Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

ALMA reveals diverse dust-to-gas mass ratios and quenching modes in old quiescent galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that old, starless galaxies have widely varying dust-to-molecular-gas ratios, implying that dust and gas evolve independently after star formation stops and that dust alone cannot trace molecular gas.

desk verdict New ALMA sample of 12 z~0.4 quiescent galaxies with direct dust and CO gives a real spread in dust-to-gas ratio, but the headline above-canonical tail depends on star-forming-galaxy conversion factors that could easily shift those systems back to normal. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10079 v1 pith:ASXZIWXJ submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.GA

Giuliano Lorenzon , Darko Donevski , Allison W. S. Man , Michael Romano , Katherine E. Whitaker , Sirio Belli , Daizhong Liu , Minju M. Lee
show 13 more authors
Desika Narayanan Arianna Long Irene Shivaei Ambra Nanni Krzysztof Lisiecki Prasad Sawant Giulia Rodighiero Ivana Damjanov Junais Romeel Dave Ciro Pappalardo Christopher Lovell Mahmoud Hamed
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quiescentgalaxiesdust-to-gasratiomoleculargasgalaxyquenchinginterstellardustCO(3-2)ALMAevolution
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

The paper uses deep observations of 17 quiescent galaxies (QGs) at redshift about 0.4 to measure both their dust and molecular gas content directly. It claims that the dust-to-molecular-gas mass ratio in these old, non-star-forming galaxies ranges from roughly 8 times below to 2.5 times above the canonical value of 1/100 used for star-forming galaxies. This spread is present even though their molecular gas fractions are uniformly low, with a median of about 4 percent. The authors interpret this as evidence that dust and molecular gas follow independent evolutionary paths after star formation is quenched, so one cannot be used as a reliable proxy for the other. The result matters because many previous estimates of cold gas in quiescent galaxies at high redshift relied on dust emission and a fixed ratio.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the dust-to-molecular gas mass ratio, delta_DGR = Mdust/MH2, which quantifies what fraction of the cold interstellar medium is locked in dust grains. It is obtained by pairing ALMA Band 6 dust continuum (which constrains dust mass via SED fitting to a physically motivated dust emission library) with CO(3-2) line emission (which traces molecular gas via fixed conversion factors). The ratio serves as a direct probe of whether dust and gas evolve together or separately after quenching, and it is the quantity that reveals the order-of-magnitude scatter in the sample.

What would settle it

Observe CO(1-0) and an independent gas tracer such as [CI] in a subset of the galaxies with the highest and lowest reported dust-to-gas ratios. If the CO(3-2)/CO(1-0) ratio is significantly different from 0.5 or the CO-to-H2 conversion factor differs from the adopted value, the claimed spread in delta_DGR would shrink or disappear. Alternatively, measuring dust temperature in multiple submillimeter bands would test whether the dust-mass estimates are biased by the assumed temperature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present the first statistical sample of 17 massive quiescent galaxies at z~0.4 with simultaneous ALMA Band 6 dust continuum and CO(3-2) observations. By directly measuring both dust mass and molecular gas mass, we demonstrate that the dust-to-molecular-gas ratio in QGs spans about 1/700 to 1/40, deviating by up to ~8x below and ~2.5x above the canonical value of ~1/100. Despite uniformly low molecular gas fractions (median about 4.1 percent), the galaxies do not follow a single dust-depletion track: about half show a rapid exponential dust decline on a ~700 Myr timescale, while others retain elevated dust-to-gas ratios for more than 2 Gyr. This diversity supports the idea that dust and mo

