Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Redistribution of Stars and Gas in the Star Formation Deserts of Barred Galaxies

T0 review · 3 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 Star formation deserts in barred galaxies are not closed fossil regions: bar formation expels their gas within about a gigayear, but younger disk stars keep migrating in, replacing a sharp age cutoff with a gradual downturn.

desk verdict A careful, honest simulation study that undercuts the sharp-truncation assumption in SFD bar dating; the migration explanation is solid, but the gas-removal timescale leans on a gas model the authors themselves doubt. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11119 v1 pith:JR6UFGGD submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.GA

C. E. Donohoe-Keyes , M. Martig , P. A. James , K. Kraljic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticbarsstarformationdesertsstellarpopulationagesradialmigrationzoom-incosmologicalsimulationsgasredistributionbarepochsecularevolution
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

Barred galaxies contain star formation deserts (SFDs): two symmetric regions on either side of the bar where young stars are scarce. Earlier work proposed that, because the bar seems to shut off star formation there, the age distribution of SFD stars should show a sharp truncation at the bar's formation time, giving a way to date bars. Using six zoom-in cosmological simulations of barred galaxies, this paper tests that idea and finds it is almost right but not sharp enough. The simulations show that bar formation removes gas from the SFD on roughly 1-gigayear timescales, truncating local star formation, yet stars younger than the bar are still present in the SFD at z=0 because they are born in the disk and migrate inward. The result is a gradual downturn in the SFD age distribution relative to the bar, a subtler signal that may still date bar formation but requires comparing full star-formation histories, and it makes the SFD a rare uncontaminated sample of radially migrated stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the star formation desert itself, defined as two C-shaped regions inside the inner ring on either side of the bar, with the bar ellipse and bulge removed and interloper stars excluded. The argument runs through the age distribution of stars in this region versus the bar. The mechanism is a two-step process: bar torques sweep gas out of the desert on roughly 1 Gyr timescales, truncating in-situ star formation, while radial migration continuously delivers younger disk-born stars into the desert. The diagnostic signal is the bar-minus-SFD age distribution residual, whose sign change tracks bar formation in most of the sample.

What would settle it

Compare SFD stars younger than the bar in observed galaxies with a spectrum of outer-disk stars: if their metallicities and kinematics match in-situ bar stars rather than disk migrants, radial migration is not refilling the desert. Alternatively, rerun the simulations with finer resolution and a proper hydrodynamics scheme; if the gas-removal timescale changes significantly or dense gas lanes appear, the physical claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the stellar population of a star formation desert is not a frozen remnant of the pre-bar disk. In all six simulated galaxies, once the bar forms, gas is evacuated from the desert within 1-2 Gyr, so no stars are born there. Nevertheless, the age distribution of the final SFD population lacks the sharp cutoff expected from pure truncation: it declines gradually relative to the bar's age distribution, and the difference between bar and SFD age distributions changes sign near the bar formation epoch in five of six cases. This happens because stars born after the bar formed, mainly in the inner ring and spiral arms, migrate into the SFD over roughly 2.4 Gyr. The one exception, a galaxy with a very young (2 Gyr old) bar and an unusual ringed early history, shows the sign change long before bar formation, illustrating that the signal can be contaminated by peculiar assembly histories.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simplified gas model at 150 pc resolution faithfully captures how the bar removes gas from the desert; if real gas motions differ, the claimed gigayear gas-removal timescale and the gradual stellar-age downturn could be artifacts of the simulation's resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SFD-based bar dating must model the gradual downturn, not assume a sharp truncation, and should compare the full star-formation histories of bar and desert.
  • The sign change of the bar-minus-SFD age residual is a candidate bar-formation indicator, but it is weak and fails in galaxies with unusual ringed assembly histories such as a very young bar.
  • SFDs can serve as nearly uncontaminated samples of radially migrated stars, since no stars younger than the bar are born in situ there.
  • Gas removal from the SFD is fast (1-2 Gyr) even though the global star formation rate of the galaxy is unaffected, so bar formation redistributes, rather than quenches, star formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the migration scenario is generic, the youngest stars in an observed SFD encode the migration timescale from disk to bar region; their number density as a function of age could be inverted to measure migration efficiency.
  • A testable extension: SFD stars younger than the bar should be relatively metal-poor compared with in-situ bar stars of the same age, because they formed in the outer disk; IFU abundance mapping could confirm or refute this.
  • The resolution caveat means the 1-2 Gyr gas-removal timescale is an upper limit in a sense; higher-resolution simulations that resolve gas lanes along the bar could show faster or more structured evacuation, changing the predicted shape of the age downturn.
  • Observers applying the method should first flag galaxies with rings or very recent bars, since the sole outlier in the sample shows the residual sign change before the bar forms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes six barred galaxies from the Martig et al. (2012) cosmological zoom-in simulations to test whether the age distribution of stars in star formation deserts (SFDs) can be used to date bar formation. The authors construct age maps and star formation histories for the SFD, bar, and global galaxy, track gas evolution, and follow the birth positions and migration paths of SFD stars. They find that SFDs are devoid of young stars and that gas is removed from these regions on roughly 1 Gyr timescales after bar formation, locally truncating star formation. However, the SFD age distribution does not show a sharp truncation at the bar formation epoch; instead it declines gradually because stars born in the disk migrate into the SFD. The authors propose that the sign change of the bar-minus-SFD residual age distribution may provide a subtle bar-dating signal, and that SFDs are unique regions for studying radial migration without contamination from in-situ star formation.

