Living with Neighbors. I. Observational Clues to Hydrodynamic Impact of Neighboring Galaxies on Star Formation

Jun-Sung Moon; Suk-Jin Yoon; Sung-Ho An

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Living with Neighbors. I. Observational Clues to Hydrodynamic Impact of Neighboring Galaxies on Star Formation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A neighbor's star formation controls whether galaxy pairs ignite or quench.

desk verdict A careful SDSS pair study showing that the neighbor's own star-forming state predicts whether interactions enhance or quench SF; the empirical pattern is solid, but the hydrodynamic mechanism attribution is not uniquely identified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05278 v1 pith:FVENDKD4 submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.GA

Jun-Sung Moon , Sung-Ho An , Suk-Jin Yoon This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxyinteractionsstarformationpairsquenchingspecificratehydrodynamiceffectshotgashalosSloanDigitalSkySurvey

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 examines how a galaxy's nearest neighbor affects its star formation, using over 10,000 pairs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey matched to carefully selected isolated galaxies. It finds that the decisive factor is not the neighbor's size or tidal pull but the neighbor's own star-forming status: galaxies with star-forming neighbors form more stars, increasingly so when the neighbor is closer and more actively star-forming, while galaxies with quiescent neighbors form fewer stars, increasingly so when the neighbor is closer and more quiescent. The authors argue that these opposite responses cannot be explained by tidal forces alone and instead point to hydrodynamic mechanisms: collisions between gas clouds when both galaxies are star-forming, and stripping or starvation of gas by a hot surrounding halo when the neighbor is quiescent. If right, the result means that the early phase of galaxy interactions is shaped by gas physics, not just gravity.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a four-way classification of galaxy pairs by the specific star formation rate (sSFR, star formation rate per unit stellar mass measured within the SDSS fiber) of both members. The boundary $\log(\mathrm{sSFR}) = -11.5\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ sits in the valley of the sample's sSFR distribution and yields four groups: Qq, Qs, Sq, and Ss. Every group is compared with a control sample of isolated galaxies matched in redshift, stellar mass, and local density, and the interaction-induced change is defined as the difference in star-forming fraction or in mean SFR between the pair and control samples. The trends of these differences against projected separation and against the neighbor's sSFR carry the argument.

What would settle it

Observe the cold-gas content (H I and CO) of the target galaxies in close pairs with quiescent versus star-forming neighbors. The paper's mechanism predicts that targets with quiescent companions should have reduced gas reservoirs or reduced gas inflow (stripping and starvation), while targets with star-forming companions should retain gas but show elevated star-formation efficiency (ISM collision); seeing the opposite pattern would undercut the claim that the neighbor's star-forming status drives the response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the star-forming status of a galaxy's nearest neighbor determines whether the interaction enhances or quenches star formation in the target. Using 10,142 SDSS pairs with a matched isolated control sample, the authors divide pairs by whether the neighbor (and the target) lies above or below the sSFR boundary $\log(\mathrm{sSFR}) = -11.5\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. They find that star-forming targets with a star-forming neighbor (the Ss group) have a mean SFR up to about three times that of isolated star-forming galaxies at separations below $30\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, with the boost growing as the neighbor gets closer and more star-forming. In contrast, targets with a quiescent neighbor (the q group) show a reduced star-forming fraction, and fully quenched neighbors suppress the SFR of star-forming targets slightly; this reduction persists out to about $150\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}$ and strengthens for closer, more massive, and more quiescent neighbors. The authors interpret the contrast as evidence that hydrodynamic effects, namely collisions of interstellar media in the s group and hot-halo ram-pressure stripping or gas-accretion cutoff in the q group, operate alongside tidal forces during the early phase of interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the neighbor's star-forming status, measured at the same epoch as the target's, as an independent cause or marker of the target's response; if the same interaction simultaneously changes the star formation of both galaxies, then the distinction between the q and s groups partly encodes the very effect being measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In close pairs, star-forming galaxies with a star-forming neighbor reach a mean SFR about three times that of matched isolated galaxies, while no such boost appears when the neighbor is quiescent.
The quenching effect of a quiescent neighbor extends to separations of roughly $150\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, near the virial radius of a Milky-Way-sized galaxy, and strengthens for more massive, more quiescent, and closer neighbors.
The total sSFR distribution of all pairs is broadened on both ends: more quiescent galaxies appear in pairs with quiescent neighbors and more active star formers in pairs with star-forming neighbors.
Tidal forces alone cannot explain the asymmetry, because quiescent neighbors are on average more massive yet produce quenching rather than enhancement, so hydrodynamics must operate alongside tides during the early phase of interactions.
The existence of an Sq group with no measurable enhancement implies that tidal encounters cannot revive a fully quenched target galaxy before coalescence.