Load-bearing premise

The molecular gas masses assume that old quiescent galaxies have the same CO excitation and CO-to-H2 conversion factors as star-forming galaxies, so if either differs systematically, the reported dust-to-gas ratios would shift substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If dust and molecular gas evolve independently, dust-only measurements of molecular gas in quiescent galaxies can be wrong by up to roughly an order of magnitude.
  • Quiescent galaxies do not follow one universal interstellar-medium depletion path; rapid and slow dust-decline populations coexist at similar stellar ages.
  • The most massive systems (stellar mass above ~10^11 solar masses) consistently show dust-to-gas ratios at or below the canonical 1/100, suggesting efficient dust destruction in massive halos.
  • Elevated dust-to-gas ratios can persist more than a gigayear after quenching, so residual dust in old galaxies does not necessarily indicate recent star formation.
  • The observed scatter implies that quenching mode is not the sole driver of post-quenching ISM diversity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the decoupling holds generally, high-redshift quiescent samples whose gas masses rely on dust stacking will need to be re-examined with independent gas tracers such as CO(1-0) or atomic carbon lines.
  • A targeted follow-up measuring CO(3-2)/CO(1-0) ratios and [CI] emission in a subset of these galaxies would directly test whether the assumed conversion factors (R31=0.5, alpha_CO=4.36) are valid in old quiescent systems; deviations would shift the reported ratio spread.
  • The results suggest that galaxy formation models need to treat dust destruction and regrowth separately from molecular gas depletion rather than assuming a tightly coupled ISM.
  • One might expect the spread in delta_DGR to correlate with environment or merger history; checking whether these galaxies have companions or disturbed morphologies would test whether external processes drive the decoupling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA Band 6 continuum and CO(3–2) observations of 17 quiescent galaxies at z~0.4 in COSMOS, jointly constraining dust mass and molecular gas mass. The authors derive dust-to-gas ratios δ_DGR for 12 systems, reporting a spread from ~8× below to ~2.5× above the canonical SFG value of 1/100, and argue that dust and H2 evolve independently after quenching, that QGs do not follow a single ISM depletion path, and that dust continuum is not a reliable H2 tracer. The interpretation is framed with comparison to SIMBA fast and slow quenching tracks.

