Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Searching for signs of jet-driven negative feedback in the nearby radio galaxy UGC 05771

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the radio jets of the compact galaxy UGC 05771 extend to kiloparsec scales, shocking and accelerating the surrounding gas, and possibly suppressing star formation.

desk verdict Careful single-object study with new data whose central claim—kpc-scale jet plasma—is plausible but inferred rather than imaged; deserves peer review with a requested toning-down. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00144 v1 pith:DXW353G6 submitted 2019-08-31 astro-ph.GA

Henry R. M. Zovaro (1) , Nicole P. H. Nesvadba (2) , Robert Sharp (1) , Geoffrey V. Bicknell (1) , Brent Groves (1) , Dipanjan Mukherjee (3) , Alexander Y. Wagner (4) ((1) Research School of Astronomy , Astrophysics
show 7 more authors
The Australian National University (2) Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale Université Paris-Sud (3) Dipartimento di Fisica Generale Universita degli Studi di Torino (4) University of Tsukuba Center for Computational Sciences)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords UGC05771compactsteepspectrumradiosourcejetjet-ISMinteractionnegativefeedbackshockedmoleculargasstallingwindlow-surface-brightnessplasma
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

Jet-driven feedback is widely invoked to explain how galaxies stop forming stars, yet direct evidence is hard to come by. This paper studies a nearby compact radio galaxy, UGC 05771, whose radio core is only 9 pc across according to VLBI imaging, and asks whether its jets nevertheless reach far into the host galaxy and disturb the interstellar medium. Using adaptive-optics near-infrared spectroscopy and optical integral-field data, the authors detect shocked molecular and ionized gas out to hundreds of parsecs and kiloparsec scales respectively, with line ratios and kinematics that point to shocks rather than star formation or supernovae. They argue that 70–80 per cent of the radio flux is missed by VLBI, implying kpc-scale jet plasma that is being resolved out, and that this plasma is shocking and churning the gas. The galaxy lies below the star-formation–gas-surface-density relation, tentatively suggesting that the jets suppress star formation, although the authors stop short of claiming definitive negative feedback.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on two pieces of evidence working together. First, the flux discrepancy: VLBI observations at 1.665 GHz recover only 20–30 per cent of the total single-dish flux, implying that 70–80 per cent of the emission is extended on scales larger than the VLBI field. Second, the shock diagnostics: the H2 1–0 S(1)/Brγ line ratio far exceeds the UV-excitation range, the [Fe ii] luminosity is an order of magnitude too high for supernovae, and the optical line ratios and velocity dispersions in the inner 2 kpc match shock excitation and rule out beam smearing. Together these identify the jets as being in the 'flood-and-channel' phase, in which the main jet stream creates bright compact radio structures while weaker streams inflate a low-surface-brightness bubble that shocks the surrounding ISM. This is the mechanism that lets a nominally pc-scale radio source affect gas on kpc scales.

What would settle it

A deep, high-resolution radio image of UGC 05771 near 1.7 GHz (for example with the VLA in its most extended configuration or with global VLBI plus short-spacing data) that either detects kpc-scale low-surface-brightness jet plasma, confirming the claim, or shows that the missing flux is not present as extended emission, which would refute it; a simpler check is whether the proposed extended plasma moves the source onto the peak-frequency–size relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the young, compact radio source in UGC 05771 is not confined to the 9 pc structure visible in VLBI images. Comparing single-dish and interferometric radio fluxes shows that most of the 1.665 GHz emission is not recovered by VLBI, and the authors interpret this as low-surface-brightness jet plasma on kiloparsec scales, consistent with the near-infrared H2 1–0 S(1) and [Fe ii] emission seen within ~200 pc, and the shocked, high-velocity-dispersion ionized gas seen within ~2 kpc in optical data. They conclude that kpc-scale jet plasma is responsible for the line emission, accelerating gas outward at velocities too low to escape — a 'stalling wind' — and that the jet–ISM interaction may be inhibiting star formation, placing the galaxy about a factor of nine below the empirical star-formation–gas-surface-density relation, though this offset is not definitively attributed to the jets.