Significance. If the main conclusions hold, the paper is significant for two reasons. First, it directly tests, with simulations, the assumption behind the James & Percival SFD bar-dating method and shows that the observed signal should be a gradual downturn rather than a sharp truncation; this is a concrete, falsifiable prediction for observers. Second, the demonstration that SFD stars younger than the bar are predominantly born outside the SFD and migrate inward identifies SFDs as valuable laboratories for radial migration studies. The analysis makes good use of the simulation capabilities through direct birth-position tracking and interloper removal, and it is commendably honest about the limitations of the gas model and star formation recipe. The small sample of six galaxies limits statistical power, but the paper is framed as a proof-of-concept rather than a population study, which is appropriate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Figure 7, and Section 5] The paper repeatedly claims that SFDs provide an 'uncontaminated sample of stars only affected by radial migration' and that 'stars younger than the bar all come from the disk (outside of the bar radius)' (Section 5). This is contradicted by the paper's own quantitative breakdown for galaxy 37 in Figure 7: 75.2% of post-bar SFD stars are born in the disk, but 16.6% are born in the bar and 8.1% are born in the SFD itself. The authors state this trend is seen in all six galaxies. The presence of a non-negligible in-situ SFD-born population and a bar-born population means the sample is not fully uncontaminated. The abstract and conclusions should be revised to state that SFD stars are predominantly, but not exclusively, migration-dominated, and the possible contamination from bar-born and SFD-born stars should be quantified or discussed.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] The 1 Gyr gas-removal timescale is a central part of the interpretation, but it is not quantitatively measured in the paper. The text states that gas is removed 'taking between 1-2 Gyr' based on visual inspection of Figure 4, yet no plot or calculation of gas mass inside the SFD as a function of time is presented. This matters because Section 4.1 explicitly concedes that the 150 pc sticky-particle gas model does not allow proper tracking of gas motion along the bar and does not reproduce dense gas lanes. If the true gas-removal timescale is significantly longer than 1 Gyr, then in-situ star formation in the SFD would persist for longer, and the gradual downturn in the SFD age distribution could be partly due to declining local star formation rather than purely to migration. The authors should either provide a quantitative measurement of the gas evacuation timescale or soften the claim so that the migration interpretation does not depend on a precise 1 Gyr truncation timescale.
  3. [Section 2.3, Table 1, and Figure 3] The bar formation epoch Tbar is the ground truth against which the SFD age distributions and residual sign changes are compared (Figure 3), and the 5/6 coincidence is a central result. However, the paper does not define how Tbar is computed from the Fourier bar-detection method. Section 2.3 describes how bars are detected at z=0 and how strength and length are measured, but gives no criterion for the 'onset of the bar' shown as a dashed line in Figure 3: for example, whether it is the first snapshot where S exceeds 0.2, whether the bar must persist for a minimum time, or how snapshot spacing affects the value. Without this definition and an estimate of the uncertainty in Tbar, the reader cannot assess how meaningful the 5/6 sign-change coincidence is. This methodological detail should be added, at least in an appendix if not in the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] The colorbar label for the right-hand column reads 'Stellar surface density [M⊙pc□2]' with a range up to 1.6, but this column shows the surface density of stars younger than 10 Myr; the label should be more specific, such as 'Young stellar surface density [M⊙ pc^-2]'.
  2. [Section 3.5] The chronology in the description of Figure 8 is confusing: the text says 'By 1.2 Gyr almost all of the stars are moving along the inner ring and are beginning to fall towards the SFD region by 600 Myr' and later 'At 100 Myr the stars are collected near the ends of the bar.' Consider rewriting the sequence in increasing lookback time for clarity.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] The phrase 'we can not assume' should be 'we cannot assume'; this is a language issue but appears in a key sentence about the reliability of the bar-dating signal.
  4. [Figure 6] The axis label 'Radius kpc' should be 'Radius [kpc]' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  5. [Section 2.1] The description of the star particle mass resolution could be clearer: it first gives a mass of 7.5 x 10^4 M⊙ for star particles, then parenthetically says 1.5 x 10^4 M⊙ for stars formed during the simulation. The distinction between initial and formed star particles should be stated explicitly rather than in a parenthetical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: bar formation epochs are measured by an independent Fourier method, and the SFD age-distribution result is tested against those epochs rather than fitted to them.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular: bar formation epochs in Table 1 are obtained from the azimuthal Fourier m=2 phase method of Kraljic et al. (2012), which is independent of the SFD age distributions. The subsequent claim that five of six SFDs show a downturn or residual sign change near bar formation is an emergent test against those independently dated epochs, not a fit. The migration interpretation is supported by direct birth-position tracking and birth-radius distributions (Figures 5-8), so the gradual-downturn result does not reduce to the definition of the SFD or to the gas-removal argument. The gas-removal timescale depends on a 150 pc sticky-particle model, and the authors explicitly acknowledge in Section 4.1 that this resolution does not allow proper tracking of gas motion along the bar; that is a legitimate numerical-correctness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations to Martig et al. (2012) and Kraljic et al. (2012) supply the simulation sample and detection algorithm, but they are not used as fitted inputs, uniqueness theorems, or assumptions that already contain the target conclusion. No equation or construction step is shown to be equivalent to its own input.