Reading between the lines

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

This suggests that morphology-based splits in earlier work were standing in for gas content; interaction models should track the companion's cold-gas state rather than its Hubble type.
The same logic may extend to minor interactions and flybys in group environments, where a gas-rich companion could briefly ignite a galaxy and a hot-halo-bearing companion could prematurely quench it, with consequences for the environmental dependence of the star-forming main sequence.
A testable extension is that q-group quenching should appear with a delay of a few gigayears after first infall, matching starvation timescales, while s-group enhancement should be prompt and centrally concentrated; separating these timescales observationally would sharpen the interpretation.
Because the paper uses fiber-based SFRs, its quantitative enhancement factors apply to galaxy centers; full-aperture or spatially resolved measurements could reveal whether the total SFR boost is smaller or larger than the central one.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this one if you work on galaxy interactions. The headline result: quenching and enhancement in pairs track the neighbor's sSFR, not just morphology, and the trends are monotonic in neighbor sSFR and separation. That is a clean observational step beyond Park & Choi and Cao et al., and the sample work is careful: ~14,000 pairs, strict single-neighbor requirements, photometric neighbor vetoes, and a matched control sample on redshift, stellar mass, and local density with 1000 resamplings. I believe the q/s contrast. They show it persists across redshift, environment, mass ratio, and relative velocity.

The soft spot is exactly the one flagged: the neighbor's sSFR is measured at the same epoch as the target's, so the q/s split may partly encode the interaction's own effect. The paper acknowledges this in Section 4.2, but only to argue that tidal effects alone cannot explain why Sq galaxies show no enhancement. I think that argument is fair—if tides drove everything, gas-rich targets with quiescent neighbors should still light up—but it does not rule out common-cause scenarios where both galaxies' SFRs respond simultaneously to the same encounter or shared large-scale environment. The inference to hot-halo stripping for q and ISM collisions for s is plausible, but it is an interpretation of a binned correlation, not an identification. The authors say in Section 5.1 that neighbor SFR is 'the most important parameter'—true within their controls, but the controls don't include pre-interaction gas content or assembly history.

Other concerns are minor: fiber SFRs cover only the central few kpc, though they justify this and use matched redshift and mass; the sSFR cut at -11.5 is reasonable and they test trends around it. None of this undermines the empirical result.

Bottom line: this paper deserves a serious referee. The design is the best of its kind for this question at that time, and the q/s monotonic dependence is a useful benchmark for simulations. The mechanism section should be softened or tested with pre-encounter SFR estimates, but the observational core is citable.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses SDSS DR7 spectroscopy and MPA-JHU fiber SFRs to compare 14,432 paired galaxies with 33,182 isolated galaxies, asking whether the star-forming status of a galaxy's nearest neighbor determines the sign and strength of the interaction-induced change in star formation. Pairs are selected with projected separation <200 h^-1 kpc, relative velocity <300 km s^-1, mass ratio 0.1-10, and a single dominant neighbor, with additional cleaning using photometric redshifts. The control sample is drawn from isolated galaxies matched in redshift, stellar mass, and local density, with 1000 random resamplings. Splitting the pair sample by the neighbor's sSFR at log(sSFR) = -11.5, the authors report that quiescent neighbors reduce the star-forming fraction, increasingly for closer and more quiescent neighbors, while star-forming neighbors leave the star-forming fraction unchanged but raise the mean SFR, especially in star-forming targets (the Ss group). They interpret the first trend as hot-halo ram-pressure stripping and gas-accretion cutoff, and the second as ISM collisions in gas-rich pairs.

