Quantifying the AGN-driven outflows in ULIRGs (QUADROS) IV: HST/STIS spectroscopy of the sub-kpc warm outflow in F14394+5332

C. Ramos Almeida; C. Tadhunter; D. Batcheldor; L. Holden

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Quantifying the AGN-driven outflows in ULIRGs (QUADROS) IV: HST/STIS spectroscopy of the sub-kpc warm outflow in F14394+5332

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HST/STIS spectroscopy resolves the sub-kpc warm outflow in the ULIRG F14394+5332E, revealing a compact, turbulent flow accelerated by the AGN wind.

desk verdict First resolved sub-kpc warm outflow in a ULIRG, but the assumed AGN position is the one real soft spot — a 0.2 arcsec shift could push the headline radius over 1 kpc; still a strong, careful paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03104 v1 pith:MVYM7GTO submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.GA

C. Tadhunter , L. Holden , C. Ramos Almeida , D. Batcheldor This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords ultraluminousinfraredgalaxiesAGN-drivenoutflowswarmionizedgasemission-linekinematicsgalaxymergersactivegalacticnucleiHST/STISspectroscopyF14394+5332

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 uses HST/STIS long-slit spectroscopy to resolve, for the first time, the warm ionized outflow in a ULIRG (the merging galaxy F14394+5332) at sub-kiloparsec scales. It finds a compact, high-ionization outflow region roughly 0.9 kpc across, with line widths between 600 and 1500 km/s and blueshifts that grow from about 500 km/s near the nucleus to 1800 km/s at the outer edge. The outflow sits inside a more extended, kinematically quiet halo of lower-ionization gas out to about 1.4 kpc. These observations matter because ground-based studies cannot resolve such outflows, leaving their radial extents, geometries, and true energetics uncertain; the resolved picture supports an AGN-driven wind that accelerates and shreds dense clouds rather than a galaxy-wide outflow.

What carries the argument

The key object is the spatially resolved emission-line map built from three parallel STIS slits, which lets the authors measure [OIII] and H-alpha+[NII] velocity shifts, line widths, and ionization ratios as functions of projected radius. The load-bearing diagnostic is the steep outward increase in blueshift along with the uniformly large line widths, which distinguishes between true radial acceleration, projection geometry, and local turbulent acceleration. The paper also uses BPT line-ratio diagrams to separate the high-ionization outflow from the lower-ionization quiescent halo, and a mass-conservation equation for the resolved outflow to convert H-alpha luminosities, assumed density, and velocity into local mass outflow rates and kinetic powers.

What would settle it

High-resolution mid-infrared imaging that pins down the true AGN position would test the central claim: if the nucleus is significantly offset from the assumed cross, the measured radial extents and the velocity gradient change. Alternatively, a molecular-gas map or X-ray observation could test the wind-shock interpretation, since the paper predicts any molecular outflow has an extent similar to or smaller than the warm outflow and predicts X-ray emission from hot post-shock gas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the warm, AGN-driven outflow in F14394+5332E is compact and turbulent rather than galaxy-scale. At the assumed nucleus, the [OIII] emission is broad and strongly blueshifted throughout a region extending roughly 0.9 kpc to the north, with the projected blueshift increasing steeply outward from about 500 to 1800 km/s while the line width stays high (600–1500 km/s); a fainter H-alpha-emitting halo reaches about 1.4 kpc and is kinematically quiescent with lower ionization. The paper interprets the kinematics as local acceleration of dense clouds by the forward shock of a hot, low-density AGN wind, with the large widths signalling hydrodynamic destruction. A corollary is that the sharp edge of the disturbed region marks the current extent of the shock, so the outflow has not yet engulfed the host galaxy's warm and cool gas.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the AGN lies at a specific point marked on its image, and all radial distances, the outward velocity gradient, and the inferred outflow geometry would shift if the true nucleus were anywhere else.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Warm AGN-driven outflows in ULIRGs can be compact (sub-kpc) even in rapidly evolving merger remnants, so they do not necessarily fill the host galaxy's warm and cool gas.
Mass outflow rates from resolved regions fall around 0.3–0.7 solar masses per year, with upper-limit estimates around 1–3 solar masses per year, only a factor of 2–3 different from spatially integrated values.
Kinetic coupling efficiencies lie between about 0.0025% and 0.5% of the AGN bolometric luminosity, leaving little room for the warm phase to be the dominant feedback channel.
The large line widths throughout the outflow favour local acceleration and destruction of clouds by the hot wind over a simple radially accelerating outflow.
If the outer blueshifts reflect projection geometry, the 1800 km/s velocity measured at the outflow edge is the closest available estimate of the true deprojected outflow speed.