Load-bearing premise

The inference that 70–80 per cent of the 1.665 GHz flux not recovered by VLBI is emitted by kpc-scale, low-surface-brightness jet plasma; if that missing flux is instead diffuse emission unrelated to the jets or is suppressed by absorption, the direct link between the jets and the kpc-scale shocked gas is substantially weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The radio source in UGC 05771 is likely kpc-scale, not 9 pc, implying that compact radio sources can be substantially larger than their VLBI structure suggests.
  • Jets can couple strongly to the ISM even in low-power, young radio sources, creating a 'stalling wind' of gas that will not escape the galaxy.
  • The offset below the star-formation–gas surface density relation (about a factor of 9) is consistent with, though not proof of, jet-driven negative feedback.
  • Diffuse, low-surface-brightness jet plasma may be common in compact radio galaxies and can be missed by VLBI observations, affecting size estimates of such sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing-flux interpretation is correct, deep, high-resolution radio imaging of other compact steep spectrum and gigahertz-peaked sources should reveal kpc-scale low-surface-brightness emission; UGC 05771 is a direct test.
  • The estimated source age of ~19 Myr from the bubble expansion model could be checked with spectral-aging or variability measurements; if the source is older, the 'flood-and-channel' picture would need revision.
  • The counter-rotating core hinted in the ionized-gas kinematics could be an independent signature of jet–disc interaction; if so, it would connect to simulations of jets propagating through clumpy discs.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a multi-wavelength study of the nearby CSS radio galaxy UGC 05771 with the aim of testing whether jets from a young radio source can drive negative feedback. The authors use Keck/OSIRIS near-IR IFU observations to detect ro-vibrational H2 and [Fe II] emission within ~200 pc of the nucleus, which they attribute to shock-heated gas in a 'stalling wind'. CALIFA optical IFU data reveal elevated velocity dispersions and LINER-like line ratios within ~2 kpc, interpreted as shocked ionized gas. IRAM 30 m CO observations yield a molecular gas mass of ~1.1e9 M_sun and a gas surface density of ~15 M_sun pc^-2. A key argument is that VLBI observations recover only 20-30% of the single-dish radio flux, which the authors interpret as evidence for kpc-scale, low-surface-brightness jet plasma; they conclude that the jets are interacting with the ISM on kpc scales and that the galaxy lies below the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, suggestive of suppressed star formation. The paper also models the radio spectral turnover with free-free absorption to constrain ISM density and estimates a source age of ~19 Myr.