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

The central claims rest on the fidelity of the simulation suite rather than on fitted parameters. No new entities are posited. The hand-chosen SFD definition parameters shape the samples but are not fit to reproduce the SFD phenomenon; the age maps would still show deserts under reasonable variations of these choices.

free parameters (5)
  • SFD bar width = 1 kpc
    Hand-chosen width used to define the C-shaped SFD regions; affects which stars are assigned to the SFD sample.
  • SFD z-height cut = 2 kpc
    Hand-chosen vertical limit above and below the disk plane for selecting SFD stars.
  • Interloper snapshot offset = 0.075 Gyr
    Time offset used to match stellar IDs between two snapshots and remove passing stars from the SFD sample.
  • Bar detection inner radius exclusion = 900 pc
    Inner radius excluded from the bar detection region to avoid off-centering artifacts; affects measured bar lengths and strengths.
  • Bar strength threshold = 0.3
    Minimum m=2 amplitude ratio required for a true bar in two orthogonal edge-on projections; controls which galaxies are classified as barred.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Sticky-particle gas model adequately captures gas redistribution in barred galaxy central regions.
    The gas removal timescale claim rests on this; the authors note that 150 pc resolution prevents proper tracking of gas motions along the bar (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation law with exponent 1.5 and threshold 0.03 solar masses per cubic parsec is valid in bar regions.
    The authors acknowledge that star formation efficiency in bars may be overestimated in their model, which could weaken the observed age distribution contrast (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Bar formation epochs derived from the m=2 phase analysis (Kraljic et al. 2012) are correct.
    These epochs serve as the ground truth for testing the SFD bar-dating signal; if they are wrong, the reported coincidences are meaningless.
  • domain assumption The zoom-in cosmological re-simulations from the Martig et al. 2012 sample are representative of real barred galaxies.
    Extrapolating the SFD behavior to observed galaxies depends on the realism of the simulated galaxy population.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Redistribution of Stars and Gas in the Star Formation Deserts of Barred Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JR6UFGGD

@misc{pith2026190811119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Redistribution of Stars and Gas in the Star Formation Deserts of Barred Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JR6UFGGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11119}
}
read the original abstract