Reading between the lines

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

If the projection interpretation is right, studies that use lower mean velocities from unresolved spectra will systematically underestimate the warm outflow's kinetic power, while the compact size limits how much of the galaxy the outflow directly affects.
The same slit-mapping method applied to more ULIRGs could turn compactness from a single-object finding into a census, and the predicted similarity between warm and molecular outflow extents is directly testable with CO mapping.
The apparent 'hole' in narrow H-alpha emission near the nucleus suggests a region where all warm gas has been accelerated; comparing such holes across merger stages may trace how the outflow progressively sweeps up the ISM.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Solid paper, worth a serious referee. It gives the first spatially resolved STIS spectroscopy of a warm AGN-driven outflow in a ULIRG, and the new numbers — line widths 600–1500 km/s, blueshifts up to 1800 km/s, steep radial gradient — are real measurements, not derived from models. The data reduction is transparent, the Gaussian fitting is constrained by physics, and the authors flag their main degeneracies (Hα+[NII] blending, assumed instrumental width). The comparison with their earlier ground-based and imaging work is honest and the mass/energy estimates are presented as a range with clear assumptions. That is the good part.

The soft spot is the nuclear position. The AGN is hidden in a dust lane and the authors simply adopt the cross in Figure 1. They admit the uncertainty but never quantify it. That matters because every radius and the velocity gradient are measured from that point. A 0.1–0.2 arcsec offset along the slit (0.19–0.37 kpc) would change the [OIII] detection limit from ~0.9 kpc to ~1.2 kpc — still compact, but no longer 'sub-kpc' in the headline sense. A perpendicular shift changes which rows fall at which radius. The velocity gradient probably survives, but its slope and the compactness claim are not fully robust until this sensitivity is tested. This is a minor-to-moderate issue, not a fatal one: the qualitative picture of a compact, turbulent, AGN-driven outflow is well supported, and the paper already contains most of what you'd need to do the check.

Other assumptions — uniform extinction E(B-V)=0.63, uniform n_e=3500 cm^-3 — are reasonable and explicitly tied to prior work; the authors know they are simplifications. The main conclusions about mass outflow rates and kinetic powers are appropriately hedged, and they conclude that the spatial resolution changes the integrated estimates by only a factor ~2–3. That is a useful, quantitative statement.

Who should read it: anyone working on AGN feedback in ULIRGs or on the geometry of warm outflows. It deserves peer review. My recommendation: accept after a minor revision that quantifies the effect of the assumed nuclear position on the radial extents and the velocity gradient — a simple shift test would settle it.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents HST/STIS long-slit spectroscopy of the ULIRG F14394+5332E, resolving the warm AGN-driven outflow at sub-kpc scales for the first time in a ULIRG. The observations show a compact, high-ionization [OIII] outflow region (r_max ~ 0.9 kpc) embedded in a more extended Halpha-emitting halo (r_max ~ 1.4 kpc) that is kinematically quiescent. The [OIII] lines are broad and blueshifted, with a steep velocity gradient in which the blueshift increases from ~750 to ~1800 km/s along the central slit. The paper interprets the kinematics as evidence for local acceleration and hydrodynamic destruction of clouds in a hot AGN wind, and uses the resolved measurements to estimate mass outflow rates and kinetic powers, finding values within a factor ~2-3 of earlier spatially integrated estimates.