Significance. If the central empirical claims are robust, this is an important advance: it roughly triples the number of QGs with direct dust-to-molecular-gas estimates, opens a previously unexplored low-gas-fraction regime, and directly challenges the common practice of inferring H2 masses from dust continuum in quiescent systems. The paper’s strengths include a homogeneously selected sample, deep ALMA data with clearly reported fluxes and upper limits, mock SED recovery tests, and explicit comparison of dust-mass estimators. The conclusions are falsifiable and would motivate model refinements for ISM evolution in QGs.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Table 1] The entire high-δ_DGR tail is calibrated through fixed CO conversion factors: R31=0.5 and alpha_CO=4.36 M_sun (K km/s pc^2)^-1, adopted from star-forming galaxy practice with no quoted systematic uncertainty. In Table 1, the systems with log δ_DGR above -2 are hCOS-d3 (-1.64), hCOS-d6 (-1.96), hCOS-d10 (-1.49), and hCOS-d13 (lower limit > -1.53). Moving these detections below -2 requires increasing M_H2 by factors of roughly 2.3–3.1; combinations such as R31=0.3 and alpha_CO=7.5 (factor ~2.9) or R31=0.2 and alpha_CO=10 (factor ~11) would erase the above-canonical tail entirely. Since old QGs may plausibly have lower CO excitation and higher alpha_CO than SFGs, the paper's headline '2.5× above canonical' claim is not yet secure. Please add an explicit sensitivity analysis over R31 and alpha_CO, or substantially soften claims about the high-δ_DGR regime.
  2. [§3, Appendix B] The sentence 'This large spread ... regardless of how M_dust and M_H2 are estimated (see Appendix B)' is not supported by the cited appendix. Appendix B compares only dust-mass estimators (DL07 vs. modified blackbody vs. Scoville et al. 2016), and all three methods fix T_dust=21 K; it does not vary the H2 conversion factors R31 or alpha_CO. Thus the robustness of the δ_DGR spread against the main systematic axis—the CO-to-H2 calibration—is not demonstrated. Please correct this claim and either extend the appendix or state the conditional nature of the result.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The identification of 'rapid' (~0.7 Gyr) versus 'mild' (~2 Gyr) dust decline is made by visually comparing observed f_dust–age points against two exponential tracks normalized to SFG values. No quantitative fit, goodness-of-fit statistic, or uncertainty is provided, and the sample includes upper limits. As a consequence, the statement that 'about half' of QGs exhibit rapid decline is a qualitative classification rather than a measured result. Please provide a quantitative classification (e.g., likelihood-based assignment to tracks or a fitted τ_dust with uncertainties), or clearly label this as an illustrative comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] The text says 'two QGs emerge with log δ_DGR ≳ −2', but Table 1 lists three detected QGs above -2 (hCOS-d3: -1.64, hCOS-d6: -1.96, hCOS-d10: -1.49) in addition to the hCOS-d13 lower limit -1.53. Please reconcile the count.
  2. [Fig. 2] The axis label 'log(fdust = Mdust/M )' is missing the stellar-mass subscript; it should read M_★ for clarity.
  3. [Abstract/§3] The phrase 'For the first time, we show that δ_DGR in QGs ranges from ~8× below to ~2.5× above' is a strong claim. If the sensitivity analysis recommended above weakens the upper end, the abstract should be reworded to emphasize the robust lower-DGR tail and the large scatter.
  4. [§1] Typo: 'stellar paopulation age' should be 'stellar population age'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured dust-to-gas ratios are derived directly from ALMA fluxes, and the only self-citation (SIMBA tracks) is interpretative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central quantity δ_DGR is constructed from two independent observables: Mdust from ALMA Band 6 continuum plus SED fitting (CIGALE/DL07), and MH2 from CO(3-2) line fluxes using the standard Solomon & Vanden Bout (2005) conversion with explicitly stated assumptions R31=0.5 and α_CO=4.36. These conversion factors are external calibrations inherited from star-forming galaxy studies, not parameters fitted to the target δ_DGR values, so the resulting spread is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Appendix B tests alternative dust-mass estimators, but all assume T_dust=21 K; this is a systematic-uncertainty limitation, not circularity, because the paper's conclusion does not define δ_DGR through those estimators. The self-citations to D23 and Lorenzon et al. (2025) supply the sample selection, SED methodology, and simulation comparison tracks; none of these inputs mathematically forces the observed δ_DGR range. Even if the SIMBA fast/slow tracks were removed, the empirical scatter in δ_DGR across stellar mass and age would remain. The claim that dust is an unreliable H2 tracer is an interpretation of independently measured dust and gas masses, not a premise of their derivation. Score 2 reflects the mildly self-referential interpretative layer, not circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central DGR measurement is empirical, but its numeric value rests on standard conversion assumptions and SED modeling choices. The free parameters listed are adopted from literature or simulation rather than fitted to the observed QGs. Axioms are domain assumptions about CO excitation, dust SED, sample representativeness, and the unimportance of HI.

