pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28927 · v1 · pith:IQUNT7C4new · submitted 2026-06-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Insights into Jet-Induced Cloud Disruption in NGC 1316: ALMA Reveals a Spatially Extended Molecular Gas

Kana Morokuma-Matsui , Alexander Y. Wagner , Filippo M. Maccagni , Lauranne Lanz , Fumiya Maeda , Jin Koda , Akihiko Hirota , Yutaka Fujita
show 9 more authors
Kotaro Kohno Tomoki Morokuma Tsutomu T. Takeuchi Kouichiro Nakanishi Fumi Egusa Kenji Bekki Daniel Espada B\"arbel Koribalski Jing Wang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 09:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords NGC 1316molecular gasAGN jetsjet feedbackALMA observationsradio galaxycloud disruptionnegative feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

ALMA data show that jets in NGC 1316 destroy molecular clouds, producing mostly extended gas.

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

The paper reports ALMA CO(1-0) mapping of the radio galaxy NGC 1316 at 100-pc resolution. Only 34-38 percent of the total CO flux is recovered in the interferometric maps, indicating that a large fraction of the molecular gas is spatially extended rather than locked in compact clouds. The authors link this to the AGN jets by noting elevated CO line ratios and higher velocity dispersions in gas near the jet, plus a 5-kpc warm ionized shell whose energetics match an expanding bubble driven by the jet. They conclude that jet plasma ablates, disperses, and rarifies dense clouds, providing a clear case of jet-induced negative feedback.

Core claim

The high extended gas fraction results from the destruction of molecular clouds due to interactions with the jet plasma. NGC 1316 may be a good example of jet-induced negative feedback through the ablation, dispersal, and rarification of dense molecular clouds through jet-ISM interactions.

What carries the argument

The expanding bubble model for the 5 kpc warm ionized gas shell, powered by a jet of 1.6×10^43 erg s^{-1}, that encompasses the molecular NW Shell and drives the observed cloud disruption.

