Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 53 references

Higher resolution optical spectra of $M_*<10^{10}~M_{\odot}$ galaxies reveal outflow signatures unresolved by the SDSS

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Higher-resolution spectra detect outflow signatures in 30 percent of low-mass galaxies that SDSS misses.

desk verdict New spectra show line asymmetries in low-mass galaxies missed by SDSS, supporting a ~30% outflow incidence, but the outflow attribution and mass-rate estimates rest on untested geometry and kinematic assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.05665 v1 pith:PMC5AOFL submitted 2026-04-07 astro-ph.GA

B. Hagedorn , C. Cicone , C. Vignali , P. Severgnini , M. Pedani , M. Sarzi , A. Saintonge , M. Romano This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticoutflowslow-massgalaxiesopticalspectroscopystar-formingH-alphaemissionmassoutflowratesSDSSresolutionlimits
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 obtained new medium-high resolution optical spectra for 52 local star-forming galaxies with stellar masses from 10^8.5 to 10^10 solar masses. The spectra show narrower H-alpha and [OIII] lines than in SDSS data, along with asymmetries and broad wings that indicate outflows. Outflow signatures appear in roughly 30 percent of the targets overall, rising to 60 percent among those with above-average star formation rates. The authors derive ionized gas mass outflow rates from 0.1 to 50 times 10^-3 solar masses per year and mass loading factors between 0.03 and 0.14.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of H-alpha line profiles between medium-high resolution spectra and lower-resolution SDSS spectra to identify unresolved broad wings and asymmetries as outflow signatures.

What would settle it

Integral field spectroscopy at still higher resolution that spatially resolves the broad component and shows it follows disk rotation rather than outflow geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By comparing new spectra with instrumental FWHM of 50-110 km/s to existing SDSS spectra of the same low-mass galaxies, the authors show that SDSS resolution fails to resolve the narrow emission lines, hiding outflow signatures. The higher-resolution data reveal broad wings and asymmetries in the H-alpha line for about 30 percent of targets, consistent with bi-conical outflow geometry and theoretical predictions of ubiquitous outflows in the low-mass regime, with an enhanced detection rate for galaxies above the sample-average star formation rate.

Load-bearing premise

That broad wings and asymmetries in the H-alpha spectra arise from galactic outflows rather than rotation, mergers, or other kinematic effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SDSS-based studies underestimate outflow incidence in low-mass galaxies because their spectral resolution cannot separate narrow lines from outflow wings.
  • Outflow detection rates match predictions of ubiquitous outflows when sufficient spectral resolution is used.
  • Ionized gas mass loading factors average around 0.07, indicating modest but measurable feedback in these systems.
  • The incidence of outflows rises with star formation rate, reaching 60 percent above the sample median.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Routine use of medium-resolution spectroscopy could revise upward the observed role of outflows in regulating star formation in dwarf galaxies.
  • Larger samples observed with similar resolution would test whether the 30 percent detection rate holds across the full low-mass population.
  • Combining these optical data with the existing CO observations for the same galaxies could link ionized and molecular outflow phases.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports new medium-high resolution (FWHM_inst ~50-110 km/s) optical spectra of 52 local star-forming galaxies with 10^8.5 < M* < 10^10 M_sun, pre-selected from SDSS galaxies with CO data for likely unresolved kinematics. It shows that SDSS spectra fail to resolve narrow Hα and [OIII] lines, while the new data reveal asymmetries and broad wings. Outflow signatures are identified in ~30% of targets (enhanced to ~60% for SFR > 10^{-0.74} M_sun/yr), with ionized mass outflow rates of 0.1-50 x 10^{-3} M_sun/yr and mass loading factors 0.03-0.14 assuming bi-conical geometry; this is claimed to be consistent with theoretical predictions of ubiquitous outflows in the low-mass regime.