Significance. If the observed q/s contrast is real, this is a significant observational result: it goes beyond the conventional tidal-torque picture and provides large-sample evidence that the neighbor's own gas/star-forming state is correlated with whether interactions enhance or suppress star formation. The paper has clear strengths: a strict and well-documented pair-selection procedure, explicit removal of galaxies with additional photometric neighbors, control samples matched in redshift, stellar mass, and local density with 1000 resamplings, and robustness checks against redshift, relative velocity, local density, stellar mass, and mass ratio. The empirical claim that the sign of the interaction-induced change depends on the neighbor's sSFR is likely robust; the main vulnerability is the causal interpretation, because the neighbor's sSFR is measured at the same epoch as the target's and may be a co-product of the same interaction rather than an independent cause.

major comments (2)

[Section 2.3 and Section 4.2] The classification of the q and s groups uses the neighbor's fiber sSFR measured at the same epoch as the target's SFR. During a close interaction, both galaxies can be simultaneously enhanced or quenched by mutual tidal or hydrodynamic effects, and paired galaxies also share large-scale gas supply and assembly histories. The q/s split may therefore partly select on the interaction outcome or on pre-existing correlated properties rather than on an independent neighbor attribute. Section 4.2 acknowledges that the Ss excess could be a consequence of mutual interaction, but the counterargument only rules out a purely tidal, single-sided effect; it does not rule out simultaneity or common-cause selection. Section 5.1's statement that the neighbor's SFR is the most important parameter rests on controls for redshift, mass, density, and mass ratio, not on a control for pre-interaction neighbor gas content or shared environment. Because the hot-halo stripping (q) and ISM collision (s) mechanisms in Section 5.2 are inferred from this classification, the causal identification is not fully established. I recommend adding a test that classifies neighbors using a property less contemporaneous with the interaction (for example, morphology or stellar population age), or explicitly constraining the simultaneity scenario before claiming a unique hydrodynamic mechanism.
[Section 2.1 and Section 4.2] The neighbor's sSFR used for classification is measured within the SDSS 3-arcsecond fiber, which covers only the central few kiloparsecs. Interaction-induced star formation is known to be concentrated in galactic centers, so a high fiber sSFR in the neighbor could itself be a signature of the ongoing interaction rather than a pre-existing property. Since the paper's main conclusion in Section 5.1 asserts that the neighbor's SFR is the most important distinguishing parameter, the analysis needs to address this directly: for example, by checking whether the q/s contrast persists when the neighbor classification uses an aperture-corrected SFR, a gas-phase metallicity or gas fraction indicator, or another proxy that is less affected by the current central starburst. Without such a check, the interpretation of the q/s contrast as evidence for ISM collisions (and its contrast with the Sq case) remains vulnerable to the objection that both the target and the neighbor are responding to the same event.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.1] The paragraph beginning 'Figure 8 shows the effect of various parameters on the interaction-induced SF' contains an exact duplicated sentence: 'Figure 8 shows the effect of various parameters on the interaction-induced SF.' This should be removed.
[Figure 4] The bottom-panel y-axis label 'NPair − N Control' is missing subscripts and should read 'N_pair − N_control' or equivalent; the caption would also benefit from a sentence stating that the bottom panels show the same distributions as the top panels after subtracting the control histogram.
[Figures 5 and 8] The figures would be easier to read if the error bars in Figure 5 were defined in the caption as standard errors of the mean from the 1000 resamplings; Figure 8 does not state the binning rule, and it would help to note that each bin contains an equal number of galaxies, as in Figure 7.
[Section 2.3] The choice of log(sSFR) = -11.5 as the demarcation between quiescent and star-forming galaxies is stated to be the valley of the sSFR distribution, but no figure or quantitative support is shown for this valley; a brief justification or reference would strengthen the reproducibility of the classification.
[Section 5.2] The phrase 'CAPLOESS 2D routine' in the caption of Figure 6 should be 'CAP LOESS 2D routine,' and the text in Section 4.2 would benefit from a proper citation of the Cappellari et al. (2013) software rather than only the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is a direct matched-control comparison, with no fitted prediction or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is a measurement paper rather than a derivation. The central result, that interaction-induced changes in target sSFR depend on the neighbor's contemporaneous sSFR, is obtained by splitting the SDSS pair sample in Section 2.3 into the q and s groups and comparing each group's sSFR distribution against an isolated control sample matched in redshift, stellar mass, and local density (Section 3). No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction; the quantities Delta(SF Fraction) and Delta log(SFR) are direct contrasts between the pair and control samples. The only self-citation (Moon & Yoon 2015) appears in a footnote and is used only to explain why morphology was not chosen as the SF indicator; it is not load-bearing for any conclusion. The acknowledged concern that the neighbor's sSFR may be co-induced by the same interaction (Section 4.2) is a causal-identification caveat, not a circular reduction: the empirical correlations would remain even if the causal interpretation were wrong. Thus there is no step in which an equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation forces the predicted result by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper fits no model and introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on classification thresholds and selection criteria, plus the interpretive assumption that the neighbor's current sSFR is an independent indicator of the interaction's cause rather than a co-product.