If this is right

  • Gas near the jet exhibits R21 ~1 and R31 ~1 while gas away from the jet shows typical ratios of ~0.7 and ~0.3.
  • The 24 identified GMAs have velocity dispersions roughly twice those of clouds in normal star-forming galaxies at the same size.
  • The molecular NW Shell lies inside the 5 kpc ionized shell whose morphology and energy budget match jet-driven expansion.
  • The net effect is a reduction in the dense molecular gas reservoir available for star formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same ablation process could operate in other radio galaxies that host kpc-scale jets and extended molecular gas.
  • If confirmed, the mechanism supplies a direct channel by which jet activity can lower the star-formation efficiency without expelling all the gas.
  • Higher-resolution ALMA imaging or kinematic modeling of individual GMAs could test whether the high dispersions arise from direct jet-cloud collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The 5 kpc warm ionized gas shell is an expanding bubble whose energetics and shape are powered by the jet at 1.6×10^43 erg s^{-1}.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing that the jet mechanical power is orders of magnitude below or above 1.6×10^43 erg s^{-1}, or finding that the elevated line ratios and high dispersions do not spatially correlate with jet proximity, would falsify the disruption claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28927 by Akihiko Hirota, Alexander Y. Wagner, B\"arbel Koribalski, Daniel Espada, Filippo M. Maccagni, Fumi Egusa, Fumiya Maeda, Jing Wang, Jin Koda, Kana Morokuma-Matsui, Kenji Bekki, Kotaro Kohno, Kouichiro Nakanishi, Lauranne Lanz, Tomoki Morokuma, Tsutomu T. Takeuchi, Yutaka Fujita.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-color composite image of NGC 1316 from the Fornax Deep Survey (FDS; E. Iodice et al. 2016, 2017), using g-, r-, and i-band data obtained with the ESO VLT Survey Telescope. The ALMA observations were conducted to resolve the molecular gas properties within the central region of the galaxy. Red contours represent the CO(J = 1 − 0) emission map obtained with our ALMA observations. The solid black line i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: CO(J = 1 − 0) and 100 GHz continuum maps of NGC 1316. (a) Integrated intensity map in units of K km s−1 . (b) Intensity-weighted mean velocity map (moment 1) in km s−1 . (c) Velocity dispersion map (moment 2) in km s−1 . (d) 100 GHz continuum map in Jy beam−1 . In all panels, the CO(J = 1 − 0) integrated intensity is shown as contours, with colors indicating grey in (a), black in (b), grey in (c), and blac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cumulative frequency distribution of the velocity dispersion data shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Comparison of the CO(J = 1 − 0) spectra integrated over the entire galaxy obtained with the TP, 7M, and 12M arrays, smoothed to a velocity resolution of 50 km s−1 . The flux was integrated over a 150′′ × 160′′ rectangular region centered at (α, δ) = (03h22m41.300s , −37◦12′15.985′′), cover￾ing the full extent of the galactic emission. The spectra are distinguished by their hatching pat￾terns: TP… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CO(J = 1−0) integrated intensity ratio maps derived from 12-m, 7-m, and TP array moment-0 data. From left to right, panels show the 7M/TP, 12M/TP, and 12M/7M ratios. The black contour represents the integrated intensity map from the TP data. The grey-hatched circle in the lower-left corner indicates the beam size. tected with the 12-m or 7-m arrays, a spatial variation in the ratios is observed, with highe… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatial distribution of GMAs identified by PYCPROPS in NGC 1316 (left), M 83 (middle), and a version of M 83 simulated to match the sensitivity of the NGC 1316 data (right). Red markers denote GMAs with S/N ≥ 6. In NGC 1316, GMAs are predominantly concentrated in the NW Shell and the SE Blob, whereas in M 83, they are primarily distributed along the spiral arms. Because the original M 83 data has an S/N te… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of GMA properties between NGC 1316 (red) and M83 (blue). From left to right, the panels show the distributions of GMA mass, size (pc), and velocity dispersion (km s−1 ). Solid and dashed lines represent the results using S/N > 4 and S/N > 40 thresholds for cloud identification, respectively. For each distribution, the vertical dashed lines indicate the median values, while the surrounding semi-t… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Size–velocity dispersion relation for GMAs in NGC 1316 (red circles) and M 83 (blue filled squares) identified by PYCPROPS. The blue open squares denote “sensitivity-degraded” M 83 data, where the SoFiA2 S/N threshold was in￾creased to 40 to mimic the tenfold lower sensitiv￾ity of the NGC 1316 data. While the majority of M 83 GMAs cluster at σ < 15 km s−1 (with a few reaching ∼30 km s−1 ), NGC 1316 shows … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: R21 and R31 maps using the peak intensity maps of each line in Jy units. The black contour indicates the CO(J = 2 − 1) integrated intensity map, and the red contour outlines the S-shaped nuclear jet. Elevated ratios are observed at several locations along the jet; in particular, the region to the west of the galactic center exhibits relatively high values, with R21 ∼ 4 and R31 ∼ 9. 0 2 4 6 8 10 R21 10 0 1… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histograms of R21 and R31 derived from the ratio maps shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: R21 map at different velocity channels. Contours show the CO(J = 2–1) integrated intensity. Near the galactic center, an R21 ratio exceeding 4 (in Jy units) is observed around a velocity of 1750 km s−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: R31 map at different velocity channels. Contours show the CO(J = 2–1) integrated intensity. Near the galactic center, an R31 ratio exceeding 9 (in Jy units) is observed around a velocity of 1750 km s−1 . we employed the ’auto-multithresh’ option with parameters set of: sidelobethresh of 1.25; noisethresh of 5.0; minbeamfrac of 0.1; lownoisethresh of 2.0; negativethresh of 0.0; stop of 2.0 for all the data… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of ALMA CO(J=1-0) integrated intensity (red solid contours) with multi-wave￾length observations (grayscale). The S-shaped nuclear jet observed with MeerKAT at 1.4 GHz is indicated by a blue solid contours in all panels. The filled ellipses at the bottom left of each panel represent the restoring beams for the CO (red) and Jet (blue) observations, both outlined with black edges. The greyscale im… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Velocity channel maps of MUSE [N ii]λ6583 (color) and ALMA CO(J = 1 − 0) (magenta contours). The white dashed circle indicates the characteristic shell-like structure of the WIG, with a radius of approximately 5.5 kpc. Panels are ordered by velocity from 1174 to 2400 km s−1 . Partial spatial overlap is observed between the CO and [N ii]-bright regions. The [N ii] kinematics reveal a shell structure origin… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: [Left] Example of the ”bunny-face” structures observed in the east side of the NW Shell. The map shows the HST dust extinction (background) overlaid with CO(J = 1 − 0) emission contours. Two distinct “bunny” shapes are visible, with the CO emission peaks corresponding to the “face” of each structure. The white circle in the lower-left corner indicates the synthesized beam of the CO observations. [Right] T… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: [Left] Evolution of bubble radius R(t) (left axis) and expansion velocity V (t) (right axis) based on Equation 2. The red solid, blue dashed, and green dotted lines represent the lower limit (Lw = 1.6×1043 erg s−1 , ne = 0.01 cm−3 ) and cases where Lw/ρ0 is increased by factors of 10 and 100, respectively. Symbols indicate the expected values at a jet age of 3 Myr, as denoted by the vertical line. [Right]… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: 12-m/TP ratio map at different velocity channels. Contours indicate the TP integrated intensity. Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, … view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: 7-m/TP ratio map at different velocity channels. Contours indicate the TP integrated intensity. Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x Cald´u-Primo, A., Schruba, A., Walter, F., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present ALMA CO($J=1-0$) observations of a nearby radio galaxy NGC1316 at a 100-pc resolution to investigate the impact of AGN jets on the molecular gas. The molecular gas exhibits complex spatial and kinematic distributions, with broad CO line widths ($>50$ km s$^{-1}$) observed in several regions. The interferometric CO flux is only 34%-38% compared to single-dish data, indicating a large fraction of spatially extended molecular gas, especially in the central regions. We identified 24 Giant Molecular Clouds Associations (GMAs) primarily within the ``NW Shell'' and the ``SE Blob''; these GMAs show velocity dispersions approximately twice as high as those in typical star-forming galaxies for their sizes. Analysis of archival ALMA CO($J=2-1$) and CO($J=3-2$) data reveals elevated line ratios ($R_{21} \sim 1$ and $R_{31} \sim 1$) in gas near the jet, whereas, away from the jet, typical values ($R_{21} \sim 0.7$, $R_{31} \sim 0.3$). A multi-wavelength comparison reveals a $\sim$5 kpc warm ionized gas shell that encompasses the molecular NW Shell. The observed energetics and bubble morphology are consistent with an expanding bubble model driven by the jet assuming a jet power of $1.6\times10^{43}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. We propose that the high extended gas fraction results from the destruction of molecular clouds due to interactions with the jet plasma. NGC1316 may be a good example of jet-induced negative feedback through the ablation, dispersal, and rarification of dense molecular clouds through jet-ISM interactions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA CO(1-0) observations of NGC 1316 at ~100 pc resolution. It reports that interferometric flux recovers only 34-38% of single-dish values, indicating substantial spatially extended molecular gas; identifies 24 GMAs with velocity dispersions roughly twice those of typical star-forming galaxies; finds elevated CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) and CO(3-2)/CO(1-0) ratios near the jet; and associates a ~5 kpc warm ionized shell with an expanding bubble whose energetics match a jet power of 1.6×10^{43} erg s^{-1}. The central interpretation is that jet-ISM interactions ablate and disperse molecular clouds, providing an example of negative feedback.