Bars strongly influence the distribution of gas and stars within the central regions of their host galaxies. This is particularly pronounced in the star formation desert (SFD) which is defined as two symmetrical regions either side of the bar that show a deficit in young stars. Previous studies proposed that, if star formation is truncated because of the influence of the bar, then the age distribution of stars within the SFD could be used to determine the epoch of bar formation. To test this, we study the properties of SFDs in 6 galaxies from zoom-in cosmological re-simulations. Age maps reveal old regions on both sides of the bars, with a lack of stars younger than 10 Myr, confirming the SFD phenomenon. Local star formation is truncated in the SFDs because after the bar forms, gas in these regions is removed on 1 Gyr timescales. However, the overall age distribution of stars in the SFD does not show a sharp truncation after bar formation but rather a gradual downturn in comparison to that of the bar. This more subtle signature may still give information on bar formation epochs in observed galaxies, but the interpretation will be more difficult than originally hoped. The gradual drop in the SFD age distribution, instead of a truncation, is due to radial migration of stars born in the disk. The SFD is thus one of the only regions where an uncontaminated sample of stars only affected by radial migration can be studied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Each plot represents a 40×40×40 kpc box with the galaxy centred within the box. Left: Face-on surface stellar density maps with the total halo mass decreasing down the column. Middle: Average age maps displaying strong signals for the SFD desert feature. Right: Surface stellar density maps for the young stars, <10 Myrs, also displaying the SFD feature with SF mainly located within the bar region and along the spiral… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The two ‘C’-shaped regions we define as the SFD. Bars are identified in this method with even-mode phase signatures, m=2 being the most prominent, within the ‘bar detection region’. The ‘bar detection region’ we define as starting between 900 and 1500 pc. We do not begin detecting bars within 900 pc because small variations in Φ2 are pro￾duced by off-centering (a result of the resolution limits) and central asymmetr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For each of the simulated galaxies in our sample we present the age distributions taken from the SFD region, the bar, and the total galaxy at z=0. In each plot we display the age distribution normalised to the surface area of the corresponding regions, the age distribution normalised to an area of 1, and the residual (the bar minus the SFD age distribution). Marked on each plot by the vertical dashed line is the tim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Here we show the evacuation of gas from the SFD regions. Initially, the gas is diffuse before spiral arms begin to appear. When the bar forms, the central gas concentration elongates along the major axis of the bar, and the spiral arms strengthen. Once the bar is estab…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: the radial distribution of birth positions for stars born before the formation of the bar. The blue line shows the radial distribution for the SFD stars and orange the radial dis￾tribution for bar stars. Before the formation of the bar the stars are mainly born in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: the fraction of stars born after the formation of the bar in the SFD, bar and disk selected to be SFD stars at z=0 for galaxy 37. Red represents the total SFD stars born at that time, green the number of SFD stars born in the disk, blue the number of SFD stars bor…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tracking of SFD stars from their birth positions to z=0. Initially stars are born in the inner ring near the ends of the bar and along the spiral arms. They then move along the spiral arms and around the inner ring. Slowly stars begin to spiral from the inner ring into…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The buildup of strongly barred galaxies in the TNG100 simulation

    astro-ph.GA 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In TNG100, strong bars form in galaxies with early, prominent discs and are associated with rapid central star formation quenching, unlike unbarred galaxies.

  2. Galaxy formation physics behind bar formation: A view from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Supernova feedback strength, not quasar black hole feedback, is the main regulator of when and whether Milky Way-like galaxies form stellar bars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Aguerri J. A. L., Beckman J. E., Prieto M., 1998, , 116, 2136

    1998

  3. [3]

    Athanassoula E., 1992, , 259, 345

    1992

  4. [4]

    Athanassoula E., 2003, , 341, 1179

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    H., Shlosman I., Fricke K

    Berentzen I., Heller C. H., Shlosman I., Fricke K. J., 1998, , 300, 49

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Bournaud F., Combes F., 2002, , 392, 83

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Bournaud F., Combes F., 2003, , 401, 817

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Bournaud F., Combes F., Semelin B., 2005, , 364, L18

    work page 2005

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Buta R., Vasylyev S., Salo H., Laurikainen E., 2005, , 130, 506

    2005

  2. [10]

    Cacho R., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Gorgas J., P \'e rez I., 2014, , 442, 2496

    2014

  3. [11]

    L., Kawata D., 2016, , 463, 1074

    Carles C., Martel H., Ellison S. L., Kawata D., 2016, , 463, 1074

    2016

  4. [12]

