Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Evolution and star formation history of NGC300 from a chemical evolution model with radial gas inflows

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a radial gas inflow of only about 0.1 km/s lets a chemical evolution model reproduce NGC300's observed gas, star-formation, and metallicity profiles simultaneously.

desk verdict A competent application of an established chemical evolution model to NGC300 with new stellar metallicity constraints, but the key claim that radial inflows drive the profile changes is not isolated from changes in infall timescale and outflow efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10245 v1 pith:SWOPAKAM submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.GA

Xiaoyu Kang , Rolf-Peter Kudritzki , Xiaobo Gong , Fenghui Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords NGC300galaxyevolutionchemicalmodelradialgasinflowsstarformationhistorymetallicitygradientdiscgalaxiesinfallandoutflows
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 argues that the present-day appearance of the low-mass, bulge-less spiral galaxy NGC300 can be explained by a single chemical evolution model in which the disc assembles inside-out, metal-enriched gas is blown out, and gas drifts inward through the disc at only about 0.1 km/s. The model simultaneously reproduces the observed radial profiles of H I mass, star-formation rate, specific star-formation rate, and both gas-phase and stellar metallicity. The paper's key finding is that even such a slow radial inflow measurably steepens the gas, star-formation, and metallicity gradients while flattening the sSFR gradient, bringing the predicted sSFR profile into much better agreement with observations. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete, quantitative demonstration that radial gas flows, which are hard to observe directly, leave distinctive fingerprints on a disc galaxy's current structure and its past star-formation history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the radial gas inflow term added to the standard infall-outflow chemical evolution equations. The inflow speed is parameterized as $|v_R| = c\, r/R_d + d$, with disc scale length $R_d = 1.29$ kpc; the best fit has $c = 0$ and $d = 0.1$ km/s, i.e., a constant inward velocity of roughly 0.1 km/s. This inflow is implemented through fluxes across the boundaries of concentric rings (Equations 8-10 of the paper), and it changes both the gas surface density and the metallicity of each ring (Equation 14). The other pieces are the inside-out infall timescale $\tau(r) = 0.16\, r/R_d + 3.0$ Gyr, an outflow efficiency $b_{\rm out} = 0.6$, and the instantaneous recycling approximation with a Kroupa IMF. The inflow term is what differentiates Model B from the earlier no-inflow Model A and is credited with the improved sSFR match.

What would settle it

A measurement of the radial component of the gas velocity in NGC300's disc from resolved H I or CO velocity fields that shows no net inward motion at the level of about 0.1 km/s, or shows outward motion, would overturn the paper's central claim, since the claimed steepening and flattening effects require that specific inward flow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the build-up of NGC300's disc by metal-free gas infall, the loss of metal-enriched gas in outflows, and a radial inflow of gas moving inward at about 0.1 km/s together account for all the main present-day radial profiles of the galaxy: H I and SFR surface densities, specific SFR, and metallicity as traced by oxygen in H II regions, blue and red supergiants, and planetary nebulae. Compared with the model without radial inflows, the inflow model steepens the H I, SFR, and metallicity profiles and flattens the sSFR profile, with the sSFR improvement being the most significant. The model also implies that the metallicity gradient was much steeper in the past and flattened over cosmic time, and that star formation has been more active recently because inflows feed the inner disc. In addition, the model places NGC300 on the star-forming galaxy main sequence and the mass-metallicity relation.

