Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

ADF22-WEB: Detection of a molecular gas reservoir in a massive quiescent galaxy located in a $z\approx3$ proto-cluster core

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first direct detection of a molecular gas reservoir in a massive quiescent galaxy at $z\approx3$, implying that quenching can leave cold gas in place.

desk verdict First CO(3-2) detection in a z~3 quiescent galaxy, but the line's association with the target is not as secure as the text implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06538 v1 pith:M4PSMTKU submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Hideki Umehata , Mariko Kubo , Kouichiro Nakanishi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords quiescentgalaxiesmoleculargasCO(3-2)emissionhigh-redshiftproto-clustersSSA22quenchingALMAobservations
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 reports the first direct detection of molecular gas in a quiescent galaxy from the early universe. ALMA observations of the CO(3-2) line toward three massive quiescent galaxies in the core of the $z=3.09$ SSA22 proto-cluster detect one galaxy, ADF22-QG1, at $5.6\sigma$. Taking the Milky-Way-like conversion factor $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.4$, the implied molecular gas mass is $\log M_{\rm H_2}/M_\odot = 10.26\pm0.07$, a gas mass fraction of roughly 14%, while the other two galaxies are not detected and yield upper limits of $f_{\rm gas}\approx13$ to $17\%$. The authors argue that quiescence can coexist with a substantial cold-gas reservoir, so star formation must be suppressed by a mechanism that prevents gas collapse rather than by exhausting the gas supply. They also show that the galaxy's gas-consumption history, traced from its star-formation history, is consistent with a halt in cosmic-web gas accretion after a dusty starburst phase.

What carries the argument

The measurement machinery is the CO(3-2) line and its conversion chain to molecular gas mass: observed line intensity gives $L'_{\rm CO(3-2)}$, a brightness-temperature ratio $r_{31}=0.5$ converts this to $L'_{\rm CO(1-0)}$, and a CO-to-${\rm H_2}$ factor $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.4$ (or $0.8$) gives $M_{\rm H_2}$. This chain produces the gas masses, gas fractions, and gas-to-dust ratios that anchor all of the paper's comparisons. The interpretive machinery is a set of toy closed-box gas-consumption models (no net inflow or outflow) driven by the non-parametric star-formation history of the galaxy: they integrate the star-formation rate backward in time to estimate the gas fraction a progenitor must have had, which connects the observed $z\approx3$ quiescent galaxies to dusty star-forming galaxies at $z\approx4$ to $6$ and to an assumed shutoff of fresh gas accretion.