    Chapelon S., Contini T., Davoust E., 1999, , 345, 81

    1999

  5. [13]

    Cheung E., et al., 2013, , 779, 162

    2013

  6. [14]

    Combes F., 2001, Astrophysics and Space Science Supplement, 277, 29

    2001

  7. [15]

    arXiv:0811.0153

    Combes F., 2008, preprint, p. arXiv:0811.0153

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Consid \`e re S., Coziol R., Contini T., Davoust E., 2000, , 356, 89

    2000

  9. [17]

    Devereux N., 1987, , 323, 91

    1987

  10. [18]

    L., Nair P., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Nair P., Patton D. R., Scudder J. M., Mendel J. T., Simard L., 2011, , 416, 2182

    2011

  11. [19]

    G., Galliano E., Alloin D., 2009, , 703, 1297

    Elmegreen B. G., Galliano E., Alloin D., 2009, , 703, 1297

    2009

  12. [20]

    Fiacconi D., Feldmann R., Mayer L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2228 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1957F 446, 1957

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Fragkoudi F., Athanassoula E., Bosma A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.462L..41F 462, L41

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12723.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..420G 384, 420

    Gadotti D. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12723.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..420G 384, 420

    2008

  15. [23]

    A., de Souza R

    Gadotti D. A., de Souza R. E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/368159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583L..75G 583, L75

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    A., de Souza R

    Gadotti D. A., de Souza R. E., 2005, , 629, 797

    2005

  17. [25]

    A., dos Anjos S., 2001, , 122, 1298

    Gadotti D. A., dos Anjos S., 2001, , 122, 1298

    2001

  18. [26]

    A., Seidel M

    Gadotti D. A., Seidel M. K., S \'a nchez- Bl \'a zquez P., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Husemann B., Coelho P., P \'e rez I., 2015, , 584, A90

    2015

  19. [27]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.482..506G 482, 506

    Gadotti D. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.482..506G 482, 506

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019A&A...621L...4G 621, L4

    George K., Joseph P., Mondal C., Subramanian S., Subramaniam A., Paul K. T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019A&A...621L...4G 621, L4

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    G., Mountain C

    Hawarden T. G., Mountain C. M., Leggett S. K., Puxley P. J., 1986, , 221, 41P

    1986

  22. [30]

    M., 1980, , 88, 365

    Heckman T. M., 1980, , 88, 365

    1980

  23. [31]

    H., Shlosman I., 1994, , 424, 84

    Heller C. H., Shlosman I., 1994, , 424, 84

    1994

  24. [32]

    Henry R. B. C., Worthey G., 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 919

    1999

  25. [33]

    C., Filippenko A

    Ho L. C., Filippenko A. V., Sargent W. L. W., 1997, , 487, 591

    1997

  26. [34]

    Hoyle B., et al., 2011, , 415, 3627

    2011

  27. [35]

    Hozumi S., 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 64, 5

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hozumi S., Hernquist L., 2005, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 57, 719

    2005

  29. [37]

    M., Kennicutt R

    Hummel E., van der Hulst J. M., Kennicutt R. C., Keel W. C., 1990, , 236, 333

    1990

  30. [38]

    A., Percival S

    James P. A., Percival S. M., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2015

  31. [39]

    A., Percival S

    James P. A., Percival S. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.457..917J 457, 917

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Percival S

    James P. A., Percival S. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.474.3101J 474, 3101

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Bretherton C

    James P. A., Bretherton C. F., Knapen J. H., 2009, , 501, 207

    2009

  34. [42]

    Jogee S., Scoville N., Kenney J. D. P., 2005, , 630, 837

    2005

  35. [43]

    J., 1998, , 498, 541

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1998, , 498, 541

    1998

  36. [44]

    S., Saitoh T

    Kim S. S., Saitoh T. R., Jeon M., Figer D. F., Merritt D., Wada K., 2011, , 735, L11

    2011

  37. [45]

    M., Yoon D., Teuben P

    Kim W.-T., Seo W.-Y., Stone J. M., Yoon D., Teuben P. J., 2012, , 747, 60

    2012

  38. [46]

    Kim T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...64K 782, 64

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Athanassoula E., Bosma A., Sheth K., Lee M

    Kim T., Gadotti D. A., Athanassoula E., Bosma A., Sheth K., Lee M. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3430K 462, 3430