Load-bearing premise

The model's distinctive results rest on the assumption that gas in NGC300's disc really does drift inward at about 0.1 km/s, a velocity imposed as a fitting parameter rather than measured from the galaxy's kinematics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, NGC300's metallicity gradient was considerably steeper at early cosmic times and has flattened since, meaning the galaxy's outer disc formed later and more slowly.
  • An inflow speed of only 0.1 km/s, far below the disc's rotation speed, is enough to steepen the present-day H I, SFR, and metallicity gradients and to flatten the sSFR gradient.
  • Radial gas inflows feed the inner disc at late times, which is why the model's present-day sSFR profile matches observations far better than the no-inflow model.
  • The model places NGC300 on both the star-forming galaxy main sequence and the mass-metallicity relation, linking this single galaxy to the broader population of local spirals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If slow radial inflows are common, chemical evolution models without them may systematically misattribute the shape of observed gradients to stronger outflows or different infall histories.
  • The same model setup could be applied to other isolated, bulge-less spirals; the best-fit inflow speed should track the infall rate if the inflow truly comes from angular momentum mismatch.
  • The model implies a specific prediction for the molecular gas disc of NGC300: its profile should also be steepened by the inflow, testable with high-resolution CO observations.
  • If the predicted gradient flattening is real, high-redshift surveys of NGC300-mass galaxies should find steeper metallicity gradients than the present-day one.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a one-zone-per-ring chemical evolution model for the nearby, isolated, bulge-less, low-mass spiral NGC 300, extending the authors' earlier Kang et al. (2016) model by adding radial gas inflows with a prescribed velocity profile |v_R| = c r/R_d + d and by fitting new non-LTE supergiant and H II region abundance data. The model includes inside-out gas infall with timescale τ(r) = a r/R_d + b, a molecular-gas-based star formation law, metal-enriched outflows proportional to the SFR, and a time-dependent infall metallicity Z_in(t). Five parameters (a, b, c, d, b_out) are fitted by a χ2 procedure to the present-day radial profiles of HI surface density, SFR surface density, sSFR, gas-phase metallicity, and stellar metallicity, with A(r) iterated to force the stellar mass profile to match the observed exponential disc. The best fit (Model B: τ = 0.16 r/R_d + 3.0 Gyr, v_R = −0.1 km/s, b_out = 0.6) is compared with the no-inflow Model A of Kang et al. (2016). The paper claims that inflows as slow as −0.1 km/s steepen the HI, SFR, and metallicity profiles and flatten the sSFR profile, that the model predicts a significant flattening of the metallicity gradient with cosmic time, and that inflows help sustain recent star formation; it also compares the model with CMD stellar metallicities, the mass–metallicity relation, the star-forming main sequence, and PNe at intermediate age.