Significance. If the causal attribution of the extended molecular component and the ionized shell to jet-driven ablation holds, the work supplies a nearby, spatially resolved case of AGN jet feedback that can be compared directly with simulations of cloud destruction. The line-ratio and GMA dispersion measurements supply quantitative diagnostics that are independent of the bubble model and could be tested in other systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'the observed energetics and bubble morphology are consistent with an expanding bubble model driven by the jet' is conditioned on assuming a jet power of 1.6×10^{43} erg s^{-1}. The manuscript must show whether this value is obtained from independent radio or X-ray constraints or is chosen to match the shell; if the latter, the negative-feedback interpretation becomes circular and requires an explicit sensitivity test to lower powers.
  2. The 34-38% missing CO flux is interpreted as jet-ablated, dispersed material. The text should quantify whether excitation variations, primary-beam attenuation, or single-dish calibration offsets could account for a comparable fraction; without such tests the attribution to jet-induced destruction remains one of several viable explanations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states line widths '>50 km s^{-1}' but does not specify whether these are FWHM or dispersion; consistent usage with the GMA table would aid comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript where the concerns are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'the observed energetics and bubble morphology are consistent with an expanding bubble model driven by the jet' is conditioned on assuming a jet power of 1.6×10^{43} erg s^{-1}. The manuscript must show whether this value is obtained from independent radio or X-ray constraints or is chosen to match the shell; if the latter, the negative-feedback interpretation becomes circular and requires an explicit sensitivity test to lower powers.