Significance. The result is significant because it provides the first spatially resolved warm outflow in a ULIRG, directly constraining the radial extent, geometry, and velocity structure that earlier ground-based studies could only model. The new STIS data are independent of the model assumptions, and the analysis is careful: standard CALSTIS reduction, explicit treatment of doublets, an instrumental-width correction estimated from narrow-line regions, and candid discussion of Halpha+[NII] fitting degeneracies. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions for future molecular and X-ray observations. If the nuclear-position issue raised below is addressed, the conclusions about compact outflows and modest energetics would support the emerging picture that warm AGN outflows in local ULIRGs are compact and energetically modest.

major comments (2)

[2 (Observations and Reductions), final paragraph] The zero point for all radial distances and for the velocity gradient is the assumed AGN position at the cross in Figure 1. The text acknowledges that this position is uncertain, but the uncertainty is never quantified. A shift of 0.1-0.2 arcsec (0.19-0.37 kpc) along the slit, which is comparable to the 0.1 arcsec slit separation and several 0.05078 arcsec pixels, changes the [OIII] detection limit from 0.88 kpc to 1.06-1.24 kpc if the true nucleus lies further south, directly affecting the abstract's 'sub-kpc' characterization; it also changes the slope and amplitude of the velocity gradient shown in Figure 3 and the geometric interpretation in Section 4.1. Please add a quantitative sensitivity analysis (for example, shift the zero point by +/-0.1 and +/-0.2 arcsec and recompute the r_max values and gradient fits), and either propagate the resulting systematic uncertainties into the headline claims or temper the 'sub-kpc' and specific radius statements accordingly.
[4.2, Figures 7 and 8] The open-symbol estimates in Figures 7 and 8 are described as upper limits, but they assume v_out = 1800 km/s and FWHM = 1200 km/s for all spatial regions, even though the measured [OIII] FWHM exceeds 2000 km/s in the compact NE region of the E slit (Section 3.1) and the true velocity could exceed the maximum projected value if projection effects are important. These estimates should be described as 'maximal estimates under a stated set of assumptions' rather than strict upper limits, or the assumptions should be tightened so that the label 'upper limit' is valid. This affects the strength of the conclusion that the kinetic powers remain modest (<0.5% L_bol).