Significance. If the central inference is correct, the paper provides one of the few detailed case studies showing that compact radio sources can couple to the ISM on scales far exceeding their VLBI size, supporting the 'flood-and-channel' model. The observational work is careful: the authors quantitatively rule out beam smearing as the cause of the broad optical lines and supernovae as the source of the [Fe II] emission, and the use of three independent data sets is a strength. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions: a kpc-scale radio source should be directly detectable with low-frequency or high-sensitivity imaging. However, as discussed below, the key inference from missing VLBI flux to kpc-scale plasma is not unique.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1–6.2, Fig. 1] The central claim that 'kpc-scale jet plasma must be responsible for this line emission' (end of Section 6.1) is not uniquely supported by the data. The argument relies on the inference, made in Section 6.2, that the 70–80 per cent of the 1.665 GHz flux not recovered by EVN/VLBA is emitted on kpc scales. VLBI is insensitive to structure on angular scales larger than the maximum recoverable scale set by the shortest baseline, which at 1.665 GHz is typically tens to a few hundred mas (roughly 10–100 pc at z=0.025), not necessarily 1–2 kpc. The missing flux could therefore be emitted on scales of ~10–100 pc, still much smaller than the ~1–2 kpc extent of the shocked gas. The comparison also mixes epochs and frequencies (e.g., 1.4 GHz single-dish vs 1.665 GHz VLBI), and the single-dish beam may include unrelated sources. The authors should quantify the maximum recoverable angular scale for the specific arrays used, and either soften the claim to 'consistent with' or justify why intermediate-scale emission is excluded. The current wording overstates what is a plausible but indirect chain of evidence.
  2. [Section 6.4, Table 4 and Eq. (10)] The free-free absorption model and the resulting source age of ~19 Myr depend on the assumed depth of the absorbing slab, L = 2 kpc, and the bubble radius, R_b = 2 kpc, both taken from the extent of the shocked gas. If the existence of kpc-scale plasma is not independently established (see major comment 1), then this analysis becomes partially circular: the model adopts the very scale under question to derive the ISM density and age. The authors should present these results explicitly as conditional on the extended-jet interpretation, or discuss how the derived parameters would change for a smaller absorbing region (e.g., L ~ 100 pc).
  3. [Section 4.3.4, Fig. 12] The kinematic disc model is used both to identify non-circular motions (the counter-rotating core) and as the input for the beam-smearing test that rules out beam smearing. However, the model fit has χ² > 10, indicating a poor description of the data. If the model is inaccurate, the synthetic data cube used for the beam-smearing test may not faithfully reproduce the true line-of-sight velocity distribution, and the conclusion that beam smearing cannot explain the elevated velocity dispersion could be an artifact of the assumed model. The authors should test the robustness of the beam-smearing conclusion against a range of plausible velocity fields (e.g., including a central velocity gradient or a warp).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] The 'Turbulent Mach number M' is listed with units 'km s−1'; the Mach number is dimensionless. If M = sqrt(3)σ_g/c_s ≈ 34.75, state this explicitly.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (8)] The equation for σ_e appears to have a typo: the denominator should be Σ I_i, not Σ σ_{*,i}. As printed, the units do not work.
  3. [Section 3.4.1] The statement that the H2/Brγ ratio 'far exceeds' typical UV-excitation values should be phrased as 'the lower limit on the ratio far exceeds', since Brγ is only an upper limit.
  4. [Section 4.3.3] In the KS-relation discussion (Section 6.3), the statement that UGC 05771 is 'shifted by a factor of 9 ... corresponding to about 1 sigma' does not specify the source of the sigma. Please clarify whether this is the intrinsic scatter in the KS relation or the measurement uncertainty.
  5. [Section 5.2] The rms noise values are quoted for a channel width of 5 km s−1 at 112.5 GHz, but the CO(2–1) line is observed near 225 GHz; please give the noise for each line separately.