free parameters (1)

sSFR demarcation between quiescent and star-forming galaxies = log(sSFR) = -11.5 yr^-1
Chosen as the valley of the sSFR distribution (Section 2.3) to split both targets and neighbors. It is a classification threshold rather than a model parameter, but the paper does not test whether the central trends are sensitive to this exact value.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption sSFR measured within the SDSS 3 arcsecond fiber represents the hydrodynamic gas state relevant to interaction-induced star formation
Stated in a footnote in Section 1. The fiber size varies with redshift (0.9 to 3.9 h^-1 kpc), and the paper argues that redshift matching between pair and control samples makes fiber SFR comparison fair.
domain assumption The control sample matching on redshift, stellar mass, and local density removes selection biases
The paper follows Patton et al. (2013, 2016) and Perez et al. (2009a). Galaxies in dense environments with fewer than 10 isolated counterparts are excluded, which may limit the generality of the result in the densest regions.
domain assumption AGN exclusion via the Kauffmann et al. (2003) BPT diagram removes AGN contamination from SFR estimates
Section 2.1 excludes composite, AGN, and low signal-to-noise AGN candidates, about 20 percent of galaxies, to ensure the optical emission lines trace star formation rather than accretion activity.
domain assumption A nearest neighbor within 200 h^-1 kpc, with relative radial velocity less than 300 km/s and mass ratio between 0.1 and 10, defines the relevant interacting pair
Section 2.2 uses these conventional criteria. The projected-separation and velocity cuts could include some false pairs or exclude some real ones, but they are standard in the field (e.g., Patton et al. 2013).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Living with Neighbors. I. Observational Clues to Hydrodynamic Impact of Neighboring Galaxies on Star Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVENDKD4

@misc{pith2026190805278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Living with Neighbors. I. Observational Clues to Hydrodynamic Impact of Neighboring Galaxies on Star Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVENDKD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05278}
}

