG classification thresholds of R21/10 = 0.7 and 1.0 apply to M83's molecular gas.
    Adopted in Section 3 without re-derivation for M83; used to count low vs high ratio gas fractions and to anchor the physical interpretation.
  • domain assumption At 46 pc resolution, molecular clouds are approximately isolated in the beam, so beam filling does not distort the ratio.
    Stated near the start of Section 4; if clouds are blended with diffuse gas, low interarm ratios could reflect beam dilution rather than lower n_H2/T_k.
  • domain assumption The gas flow across M83 is clockwise, so the leading and trailing sides of the spiral arms can be interpreted as upstream and downstream.
    Used in Sections 4.4 and 5.3 to assign interarm vs arm regions and to infer an evolutionary sequence; drawn from previous work and HII region offsets.
  • domain assumption The HST Halpha-based HII-region mask is complete enough that regions outside it are free of stellar feedback.
    The mask reaches LHalpha about 1e35 erg/s, but embedded or obscured star formation could still exist; the paper relies on this completeness to claim R21 rises without SF.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamically-Driven Evolution of Molecular Gas in M83 Traced by CO 2-1/1-0 Line Ratio Variations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ROMM5MX

@misc{pith2026250508876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamically-Driven Evolution of Molecular Gas in M83 Traced by CO 2-1/1-0 Line Ratio Variations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ROMM5MX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08876}
}
read the original abstract

We show the variations of the CO J=2-1/1-0 line ratio (R21) across the barred spiral galaxy M83, using the 46 pc resolution data from ALMA. The R21 map clearly evidences the systematic large-scale variations as a function of galactic structures. Azimuthally, it starts from low R21<~0.7 in the interarm regions and becomes high ~>0.7 in the bar and spiral arms, suggesting that the density and/or kinetic temperature of molecular gas increase by about a factor of 2-3. This evolution is seen even in the parts of spiral arms without star formation, and R21 is often elevated even higher to ~0.8-1.0 when HII regions exist in the vicinity. Radially, R21 starts very high >~1.0 at the galactic center, remains low <~0.7 in the bar region, increases to >~0.7 around the bar end, and again decreases to <~0.7 in the rest of disk where the spiral arms dominate. The evolutionary sequence is synchronized with galactic rotation, and therefore, it is determined largely by the galactic structures and dynamics and is governed by the galactic rotation timescales. The R21 map also shows that the influence of stellar feedback is localized and limited. Massive, large, and non-star forming molecular structures have low R21, which also suggests that the bulk molecular gas in the disk is not regulated by stellar feedback, but more likely by galactic structures and dynamics. These results are consistent with suggestions by the earlier studies of the Milky Way and other barred spiral galaxies, and thus, are likely general among barred spiral galaxies in the local Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integrated intensity maps in CO(1-0) and CO(2-1), I10 and I21, respectively. For a fair comparison of the two transitions, the plot ranges are adjusted to show prominent structures roughly with the same colors, by assuming a typical R21/10(I) of ∼ 0.65. The CO(1-0) map shows more extended emission than the CO(2-1) map. there is any. The emission was integrated along velocity within the mask. The corresponding error … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The R21/10(I) map with two color palettes. The right panel has the dividing line of R21/10 ∼ 0.7 in white. The high ratio gas (> 0.7) is red, and the low ratio gas (< 0.7) is blue. The left panel uses a wider range of color to present R21/10 at a finer scale. tic disk. LRG is less dense and cooler than the aver￾age. The transition from LRG to HRG (or the reverse) is continuous in the values of nH2 and Tk (and NCO). … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the histograms of R21/10 over the entire disk, (a) in flux and (b) in area (pixel counts). In terms of area, the low ratio gas (R21/10 < 0.7) spreads over large areas (76% of the whole disk) compared to the high ratio gas (> 0.7) that occupies 24%. The high ratio gas is typically brighter; and in flux, the low and high ratio gas encompass 58% and 42% of the total flux of the entire disk, respectively. That is,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) line ra￾tio using the integrated intensity, R21/10(I) ≡ I21/I10 and peak brightness temperature, R21/10(T) ≡ T21/T10. (a) R21/10(T)-R21/10(I) plot. Only every 4th spatial pixel in the RA and DEC directions is used. The red contours are…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial distribution of R21/10 with different pre￾sentations, (a) data points, (b) data density, and (c) CO(1- 0)-intensity weighted average and standard deviations. The two sets are shifted slightly in the horizontal direction for clarity of the presentation. In panel …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same as Figure 3a, but separated for each radial bin with 1 kpc width. (a) galactic center, (b) bar, (c) bar end, and (d)-(f) galactic disk where the spiral arms dominate. The vertical axis is the CO(1-0) luminosity LCO in each R21/10 bin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of R21/10(I) and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image. (a) The R21/10(I) map, the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A central 4.35′ × 5.32′ (5.69 × 6.96 kpc2 ) region (a rectangular cutout that avoids the blanks in the HST images). The HII regions are marked with green circles (“HII-region mask”), which separate the areas around and outside the HII regions (see Appendix C for the ma…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as Figure 8d, but for the interarm regions (top panels) and spiral arms (bottom) in Fields 1 (left panel) to 4 (right) defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: R21/10(I) vs I10 and T10. Only every 4th pixels (every 1”) in Figures 1 and 2 are plotted to reduce the density of the data points. The red contours are drawn at 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 of the peak density. tion driven by stellar feedback and die immediately af￾ter the…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Multi-λ comparisons for the area of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Nine fields observed separately in CO(2-1), overlaid on a 12′ × 12′ optical image of M83 from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). Each of these fields has its own set of 12m, 7m, and TP observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The sensitivity-based cuts in the ∆R21/10 vs. R21/10 plane. The contours show the data density in this plot and are drawn at the 90, 80, 70, ..., 10% levels of the peak density. We run SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) with the F657N (Hα) and F673N images: their diff…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plots for the HII region candidates detected in the archival HST images (Blair et al. 2014) in the area of Figures 11 and 8. (a) The F657N/F673N flux ratio vs F657N flux plot. The horizontal sequence around log FF657N/FF673N ∼ 0 (no Hα excess) consists of stars and st…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Arizona Molecular ISM Survey with the SMT: The Diverse Carbon Monoxide Line Ratios and Spectral Line Energy Distributions of Star Forming Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    CO line ratios in 47 nearby star-forming galaxies rise with star formation rate, leading to empirical prescriptions for converting higher-J CO luminosities to molecular gas masses.