What would settle it

A follow-up observation with a synthesized beam smaller than the current $3.00^{\prime\prime}\times2.46^{\prime\prime}$ beam, targeting CO(3-2) or CO(1-0) toward ADF22-QG1, would settle the question: if the line centroid and velocity field do not coincide with the galaxy's stellar light and systemic redshift but instead match the position of a companion or of ADF22.A4, then the reservoir does not belong to the quiescent galaxy and the derived gas mass, gas fraction, and gas-to-dust ratio all collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a massive quiescent galaxy at $z\approx3$ can still contain a large reservoir of molecular gas. The CO(3-2) emission detected at $z_{\rm CO}=3.0889\pm0.0007$ overlaps the stellar light of ADF22-QG1, and the measured line intensity, combined with $r_{31}=0.5$ and $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.4$, gives $\log M_{\rm H_2}/M_\odot = 10.26\pm0.07$ ($9.52\pm0.07$ if $\alpha_{\rm CO}=0.8$), corresponding to $f_{\rm gas}\approx14\%$ (2.5%). The gas velocity dispersion of $180\pm50\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ is smaller than the stellar dispersion of roughly $320\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, and the galaxy is not detected in the 1.1 mm dust continuum, yielding the first gas-to-dust ratio constraint for a high-redshift quiescent galaxy of $\delta_{\rm gdr}\gtrsim170$ (or $\gtrsim30$ for the lower conversion factor). The paper interprets this as evidence that gas starvation, most plausibly a cessation of accretion from cosmic-web filaments, operates alongside an internal mechanism such as morphological quenching, in which the stellar potential suppresses gas collapse, to keep the remaining gas from forming stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the CO(3-2) emission detected at $5.6\sigma$ really comes from ADF22-QG1 and not from a nearby companion, tidal debris, or the bright dusty star-forming galaxy ADF22.A4 a few arcseconds away; the roughly ${\sim}250\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ offset between the CO redshift and the redshift measured from stellar absorption lines makes this association the point where the argument could break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ADF22-QG1 becomes the first high-redshift benchmark for quiescent-galaxy gas fractions, with $f_{\rm gas}\approx14\%$ at $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.4$.
  • The low star-formation rate relative to the CO luminosity shows that a molecular reservoir does not guarantee star formation, so quiescence must be maintained by dynamical or structural suppression.
  • The non-detections of the other two quiescent galaxies place upper limits of $f_{\rm gas}\approx13\%$ to $17\%$, showing that gas-rich and gas-poor quiescent galaxies coexist in the same proto-cluster core.
  • Closed-box, no-inflow gas-consumption tracks based on the measured star-formation history can reproduce the observed $f_{\rm gas}$, favoring dusty star-forming galaxies at $z\approx4$ to $6$ as progenitors and a halt in filamentary gas accretion as a quenching ingredient.
  • The first high-redshift quiescent-galaxy gas-to-dust ratio constraint, $\delta_{\rm gdr}\gtrsim170$ for $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.4$, gives a target that deeper dust-continuum observations can test against the predicted $\delta_{\rm gdr}\sim500$ to $1000$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the line truly belongs to ADF22-QG1, the result shifts the theoretical burden from gas exhaustion to gas stabilization at early epochs: models in which feedback removes or consumes all cold gas would predict $f_{\rm gas}\approx0$, whereas the data allow a reservoir that is simply not collapsing.
  • Because $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ changes the gas mass by a factor of about 5.5, an obvious next test is a CO(1-0) or optically thin isotopologue map, which would also show whether the gas is a rotating disk or a diffuse warm phase and would distinguish morphological quenching from turbulence or virial support.
  • The mixed result within one group, one gas-rich quiescent galaxy and two gas-poor ones, suggests the local environment, not just global accretion shutdown, controls whether a quiescent galaxy keeps its reservoir; a survey of several $z\approx3$ proto-cluster cores would test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports ALMA Band 3 CO(3–2) observations of three quiescent galaxies in the AzTEC14 group at z≈3.09 in the SSA22 protocluster. A 5.6σ line detection is claimed for ADF22-QG1, yielding z_CO = 3.0889 ± 0.0007; the paper derives molecular gas masses, gas fractions, and gas-to-dust ratios under two CO-to-H2 conversion factors (α_CO = 4.4 and 0.8), places upper limits on QG2 and QG3, and constructs toy models of gas-consumption history to argue that DSFGs at z≈4–6 are plausible progenitors and that halted gas accretion, possibly supplemented by morphological quenching, explains the quiescent state. The central claim is that this is the first direct detection of molecular gas in a quiescent galaxy at z≈3.