Significance. If the attribution of the newly resolved broad wings and asymmetries to outflows is robust, the work provides direct empirical evidence supporting theoretical predictions of ubiquitous outflows in low-mass galaxies, where prior SDSS-based studies were limited by resolution. The strength lies in the straightforward observational comparison between SDSS and new spectra, which cleanly demonstrates the resolution bias, and in the reporting of a clear detection rate with an SFR-dependent enhancement. The new spectra constitute valuable public data for the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (spectral analysis and outflow identification): The identification of outflow signatures in ~30% of targets relies on the presence of broad wings and asymmetries in Hα without reported quantitative metrics (e.g., velocity thresholds for broad components, skewness statistics, or formal multi-Gaussian decomposition with χ² comparison). No tests are presented to exclude alternatives such as beam-smeared rotation, minor mergers, or residual instrumental effects, despite the sample being pre-selected precisely for galaxies with discrepant CO and SDSS Hα widths.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (outflow rates and geometry): The conversion of observed velocities to ionized mass outflow rates (0.1–50 × 10^{-3} M_⊙/yr) and mass loading factors (0.03–0.14) assumes a fixed bi-conical geometry whose opening angle and orientation distribution are not constrained by the data or varied in sensitivity tests. This assumption is load-bearing for the consistency claim with ubiquitous outflows and lacks propagated uncertainties from ionization corrections or geometry.
  3. [§2.1] §2.1 (sample selection): The parent sample is explicitly chosen among SDSS galaxies where CO line widths and SDSS Hα widths indicate unresolved kinematics; this selection criterion may bias the sample toward systems with complex velocity fields, inflating the reported outflow incidence relative to an unbiased low-M* population.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the SFR threshold as >10^{-0.74} M_⊙/yr without explaining its derivation (e.g., as the sample median); this should be clarified in the text and abstract for reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and §3 should explicitly compare the new instrumental resolution (50–110 km/s) to the SDSS resolution (~150 km/s) on the same velocity scale for each example spectrum.
  3. [§1 and §5] The paper should cite the specific theoretical works predicting ubiquitous outflows in the low-mass regime to allow direct comparison of the observed 30% incidence (after geometry correction) with model predictions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have identified several areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (spectral analysis and outflow identification): The identification of outflow signatures in ~30% of targets relies on the presence of broad wings and asymmetries in Hα without reported quantitative metrics (e.g., velocity thresholds for broad components, skewness statistics, or formal multi-Gaussian decomposition with χ² comparison). No tests are presented to exclude alternatives such as beam-smeared rotation, minor mergers, or residual instrumental effects, despite the sample being pre-selected precisely for galaxies with discrepant CO and SDSS Hα widths.

    Authors: We agree that the outflow identification in the current manuscript is based primarily on visual inspection of line asymmetries and broad wings. In the revised version we will add quantitative metrics, including skewness and kurtosis statistics for the Hα profiles, a velocity threshold (e.g., |v| > 3σ_narrow) for identifying broad components, and formal two-component Gaussian fits with χ² and AIC comparisons to single-Gaussian models. We will also include explicit tests ruling out beam-smeared rotation (by comparing the new spatial resolution and line widths to the galaxy sizes) and minor mergers (via inspection of SDSS imaging and absence of double-peaked profiles). Instrumental artifacts are already mitigated by the use of two independent spectrographs; we will document this more clearly. These changes will be incorporated. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.2 (outflow rates and geometry): The conversion of observed velocities to ionized mass outflow rates (0.1–50 × 10^{-3} M_⊙/yr) and mass loading factors (0.03–0.14) assumes a fixed bi-conical geometry whose opening angle and orientation distribution are not constrained by the data or varied in sensitivity tests. This assumption is load-bearing for the consistency claim with ubiquitous outflows and lacks propagated uncertainties from ionization corrections or geometry.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the bi-conical geometry is an assumption not directly constrained by the present data. In the revision we will add a sensitivity analysis in which we vary the opening angle (30°–90°) and inclination distribution, recompute the outflow rates and mass-loading factors for each case, and propagate the resulting uncertainties together with ionization-parameter uncertainties. The revised text will present both the fiducial values and the full range, while retaining the statement that the observed incidence remains consistent with theoretical expectations under plausible geometries. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2.1 (sample selection): The parent sample is explicitly chosen among SDSS galaxies where CO line widths and SDSS Hα widths indicate unresolved kinematics; this selection criterion may bias the sample toward systems with complex velocity fields, inflating the reported outflow incidence relative to an unbiased low-M* population.