read the original abstract

Galaxies in pairs show enhanced star formation (SF) compared to their counterparts in isolation, which is often explained by the tidal effect of neighboring galaxies. Recent observations, however, reported that galaxies paired with early-type neighbors do not undergo the SF enhancement. Here we revisit the influence of neighbors using a large sample of paired galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and a carefully constructed control sample of isolated counterparts. We find that star-forming neighbors enhance SF, and even more so for more star-forming (and closer) neighbors, which can be attributed to collisions of interstellar medium (ISM) leading to SF. We further find that, contrary to the anticipated tidal effect, quiescent neighbors quench SF, and even more so for more quiescent (and closer) neighbors. This seems to be due to removal of gas reservoirs via ram pressure stripping and gas accretion cutoff by hot gas halos of quiescent neighbors, on top of their paucity of ISM to collide to form stars. Our findings, especially the intimate connection of SF to the status and strength of neighbors' SF, imply that the hydrodynamic mechanisms, along with the tidal effect, play a crucial role during the early phase of galactic interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05278 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Examples of galaxies in our pair sample. The paired galaxies are at the center of stamp images. The pair sample is further classified into four groups, Qq (first row), Qs (second row), Sq (third row), and Ss (fourth row), according to the SF activities of the target and those of the nearest neighbor. In each group, four examples are shown among paired galaxies having a neighbor within a projected separation of 30 h … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Top: distributions of the redshift (left), stellar mass (middle), and local density (right) for all isolated galaxies (black) and all paired galaxies (purple). Bottom: The same as the top row, but for the controlled galaxies (see Section 3). Error bars show the standard deviation obtained from 1000 random selections in the control sample. Each distribution is normalized to the number of galaxies it contains. Consequ… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** sSFR distributions for the whole pair sample (purple), the q group (red), and the s group (blue). From left to right, the distance to the nearest neighbor increases. The distributions of the control samples are shown as black histograms. Error bars show the standard deviation obtained from 1000 random selections in the control samples. Each distribution is normalized to the number of galaxies it contains. The top pa… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top: sSFR distributions for the q group (left panel, red) and the s group (right panel, blue) with a projected separation less than 30 h −1 kpc. The distributions of the control sample are shown as black histograms. Error bars show the standard deviation obtained from …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Interaction-induced changes in the number fraction of star-forming galaxies for the q (red) and s (blue) groups as functions of (a) the projected distance to the nearest neighbor and (b) the sSFR of the nearest neighbor. A minus value means that the number of star-form…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Interaction-induced changes in the SFR as functions of the distance to the nearest neighbor and the sSFR of the nearest neighbor. Top panels: 2D trends obtained by the local regression algorithm of Cappellari et al. (2013) for (a) quiescent and (b) star-forming paired …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Interaction-induced changes in the number fraction of star-forming galaxies with respect to (a) the redshift, (b) the relative radial velocity between the target and neighbor, (c) the local density parameter, (d) the stellar mass of the target, (e) the stellar mass of …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Schematic diagrams illustrating mechanisms that explain the observational results (a) for the q group and (b) for the s group. neighbor is restricted to be 0.1 – 10 times that of the target. Panel (f) shows that, although galaxies in the Sq group generally interact wi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

[1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A.,et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

work page 2009
[2]

K., Ag¨ ueros, M

Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 634

work page 2007
[3]

S., Lambas, D

Alonso, M. S., Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P ., & Coldwell, G. 2007 , MNRAS, 375, 1017

work page 2007
[4]

S., Tissera, P

Alonso, M. S., Tissera, P . B., Coldwell, G., et al. 2004, MNRA S, 352, 1081

work page 2004
[5]

K., Balogh, M

Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469

2006
[6]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 9 3, 5

work page 1981
[7]

K., S´ anchez, S

Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., S´ anchez, S. F., Garc´ ıa-Lorenzo, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A45

work page 2015
[8]

Wechsler, R. H. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1538

work page 2007

Show all 73 references

[9]

J., Geller, M

Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 66 0

2000
[10]

S., Zhu, G., Ferguson, H

Behroozi, P . S., Zhu, G., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1546

2015
[11]

F., McIntosh, D

Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

2003
[12]

Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNR AS, 351, 1151

2004
[13]

K., Domingue, D., et al

Cao, C., Xu, C. K., Domingue, D., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 16

2016
[14]

M., Alatalo, K., et al

Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1862

2013
[15]