Significance. If the CO(3–2) line is securely associated with ADF22-QG1, this is an important result: it would provide the first direct molecular gas measurement in a z∼3 quiescent galaxy, with direct implications for quenching mechanisms. The paper is transparent about the α_CO degeneracy, presents upper limits for two additional quiescent galaxies, and benefits from deep ALMA observations (17 hr on-source, 33 μJy beam−1 per 100 km s−1) and updated JWST/NIRCam photometry. The toy-model interpretation is explicitly labeled as such. However, the scientific impact of the paper hinges on the source association of the CO line and on whether the 'molecular gas reservoir' remains substantial under the allowed conversion-factor range.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Figure 2] The attribution of the 5.6σ CO(3–2) line to ADF22-QG1 is not yet secured. The line redshift, z_CO = 3.0889 ± 0.0007, is offset from the Balmer-absorption redshift, z_abs = 3.0922 (+0.0008/−0.0004), by about 250 km s−1, or roughly 3σ with the quoted uncertainties. The phase center is ADF22.A4, a bright DSFG located about 6 arcsec from QG1, and the synthesized beam is 3.00″ × 2.46″, so sidelobe or faint extended emission from A4 cannot be dismissed without a dedicated check. The paper gives no spectrum or moment map centered on A4 and does not report A4's redshift. The statement in §3 that DSFG emission does not contaminate the QG2/QG3 upper limits because of a velocity offset shows that DSFG emission is present in the field, but no equivalent check is presented for QG1. Because the derived M_H2, f_gas, and δ_gdr in Table 1 and the interpretive discussion in §4 all rest on this attribution, please add a quantitative test of the association (e.g., fitting the line at the QG1 position after excluding A4, a uv-plane analysis, or an independent redshift measurement for A4).
  2. [§3, Table 1] The magnitude of the claimed molecular gas reservoir is not robust to the adopted conversion factor. With α_CO = 4.4, log M_H2 = 10.26 and f_gas ≈ 14%; with α_CO = 0.8, log M_H2 = 9.52 and f_gas ≈ 2.5%, the latter being comparable to the upper limits derived for QG2 and QG3 (3.1% and 2.4%). The manuscript does not justify why α_CO = 4.4 is the appropriate value for a quiescent, likely metal-enriched galaxy at z∼3, and the abstract and discussion repeatedly emphasize the larger value. Please either provide a literature-based justification for the adopted α_CO and r31 = 0.5 for this class of galaxy, or reframe the central claim so that it does not depend on the α_CO = 4.4 case.
  3. [§3, Table 1] Please clarify how S_CO ΔV = 45 ± 8 Jy km s−1 was measured. The text says 'the total line intensity ... was measured as peak flux density in the moment-0 map,' which is ambiguous: a total line intensity should be an integrated flux (sum over channels), not a peak flux density. If the reported value is the peak of the moment-0 map, the conversion to CO luminosity is not specified and the derived M_H2 would not follow from the stated formula. This is a central quantity for every derived gas mass and upper limit, so the measurement definition needs to be precise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3 vs Table 1] The uncertainties on z_abs are inconsistent: the text gives +0.0008/−0.0004, while Table 1 gives +0.008/−0.004. Please correct the typographical factor of 10.
  2. [§3] There is a typo: 'lough upper limit' should be 'rough upper limit'.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says contours are drawn at 2σ, 3σ, ..., 5σ, but the text reports a 5.6σ CO(3–2) detection; please clarify whether the contour levels stop at 5σ by construction or why the detection significance exceeds the highest contour.
  4. [§3] The definition of σ_gas = 180 ± 50 km s−1 should be stated explicitly (e.g., Gaussian σ of the CO line profile versus second moment of the spectrum); this matters for the comparison with the stellar velocity dispersion.
  5. [§4, Figure 4] The closed-box, no-inflow toy model is clearly labeled as a toy model, but the text should add a sentence noting that alternative gas histories (e.g., strong outflows or episodic gas accretion) could also reproduce the observed f_gas values; this would avoid over-interpreting the fine details of the model tracks.
  6. [§3] The dust mass upper limit is derived assuming T_d = 20 K, β = 2.0, and κ_850 = 0.05 m² kg⁻¹; because the derived δ_gdr lower limits scale with T_d, a brief sentence on the sensitivity of δ_gdr to the assumed dust temperature would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CO detection and molecular gas mass are new observables calibrated with external factors, and the self-cited SFH is used only in a clearly labeled toy model.