  6. [Section 3.4.1, Fig. 5] The excitation temperature T≈5000 K is derived from only two detected lines and one upper limit; the authors should emphasize that this is an estimate under the assumption of LTE, which they note cannot be verified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central inference is an interpretation of independent multi-wavelength data, not a reduction to assumed inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and grounded in independent data. The OSIRIS, CALIFA, and IRAM observations are new, and their reduction and fitting do not assume the conclusion that kpc-scale jet plasma is present. The inference in Section 6.2 that 70-80 per cent of the VLBI-missing flux is emitted on scales larger than the VLBI cutoff is an interpretive step with real assumptions (single-dish versus VLBI comparison, largest angular scale, contamination), but it is not an equation that reduces to its input: the flux deficit is measured, not fitted to the line-emission extent. The FFA model in Section 6.4 uses methods from Zovaro et al. (2019) and Bicknell et al. (2018), which include the authors' prior work, but it is a parameter inference calibrated to nu_p by setting tau = 1; the paper's central claims do not depend on predicting nu_p, and this calibration is not renamed as a prediction. The 'flood-and-channel' interpretation is supported by external hydrodynamical simulations and by the independent 4C 31.04 observation, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The paper also states explicit limits ('unable to definitively conclude', 'further observations with higher spectral resolution are required'), which is inconsistent with a derivation that is forced by its own inputs. No step was found where a target result is assumed by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference that kpc-scale jet plasma drives the observed shocked gas rests mainly on the missing-radio-flux argument and standard shock diagnostics. The derived ISM density and source age in Section 6.4 depend on free parameters (L, b, beta) and the log-normal PDF assumption, so they are indicative rather than tightly constrained. The molecular gas mass and KS offset depend on the adopted alpha_CO and extinction correction. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • H2 excitation temperature T = ~5000 K
    Fitted from the excitation diagram built from only two detected H2 lines (1-0 S(1), 1-0 S(0)) and an upper limit for 2-1 S(1); authors note LTE is not confirmed (Section 3.4.1).
  • Turbulent forcing parameter b = 0.4
    Assumed from Federrath and Klessen 2012 as typical for mixed forcing; enters the FFA density-PDF model in Section 6.4.
  • Plasma beta (thermal/magnetic pressure ratio) = 1
    Equipartition assumption in the FFA model used to infer ISM density parameters (Section 6.4, Table 4).
  • Absorbing slab depth L = 2 kpc
    Adopted to match the region of elevated velocity dispersion in the ionised gas; used to convert free-free optical depth into density constraints (Section 6.4).
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor alpha_CO = 4.6 M_sun / (K km/s pc2)
    Milky Way value assumed as standard for early-type galaxies (Section 5.3); sets the molecular gas mass and surface density used in the Kennicutt-Schmidt comparison.
  • Global extinction AV = 0.831 mag
    Averaged from spaxels with measurable Balmer decrement and applied to the whole galaxy for line flux corrections (Section 4.3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The ISM density distribution is log-normal
    Invoked in Section 6.4 following Nordlund and Padoan 1999 and Federrath and Klessen 2012; required to convert free-free optical depth into mean density and variance.
  • domain assumption The empirical Ljet-L151 MHz correlation of Ineson et al. (2017) applies to this compact source
    Used in Section 2 to estimate jet power (Ljet >= 4.2e41 erg/s); the paper itself notes the correlation may not hold for compact radio sources.
  • domain assumption H2 1-0 S(1)/Brgamma ratio greater than ~1.5 indicates shock excitation rather than UV excitation
    Diagnostic from Puxley et al. 1990 used in Section 3.4.1 to attribute H2 emission to shocks.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination applies to the narrow-line region with I(Ha)/I(Hb) = 2.85
    Used in Section 4.3.1 to derive extinction corrections for CALIFA line fluxes.
  • domain assumption CO emission is uniformly distributed across the IRAM beam
    Explicit assumption in Section 5.3.1 used to convert CO luminosity into a gas surface density for the KS comparison.
  • domain assumption The elevated velocity dispersion of the ionised gas traces turbulence and shocks rather than multiple kinematic components along the line of sight
    Implicit in attributing sigma up to 225 km/s to jet-driven turbulence; the paper notes higher spectral resolution is needed to confirm multiple components (Section 7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for signs of jet-driven negative feedback in the nearby radio galaxy UGC 05771." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXW353G6