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract states '600 < FWHM < 1500 km/s' throughout the outflow region, but the E-slit [OIII] measurement in Section 3.1 is FWHM > 2000 km/s (with large uncertainty). Please qualify the abstract or explicitly exclude that low-S/N region from the quoted range.
[Section 2] The sentence describing the spatial registration ('fitting Gaussians to the peak emission in spatial continuum slices') is unclear; please specify how the continuum centroid was measured as a function of wavelength and how the offsets to the assumed nucleus position were determined.
[Section 3.2] The name 'Baldwin, Philips & Terlevich' should be 'Baldwin, Phillips & Terlevich'.
[References] The in-text citation 'Mellema et al. 2003' is listed as 'Mellema, Kurk & Rottgering 2002' in the reference list, and 'Revalaski et al. 2018' should be 'Revalski et al. 2018'. Please verify these citations.
[Figures 3 and 4] No error bars are visible on the plotted kinematic measurements; if uncertainties are not shown, please state this in the captions and give representative uncertainties in the text.
[Section 4.2] The sentence 'and the Delta-V = -990 km/s assumed by Spence et al.' appears to be missing a comparison word; presumably the broad Halpha velocity shifts are lower in amplitude than -990 km/s.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the STIS kinematics are new direct observations, and the adopted density and extinction inputs are independent prior measurements, not re-statements of the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's new claims. The central result—the spatial extent, line widths, and velocity gradient of the warm outflow—comes directly from the STIS spectra, with velocities referred to a host-galaxy redshift determined from stellar absorption features in Spence et al. (2018) and an instrumental width measured from the data itself. The mass-outflow and kinetic-power estimates use standard formulae (Eqs. 1 and 2) with electron density ne = 3500 cm^-3 and extinction E(B-V) = 0.63 adopted from Spence et al. (2018); these are independent estimates based on trans-auroral ratios, not quantities re-derived from the STIS data, and the paper does not present them as predictions of a model. The upper-limit estimates deliberately set vout = 1800 km/s to the maximum measured [OIII] shift and FWHM = 1200 km/s; this is a transparent data-driven bounding choice, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The acknowledged uncertainty in the assumed AGN position—'lacking the high resolution mid-IR imaging that might locate the nucleus more accurately... we will assume that the nucleus is located at the position of the cross in Figure 1'—is an observational limitation that affects the calibration of the radial axis, but no conclusion is defined in terms of that assumption in a way that makes an output equal to an input. The prior QUADROS papers are cited for context and for input quantities, but the sub-kpc resolved kinematics are new and stand or fall on the STIS data alone. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central kinematics rest on the assumed AGN position, the adopted instrumental width, and standard nebular assumptions. Mass outflow rates add assumptions of uniform density and extinction from previous work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Electron density ne = 3500 cm^-3
Assumed uniform across all spatial regions for mass outflow rate calculations, based on trans-auroral line ratios measured in the nuclear region by Spence et al. (2018). Directly scales Mdot and Edot estimates.
Reddening E(B-V) = 0.63 mag
Spatially averaged extinction correction applied to Halpha fluxes before converting to Hbeta luminosity, from Spence et al. (2018). Affects L(Hbeta) and hence Mdot.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The AGN nucleus is located at the position of the cross in Figure 1, within the dust lane.
All radial distances and the velocity gradient are measured relative to this assumed position. The paper notes the lack of high-resolution mid-IR imaging to confirm it, so a significant offset would alter the reported radial extents and the interpretation of the velocity gradient.
domain assumption The warm gas fills the slit, and following paper I assumption (i), the line widths are interpreted as local velocity dispersion rather than projection effects.
Used to interpret the large FWHM values as evidence of turbulent hydrodynamic interaction. The paper argues for this based on the lack of line-width variation with radius, but it remains a modeling choice.
standard math Case B recombination with T = 10^4 K, Halpha/Hbeta = 2.85, and alpha_Hbeta^eff = 3.03e-14 cm^3 s^-1.
Standard nebular astrophysics assumptions used to convert Halpha fluxes to Hbeta luminosities and to calculate mass outflow rates. They are conventional and not unique to this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying the AGN-driven outflows in ULIRGs (QUADROS) IV: HST/STIS spectroscopy of the sub-kpc warm outflow in F14394+5332." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MVYM7GTO

@misc{pith2026190803104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying the AGN-driven outflows in ULIRGs (QUADROS) IV: HST/STIS spectroscopy of the sub-kpc warm outflow in F14394+5332},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MVYM7GTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03104}
}