full rationale

The central claim rests on a new ALMA CO(3-2) detection. The line intensity is measured from the new cube, and the molecular gas mass is obtained by applying external calibrations (r31 = 0.5 from Bothwell et al. 2013; alpha_CO = 4.4 or 0.8 from the literature), not by fitting any parameter to the CO data itself. The stellar masses and star-formation histories come from FAST++ SED fits (Kubo et al. 2021, updated with new JWST photometry), and the observed gas mass is not an input to those fits. The gas-consumption toy models in Fig. 4 integrate the published SFH to produce closed-box tracks and then compare them with the new CO-based fgas; this is an explicitly labeled consistency/toy exercise, not a prediction derived from the CO measurement. Self-citations to Kubo et al. (2021) and Umehata et al. (2024, 2025) supply the Balmer absorption redshift, the SFH, and the JWST imaging, but the CO detection itself is an independent observable that is not forced by any of those inputs. The velocity offset between z_CO and z_abs and the possible proximity to ADF22.A4 are astrophysical association/contamination concerns, not circular reasoning. No equation in the paper reduces to a fitted value or to a self-citation chain.

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

The derived molecular gas mass, gas fraction, gas-to-dust ratio, and the toy gas-consumption models rest on externally calibrated conversion factors and SED assumptions rather than on parameters measured in this paper. The central CO detection itself is direct evidence, but the quantitative gas masses scale with the adopted alpha_CO and r31, and the dust constraints depend on assumed SED parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_CO (CO-to-H2 conversion factor) = 4.4 and 0.8
    Adopted from literature (Milky Way-like and ULIRG-like). Directly scales M_H2 and f_gas by a factor of 5.5. Not measured in this paper.
  • r31 (CO(3-2)/CO(1-0) brightness temperature ratio) = 0.5
    Assumed from Bothwell et al. (2013). Scales the ground-state CO luminosity and thus M_H2.
  • Dust SED assumptions = Td=20 K, beta=2.0, kappa_850=0.05 m2/kg
    Used to convert the 1.1 mm non-detection into a dust mass upper limit; the gas-to-dust ratio lower limit depends on these choices.
  • Depletion timescale in toy models = 0.5 Gyr and 0.25 Gyr
    Chosen to illustrate closed-box gas consumption in Fig 4; not fitted to the new data.
  • Dark matter fraction within effective radius = 10-20%
    Assumed from Genzel et al. (2017) for the dynamical mass consistency check; not central to the main claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard concordance cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.30, Omega_Lambda=0.70
    Adopted in Section 1 for deriving luminosities, masses, and distances.
  • domain assumption CO(3-2) emission traces molecular gas with a fixed r31 = 0.5
    Invoked in Section 3 to convert CO(3-2) luminosity to CO(1-0) luminosity. The ratio is not measured for this galaxy.
  • domain assumption External alpha_CO values (4.4 and 0.8) are applicable to high-z quiescent galaxies
    Required to convert CO luminosity to H2 mass in Section 3. The applicability of local calibrations at z~3 is not tested here.
  • domain assumption FAST++ SED fitting recovers stellar masses and star-formation histories
    Used in Section 3 to update stellar masses and in Section 4 for the toy model tracks. The SFH is a model product, not a direct measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper The closed-box, no-inflow toy model with constant depletion timescale adequately represents gas consumption
    Assumed in Section 4 to compare f_gas evolution with data. It is explicitly a toy model and ignores inflows, outflows, and time-varying depletion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ADF22-WEB: Detection of a molecular gas reservoir in a massive quiescent galaxy located in a $z\approx3$ proto-cluster core." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4PSMTKU

@misc{pith2026250206538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ADF22-WEB: Detection of a molecular gas reservoir in a massive quiescent galaxy located in a $z\approx3$ proto-cluster core},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4PSMTKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06538}
}
abstract