S., & Devlin, S

Cleveland, W. S., & Devlin, S. J. 1988, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 83 , 596

1988
[16]

A., Schaye, J., Wyithe, J

Correa, C. A., Schaye, J., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS , 473, 538

2018
[17]

J., Jonsson, P ., Somerville, R

Cox, T. J., Jonsson, P ., Somerville, R. S., Primack, J. R., & D ekel, A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 386

2008
[18]

J., et al

Csabai, I., Budav´ ari, T., Connolly, A. J., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 580

2003
[19]

2015, ApJ, 805, 121

Aragon-Calvo, M. 2015, ApJ, 805, 121

2015
[20]

Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P ., et al. 2015 , MNRAS, 452, 616 Di Matteo, P ., Bournaud, F., Martig, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 492 , 31 Di Matteo, P ., Combes, F., Melchior, A.-L., & Semelin, B. 2007, A&A, 468, 61

2015
[21]

L., Cao, C., Xu, C

Domingue, D. L., Cao, C., Xu, C. K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 78

2016
[22]

L., Mendel, J

Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., et al. 2013, MNRA S, 435, 3627

2013
[23]

L., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2 011, MNRAS, 418, 2043
[24]

L., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1514

2010
[25]

L., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W . 2008, AJ, 135, 1877

2008
[26]

J., Buddelmeijer, H., Trager, S

Ferdosi, B. J., Buddelmeijer, H., Trager, S. C., Wilkinson, M. H. F., & Roerdink, J. B. T. M. 2011, A&A, 531, A114

2011
[27]

M., & Dav´ e, R

Gabor, J. M., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 374

2015
[28]

H., Sparre, M., Ellison, S

Hani, M. H., Sparre, M., Ellison, S. L., Torrey, P ., & V ogelsberger, M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1160

2018
[29]

S., Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., et al

Hwang, H. S., Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A60

2011
[30]

S., Elbaz, D., Lee, J

Hwang, H. S., Elbaz, D., Lee, J. C., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A33

2010
[31]

S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., & Choi, Y .-Y

Hwang, H. S., Park, C., Elbaz, D., & Choi, Y .-Y . 2012, A&A, 538, A15

2012
[32]

2015, ApJ, 805, 131

Hwang, J.-S., & Park, C. 2015, ApJ, 805, 131

2015
[33]

M., Tremonti, C., et al

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055 NEIGHBORING GALAXIES ’ H YDRODYNAMIC IMPACT ON STAR FORMATION 15

2003
[34]

Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

2004
[35]

2014, MNRAS, 440, 2944

Kaviraj, S. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2944

2014
[36]

2015, MNRAS, 4 52, 2845

Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y ., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 4 52, 2845

2015
[37]

G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., et al

Lambas, D. G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A45

2012
[38]

G., Tissera, P

Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P . B., Alonso, M. S., et al. 2003, MNRA S, 346, 1189

2003
[39]

M., et al

Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385 , 1903

2008
[40]

R., Koo, D

Lin, L., Patton, D. R., Koo, D. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 232 L´ opez-Sanjuan, C., Cenarro, A. J., V arela, J., et al. 2015,A&A, 576, A53

2008
[41]

M., Jonsson, P ., Cox, T

Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P ., Cox, T. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 103

2011
[42]

Man, A. W. S., Zirm, A. W., & Toft, S. 2016, ApJ, 830, 89

2016
[43]

Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J. E. G., Dubois, Y ., & Pi chon, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2266

2018
[44]

T., Simard, L., Palmer, M., Ellison, S

Mendel, J. T., Simard, L., Palmer, M., Ellison, S. L., & Patto n, D. R. 2014, ApJS, 210, 3

2014
[45]

2018, A&A, 619, A2 4

Mesa, V ., Duplancic, F., Alonso, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A2 4

2018
[46]

2015, Publication of Korean Astronomical Society, 30, 469

Moon, J.-S., & Y oon, S.-J. 2015, Publication of Korean Astronomical Society, 30, 469