read the original abstract

Considerable uncertainties remain about the nature of warm, AGN-driven outflows and their impact on the evolution of galaxies. This is because the outflows are often unresolved in ground-based observations. As part of a project to study the AGN outflows in some of the most rapidly evolving galaxies in the local Universe, here we present HST/STIS observations of F14394+5332E that resolve the sub-kpc warm outflow for the first time in a ULIRG. The observations reveal a compact, high-ionization outflow region (r_max~0.9 kpc) set in a more extensive (r_max~1.4 kpc) halo that is kinematically quiescent and has a lower ionization state. A large line width (600 < FWHM < 1500 km/s) is measured throughout the outflow region, and the outflowing gas shows a steep velocity gradient with radius, with the magnitude of the blueshifted velocities increasing from ~500 to 1800 km/s from the inner to the outer part of the outflow. We interpret the observations in terms of the local acceleration, and hydrodynamic destruction, of dense clouds as they are swept up in a hot, low density wind driven by the AGN. We discuss the implications for measuring the mass outflow rates and kinetic powers for the AGN-driven outflows in such objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03104 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Narrow-band [OIII]λλ5007,4959 (left) and intermediate-band continuum (right) ACS/WFC HST images of F14394+5332. The [OIII] image was taken with the FR551N ramp filter (∆λ = 82˚A) centred on 5510˚A , while the continuum image was taken with the F647M ramp filter (∆λ = 367˚A) centred on 5967˚A (see Tadhunter et al. 2018, for details). The three slit positions used for the STIS observations are indicated in the left-ha… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Cut-outs of the two-dimensional, long-slit spectra of F14394+5332E for the three slit positions (E,C,W) showing the region of the Hα+[NII]λλ6584,6548 blend. The x-axis represents wavelength (velocity) and the y-axis spatial position along the slit. 2 OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTIONS HST/STIS observations were taken in Cycle 20 as part of program GO:12934 (PI Tadhunter), using the G750L grating to cover both the redshifte… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The variation in velocity shifts as a function of spatial position along the east (top), centre (middle), and west (bottom) slits. In each case, the zero point of the x-axis represents the intercept of the slit and the line drawn horizontally from the assumed position of the AGN in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The variation in velocity widths (FW HM) as a function of spatial position along the east (top). centre (middle), and west (bottom) slits. In each case, the zero point of the x-axis represents the intercept of the slit and the line drawn horizontally from the assumed…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The spatial distributions of [OIII]λλ5007,4959 (blue) and Hα+[NII]λλ6584,6548 (black), as measured using continuumsubtracted spatial slices extracted from the central long-slit spectrum. The spatial slice for the redshifted [OIII] lines was integrated over the wavel…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Standard BPT diagnostic diagrams showing the measured line ratios for integrated spectra of the kinematically disturbed central regions (dark-blue and green crosses) and kinematically quiescent extended regions (red and light-blue crosses), as measured from the cent…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Mass outflow rate as a function of radial distance from the nucleus, as estimated from the Hα data for different spatial locations along the eastern (pink stars), central (solid blue circles) and western (purple triangles) long-slit spectra. The open blue circles repr…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The ratio of kinetic power and AGN bolometric luminosity as function of radial distance from the nucleus. The estimates are based on the Hα data for different spatial locations along the eastern (pink stars), central (solid blue circles) and western (purple triangles…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Arribas, S., Colina, L., Bellocchi, E., Maiolini, R., Villar-Mart\'in, M., 2014, A&A, 568, 14

work page 2014
[2]

Baldwin, J.A., Phillips, M.M., Terlevich, R., 1981, PASP, 93, 5

work page 1981
[3]

Bellocchi, E., Arribas, S., Colina, L., Miralles-Caballero, D., 2013, A&A, 557, 59

work page 2013
[4]

Cicone, C., et al., 2014, A&A, 562, 21

work page 2014
[5]

Ma, C-P., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2221

DeBuhr, J., Quartaert, E. Ma, C-P., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2221

work page 2012
[6]

di Matteo, T., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., 2005, Nature, 433, 604

work page 2005
[7]

Fabian, A., 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39

work page 1999
[8]

et al., 2017, A&A, 601, 143

Fiore, F. et al., 2017, A&A, 601, 143

work page 2017

Show all 33 references

[9]

et al., 2018, ApJ, 856, 102

Fischer, T.C. et al., 2018, ApJ, 856, 102

2018
[10]

Gonzalez-Alfonso, E., et al., 2017, ApJ, 836, 11

2017
[11]

M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C.N., Flutsch, A., Kakkad, D., Perna, M., Vietri, G., 2018, NatAs, 2, 198

Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C.N., Flutsch, A., Kakkad, D., Perna, M., Vietri, G., 2018, NatAs, 2, 198

2018
[12]

Johansson, P.H., Naab, T., Burkert, A., 2009, ApJ, 690, 802

2009
[13]

J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

2006
[14]