  2. Correlations of ALMA CO(2-1) with JWST mid-infrared fluxes down to scale of $\lesssim$100 parsec in nearby star-forming galaxies from PHANGS

    astro-ph.GA 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    At 100-pc scales in 19 PHANGS galaxies, CO(2-1) correlates log-linearly with JWST PAH and dust emission, with the intercept—not slope—varying bimodally with host star-formation strength.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., Black , J

    Aalto , S., Booth , R. S., Black , J. H., & Johansson , L. E. B. 1995, , 300, 369

    1995

  2. [2]

    R., & Wada , K

    Baba , J., Saitoh , T. R., & Wada , K. 2013, , 763, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/46

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/46 2013

  3. [3]

    Bautista , J. M. G., Koda , J., Yagi , M., Komiyama , Y., & Yamanoi , H. 2023, , 267, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/acd3e7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd3e7 2023

  4. [4]

    1996, , 117, 393

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    1996

  5. [5]

    2008, , 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    Bigiel , F., Leroy , A., Walter , F., et al. 2008, , 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846 2008

  6. [6]

    P., Chandar , R., Dopita , M

    Blair , W. P., Chandar , R., Dopita , M. A., et al. 2014, , 788, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/55

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/55 2014

  7. [7]

    1992, , 264, 433

    Braine , J., & Combes , F. 1992, , 264, 433

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    2022, , 164, 32, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac73f0

    Calamida , A., Bajaj , V., Mack , J., et al. 2022, , 164, 32, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac73f0

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac73f0 2022

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    R., McLeod , A

    Chevance , M., Krumholz , M. R., McLeod , A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 1, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., Hygate , A. P. S., et al. 2020, , 493, 2872, 10.1093/mnras/stz3525

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., Krumholz , M. R., et al. 2022, , 509, 272, 10.1093/mnras/stab2938

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    P., & Turner , J

    Crosthwaite , L. P., & Turner , J. L. 2007, , 134, 1827, 10.1086/521645

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Turner , J

    Crosthwaite , L. P., Turner , J. L., Buchholz , L., Ho , P. T. P., & Martin , R. N. 2002, , 123, 1892, 10.1086/339479

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Cohen , S

    Dale , D. A., Cohen , S. A., Johnson , L. C., et al. 2009, , 703, 517, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/517

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P

    Dame , T. M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P. 2001, , 547, 792, 10.1086/318388

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Ungerechts , H., Cohen , R

    Dame , T. M., Ungerechts , H., Cohen , R. S., et al. 1987, , 322, 706, 10.1086/165766