We present a study of the molecular gas reservoirs and dust contents in three quiescent galaxies (QGs) located in the core of the $z=3.09$ SSA22 proto-cluster. Using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), we detect CO(3--2) emission in one galaxy, ADF22-QG1, marking the first direct detection of molecular gas in a quiescent galaxy from the early universe. The detected galaxy, ADF22-QG1, has a molecular gas mass of log$M_{\rm H_2}$/M$_\odot = 10.26 \pm 0.07$ assuming a CO-to-H$2$ conversion factor $\alpha_{\rm CO} = 4.4$ (log$M_{\rm H_2}$/M$_\odot = 9.52 \pm 0.07$ for $\alpha_{\rm CO} = 0.8$), corresponding to a gas mass fraction of $f_{\rm gas} \approx 14\%$ (2.5\%). The gas-to-dust ratio $\delta _{\rm gdr}\gtrsim170$ ($\delta_{\rm gdr}\gtrsim30$) for $\alpha_{\rm CO} = 4.4$ ($\alpha_{\rm CO} =0.8$) is also derived for the first time for a QG at the epoch. For the other two galaxies, ADF22-QG2 and ADF22-QG3, non detections of CO(3--2) emission provide upper limits, $f_{\rm gas} \approx 17\%$ (3.1\%) and $f_{\rm gas} \approx 13\%$ (2.4\%), respectively. The inferred gas-consumption history of ADF22-QG1, based on its star-formation history, suggests that (i) dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs) at $z = 4$--$6$ are plausible progenitors, and (ii) the cessation of gas accretion from cosmic web filaments plays an important role in their evolution to quenched systems. Furthermore, the presence of a detectable molecular gas reservoir in ADF22-QG1 indicates that additional mechanisms, such as morphological quenching, may be required to fully explain its quiescent nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NIRCam color image (F200W/F356W/F444W) of the AzTEC14 dense galaxy group at z ≈ 3.09 in ADF22 (Umehata et al. 2014; Kubo et al. 2015). Cyan (white) contours indicate CO(3–2) and 1.1 mm emission at levels of 2σ, 3σ, ..., 5σ. Confirmed proto-cluster members, including DSFGs (ADF22.A4, ADF22.A10, ADF22.A11, ADF22.A16, ADF22.A17 (Umehata et al. 2017; 2019)), an LBG (MD48 (Steidel et al. 1998)), and QGs (ADF22-QG1, ADF22… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CO(3–2) spectra of the three QGs in the AzTEC14 group. ADF22-QG1 is detected in CO(3–2), with a redshift broadly consistent with that determined from Balmer absorption lines (Kubo et al. 2021). The best-fit Gaussian profile is shown as a red solid line. The yellow￾shaded region indicates the frequency range used to create the moment-0 map. No significant CO(3–2) detection is found for ADF22-QG2 or ADF22-QG3. ing was… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The relation between stellar mass and SFR for the three ADF22 QGs at z = 3.09. Their SEDs indicate that they are nearly completely quenched, in sharp contrast to the star-forming main sequence (Speagle et al. 2014). The non-detections in the ALMA 1 mm map provide independent constraints. For comparison, GS-10578, a quiescent system at z = 3.064, is also shown (Scholtz et al. 2024). (b) The relation between CO(3–… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas mass fraction (fgas = MH2 /M∗) as a function of redshift for ADF22-QGs and other QGs at z ≳ 1 (Spilker et al. 2018; Williams et al. 2021; Belli et al. 2021; Woodrum et al. 2022 for z ∼ 1, Scholtz et al. 2024 for z ∼ 3). For QGs at z ∼ 3, filled symbols represent ca…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe6a6 2021

  2. [2]

    S., Suess, K

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa 2022

  3. [3]

    E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J

    Birkin, J. E., Weiss, A., Wardlow, J. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3862

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3862 2021

  4. [4]

    S., Smail, I., Chapman, S

    Bothwell, M. S., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts562

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts562 2013

  5. [5]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 2023

  6. [6]

    C., Cullen, F., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2092 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2092 2024

  7. [7]

    M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, PhR, 541, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02424-3 D’Eugenio, C., Daddi, E., Liu, D., & Gobat, R. 2023, A&A, 678, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347233 D’Eugenio, F., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Maiolino, R....