@misc{pith2026190900144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for signs of jet-driven negative feedback in the nearby radio galaxy UGC 05771},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXW353G6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00144}
}
abstract

Hydrodynamical simulations predict that the jets of young radio sources can inhibit star formation in their host galaxies by injecting heat and turbulence into the interstellar medium (ISM). To investigate jet-ISM interactions in a galaxy with a young radio source, we have carried out a multi-wavelength study of the $z = 0.025$ Compact Steep Spectrum radio source hosted by the early-type galaxy UGC 05771. Using Keck/OSIRIS observations, we detected H\textsubscript{2} 1--0 S(1) and [Fe \textsc{ii}] emission at radii of 100s of pc, which traces shocked molecular and ionised gas being accelerated outwards by the jets to low velocities, creating a `stalling wind'. At kpc radii, we detected shocked ionised gas using observations from the CALIFA survey, covering an area much larger than the pc-scale radio source. We found that existing interferometric radio observations fail to recover a large fraction of the source's total flux, indicating the likely existence of jet plasma on kpc scales, which is consistent with the extent of shocked gas in the host galaxy. To investigate the star formation efficiency in UGC 05771, we obtained IRAM CO observations to analyse the molecular gas properties. We found that UGC 05771 sits below the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, although we were unable to definitively conclude if direct interactions from the jets are inhibiting star formation. This result shows that jets may be important in regulating star formation in the host galaxies of compact radio sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radio spectrum of UGC 05771. References: (a) Snellen et al. (2004); (b) de Vries et al. (2009); other single dish fluxes are the integrated fluxes from the 6C 151 MHz, Texas 365 MHz, Bologna 408 MHz, Greenbank 1.4 GHz, NVSS, Becker & White 4.85 GHz, and 87GB catalogues. VLBI observations, and Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations provided by Cheng & An (2018). These inter￾ferometric observations recover only … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrated spectra extracted from the OSIRIS data cubes from spaxels within 200 pc of the nucleus in the Kn3 (a) and Hn4 (b) bands with 1σ error bars shown. Spectral regions dominated by sky emission have been indicated in grey. 3.4.1 H2 emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The Kn3 band continuum, and (b) the integrated flux, (c) radial velocity (relative to rest frame wavelength) and (d) velocity dispersion of the H2 1–0 S(1) emission line. The Kn3 band continuum is indicated in contours, and the full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the PSF (taking into account the effects of MAD smoothing) is indicated in all figures. where we assumed an intrinsic ratio [Fe ii] 1.26/1.64 µm = 1.3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A map showing the H2 1–0 S(1)/Brγ ratio in each spaxel. The large values of this ratio suggest shocks are the exci￾tation mechanism. The Kn3 band continuum is indicated in con￾tours, and the FWHM of the PSF (taking into account the effects of MAD smoothing) is indicate…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excitation diagram, where we indicate the line of best fit. low-resolution spectra into a single data cube, from spaxels within 5 kpc of the nucleus in Fig.7. We used the data products produced by Pipe3D, a processing pipeline developed for integral field unit sur￾veys…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The Hn4 band continuum and (b) the integrated flux, (c) radial velocity (relative to rest frame wavelength) and (d) velocity dispersion of the [Fe ii]emission line. The Hn4 band continuum is indicated in contours, and the FWHM of the PSF (taking into account the ef…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Integrated spectrum extracted from the CALIFA data cube from spaxels within 5 kpc of the nucleus. MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The stellar radial velocity, relative to systemic, and (b) velocity dispersion (Gaussian σ). The contours indicate the logarithmically-scaled V band continuum. we estimated upper limits for the Hβ flux using the method detailed in Section 3.3, which provided a lowe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) V band continuum; (b) Hα emission line flux, (c) radial velocity (relative to systemic) and (d) velocity dispersion (Gaussian σ), corrected for the instrumental dispersion. Contours show the logarithmically-scaled V band continuum. the ODDs presented in Section 4.3…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Total extinction in the V band AV . The contours indicate the logarithmically-scaled V band continuum, and the dashed circle shows the FWHM of the IRAM 30 m telescope beam at the observed frequency of the CO(1–0) line (Section 5). be contaminated by the AGN, this conf…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Optical diagnostic diagrams for spaxels in UGC 05771 (Baldwin et al. 1981; Veilleux & Osterbrock 1987) with points coloured by (a) their distance from the nucleus (assumed to coincide with the peak in the V band continuum) and (b) by the Hα velocity dispersion. The so…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Hα radial velocity from the Gaussian fit, (b) S´ersic disc model fit, (c) velocity residuals, and (d) a plot showing the radial velocity along the dashed green and red lines in Figs. (a) and (b), corrected for inclination. In Fig. (c), subtracting the model fit re…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) CO(1–0) and (b) CO(2–1) line profiles of UGC 05771. Red lines show the best Gaussian fit to each line. are 8.6 ± 0.4 Jy km s−1 and 11.9 ± 0.5 Jy km s−1 for CO(1–0) and CO(2–1) respectively. The line ratio CO(2–1)/CO(1–0) = 2.5 is consistent with those in the sampl…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The peak frequency versus largest linear size for the catalogue of GPS and CSS sources compiled by Jeyakumar (2016), illustrating the strong anticorrelation between turnover frequency and linear size. The stars indicate the linear sizes, de￾rived from VLBI observation…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: shows where UGC 05771 lies with respect to the KS relation (assuming a Salpeter IMF). To estimate Σgas in UGC 05771, we use our CO observations; for the SFR surface density ΣSFR, we show our estimates computed using both the total Hα flux (empty red triangle) and the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts299 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1796A 432, 1796

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts299 2013

  2. [2]

    Alatalo K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...31A 798, 31

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/31 2015

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1234 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3111B 461, 3111

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1234 2016

  7. [7]

    Bender R., 1988, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A

    1988

  8. [8]

    V., Begelman M

    Bicknell G. V., Begelman M. C., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177636 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...467..597B 467, 597

    doi:10.1086/177636 1996

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    V., Mukherjee D., Wagner A

    Bicknell G. V., Mukherjee D., Wagner A. Y., Sutherland R. S., Nesvadba N. P. H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty070 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3493B 475, 3493

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Calzetti D., 2013, Star Formation Rate Indicators . p. 419

    2013

  3. [11]

    Cheng X.-P., An T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad22c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..155C 863, 155

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    Dabrowski I., 1984, @doi [Canadian Journal of Physics] 10.1139/p84-210 , 62, 1639

    1984 doi

  5. [15]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    2012 doi

  6. [16]

    E., et al., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1999PASP..111..438F 111, 438

    Falco E. E., et al., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1999PASP..111..438F 111, 438

    1999 doi

  7. [17]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..156F 761, 156

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..156F 761, 156

    2012 doi

  8. [18]

    L., Massa D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518158 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..320F 663, 320

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518158 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..320F 663, 320

    2007 doi

  9. [19]

    B., Kellermann K

    Fomalont E. B., Kellermann K. I., Partridge R. B., Windhorst R. A., Richards E. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339308 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.2402F 123, 2402

    2002 doi

  10. [20]

    Gildas Team 2013, GILDAS: Grenoble Image and Line Data Analysis Software , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1305.010 )

    2013

  11. [21]