Significance. If the central attribution holds, the paper strengthens the view that sub-km/s radial gas inflows measurably shape the present-day radial structure of low-mass disc galaxies, and it offers a concrete, testable prediction: significant flattening of NGC 300's metallicity gradient with cosmic time. I credit the paper for testing the model against data not used in the fit—CMD mean stellar metallicities (Fig. 4), the mass–metallicity relation (Fig. 5), the xGASS/xCOLDGASS main sequence (Fig. 7), and intermediate-age PNe (Fig. 8)—all of which agree encouragingly. The paper is also transparent about its calibrations, explicitly stating the A(r) iteration and the origin of the Z_in(t) slope in Kang et al. (2016). However, the headline mechanistic statement is currently supported only by a non-isolated model comparison and an unquantified fit, so the scientific significance is contingent on the control run and fit statistics requested below; the external checks, while suggestive, are essentially single-point comparisons for one galaxy and cannot substitute for that control.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Figs. 2 and 6] The claim that radial gas inflows as slow as −0.1 km s−1 steepen the present-day HI, SFR, and metallicity profiles while flattening the sSFR profile rests on the comparison between Model B and Model A in Figures 2 and 6, but Section 4 gives Model B parameters (τ, v_R, b_out) = (0.16 r/R_d + 3.0 Gyr, −0.1 km s−1, 0.6) and Model A parameters (0.52 r/R_d + 2.6 Gyr, 0, 0.9), so the two models differ not only in the presence of inflow but also in the infall timescale coefficients a and b and in the outflow efficiency b_out. Infall timescale and outflow efficiency each independently change the gas accretion history, metal loss, and recent star formation, so the systematic differences attributed to 'radial gas inflows'—including the claim that inflows 'significantly improve' the sSFR agreement—are not isolated. A control run with v_R = 0 and Model B's remaining parameters (a = 0.16, b = 3.0, b_out = 0.6) is needed and is currently absent. The external support cited for the velocity magnitude (Di Teodoro & Peek 2021) is a sample average for more massive spirals, not a measurement for NGC 300; combined with the fitted, externally imposed functional form |v_R| = c r/R_d + d (Section 2.3), the control run is essential for the abstract's mechanistic claim to stand.
  2. [§4 (χ² fit)] Section 4 states that 'the classical χ2 technique is adopted' and reports the best-fit parameter combination, but no χ2 value, reduced χ2, number of fitted data points, error-bar model, or parameter uncertainty is given anywhere in the paper. The claims of 'remarkable agreement' and of 'significantly improves the agreement' are therefore not quantitatively supported, and it is impossible to assess whether the five free parameters (plus the iterated A(r), which adds further flexibility) are degenerate or actually constrained by the data. Please report the best-fit χ2 per radial profile and combined, the degrees of freedom, and the Δχ2 between Model A, Model B, and the requested v_R = 0 control run, and specify the error bars used in the fit. Note also the typo in the parameter-search ranges: '0.1 ≤ 0 ≤ c × r/ Rd + d ≤ 1.0' should presumably read '0.1 ≤ c r/R_d + d ≤ 1.0', and the radius at which the constraint on c r/R_d + d applies should be stated.
  3. [§2.1, §2.2, §4] Two of the inputs that most directly determine the model's output profiles are themselves calibrated toward the data the paper claims to reproduce: the slope k of Z_in(t) is set by referencing the metallicity evolution trend predicted by the authors' previous model (Kang et al. 2016, lower-right panel of their Fig. 8), and A(r) is iterated so that the present-day stellar mass profile matches the observed exponential profile (Section 2.2). Consequently the stellar mass profile is imposed rather than predicted, the model has more effective freedom than the stated five free parameters, and the gas-phase metallicity comparison is partly shaped by an input tuned to a prior model's metallicity evolution. The paper should explicitly count A(r) as a high-dimensional fitted quantity, test the sensitivity of Figures 2 and 8 to reasonable alternative Z_in(t) prescriptions (e.g., primordial Z_in throughout the inflow epoch, or a fixed CGM-metallicity floor), and state whether the metallicity data still prefer the same parameters under those choices.
  4. [§2.3, Eqs. (8)–(16)] The discretized advection terms as printed are internally inconsistent: Eq. (9) evaluates the flux at the inner edge of ring k with Σ_gas(r_{k−1}) and Eq. (10) evaluates the outer-edge flux with Σ_gas(r_{k+1}), but the metal-flow term in Eq. (14) contains −β_k Z(r_k)Σ(r_k), which is algebraically what one obtains when the inner-edge metal flux is evaluated with the gas density of ring k itself (the donor cell for inward flow). With the convention of Eqs. (9)–(10), the metal equation should contain a term involving Z(r_{k−1})Σ(r_{k−1}), not Z(r_k)Σ(r_k), so a reader cannot reproduce the radial-flow implementation as printed. Please correct the apparent typo (likely Eq. (9) should use Σ_gas(r_k)), state the upwind/donor convention actually implemented, and confirm that the gas and metal advection terms in the code use the same stencil.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §1, §2.2, Fig. 4 caption] Please proofread for typos: 'metall-free gas' (Abstract and Section 2), 'may be help to sustain' (Abstract), 'chemica l evolution' (title header), 'metallicty' (Section 1), 'distributioon' (Section 2.2), and 'colour-maginitude' (Figure 4 caption) should all be corrected.
  2. [References] The reference list contains corrupted or merged entries; most notably the Kauffmann et al. (1993) entry ends with 'doi:10.1093/mnras/264.1.201Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1647', merging the Robotham et al. (2014) reference into the Kauffmann entry, and several author names and page numbers contain spurious spacing (e.g., 'Y oachim', 'P .,' and '6 08'). These entries need to be regenerated carefully.
  3. [Fig. 2] The axis labels in Figure 2 are garbled (e.g., 'M/uni2299pc−2⊙' and 'M/uni2299Gyr−1pc−2⊙'); the figure should be regenerated with standard LaTeX units (M⊙ pc−2 and M⊙ pc−2 Gyr−1) so that the physical units are legible.
  4. [§3] The observed sSFR range quoted in Section 3, −10.382 ≤ log(sSFR/yr−1) ≤ −9.622, is computed from total SFR values spanning 0.08–0.46 M⊙ yr−1 obtained with heterogeneous tracers; please indicate whether this systematic SFR-scale uncertainty affects the Muñoz-Mateos et al. (2007) radial sSFR profile used in the fit and how it was propagated into the χ2.
  5. [§4, Fig. 8] The comparison of the model's 8.5 Gyr metallicity profile with the PNe data is described only qualitatively ('Except for the two outer bins, the agreement is very good'); since this is the only direct constraint on the predicted flattening of the metallicity gradient with cosmic time, please quote a quantitative residual (e.g., rms difference between the 8.5 Gyr model profile and the binned PNe metallicities).
  6. [§2.1] The stated Z_in(t) = Z⊙(0.039 t − 0.348) is negative for t < 8.9 Gyr; for z between roughly 0.7 and 0.2 (t ≈ 6.5–8.9 Gyr if the universe age is 13.5 Gyr) this yields negative infall metallicities, which is unphysical. Please clarify the epoch over which this linear form is applied, whether Z_in is clamped at zero, and the consistency of the quoted k and b values.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the sSFR 'improvement' is a fitted output, the metallicity-gradient 'prediction' imports a slope from the authors' own previous NGC300 model, and the inflow attribution compares models that differ in three parameters at once.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.1, paragraph defining Zin after Eq. (3)]
    "The slope of the time-dependent metallicity function (k) for the infalling gas is determined by referencing the metallicity evolution trend in the NGC 300 disc, as shown in the lower-right panel of Figure 8 of Kang et al. (2016). ... Therefore, the functional form of metallicity of the infalling gas is given by Zin/Zsun = 0.039 × t − 0.348."