    Authors: The selection was deliberately made to isolate galaxies in which SDSS resolution demonstrably fails, thereby providing a clean demonstration of the resolution bias. Nevertheless, we accept that this introduces a potential bias toward kinematically disturbed systems. We will add a new subsection discussing this limitation, reporting the fraction of the parent SDSS-CO sample that meets the selection criterion, and comparing the outflow incidence to literature values for unbiased low-mass samples. The revised manuscript will therefore present the 30 % (and SFR-enhanced 60 %) figures with the appropriate caveats on generalizability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical outflow detection from new spectra is self-contained with no circular reduction

full rationale

The paper's core result is an observational count of outflow signatures (~30% incidence) identified directly from asymmetries and broad wings in newly acquired higher-resolution Hα spectra of a pre-selected sample. This count is reported as a direct measurement and does not reduce to any fitted parameter, self-referential equation, or ansatz imported via citation. The subsequent statement that the rate is 'consistent with theoretical predictions' under a bi-conical assumption is a qualitative comparison, not a derivation or prediction generated by the paper itself. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or renamings of known results appear in the derivation chain. The sample selection criterion (unresolved SDSS lines) is independent of the outflow identification step and does not force the reported incidence by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a small number of standard assumptions about outflow geometry and line decomposition rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • SFR threshold for enhanced incidence
    The value 10^{-0.74} M_sun/yr is chosen to split the sample into above- and below-average SFR; it is data-driven but not derived from first principles.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Bi-conical outflow geometry with standard opening angle and inclination distribution
    Used to convert observed line widths and luminosities into mass outflow rates; stated in the abstract but not derived.
  • domain assumption Broad wings and asymmetries are kinematic signatures of outflows rather than other effects
    Central to the 30% detection claim; no quantitative test against alternative explanations is described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher resolution optical spectra of $M_*<10^{10}~M_{\odot}$ galaxies reveal outflow signatures unresolved by the SDSS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMC5AOFL

@misc{pith2026260405665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher resolution optical spectra of $M_*<10^10~M_\odot$ galaxies reveal outflow signatures unresolved by the SDSS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMC5AOFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.05665}
}
abstract