free parameters (4)
  • R31 = CO(3-2)/CO(1-0) line ratio = 0.5 (assumed)
    Adopted in Section 2.3 to convert the observed CO(3-2) flux to a CO(1-0) luminosity; this directly scales MH2 and delta_DGR.
  • alpha_CO = 4.36 M_sun (K km/s pc2)^-1
    Milky Way CO-to-H2 conversion factor assumed in Section 2.3; different values shift all H2 masses and delta_DGR values.
  • T_dust for alternative dust mass methods = 21 K
    Used in the MBB and Scoville cross-checks in Appendix B; the fiducial DL07 fit has its own priors, so dust temperature is not independently constrained.
  • tau_dust exponential tracks = 0.7 Gyr and 2 Gyr
    Illustrative fast and slow dust depletion timescales from SIMBA (Lorenzon et al. 2025), used in Fig. 2 to interpret the data rather than fitted to it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CO(3-2) emission in QGs traces cold molecular gas with the same excitation ratio and CO-to-H2 conversion as star-forming galaxies.
    Section 2.3 fixes R31=0.5 and alpha_CO=4.36 without a QG-specific calibration.
  • domain assumption Dust masses from DL07 and from T_dust=21 K modified blackbody or Scoville methods are accurate to about 0.2 dex.
    Appendix B compares methods, but all share the same low temperature assumption, so temperature systematics are untested.
  • domain assumption The 17 targeted QGs represent massive old QGs at z~0.4.
    They are drawn from a parent sample of about 500 with mixed Herschel detection status, but only 12 yield firm DGR constraints.
  • domain assumption Mass-weighted ages, sSFR, and quenching times from CIGALE are reliable.
    Appendix A mock tests and Dn4000 priors support this, but SFH flexibility and dust-age degeneracy remain.
  • domain assumption Atomic hydrogen does not significantly contribute to the gas reservoir of these QGs.
    Section 3 argues from MeerKAT non-detections and a SIMBA-based 13% expectation; no direct HI measurement is presented for all targets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA reveals diverse dust-to-gas mass ratios and quenching modes in old quiescent galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASXZIWXJ

@misc{pith2026250910079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA reveals diverse dust-to-gas mass ratios and quenching modes in old quiescent galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASXZIWXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10079}
}
abstract

Recent discoveries of dust and molecular gas in quiescent galaxies (QGs) up to $z\sim3$ challenge the long-standing view that the interstellar medium depletes rapidly once star formation ceases, raising key questions of whether dust and gas co-evolve in QGs, and how their depletion links to stellar aging. We present deep Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) Band~6 continuum and CO(3--2) observations of 17 QGs at $z\sim0.4$ in the COSMOS field. Using the dust-to-molecular gas mass ratio ($\delta_{\rm DGR}$) as a key diagnostic, we trace post-quenching evolution of the cold interstellar medium. Our study triples the number of QGs with direct $\delta_{\rm DGR}$ estimates, constraining 12 systems with stellar population ages of $\sim$5--10 Gyr. For the first time, we show that $\delta_{\rm DGR}$ in QGs ranges from $\sim8\times$ below to $\sim2.5\times$ above the canonical value of $\delta_{\rm DGR}\sim1/100$. Despite uniformly low molecular gas fractions (median $f_{\rm H_2}=M_{\rm H_2}/M_{\star}\sim4.1\%$), QGs follow diverse evolutionary paths: about half exhibit rapid ($\sim700$ Myr) exponential dust decline with age, while the rest show mild decline over $\gtrsim$2 Gyr, maintaining elevated $\delta_{\rm DGR}\gtrsim1/100$. Our results support simulations predictions of dust and molecular gas evolving independently post-quenching, without a preferred quenching mode. This challenges the use of dust continuum as a $\rm H_2$ tracer, implying that quenching cannot be robustly linked to interstellar medium conditions when relying solely on dust or gas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Selected QGs in the UVJ plane, color-coded by sSFR. (b) Evolution of δDGR with sSFR, tq, and M⋆. Large circles mark QGs detected with ALMA (10 in both CO and dust, one in either CO or dust); triangles show non-detections in both CO and Band 6 dust continuum. Small points are literature QGs at z ∼ 1 (Spilker et al. 2025). For all symbols, the lower or upper limits of δDGR are denoted with arrows. Solid lines show… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relation between fdust and mass-weighted stellar age, color-coded by H2 fraction. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. H2 gas fraction vs. redshift for our sample and literature QGs, with detectability (CO- or dust-based) noted in the legend. The points include QGs at z ∼ 1 (Belli et al. 2021, Woodrum et al. 2022, Bezanson et al. 2022), z ∼ 2–3 (Whitaker et al. 2021a, Morishita et al. 2022, Williams et al. 2021, Suzuki et al. 2022, Umehata et al. 2025), and stacks (Magdis et al. 2021, Bl´anquez-Ses´e et al. 2023). Coloured symbols s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of our mock CIGALE analysis quantifying the offset between the mock input (“true”) and SED-fitting output (“observed”) parameters, as a function of M⋆ and independently measured Dn4000. Dark violet lines show binned means, indicating good constraints with no sy…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of fiducial dust properties with alternative dust-mass estimates (Upper: vs. modified blackbody fits; lower: vs. Scoville et al. (2016)). We consider 12 QGs with direct ALMA estimates. From left to right: comparisons of our fiducial values vs. alternative me…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For each QG: Left ALMA Band 6 primary-beam corrected moment-zero map (5′′ × 5 ′′ size) overlaid with dust continuum contours (white dashed) and CO(3-2) contours (blue solid) increasing from 2σ with 1σ step. Typical beam size of 0.85′′ × 0.7 ′′ and 1′′ scale (correspond…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18097