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 2014

  8. [8]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    arXiv 2003

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJL, 890, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f

    Forrest, B., Annunziatella, M., Wilson, G., et al. 2020, ApJL, 890, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9f

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    M.,¨Ubler, H., et al

    Genzel, R., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M.,¨Ubler, H., et al. 2017, Nature, 543, 397, doi: 10.1038/nature21685

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680

    Glazebrook, K., Schreiber, C., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature21680

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, ApJL, 759, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L44

    Gobat, R., Strazzullo, V., Daddi, E., et al. 2012, ApJL, 759, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L44

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    Hayashino, T., Matsuda, Y., Tamura, H., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2073, doi: 10.1086/424935 7 T able 1.Measured properties of ADF22-QGs ID Coordinate zspec line log M∗ SCOdV M α4.4 H2 M α0.8 H2 logMd ICRS (M ⊙) Jy m s −1 (M⊙) (M ⊙) ADF22-QG1 22:17:37.25, +00:18:16.0 3.0922 +0.008 ...

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/38 —

    Kubo, M., Yamada, T., Ichikawa, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/38 —. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2392

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8 —

    Kubo, M., Umehata, H., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf8 —. 2022, ApJ, 935, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f2d

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Alexander, D

    Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Geach, J. E., et al. 2009a, ApJ, 691, 687, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/687

    doi

  9. [17]

    D., Alexander, D

    Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2009b, MNRAS, 400, 299, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15449.x

    2009

  10. [18]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    Li, Q., Narayanan, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2684

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad148c

    Liao, C.-L., Chen, C.-C., Wang, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad148c

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

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

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

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    Martig, M., Bournaud, F., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2009, ApJ, 707, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    2005, ApJL, 634, L125, doi: 10.1086/499071

    Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., et al. 2005, ApJL, 634, L125, doi: 10.1086/499071

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    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

  16. [24]

    L., et al

    Popping, G., Shivaei, I., Sanders, R. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243817

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Hodge, J

    Riechers, D. A., Hodge, J. A., Pavesi, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c48

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Nayyeri, H., Burgarella, D., et al

    Riechers, D. A., Nayyeri, H., Burgarella, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcf2e

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Inoue, A

    Sato, R. A., Inoue, A. K., Harikane, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2300

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19401, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19401

    Scholtz, J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19401, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19401

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2018a, A&A, 611, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731917

    Schreiber, C., Labb´ e, I., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2018a, A&A, 611, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731917

    doi

  22. [30]

    2018b, A&A, 618, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833070

    Schreiber, C., Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., et al. 2018b, A&A, 618, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833070

    doi

  23. [31]

    J., Khullar, G., Miller, T

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

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac438

    Spilker, J., Bezanson, R., Bariˇ si´ c, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac438

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 428, doi: 10.1086/305073

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Egami, E., et al

    Sun, F., Helton, J. M., Egami, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07e3

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2009, Nature, 459, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature07947

    Tamura, Y., Kohno, K., Nakanishi, K., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature07947

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01868

    Umehata, H., Kubo, M., Smail, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01868. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01868

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu447 —

    Umehata, H., Tamura, Y., Kohno, K., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu447 —. 2015, ApJL, 815, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L8 —. 2017, ApJ, 835, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/98

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 65, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy065

    Umehata, H., Hatsukade, B., Smail, I., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 65, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy065

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    M., et al

    Umehata, H., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038146

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Smail, I., et al

    Umehata, H., Steidel, C. C., Smail, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22155

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc 8 van der Wel, A., van Houdt, J., Bezanson, R., et al

    Valentino, F., Tanaka, M., Davidzon, I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64dc 8 van der Wel, A., van Houdt, J., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac83c5

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Williams, C

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

    doi

  39. [47]

    E., Narayanan, D., Williams, C

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

    doi

  40. [48]

    C., Spilker, J

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

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Rieke, M., et al

    Woodrum, C., Williams, C. C., Rieke, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9af7

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.