    1987 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Leroy , A., et al

    den Brok , J., Jim \'e nez-Donaire , M. J., Leroy , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21399, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21399

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    S., Chatzigiannakis , D., Bigiel , F., et al

    den Brok , J. S., Chatzigiannakis , D., Bigiel , F., et al. 2021, , 504, 3221, 10.1093/mnras/stab859

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Leroy , A

    den Brok , J. S., Leroy , A. K., Usero , A., et al. 2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad3091

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Calzetti , D., et al

    Deshmukh , S., Linden , S. T., Calzetti , D., et al. 2024, , 974, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba9

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, , 766, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/34

    D'Onghia , E., Vogelsberger , M., & Hernquist , L. 2013, , 766, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/34

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, , 935, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8050

    Egusa , F., Gao , Y., Morokuma-Matsui , K., Liu , G., & Maeda , F. 2022, , 935, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8050

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2009, , 697, 1870, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1870

    Egusa , F., Kohno , K., Sofue , Y., Nakanishi , H., & Komugi , S. 2009, , 697, 1870, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1870

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    2004, , 56, L45, 10.1093/pasj/56.6.L45

    Egusa , F., Sofue , Y., & Nakanishi , H. 2004, , 56, L45, 10.1093/pasj/56.6.L45

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    B., Bolatto , A

    Fisher , D. B., Bolatto , A. D., White , H., et al. 2019, , 870, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee8b

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    1974, , 189, 441, 10.1086/152821

    Goldreich , P., & Kwan , J. 1974, , 189, 441, 10.1086/152821

    1974 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Young , J

    Goldsmith , P. F., Young , J. S., & Langer , W. D. 1983, , 51, 203, 10.1086/190845

    1983 doi

  21. [29]

    1997, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Hasegawa , T. 1997, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 170, IAU Symposium, ed. W. B. Latter, S. J. E. Radford, P. R. Jewell, J. G. Mangum, & J. Bally , 39--46

    1997

  22. [30]

    K., et al

    Hassani , H., Rosolowsky , E., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2023, , 944, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca8ab

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Hillenbrand , L. A. 1997, , 113, 1733, 10.1086/118389

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    2009, , 61, 441, 10.1093/pasj/61.3.441

    Hirota , A., Kuno , N., Sato , N., et al. 2009, , 61, 441, 10.1093/pasj/61.3.441

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05424

    Hirota , A., Koda , J., Egusa , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05424. 2410.05424

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P., Marrone , D

    Keenan , R. P., Marrone , D. P., Keating , G. K., et al. 2024, , 975, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7504

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & Evans , N

    Kennicutt , R. C., & Evans , N. J. 2012, , 50, 531, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Kim , J., Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2022, , 516, 3006, 10.1093/mnras/stac2339

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2016, , 823, 76, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/76

    Koda , J., Scoville , N., & Heyer , M. 2016, , 823, 76, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/76

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, , 131, 054505, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab047e

    Koda , J., Teuben , P., Sawada , T., Plunkett , A., & Fomalont , E. 2019, , 131, 054505, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab047e

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2009, , 700, L132, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L132

    Koda , J., Scoville , N., Sawada , T., et al. 2009, , 700, L132, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L132

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    2012, , 761, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/41

    Koda , J., Scoville , N., Hasegawa , T., et al. 2012, , 761, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/41

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    2020, , 890, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab70b7

    Koda , J., Sawada , T., Sakamoto , K., et al. 2020, , 890, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab70b7

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, , 949, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc65e

    Koda , J., Hirota , A., Egusa , F., et al. 2023, , 949, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc65e

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., Schruba , A., Chevance , M., et al. 2019, , 569, 519, 10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Koda , J., Hirota , A., Egusa , F., & Heyer , M

    Lee , A. M., Koda , J., Hirota , A., Egusa , F., & Heyer , M. 2024, , 968, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40a0

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Bolatto , A

    Lenki \'c , L., Fisher , D. B., Bolatto , A. D., et al. 2024, , 976, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad758c

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

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

    Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Brinks , E., et al. 2008, , 136, 2782, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    K., Walter , F., Sandstrom , K., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Sandstrom , K., et al. 2013, , 146, 19, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

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

    Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2021, , 257, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Rosolowsky , E., Usero , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., Usero , A., et al. 2022, , 927, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3490

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Blair , W

    Long , K. S., Blair , W. P., Winkler , P. F., et al. 2022, , 929, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aa3