    Adscheid , S., Magnelli , B., Ciesla , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18097. 2508.18097

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    2021, , 909, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

    Belli , S., Contursi , A., Genzel , R., et al. 2021, , 909, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6 2021

  3. [3]

    S., Suess , K

    Bezanson , R., Spilker , J. S., Suess , K. A., et al. 2022, , 925, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa 2022

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16917

    Bianchetti , A., Rodighiero , G., Donevski , D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16917. 2507.16917

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Bl \'a nquez-Ses \'e , D., G \'o mez-Guijarro , C., Magdis , G. E., et al. 2023, , 674, A166, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345977

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345977 2023

  6. [6]

    2019, , 622, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  7. [7]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.13989456 2024

  8. [8]

    2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual , G., & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Charlot , S., & Fall , S. M. 2000, , 539, 718, 10.1086/309250

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, , 653, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140762

    Ciesla , L., Buat , V., Boquien , M., et al. 2021, , 653, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140762

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Geller , M

    Damjanov , I., Zahid , H. J., Geller , M. J., Fabricant , D. G., & Hwang , H. S. 2018, , 234, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa01c

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, , 486, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A5

    De Vis, P., Jones, A., Viaene, S., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A5

    2019

  7. [15]

    2020, , 644, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038405

    Donevski , D., Lapi , A., Ma ek , K., et al. 2020, , 644, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038405

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, , 678, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346066

    Donevski , D., Damjanov , I., Nanni , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346066

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    T., & Li , A

    Draine , B. T., & Li , A. 2007, , 657, 810, 10.1086/511055

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    L., da Cunha, E., et al

    Dunne, L., Gomez, H. L., da Cunha, E., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 1510

    2011

  11. [19]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 87, 10.33232/001c.141941

    Ellison , S., Huang , Q., Yang , D., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 87, 10.33232/001c.141941

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, , 668, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244995

    Gobat , R., D'Eugenio , C., Liu , D., et al. 2022, , 668, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244995

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239

    Gobat, R., Daddi, E., Magdis, G., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 239

    2018

  14. [22]

    G., Wang , J., & Lin , L

    Guo , H., Jones , M. G., Wang , J., & Lin , L. 2021, , 918, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac062e

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, , 856, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3e7

    Hayashi , M., Tadaki , K.-i., Kodama , T., et al. 2018, , 856, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3e7

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, Planetary and Space Science, 149, 45

    Hirashita, H., & Nozawa, T. 2017, Planetary and Space Science, 149, 45

    2017

  17. [25]

    M., Steidel , C

    Lee , M. M., Steidel , C. C., Brammer , G., et al. 2024, , 527, 9529, 10.1093/mnras/stad3718

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Zabludoff , A

    Li , Z., French , K. D., Zabludoff , A. I., & Ho , L. C. 2019, , 879, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f68

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, , 693, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450393

    Lorenzon , G., Donevski , D., Lisiecki , K., et al. 2025, , 693, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450393

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Daddi, E., B \'e thermin, M., et al

    Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., B \'e thermin, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 6

    2012

  21. [29]