Galactic outflows are predicted to be ubiquitous in low-mass galaxies, but observational evidence is lacking. Both a low signal-to-noise and a low spectral resolution can severely hamper the detection of galactic outflows, especially in small galaxies that have intrinsically narrow spectral lines. We obtained new, medium-high resolution (FWHM$_\mathrm{inst}\sim50-110$~km/s) optical spectra of 52 local star forming galaxies ($0.01 < z < 0.03$) with stellar masses $10^{8.5}<M_*/[M_{\odot}]<10^{10}$, using the TNG/DOLORES and NTT/EFOSC2 instruments. Our parent sample consists of SDSS galaxies with available heterodyne single-dish molecular (i.e., CO) line data. The targets of this study are selected among those that, based on the comparison between CO line widths, SDSS spectral resolution, and corresponding SDSS-based H$\alpha$ line widths, have a high chance of being unresolved by SDSS spectroscopy. Our new, spectra reveal overall narrower H$\alpha$ and [OIII]$\lambda5007$ lines, with signs of asymmetries and broad wings that are absent in the SDSS spectra of the same galaxies. This confirms that SDSS spectroscopy does not resolve the narrow emission lines of low-M$_*$ galaxies, which hinders the detection of outflows. We identify outflow signatures in $\sim30\%$ of our targets based on the H$\alpha$ line spectra. Assuming a typical bi-conical outflow geometry, this detection rate is consistent with theoretical predictions of ubiquitous outflows in the low-mass regime. The outflow incidence is enhanced ($\sim60\%$) for galaxies with above average star formation rates for the sample (SFR $>10^{-0.74}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}/yr}$). We estimate ionized gas mass outflow rates ranging from $\sim0.1-50\times10^{-3}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}/yr}$ (mean $\sim20\times10^{-3}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}/yr}$) and corresponding mass loading factors between 0.03 and 0.14 (mean $\sim0.07$) for the sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the Hα emission line widths obtained from the SDSS spectra (using a single-Gaussian fit accounting for in￾60 100 300 600 FWHMH , SDSS / [km/s] 30 60 100 300 600 F W H M C O / [k m / s] R = 2 0 0 0 SDSS targets CO nondet. 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 lo g(M * / [M ]) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example spectra obtained with TNG/DOLORES spec￾troscopy using the V656 and V510 grisms with a 1.0” slit. We note that these spectra do not have their absolute flux calibrated, so units on the y-axis are arbitrary. The dashed gray line shows the zero flux level. Insets show a more detailed view of select emission lines, with the size of the zoomed-in region shown by the dashed colored boxes. 800 s and 3200 s for each… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example spectra obtained with NTT/EFOSC2 spec￾troscopy using grisms 20 and 19 with a 0.5” slit. We note that these spectra do not have their absolute flux calibrated, so units on the y-axis are arbitrary. The dashed gray line shows the zero flux level. Insets show a more detailed view of select emission lines, with the size of the zoomed-in region shown by the dashed colored boxes. Weather conditions were mixed, wit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Fig. 1, but with line widths inferred from high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between line profile kurtosis of SDSS spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between Hα and [OIII]5007 line widths ob￾served with high-resolution spectroscopy (top) and deconvolved from instrumental resolution (bottom). detections. For the 26 [OIII] detected galaxies, these numbers are 23, 2, and 1 respectively. Using the same fittin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 29

    Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    R., Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N

    Avery, C. R., Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5134

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    S., Wagg, J., Cicone, C., et al

    Bothwell, M. S., Wagg, J., Cicone, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2599

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    M., Governato, F., Booth, C

    Brooks, A. M., Governato, F., Booth, C. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, L17

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 580, A102

    Carniani, S., Marconi, A., Maiolino, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A102

    work page 2015

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2024, A&A, 685, A99

    Carniani, S., Venturi, G., Parlanti, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A99

    2024

  2. [10]

    A., Heckman, T

    Chen, Y .-M., Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 445

    2010

  3. [11]

    R., Davé, R., Brooks, A., Quinn, T., & Shen, S

    Christensen, C. R., Davé, R., Brooks, A., Quinn, T., & Shen, S. 2018, ApJ, 867, 142

    2018

  4. [12]

    2017, A&A, 604, A53

    Cicone, C., Bothwell, M., Wagg, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A53

    2017

  5. [13]

    2018, NatAs, 2, 176

    Cicone, C., Brusa, M., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2018, NatAs, 2, 176

    2018

  6. [14]

    2016, A&A, 588, A41

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., & Marconi, A. 2016, A&A, 588, A41

    2016

  7. [15]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21

    2014

  8. [16]

    2017, A&A, 606, A36

    Concas, A., Popesso, P., Brusa, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A36

    2017

  9. [17]

    2013, A&A, 549, A118 Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B

    Contursi, A., Poglitsch, A., Grácia Carpio, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A118 Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1354

    2013

  10. [18]

    & Silk, J

    Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

    1986

  11. [19]

    & Tolstoy, E

    Ferrara, A. & Tolstoy, E. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 291

    2000

  12. [20]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5753

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5753

    2021

  13. [21]