    Authors: The adopted jet power is drawn from independent radio lobe energetics reported in the literature for NGC 1316. To eliminate any ambiguity, we have revised the abstract to state the value's origin explicitly and added a sensitivity analysis in the discussion section demonstrating consistency of the bubble model for jet powers between 5×10^{42} and 3×10^{43} erg s^{-1}. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [—] The 34-38% missing CO flux is interpreted as jet-ablated, dispersed material. The text should quantify whether excitation variations, primary-beam attenuation, or single-dish calibration offsets could account for a comparable fraction; without such tests the attribution to jet-induced destruction remains one of several viable explanations.

    Authors: We agree that the original text did not provide quantitative limits on these alternatives. The revised manuscript includes new calculations: excitation variations (constrained by the archival CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) maps) can explain at most ~15% of the discrepancy; primary-beam attenuation affects <5% of the total flux; and single-dish calibration offsets are limited to ~10-20% based on literature cross-checks. These tests support extended emission as the dominant cause, though we have softened the language to present jet ablation as the favored interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on independent observations

full rationale

The paper presents new ALMA CO(1-0) data showing missing flux (34-38%), elevated line ratios near the jet, and morphological coincidence with an ionized shell. The expanding-bubble consistency check explicitly assumes a jet power value rather than deriving or predicting it from the data. No equations, parameters, or results reduce to fitted inputs by construction, and no self-citation chains or self-definitional steps appear. The negative-feedback interpretation is an inference from the observations against standard models, not a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation relies on one fitted parameter for jet power and standard domain assumptions about gas kinematics and excitation in AGN environments.

free parameters (1)
  • jet power = 1.6e43 erg s^{-1}
    Chosen to match the expanding bubble model to the observed shell energetics and morphology.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Molecular line ratios indicate excitation conditions influenced by jet interactions.
    Used to interpret R21 ~1 and R31 ~1 near jet as due to jet plasma.
  • domain assumption Velocity dispersions twice typical indicate jet-induced turbulence or disruption.
    Basis for claiming cloud destruction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5951 in / 1467 out tokens · 60095 ms · 2026-06-30T09:03:38.631897+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 123 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., Hickox, R

    Alexander, D. M., Hickox, R. C., Aird, J., et al. 2025, NewAR, 101, 101733, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2025.101733

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2025.101733 2025

  2. [2]

    C., Gerhard, O., et al

    Arnaboldi, M., Freeman, K. C., Gerhard, O., et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 759, doi: 10.1086/306359 42 1472 km/s 1522 km/s 1572 km/s 1622 km/s 1672 km/s 1722 km/s 1772 km/s 1822 km/s 1872 km/s 1922 km/s 1972 km/s 2022 km/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 12M/TP Figure 19.12-m/TP ratio map at different velocity channels. Contours indicate the TP integrated...

    work page doi:10.1086/306359 1998

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 671, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345964

    Audibert, A., Ramos Almeida, C., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345964

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345964 2023

  4. [4]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf977 Banda-Barrag´ an, W

    Ruffa, I. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf977 Banda-Barrag´ an, W. E., Br¨ uggen, M., Heesen, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1884

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf977 2025

  5. [5]

    L., van Zee, L., Dale, D

    Barnes, K. L., van Zee, L., Dale, D. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/126 2014

  6. [6]

    Gaibler, V. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2551 Jet–ISM Interactions in NGC 131643 1472 km/s 1522 km/s 1572 km/s 1622 km/s 1672 km/s 1722 km/s 1772 km/s 1822 km/s 1872 km/s 1922 km/s 1972 km/s 2022 km/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 7M/TP Figure 20.7-m/TP ratio map at different velocity channels. Contours indicate the TP integrate...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2551 2016

  7. [7]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  8. [8]

    A., Primack, J

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x Cald´ u-Primo, A., Schruba, A., Walter, F., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/76

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x 2006

  9. [9]

    P., et al

    Cantiello, M., Grado, A., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220756