    E., Gobat , R., Valentino , F., et al

    Magdis , G. E., Gobat , R., Valentino , F., et al. 2021, , 647, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039280

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Man , A. W. S., Greve , T. R., Toft , S., et al. 2016, , 820, 11, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/11

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  24. [32]

    J., Gall , C., Hjorth , J., et al

    Micha owski , M. J., Gall , C., Hjorth , J., et al. 2024, , 964, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b52

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, , 938, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9055

    Morishita , T., Abdurro'uf , Hirashita , H., et al. 2022, , 938, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9055

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, , 988, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ade2e5

    Nanni , A., Romano , M., Donevski , D., et al. 2025, , 988, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ade2e5

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 119

    Park, M., Belli, S., Conroy, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 119

    2023

  28. [36]

    2024, , 683, A203, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346943

    Pistis , F., Pollo , A., Figueira , M., et al. 2024, , 683, A203, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346943

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    L., et al

    Popping, G., Shivaei, I., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A138

    2023

  31. [39]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2139

    Rodr \' guez Montero, F., Dav \'e , R., Wild, V., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar, D., & Narayanan, D. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2139

    2019

  32. [40]

    2015, , 575, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425017

    Schreiber , C., Pannella , M., Elbaz , D., et al. 2015, , 575, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425017

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2016, , 820, 83, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    Scoville , N., Sheth , K., Aussel , H., et al. 2016, , 820, 83, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Khullar , G., Miller , T

    Setton , D. J., Khullar , G., Miller , T. B., et al. 2024, , 974, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a18

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    D., et al

    Shirley , R., Roehlly , Y., Hurley , P. D., et al. 2019, , 490, 634, 10.1093/mnras/stz2509

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Paquereau , L., et al

    Shuntov , M., Akins , H. B., Paquereau , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03243, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03243

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Setton , D

    Siegel , J. C., Setton , D. J., Greene , J. E., et al. 2025, , 985, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7b7

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    T., French , K

    Smercina , A., Smith , J.-D. T., French , K. D., et al. 2022, , 929, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5f

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    M., & Vanden Bout , P

    Solomon , P. M., & Vanden Bout , P. A. 2005, , 43, 677, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221

    2005 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 15

    2014

  41. [49]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 103

    Spilker, J., Bezanson, R., Bari s i \'c , I., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 103

    2018

  42. [50]

    S., Whitaker , K

    Spilker , J. S., Whitaker , K. E., Narayanan , D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16914. 2507.16914

    2025

  43. [51]

    A., Beverage , A

    Suess , K. A., Beverage , A. G., Kriek , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14361, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14361

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    L., Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., et al

    Suzuki, T. L., Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 61

    2022

  45. [53]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 179

    2018

  46. [54]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 985, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/add1d4

    Umehata, H., Kubo, M., & Nakanishi, K. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 985, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/add1d4

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    J., et al

    Weibel , A., de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., et al. 2025, , 983, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/adab7a

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Williams , C

    Whitaker , K. E., Williams , C. C., Mowla , L., et al. 2021 a , , 597, 485, 10.1038/s41586-021-03806-7

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Narayanan , D., Williams , C

    Whitaker , K. E., Narayanan , D., Williams , C. C., et al. 2021 b , , 922, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac399f

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Spilker , J

    Williams , C. C., Spilker , J. S., Whitaker , K. E., et al. 2021, , 908, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcbf6

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    C., Rieke, M., et al

    Woodrum, C., Williams, C. C., Rieke, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 39

    2022

  52. [60]

    2023, , 955, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf0bd

    Wu , P.-F., Bezanson , R., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2023, , 955, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf0bd

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, , 524, 923, 10.1093/mnras/stad1821

    Zanella , A., Valentino , F., Gallazzi , A., et al. 2023, , 524, 923, 10.1093/mnras/stad1821

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Zheng, Y., Dave, R., Wild, V., & Montero, F. R. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 27

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.