    Zin enters Eq. (3) directly as the metallicity of infalling gas, so it controls the radial and temporal metallicity solution. Calibrating its slope to the metallicity evolution trend of the authors' own 2016 NGC300 model, and then reporting that the model 'predicts a significant flattening of the metallicity gradient with cosmic time', is partly a restatement of that imported trend. The external present-day CGM metallicity fixes only the intercept (-0.75), not the slope, so the time-evolution claim is not independent of the self-cited prior model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, first and second paragraphs; Abstract]
    "The collection of observed data displayed in Figure. 2 is used to constrain our model and its five free parameters (see Sect. 2). ... We obtain (a, b, c, d, bout) = (0.16, 3.0, 0.0, 0.1, 0.6), i.e., (tau, vR, bout) = (0.16 r/Rd+3.0 Gyr, −0.1 km s−1, 0.6). ... A remarkable agreement is found between the Model B predictions and the NGC 300 observations."

    The sSFR radial profile is part of the Figure 2 dataset used to determine the five free parameters, so the inflow velocity d = 0.1 km/s is chosen in part to reproduce that same profile. The abstract's statement that radial inflows 'significantly improve' the sSFR agreement therefore describes the result of the fit, not an independent prediction. Because Model B also changes tau and bout relative to Model A, the claimed improvement cannot be isolated to the inflow term without a v_R = 0 control run at fixed infall and outflow parameters.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, second paragraph; Figure 2 and 6 comparisons]
    "The best-fitting model of NGC 300 without radial gas inflows in Kang et al. (2016) ('Model A') with parameters (tau, vR, bout) = (0.52r/rd + 2.6 Gyr, 0, 0.9) is also plotted as in Fig. 2 as a dashed line. ... The radial gas inflows steepen the present-day radial profiles of H i gas mass surface density, SFR surface density, and metallicity, but flatten the radial sSFR profile."

    Model B and Model A differ not only in inflow velocity but also in the infall timescale coefficients (a, b) and the outflow efficiency bout. The paper attributes all systematic profile differences to radial inflows while the 'no inflow' baseline is imported from the authors' previous paper rather than recomputed with Model B's other parameters and v_R = 0. The headline causal claim therefore rests on a confounded, self-cited comparison rather than an isolated test of the inflow term.