    B., Conway J

    Giroletti M., Giovannini G., Taylor G. B., Conway J. E., Lara L., Venturi T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021821 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  12. [22]

    D., Pineau des For \^e ts G., Combes F., Falgarone E., Bernard-Salas J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423612 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Guillard P., Boulanger F., Lehnert M. D., Pineau des For \^e ts G., Combes F., Falgarone E., Bernard-Salas J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423612 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  13. [23]

    G \"u ltekin K., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..198G 698, 198

    2009 doi

  14. [24]

    u ver T., \

    G \"u ver T., \"O zel F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.2050G 400, 2050

    2009

  15. [25]

    N., Morganti R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13089.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..639H 387, 639

    Holt J., Tadhunter C. N., Morganti R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13089.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..639H 387, 639

    2008

  16. [26]

    H., Hardcastle M

    Ineson J., Croston J. H., Hardcastle M. J., Mingo B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx189 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1586I 467, 1586

    2017 doi

  17. [27]

    Jeyakumar S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016MNRAS.458.3786J 458, 3786

    2016 doi

  18. [28]

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  19. [30]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  20. [31]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    2001 doi

  21. [32]

    J., Groves B., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372..961K 372, 961

    Kewley L. J., Groves B., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372..961K 372, 961

    2006

  22. [33]

    M., Alatalo K., Appleton P

    Lanz L., Ogle P. M., Alatalo K., Appleton P. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826...29L 826, 29

    2016 doi

  23. [34]

    Larkin J., et al., 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 62691A, @doi 10.1117/12.672061

    2006 doi

  24. [35]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..123....3L 123, 3

    1999 doi

  25. [36]

    B., 2009, in Bohlender D

    Markwardt C. B., 2009, in Bohlender D. A., Durand D., Dowler P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII. p. 251 ( @eprint arXiv 0902.2850 )

    2009 arXiv

  26. [37]

    Martig M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts594 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1914M 432, 1914

    2013 doi

  27. [38]

    R., Nulsen P

    McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023

    2012

  28. [39]

    Merloni A., Heinz S., di Matteo T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1057M 345, 1057

    2003

  29. [40]

    J., 1978, The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: Implementation and theory

    Mor \'e J. J., 1978, The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: Implementation and theory. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 105--116, @doi 10.1007/BFb0067700 , https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0067700

    1978 doi

  30. [41]

    Morganti R., Fogasy J., Paragi Z., Oosterloo T., Orienti M., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1240436 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...341.1082M 341, 1082

    2013 doi

  31. [42]

    Morganti R., Oosterloo T., Oonk J. B. R., Frieswijk W., Tadhunter C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525860 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  32. [43]

    V., Sutherland R., Wagner A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1368 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..967M 461, 967

    Mukherjee D., Bicknell G. V., Sutherland R., Wagner A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1368 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..967M 461, 967

    2016 doi

  33. [44]

    Y., Bicknell G

    Mukherjee D., Wagner A. Y., Bicknell G. V., Morganti R., Oosterloo T., Nesvadba N., Sutherland R. S., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476...80M 476, 80

    doi

  34. [45]

    V., Wagner A

    Mukherjee D., Bicknell G. V., Wagner A. Y., Sutherland R. S., Silk J., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1776 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5544M 479, 5544

    doi

  35. [46]

    Murgia M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS02033 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASA...20...19M 20, 19

    2003 doi

  36. [47]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., Lehnert M. D., Eisenhauer F., Gilbert A., Tecza M., Abuter R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507266 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..693N 650, 693

    2006 doi

  37. [48]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913333 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  38. [49]

    Nesvadba N. P. H., Boulanger F., Lehnert M. D., Guillard P., Salome P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  39. [50]

    Neugebauer G., et al., 1984, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/184209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...278L...1N 278, L1

    1984 doi

  40. [51]

    K., Padoan P., 1999, in Franco J., Carraminana A., eds, Interstellar Turbulence

    Nordlund A . K., Padoan P., 1999, in Franco J., Carraminana A., eds, Interstellar Turbulence. p. 218 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9810074 )

    1999 arXiv

  41. [52]

    P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316162 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..493O 110, 493

    O'Dea C. P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316162 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..493O 110, 493

    1998 doi

  42. [53]

    P., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201512280 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337..141O 337, 141

    O'Dea C. P., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201512280 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337..141O 337, 141

    2016 doi

  43. [54]