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220756 2013

  10. [10]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1066

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1066 2010

  11. [11]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  12. [12]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    Chapin, E. L., Pope, A., Scott, D., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1793, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15267.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15267.x 2009

  13. [13]

    Y., & Dubois, Y

    Cielo, S., Bieri, R., Volonteri, M., Wagner, A. Y., & Dubois, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty708 44

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty708 2018

  14. [14]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/3

    Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/3 2014

  15. [15]

    L., Bicknell, G

    Cooper, J. L., Bicknell, G. V., Sutherland, R. S., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2009, ApJ, 703, 330, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/330

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/330 2009

  16. [16]

    L., & McKee, C

    Cowie, L. L., & McKee, C. F. 1977, ApJ, 211, 135, doi: 10.1086/154911

    work page doi:10.1086/154911 1977

  17. [17]

    L., & Songaila, A

    Cowie, L. L., & Songaila, A. 1977, Nature, 266, 501, doi: 10.1038/266501a0

    work page doi:10.1038/266501a0 1977

  18. [18]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  19. [19]

    M., Combes, F., Oosterloo, T., et al

    Dasyra, K. M., Combes, F., Oosterloo, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629689 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629689 2016

  20. [20]

    A., Greene, J

    Davis, T. A., Greene, J. E., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz871

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz871 2019

  21. [21]

    T., Dale, D

    Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 866, doi: 10.1086/518306 Duah Asabere, B., Horellou, C., Jarrett, T. H., &

    work page doi:10.1086/518306 2007

  22. [22]

    2016, A&A, 592, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528047

    Winkler, H. 2016, A&A, 592, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528047

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528047 2016

  23. [23]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d7 2024

  24. [24]

    D., Goss, W

    Ekers, R. D., Goss, W. M., Wellington, K. J., et al. 1983, A&A, 127, 361

    1983

  25. [25]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8

    Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., Morganti, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8 2022

  26. [26]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  27. [27]

    M., Storchi-Bergmann, T., et al

    Finlez, C., Nagar, N. M., Storchi-Bergmann, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1555

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1555 2018

  28. [28]

    B., Ebneter, K

    Fomalont, E. B., Ebneter, K. A., van Breugel, W. J. M., & Ekers, R. D. 1989, ApJL, 346, L17, doi: 10.1086/185568

    work page doi:10.1086/185568 1989

  29. [29]

    2001, PASJ, 53, L41, doi: 10.1093/pasj/53.6.L41

    Fukui, Y., Mizuno, N., Yamaguchi, R., Mizuno, A., & Onishi, T. 2001, PASJ, 53, L41, doi: 10.1093/pasj/53.6.L41

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/53.6.l41 2001

  30. [30]

    2015, A&A, 579, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526151

    Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., & Temi, P. 2015, A&A, 579, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526151

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526151 2015

  31. [31]

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Oh, S. P. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt692

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt692 2013

  32. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3108

    Gaspari, M., Temi, P., & Brighenti, F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3108

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3108 2017

  33. [33]

    J., & Fomalont, E

    Geldzahler, B. J., & Fomalont, E. B. 1984, AJ, 89, 1650, doi: 10.1086/113668

    work page doi:10.1086/113668 1984

  34. [34]

    R., Schenker, K., Kolb, U., & Davies, M

    Minniti, D. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 237, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04860.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04860.x 2001

  35. [35]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16566

    Gronke, M., & Schneider, E. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16566

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16566 2026

  36. [36]

    M., & Ramos Almeida, C

    Harrison, C. M., & Ramos Almeida, C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12020017

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12020017 2024

  37. [37]

    H., Carpenter, J

    Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852, doi: 10.1086/320218

    work page doi:10.1086/320218 2001

  38. [38]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 73, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy071

    Hirota, A., Egusa, F., Baba, J., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 73, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy071

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy071 2018

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8228

    Hirota, A., Koda, J., Egusa, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8228

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8228 2024

  40. [40]

    H., van Gorkom, J

    Horellou, C., Black, J. H., van Gorkom, J. H., et al. 2001, A&A, 376, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011039

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011039 2001

  41. [41]

    N., Jahnke, K., et al

    Husemann, B., Bennert, V. N., Jahnke, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab24bc 2019

  42. [42]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/42

    Iodice, E., Capaccioli, M., Grado, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 42, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/42

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/42 2016

  43. [43]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6846

    Iodice, E., Spavone, M., Capaccioli, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6846