full rationale

The model's numerical machinery - the radial-flow advection terms, the SFR law, and the enrichment equations - is not itself circular, and many comparisons use external observations. However, three elements partially reduce the central claims to their own inputs. First, the metallicity of the infalling gas, a direct driver of Eq. (3), has its time slope imported from the authors' own previous NGC300 model, so the predicted cosmic flattening of the metallicity gradient is not fully independent. Second, the inflow velocity is one of five free parameters determined by a chi2 fit to the same observed Figure 2 profiles, including sSFR; calling the resulting sSFR match a 'prediction' improved by inflows is a fitted-input-called-prediction. Third, the no-inflow comparison model A comes from Kang et al. (2016) and differs from model B in infall timescale and outflow efficiency as well as in v_R, so the specific attribution of profile steepening/flattening to -0.1 km/s inflows is not isolated. These issues make the circularity partial rather than total: the flow equations retain independent model content, but several headline 'predictions' are at least partly constructed from the fitting procedure and self-cited inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a standard one-dimensional chemical evolution framework with five fitted scalar parameters, an iteratively adjusted radial function A(r), and an ad hoc infall metallicity calibration. The stellar mass profile is enforced by construction, and the infall metallicity slope is inherited from the authors' own earlier model, so the model's independent predictive freedom is smaller than the number of constraints used. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • a (infall timescale radial coefficient) = 0.16
    Sets tau(r) = a * r / R_d + b; fit to observed radial profiles in Section 4.
  • b (infall timescale offset) = 3.0 Gyr
    Combined with a it gives the inside-out infall timescale; best-fit value from chi-square search.
  • c (inflow velocity radial coefficient) = 0.0
    Defines |v_R| = c * r / R_d + d; the best fit puts c = 0, so the inflow velocity is constant with radius.
  • d (inflow velocity offset) = 0.1 km/s
    Radial inflow speed; all conclusions about inflow effects depend on this fitted amplitude.
  • bout (outflow efficiency) = 0.6
    Outflow rate f_out = bout * Psi; fitted; Model A from Kang et al. 2016 used bout = 0.9.
  • A(r) (infall amplitude function) = Iteratively adjusted radial function (Fig. 1)
    A(r) is adjusted until the model stellar mass profile matches the observed exponential profile; this enforces the stellar mass profile rather than predicting it.
  • Zin slope k = 0.039 per Gyr
    Chosen to match the metallicity evolution trend from the authors' previous Kang et al. 2016 model; not measured for NGC300.
  • Zin intercept b = -0.348
    Set so the present-day infall metallicity equals an assumed CGM metallicity log(Z/Zsun) = -0.75; not directly measured for NGC300.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Azimuthal homogeneity and rapid mixing in each annulus
    Equations 1 to 3 treat each ring as well mixed; standard in one-dimensional chemical evolution models.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous recycling approximation is adequate for oxygen
    Section 2 states that stars above 1 solar mass die instantaneously; the authors note IRA is acceptable for oxygen but poor for nitrogen, carbon, and iron, and oxygen is used as the metallicity proxy.
  • ad hoc to paper Infalling gas is metal-free at z > 0.7 and then follows a prescribed linear Zin(t)
    Section 2.1: Zin/Zsun = 0.039 t - 0.348; the slope is taken from a previous model trend and the intercept from an assumed CGM metallicity.
  • ad hoc to paper Radial inflow velocity is an externally imposed function rather than derived from angular momentum conservation
    Section 2.3: |v_R| = c * r / R_d + d, with best-fit c = 0 and d = 0.1 km/s; the physical link to infall angular momentum is not used to predict the velocity.
  • domain assumption Star formation rate is proportional to molecular gas surface density with tdep = 1.9 Gyr
    Equation 6 adopts the molecular gas depletion time from Leroy et al. 2008; the molecular fraction is computed as in Kang et al. 2023.
  • domain assumption Outflow rate is proportional to SFR and outflow metallicity equals ISM metallicity
    Equation 7 and Section 2.1: f_out = bout * Psi and Zout = Z(r,t); standard assumptions but not verified for NGC300.
  • ad hoc to paper A(r) is iterated so that the model stellar mass profile matches the observed exponential profile
    Section 2.2, Equation 5; this removes the stellar mass profile as an independent prediction of the model.
  • domain assumption Stellar radial migration is negligible in NGC300
    Section 2 cites globular cluster kinematics, N-body simulations, and the lack of radial age inversion to justify ignoring stellar migration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution and star formation history of NGC300 from a chemical evolution model with radial gas inflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWOPAKAM