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    S., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 93

    Kim E., Seong Hwang H., Chung H., Lee G.-H., Park C., Cervantes Sodi B., Kim S. S., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 93

    2017

  41. [49]

    H., Beckman J

    Knapen J. H., Beckman J. E., Heller C. H., Shlosman I., de Jong R. S., 1995, , 454, 623

    1995

  42. [50]

    H., Shlosman I., Peletier R

    Knapen J. H., Shlosman I., Peletier R. F., 2000, , 529, 93

    2000

  43. [51]

    Kraljic K., Bournaud F., Martig M., 2012, , 757, 60

    2012

  44. [52]

    Laurikainen E., Salo H., Buta R., Vasylyev S., 2004, , 355, 1251

    2004

  45. [53]

    Lin L., Li C., He Y., Xiao T., Wang E., 2017, , 838, 105

    2017

  46. [54]

    Lynden-Bell D., 1979, , 187, 101

    1979

  47. [55]

    Marinova I., Jogee S., 2007, , 659, 1176

    2007

  48. [56]

    Martig M., Bournaud F., Teyssier R., Dekel A., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 250

    2009

  49. [57]

    J., Dekel A., Teyssier R., 2012, , 756, 26

    Martig M., Bournaud F., Croton D. J., Dekel A., Teyssier R., 2012, , 756, 26

    2012

  50. [58]

    Martig M., Minchev I., Flynn C., 2014a, , 442, 2474

  51. [59]

    Martig M., Minchev I., Flynn C., 2014b, , 443, 2452

  52. [60]

    Martin P., 1995, , 109, 2428

    1995

  53. [61]

    Martin P., Friedli D., 1997, , 326, 449

    1997

  54. [62]

    Martinet L., Friedli D., 1997, , 323, 363

    1997

  55. [63]

    K., Koda J., Sawada T., 2010, , 721, 383

    Momose R., Okumura S. K., Koda J., Sawada T., 2010, , 721, 383

    2010

  56. [64]

    B., Abraham R

    Nair P. B., Abraham R. G., 2010, , 714, L260

    2010

  57. [65]

    K., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 4

    Oh S., Oh K., Yi S. K., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 4

    2012

  58. [66]

    P \'e rez I., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., 2011, , 529, A64

    2011

  59. [67]

    P \'e rez I., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Zurita A., 2009, , 495, 775

    2009

  60. [68]

    M., Rieke G

    Pompea S. M., Rieke G. H., 1990, , 356, 416

    1990

  61. [69]

    W., et al., 2006, , 652, 1112

    Regan M. W., et al., 2006, , 652, 1112

    2006

  62. [70]

    K., Ishizuki S., Scoville N

    Sakamoto K., Okumura S. K., Ishizuki S., Scoville N. Z., 1999, , 525, 691

    1999

  63. [71]

    A., 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

    Sellwood J. A., 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

    2014

  64. [72]

    Seo W.-Y., Kim W.-T., 2013, , 769, 100

    2013

  65. [73]

    N., Regan M

    Sheth K., Vogel S. N., Regan M. W., Thornley M. D., Teuben P. J., 2005, , 632, 217

    2005

  66. [74]

    Sheth K., et al., 2008, , 675, 1141

    2008

  67. [75]

    S., Baba J., Saitoh T

    Shin J., Kim S. S., Baba J., Saitoh T. R., Hwang J.-S., Chun K., Hozumi S., 2017, , 841, 74

    2017

  68. [76]

    C., 1989, , 338, 45

    Shlosman I., Frank J., Begelman M. C., 1989, , 338, 45

    1989

  69. [77]

    D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1817 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3466S 445, 3466

    Simmons B. D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1817 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3466S 445, 3466

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    Teyssier R., 2002, , 385, 337

    2002

  71. [79]

    Vera M., Alonso S., Coldwell G., 2016, , 595, A63

    2016

  72. [80]

    Verley S., Combes F., Verdes-Montenegro L., Bergond G., Leon S., 2007, , 474, 43

    2007

  73. [81]

    Wang J., et al., 2012, , 423, 3486

    2012

  74. [82]

    W., et al., 2015, , 449, 820

    Willett K. W., et al., 2015, , 449, 820

    2015

  75. [83]

    Wozniak H., 2007, , 465, L1

    2007

Pith tools

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