    P., Baum S

    O'Dea C. P., Baum S. A., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118241 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....113..148O 113, 148

    1997 doi

  44. [55]

    Oca \ n a Flaquer B., Leon S., Combes F., Lim J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913392 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  45. [56]

    A., Antonucci R., Appleton P

    Ogle P., Boulanger F., Guillard P., Evans D. A., Antonucci R., Appleton P. N., Nesvadba N., Leipski C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1193 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724.1193O 724, 1193

    2010 doi

  46. [57]

    K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/13 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...13O 195, 13

    Oh K., Sarzi M., Schawinski K., Yi S. K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/13 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...13O 195, 13

    2011 doi

  47. [58]

    Orienti M., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201512257 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337....9O 337, 9

    2016 doi

  48. [59]

    J., Hawarden T

    Puxley P. J., Hawarden T. G., Mountain C. M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169386 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...364...77P 364, 77

    1990 doi

  49. [60]

    Rosenberg M. J. F., van der Werf P. P., Israel F. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218772 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  50. [61]

    Rosenberg M. J. F., van der Werf P. P., Israel F. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220246 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  51. [62]

    M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429877 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASP..117..620R 117, 620

    Roth M. M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429877 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASP..117..620R 117, 620

    2005 doi

  52. [63]

    Rowan-Robinson M., et al., 1997, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/289.2.490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.289..490R 289, 490

    1997 doi

  53. [64]

    Salim S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519218 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..267S 173, 267

    2007 doi

  54. [65]

    F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  55. [66]

    F., et al., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RMxAA..52..171S 52, 171

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2016, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RMxAA..52..171S 52, 171

    2016

  56. [67]

    V., Mieske S., Zeilinger W

    Saulder C., van Kampen E., Chilingarian I. V., Mieske S., Zeilinger W. W., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526711 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  57. [68]

    J., 1998, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A

    Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A

    1998

  58. [69]

    Singh R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322062 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  59. [70]

    Snellen I. A. G., Mack K.-H., Schilizzi R. T., Tschager W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07337.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.348..227S 348, 227

    2004

  60. [71]

    M., Downes D., Radford S

    Solomon P. M., Downes D., Radford S. J. E., Barrett J. W., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303765 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...478..144S 478, 144

    1997 doi

  61. [72]

    S., Bicknell G

    Sutherland R. S., Bicknell G. V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520640 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173...37S 173, 37

    2007 doi

  62. [73]

    Sutherland R., Dopita M., Binette L., Groves B., 2013, MAPPINGS III: Modelling And Prediction in PhotoIonized Nebulae and Gasdynamical Shocks , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1306.008 )

    2013

  63. [74]

    Tadhunter C., Morganti R., Rose M., Oonk J. B. R., Oosterloo T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13520 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.511..440T 511, 440

    2014 doi

  64. [75]

    W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09269.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..197T 362, 197

    Terzi \'c B., Graham A. W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09269.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..197T 362, 197

    2005

  65. [76]

    Turner J., Kirby-Docken K., Dalgarno A., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190481 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJS...35..281T 35, 281

    1977 doi

  66. [77]

    E., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...63..295V 63, 295

    Veilleux S., Osterbrock D. E., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJS...63..295V 63, 295

    1987 doi

  67. [78]

    Y., Bicknell G

    Wagner A. Y., Bicknell G. V., Umemura M., Sutherland R. S., Silk J., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201512287 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337..167W 337, 167

    2016 doi

  68. [79]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424198 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Walcher C. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424198 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  69. [80]

    W., Stocke J

    Willett K. W., Stocke J. T., Darling J., Perlman E. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/1393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713.1393W 713, 1393

    2010 doi

  70. [81]

    L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499290 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118..297W 118, 297

    Wizinowich P. L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499290 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118..297W 118, 297

    2006 doi

  71. [82]

    Wolniewicz L., Simbotin I., Dalgarno A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313091 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJS..115..293W 115, 293

    1998 doi

  72. [83]

    Zovaro H. R. M., Sharp R., Nesvadba N. P. H., Bicknell G. V., Mukherjee D., Wagner A. Y., Groves B., Krishna S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz233 , 484, 3393

    2019 doi

  73. [84]

    de Vries N., Snellen I. A. G., Schilizzi R. T., Mack K.-H., Kaiser C. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811145 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  74. [85]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118..310V 118, 310

    van Dam M. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118..310V 118, 310

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.