@misc{pith2026250710245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution and star formation history of NGC300 from a chemical evolution model with radial gas inflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWOPAKAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10245}
}
read the original abstract

In the build-up of galactic discs gas infall is an important ingredient and it produces radial gas inflows as a physical consequence of angular momentum conservation, since the infalling gas on to the disc at a specific radius has lower angular momentum than the circular motions of the gas at the point of impact. NGC300 is a well studied isolated, bulge-less, and low-mass disc galaxy ideally suited for an investigation of galaxy evolution with radial gas inflows. To investigate the effects of radial gas inflows on the physical properties of NGC300, a chemical evolution model for NGC300 is constructed by assuming its disc builds up progressively by infalling of metall-free gas and outflowing of metal-enriched gas. Radial gas inflows are also considered in the model. Our model including the radial gas inflows and an inside-out disc formation scenario can simultaneously reproduce the present-day observed radial profiles of HI gas mass surface density, SFR surface density, sSFR, gas-phase and stellar metallicity. We find that, although the value of radial gas inflow velocity is as low as -0.1 km/s, the radial gas inflows steepen the present-day radial profiles of HI gas mass surface density, SFR surface density, and metallicity, but flatten the radial sSFR profile. Incorporating radial gas inflows significantly improves the agreement between our model predicted present-day sSFR profile and the observations of NGC300. It predicts a significant flattening of the metallicity gradient with cosmic time. We also find that the model predicted star formation has been more active recently, indicating that the radial gas inflows may be help to sustain star formation in local spirals, at least in NGC300.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10245 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The function A(r) obtained with the best-fitting model of NGC 300 (see Section 4). derived from the observed K−band luminosity distribution (Muñoz-Mateos et al. 2007) together with a total stellar mass of M∗ = 1.928 × 109 M⊙ (Muñoz-Mateos et al. 2007). The coefficients a and b for τ(r) are free parameters in our model and will be determined below. While a simple exponential form of gas infall rate is a pop￾ular assu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons between the model predictions and the observed data of NGC 300. Solid lines correspond to the best-fitting model with a radial inflow of gas (Model B) and dashed lines to the model without radial inflow (Model A). The left-hand side shows the radial profiles of Hi (top) mass and SFR (bottom) surface density, while the right-hand side displays the radial profiles of sSFR (top) and 12 + log(O/H) (bottom). … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SFH (left) and stellar mass growth history (right) of NGC 300 predicted by Model A (dashed line) and Model B (solid line). SFH is normalized to its maximum value, while stellar mass is normalized to its present-day value. The dotted line in the right panel denotes when the stellar mass achieves 50% of its final value. model B predicted present-day sSFR profile (i.e., at 13.5 Gyr, black solid line) agrees well with t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial distribution of the mean metallicity of the entire stel￾lar population. Observations obtained from the photometric analysis of color-maginitude diagrams (CMD, Gogarten et al. 2010) are shown as red circles and the Model B prediction is displayed as the black sol…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Specific SFR as a function of stellar mass, both for the Model B predicted sSFR for NGC 300 (red solid star) and the observed sSFR of xGASS and xCOLDGASS (Saintonge et al. 2017; Catinella et al. 2018). The solid line refers to star-forming galaxy main sequence, and the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cosmic time evolution of metallicity radial profiles. Solid line with different colours represent Model B at 1 Gyr (cyan), 3 Gyr (red), 8.5 Gyr (blue), and 13.5 Gyr (present-day, black). The corresponding results predicted by Model A are shown as gray dashed lines. Red…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Acharyya, A., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2024, arX iv:2404.06613. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.06613 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P . 2009, AR A&A, 47, 481 Belfiore, F., Vincenzo, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06613 2024

  2. [3]

    & Francois, P

    doi:10.100 7/s00159-018- 0112-2 Matteucci, F. & Francois, P . 1989, MNRAS, 239, 885 Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rev., 29,

    work page 1989

  3. [5]

    & Vigroux, L

    doi:10.1007 /s00159-021-00133-8 Mayor, M. & Vigroux, L. 1981, A&A, 98, 1 Minchev, I. & Famaey, B. 2010, ApJ, 722, 112 Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRA S, 481,

    work page 1981

  4. [15]