C., Veilleux, S., Sanders D

Kim D. C., Veilleux, S., Sanders D. B., 2002, ApJSS,143, 277

2002
[15]

Klein, R.I., McKee, C.F., Colella, P., 1994, ApJ, 420, 213

1994
[16]

King, A.R., Pounds, K.A., 2015, ARA&A, 53,115

2015
[17]

J., Taniguchi Y., Zheng W., Tsvetanov Z., Carranza G., Dottori H., 2003, MNRAS, 340, 289

Lipari S., Terlevich R., Diaz R. J., Taniguchi Y., Zheng W., Tsvetanov Z., Carranza G., Dottori H., 2003, MNRAS, 340, 289

2003
[18]

2002, A&A 395, L13

Mellema G., Kurk J.D., Rottgering H.J.A. 2002, A&A 395, L13

2002
[19]

Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Oonk, J.B.R., Frieswijk, W., Tadhunter, C., 2015, A&A, 580, 1

2015
[20]

Osterbrock, D.E., Ferland, G.J., 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, 2nd edn, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA

2006
[21]

et al., 2018, ApJ, 867, 88

Revalski, M. et al., 2018, ApJ, 867, 88

2018
[22]

Richings, A.J., Faucher-Gigu\'ere, C-A., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3100

2018
[23]

N., Rose, M., Holt, J., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 138

Rodr\' i guez Zaur\' i n, J., Tadhunter, C. N., Rose, M., Holt, J., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 138

2013
[24]

Rose, M., Tadhunter, C., Ramos Almeida, C., Rodr\'iguez Zaur\'in, J., Santoro, F., Spence, R., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 128 (Paper II)

2018
[25]

Rupke, D. S. N., Veilleux, S., 2013, ApJ, 768, 75

2013
[26]

B., Mirabel, I

Sanders, D. B., Mirabel, I. F., 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749

1996
[27]

Santoro, F., Oonk, J.B.R., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T.A., Tadhunter, C., 2016, A&A, 590, 37

2016
[28]

Santoro, F., Rose, M., Morganti, R., Tadhunter, C., Oosterloo, T.A., Holt, J., 2018, A&A, 617, 139

2018
[29]

Spence, R., Tadhunter, C.N., Rose, M., Rodr\'iguez Zaur\'in, J., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2438 (Paper III)

2018
[30]

Tadhunter, C.N., Morganti, R., Rose, M., Oonk, J.B.R., Oosterloo, T., 2014, Nature, 511, 440

2014
[31]

Tadhunter, C., Rodríguez Zaurín, J., Rose, M.; Spence, R.A.W., Batcheldor, D., Berg, M.A., Ramos Almeida, C., Spoon, H.W.W., Sparks, W., Chiaberge, M., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1558 (Paper II)

2018
[32]

Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., ARA&A, 43, 769
[33]

Veilleux, S., Bolatto, A., Tombesi, F., Mel\'endez, M., Sturn, E., Gonz\'ales-Alfonso, E., Fischer, J., Rupie, D.S.N., 2017, ApJ, 843, 18

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Arribas, S., Colina, L., Bellocchi, E., Maiolini, R., Villar-Mart\'in, M., 2014, A&A, 568, 14

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Baldwin, J.A., Phillips, M.M., Terlevich, R., 1981, PASP, 93, 5

work page 1981

[3] [3]

Bellocchi, E., Arribas, S., Colina, L., Miralles-Caballero, D., 2013, A&A, 557, 59

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Cicone, C., et al., 2014, A&A, 562, 21

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Ma, C-P., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2221

DeBuhr, J., Quartaert, E. Ma, C-P., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2221

work page 2012

[6] [6]

di Matteo, T., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., 2005, Nature, 433, 604

work page 2005

[7] [7]

Fabian, A., 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39

work page 1999

[8] [8]

et al., 2017, A&A, 601, 143

Fiore, F. et al., 2017, A&A, 601, 143

work page 2017