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Wiklind , T., Olofsson , H., & Rydbeck , G

    Lundgren , A. A., Wiklind , T., Olofsson , H., & Rydbeck , G. 2004, , 413, 505, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031507

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, , 926, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4505

    Maeda , F., Egusa , F., Ohta , K., et al. 2022, , 926, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4505

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2016, , 68, 5, 10.1093/pasj/psv108

    Nakanishi , H., & Sofue , Y. 2016, , 68, 5, 10.1093/pasj/psv108

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    1996 b , , 460, 334, 10.1086/176973

    ---. 1996 b , , 460, 334, 10.1086/176973

    1996 doi

  47. [56]

    1998, , 493, 730, 10.1086/305133

    Oka , T., Hasegawa , T., Hayashi , M., Handa , T., & Sakamoto , S. 1998, , 493, 730, 10.1086/305133

    1998 doi

  48. [57]

    J., et al

    Saintonge , A., Catinella , B., Tacconi , L. J., et al. 2017, , 233, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97e0

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    1997 a , , 486, 276, 10.1086/304479

    Sakamoto , S., Hasegawa , T., Handa , T., Hayashi , M., & Oka , T. 1997 a , , 486, 276, 10.1086/304479

    1997 doi

  50. [59]

    1997 b , , 481, 302, 10.1086/304023

    Sakamoto , S., Hasegawa , T., Hayashi , M., Morino , J.-I., & Sato , K. 1997 b , , 481, 302, 10.1086/304023

    1997 doi

  51. [60]

    1994, , 425, 641, 10.1086/174011

    Sakamoto , S., Hayashi , M., Hasegawa , T., Handa , T., & Oka , T. 1994, , 425, 641, 10.1086/174011

    1994 doi

  52. [61]

    J., Staveley-Smith , L., & Brouw , W

    Sault , R. J., Staveley-Smith , L., & Brouw , W. N. 1996, , 120, 375

    1996

  53. [62]

    J., Teuben , P

    Sault , R. J., Teuben , P. J., & Wright , M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes , 433

    1995

  54. [63]

    2001, , 136, 189, 10.1086/321793

    Sawada , T., Hasegawa , T., Handa , T., et al. 2001, , 136, 189, 10.1086/321793

    2001 doi

  55. [64]

    Schinnerer , E., & Leroy , A. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.19843, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.19843

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    Z., & Hersh , K

    Scoville , N. Z., & Hersh , K. 1979, , 229, 578, 10.1086/156991

    1979 doi

  57. [66]

    Z., Polletta , M., Ewald , S., et al

    Scoville , N. Z., Polletta , M., Ewald , S., et al. 2001, , 122, 3017, 10.1086/323445

    2001 doi

  58. [67]

    Z., & Sanders , D

    Scoville , N. Z., & Sanders , D. B. 1987, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 134, Interstellar Processes, ed. D. J. Hollenbach & H. A. Thronson Jr. , 21--50

    1987

  59. [68]

    Z., & Solomon , P

    Scoville , N. Z., & Solomon , P. M. 1974, , 187, L67, 10.1086/181398

    1974 doi

  60. [69]

    M., et al

    Seta , M., Hasegawa , T., Dame , T. M., et al. 1998, , 505, 286, 10.1086/306141

    1998 doi

  61. [70]

    K., Schruba , A., et al

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Schruba , A., et al. 2018, , 860, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac326

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    K., Schinnerer , E., et al

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2020, , 901, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb3be

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    van der Tak , F. F. S., Black , J. H., Sch \"o ier , F. L., Jansen , D. J., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2007, , 468, 627, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066820

    2007 doi

  64. [73]

    P., & Tilanus , R

    Vlahakis , C., van der Werf , P., Israel , F. P., & Tilanus , R. P. J. 2013, , 433, 1837, 10.1093/mnras/stt841

    2013 doi

  65. [74]

    N., Wright , M

    Vogel , S. N., Wright , M. C. H., Plambeck , R. L., & Welch , W. J. 1984, , 283, 655, 10.1086/162351

    1984 doi

  66. [75]

    2021, , 73, 257, 10.1093/pasj/psaa119

    Yajima , Y., Sorai , K., Miyamoto , Y., et al. 2021, , 73, 257, 10.1093/pasj/psaa119

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    2010, , 62, 1277, 10.1093/pasj/62.5.1277

    Yoda , T., Handa , T., Kohno , K., et al. 2010, , 62, 1277, 10.1093/pasj/62.5.1277

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.