2015
[47]

L., et al

Moreno, J., Torrey, P ., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1107

2015
[48]

L., et al

Moreno, J., Torrey, P ., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1320

2019
[49]

P ., Macci` o, A

Moster, B. P ., Macci` o, A. V ., Somerville, R. S., Naab, T., & Cox, T. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3750

2011
[50]

P ., Macci` o, A

Moster, B. P ., Macci` o, A. V ., Somerville, R. S., Naab, T., & Cox, T. J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2045

2012
[51]

2004, MNRAS, 355, 87 4

Nikolic, B., Cullen, H., & Alexander, P . 2004, MNRAS, 355, 87 4

2004
[52]

2018, ApJ, 868, 132

Pan, H.-A., Lin, L., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 132

2018
[53]

2009, ApJ, 691, 1828

Park, C., & Choi, Y .-Y . 2009, ApJ, 691, 1828

2009
[54]

R., & Atﬁeld, J

Patton, D. R., & Atﬁeld, J. E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 235

2008
[55]

Mendel, J. T. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 591

2011
[56]

R., Qamar, F

Patton, D. R., Qamar, F. D., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS , 461, 2589

2016
[57]

R., Torrey, P ., Ellison, S

Patton, D. R., Torrey, P ., Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L59

2013
[58]

S., & Lambas, D

Perez, J., Tissera, P ., Padilla, N., Alonso, M. S., & Lambas, D. G. 2009b, MNRAS, 399, 1157 Raﬁeferantsoa, M., Dav´ e, R., & Naab, T. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5184

2019
[59]

2015, MNRAS, 446, 2038

Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., & Duc, P .-A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2038

2015
[60]

2014, MNRAS, 437, 2137

Scott, C., & Kaviraj, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2137

2014
[61]

Silverman, B. W. 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics an d Data Analysis (London: Chapman and Hall)

1986
[62]

McConnachie, A. W. 2011, ApJS, 196, 11

2011
[63]

2016, MNRAS, 462, 2418

Sparre, M., & Springel, V . 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2418

2016
[64]

Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Natur e, 435, 629

2005
[65]

A., Weinberg, D

Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ , 124, 1810 V entou, E., Contini, T., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A9

2002
[66]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 4 32, 336

2013
[67]

C., Blanton, M

Wong, K. C., Blanton, M. R., Burles, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 72 8, 119

2011
[68]

F., Geller, M

Woods, D. F., Geller, M. J., & Barton, E. J. 2006, AJ, 132, 197

2006
[69]

F., & Geller, M

Woods, D. F., & Geller, M. J. 2007, AJ, 134, 527

2007
[70]

F., Geller, M

Woods, D. F., Geller, M. J., Kurtz, M. J., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1857

2010
[71]

K., Domingue, D., Cheng, Y .-W., et al

Xu, C. K., Domingue, D., Cheng, Y .-W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 3 30

2010
[72]

K., Zhao, Y ., Scoville, N., et al

Xu, C. K., Zhao, Y ., Scoville, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 85 Y ork, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., Jr., et al. 2000, AJ , 120, 1579

2012
[73]

K., Y un, M

Zuo, P ., Xu, C. K., Y un, M. S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 2

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A.,et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

work page 2009

[2] [2]

K., Ag¨ ueros, M

Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 634

work page 2007

[3] [3]

S., Lambas, D

Alonso, M. S., Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P ., & Coldwell, G. 2007 , MNRAS, 375, 1017

work page 2007

[4] [4]

S., Tissera, P

Alonso, M. S., Tissera, P . B., Coldwell, G., et al. 2004, MNRA S, 352, 1081

work page 2004

[5] [5]

K., Balogh, M

Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469

2006

[6] [6]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 9 3, 5

work page 1981

[7] [7]

K., S´ anchez, S

Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., S´ anchez, S. F., Garc´ ıa-Lorenzo, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A45

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Wechsler, R. H. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1538

work page 2007