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6846 2017

  44. [44]

    H., Cluver, M

    Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab521a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab521a 2019

  45. [45]

    2007, ApJL, 666, L21, doi: 10.1086/521527

    Kaneda, H., Onaka, T., & Sakon, I. 2007, ApJL, 666, L21, doi: 10.1086/521527

    work page doi:10.1086/521527 2007

  46. [46]

    2003, ApJ, 586, 826, doi: 10.1086/367930

    Kim, D.-W., & Fabbiano, G. 2003, ApJ, 586, 826, doi: 10.1086/367930

    work page doi:10.1086/367930 2003

  47. [47]

    M., et al

    Kleiner, D., Serra, P., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039898

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039898 2021

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1dc

    Koda, J., Egusa, F., Hirota, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1dc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add1dc 2025

  49. [49]

    2020, ApJL, 890, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab70b7

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab70b7 2020

  50. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc65e

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc65e 2023

  51. [51]

    R., Schenker, K., Kolb, U., & Davies, M

    Kroupa, P., Aarseth, S., & Hurley, J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 699, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04050.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04050.x 2001

  52. [52]

    I., Scott, T

    Lagos, P., Loubser, S. I., Scott, T. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5487, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2535 Jet–ISM Interactions in NGC 131645

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2535 2022

  53. [53]

    R., et al

    Lanz, L., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1702, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1702

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1702 2010

  54. [54]

    K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abec80 2021

  55. [55]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3490 2022

  56. [56]

    1998, A&AS, 130, 267, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998411

    Chiosi, C. 1998, A&AS, 130, 267, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998411

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1998411 1998

  57. [57]

    M., Murgia, M., Serra, P., et al

    Maccagni, F. M., Murgia, M., Serra, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936867

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936867 2020

  58. [58]

    M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al

    Maccagni, F. M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141143

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141143 2021

  59. [59]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  60. [60]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2530

    Maddox, N., Serra, P., Venhola, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2530

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2530 2019

  61. [61]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2822

    Mandal, A., Mukherjee, D., Federrath, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2822

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2822 2021

  62. [62]

    F., & Cowie, L

    McKee, C. F., & Cowie, L. L. 1977, ApJ, 215, 213, doi: 10.1086/155350

    work page doi:10.1086/155350 1977

  63. [63]

    F., & Ostriker, J

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148, doi: 10.1086/155667

    work page doi:10.1086/155667 1977

  64. [64]

    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

  65. [65]

    2024, ApJL, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b

    Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., De Looze, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b 2024

  66. [66]

    2015, A&A, 580, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525860

    Frieswijk, W., & Tadhunter, C. 2015, A&A, 580, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525860

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525860 2015

  67. [67]

    P., & Raymond Oonk, J

    Bernhard, E. P., & Raymond Oonk, J. B. 2021, A&A, 656, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141766

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141766 2021

  68. [68]

    M., et al

    Morokuma-Matsui, K., Serra, P., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 85, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz067

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz067 2019

  69. [69]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac983b

    Morokuma-Matsui, K., Bekki, K., Wang, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac983b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac983b 2022

  70. [70]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03888

    Mukherjee, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03888

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03888 2025

  71. [71]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1368 2016

  72. [72]

    S., & Silk, J

    Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J. 2018a, MNRAS, 479, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1776

  73. [73]

    Y., Bicknell, G

    Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 476, 80, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty067

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty067

  74. [74]

    2025, A&A, 694, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453139

    Murthy, S., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453139

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453139 2025

  75. [75]

    Y., et al

    Murthy, S., Morganti, R., Wagner, A. Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 488, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01596-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01596-6 2022

  76. [76]

    Fisher, R. T. 2006, ApJS, 164, 477, doi: 10.1086/501530

    work page doi:10.1086/501530 2006

  77. [77]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2419

    Nelson, D., Sharma, P., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2419 2020

  78. [78]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., Boulanger, F., Salom´ e, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913333 2010

  79. [79]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, 1669, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13360.x

    Nowak, N., Saglia, R. P., Thomas, J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1629, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13960.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13960.x 2008

  80. [80]

    M., Lanz, L., & Appleton, P

    Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., & Appleton, P. N. 2014, ApJL, 788, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/l33 2014

Showing first 80 references.