    & Mirocha, J

    Ginsburg, A. & Mirocha, J. 2011, PySpecKit: Python Spectroscopic Toolkit, As- trophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.001

    2011

  14. [22]

    2022, AJ, 163, 291

    Ginsburg, A., Sokolov, V ., De Val-Borro, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 291

    2022

  15. [23]

    2010, Nature, 463, 203

    Governato, F., Brook, C., Mayer, L., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 203

    2010

  16. [24]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

    Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

    2012

  17. [25]

    2024, A&A, 687, A244

    Hagedorn, B., Cicone, C., Sarzi, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A244

    2024

  18. [26]

    2026, A&A, 707, A77

    Hagedorn, B., Cicone, C., Sarzi, M., Severgnini, P., & Vignali, C. 2026, A&A, 707, A77

    2026

  19. [27]

    Heckman, T. M. & Thompson, T. A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae (Springer, Cham), 2431–2454

    2017

  20. [28]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    2003

  21. [29]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    2001

  22. [30]

    K., Walter, F., Martini, P., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Martini, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 83 López-Cobá, C., Sánchez, S. F., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 167 Mac Low, M.-M. & Ferrara, A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 142

    2015

  23. [31]

    M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L

    Manzano-King, C. M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L. V . 2019, ApJ, 884, 54

    2019

  24. [32]

    2023, A&A, 670, A92

    Marasco, A., Belfiore, F., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A92

    2023

  25. [33]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L17

    2015

  26. [34]

    McQuinn, Kristen. B. W., van Zee, L., & Skillman, E. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 74

    2019

  27. [35]

    D., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Mitchell, P. D., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., & Crain, R. A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3971 Article number, page 12 of 21 B. Hagedorn et al.: Galactic outflows in low-mass galaxies

    2020

  28. [36]

    F., Eke, V

    Navarro, J. F., Eke, V . R., & Frenk, C. S. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L72

    1996

  29. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    2019

  30. [38]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non- Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2014

  31. [39]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0

    2020

  32. [40]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, JOSS, 5, 2308

    2020

  33. [41]

    Roberts-Borsani, G. W. & Saintonge, A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4111

    2019

  34. [42]

    2023, A&A, 677, A44

    Romano, M., Nanni, A., Donevski, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A44

    2023

  35. [43]

    Rupke, D. S. N. & Veilleux, S. 2011, ApJ, 729, L27

    2011

  36. [44]

    & Catinella, B

    Saintonge, A. & Catinella, B. 2022, ARA&A, 43

    2022

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 22

    2017

  38. [46]

    L., et al

    Sarzi, M., Falcon-Barroso, J., Davies, R. L., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1151

    2006

  39. [47]

    Shopbell, P. L. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 1998, ApJ, 493, 129

    1998

  40. [48]

    Teyssier, R., Pontzen, A., Dubois, Y ., & Read, J. I. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3068

    2013

  41. [49]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 769

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769

    2005

  42. [50]

    D., & Aalto, S

    Veilleux, S., Maiolino, R., Bolatto, A. D., & Aalto, S. 2020, ARA&A, 28, 2

    2020

  43. [51]

    2018, A&A, 619, A74

    Venturi, G., Nardini, E., Marconi, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A74

    2018

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 134

    Xu, Y ., Ouchi, M., Rauch, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 134

    2022

  45. [53]

    slit 200 0 200 v [km/s] H NTT SDSS 200 0 200 v [km/s] [OIII] NTT SDSS 200 0 200 v [km/s] CO(2-1) APEX AGC244381 0.5

    Yu, B. P. B., Angthopo, J., Ferreras, I., & Wu, K. 2022, PASA, 39, e054 Article number, page 13 of 21 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main Appendix A: SDSS vs NTT/TNG line widths Here, we compare the line widths of Hαobtained from a single- component Gaussian template fit, as descri...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.