    A., Williams, R., Payne, J., et al

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/15 Binder, B. A., Williams, R., Payne, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/15 2024

  5. [17]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1175 Haywood, M., Snaith, O., Lehnert, M

    Haywood, M. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1175 Haywood, M., Snaith, O., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 625 , A105. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834155 Halle, A., Di Matteo, P ., Haywood, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834155 2008

  6. [20]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/264.1.201Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1647 Khoperskov, S., Di Matteo, P ., Haywood, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A144. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937188 Kroupa, P ., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545 Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Chevance, M., et al. 2019, N ature, 569,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/264.1.201robotham 2014

  7. [21]

    doi:10.1038 /236021a0 Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 169,

    work page 1974

  8. [22]

    G., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., et a l

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa97e0 Sánchez Almeida, J., Elmegreen, B. G., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., et a l. 2014, A&A Rev., 22, 71 Sánchez-Blázquez, P . 2020, IAU General Assembly,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa97e0 2014

Show all 51 references
  1. [34]

    C., & Huchra, J

    doi:10.3847 /1538-4357/acfa6b Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, R. C., & Huchra, J. P . 1994, ApJ, 420 , 87 Zinchenko, I. A., Just, A., Pilyugin, L. S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A7. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834364 Article number, page 9 of 9

    1994 doi

  2. [35]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 2918

    Mott, A., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2918 . doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1495 Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, R. C., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2010 , ApJS, 190, 233 Muñoz-Mateos, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Boissier, S., et al. 2007 , ApJ, 658, 1006 Nantais, J. B., Huchra, J. P...

    2013 doi

  3. [38]

    2019, A&A, 628 , A38 Spitoni, E., Calura, F., Mignoli, M., et al

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730545 Spitoni, E., Cescutti, G., Minchev, I., et al. 2019, A&A, 628 , A38 Spitoni, E., Calura, F., Mignoli, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A 113 Spitoni, E., V erma, K., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2021a, A&A,647, A73 Spitoni, E., Calura, F., Silva Aguirre...

    2019 doi

  4. [42]

    J., Y oachim, P ., & Bernstein, R

    Dalcanton, J. J., Y oachim, P ., & Bernstein, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 6 08,

    2004

  5. [44]

    K., Kacprzak, G

    Pointon, S. K., Kacprzak, G. G., Nielsen, N. M., et al. 2019, A pJ, Relationship between the Metallicity of the Circumgalactic Medium and Ga laxy Orienta- tion, 883, 1,

    2019

  6. [46]

    doi:10 .1088/0004- 6256/146/3/46 Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 2

    1993

  7. [49]

    2013, MNRAS, 43 6, 1479 Kubryk, M., Prantzos, N., & Athanassoula, E

    Kubryk, M., Prantzos, N., & Athanassoula, E. 2013, MNRAS, 43 6, 1479 Kubryk, M., Prantzos, N., & Athanassoula, E. 2015, A&A, 580, A126 Kudritzki, R.-P ., Urbaneja, M. A., Bresolin, F., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 269 Kudritzki, R.-P ., Ho, I.-T., Schruba, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 45...

    2013

  8. [50]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/361 Westmeier, T., Braun, R., & Koribalski, B. S. 2011, MNRAS, 41 0,

    2011 doi

  9. [58]

    2004, ApJS, 154,

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525612 Helou, G., Roussel, H., Appleton, P ., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154,

    2004 doi

  10. [78]

    & Chiosi, C

    doi:10.3847 /1538-4357/ab3b0e Portinari, L. & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&A, 355,

    2000

  11. [83]

    R., Wisnioski, E., et al

    Sharda, P ., Krumholz, M. R., Wisnioski, E., et al. 2021, MNRA S, 502, 5935 Spitoni, E. & Matteucci, F. 2011, A&A, 531, A72. doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361/201015749 Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., & Marcon-Uchida, M. M. 2013, A&A , 551, A123 Spitoni, E., Romano, D., Matteucci, F., et al...

    2021

  12. [93]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030170 Article number, page 8 of 9 Xiaoyu Kang et al.: Evolution and star formation history of N GC 300 from a chemical evolution model with radial gas inflows Karachentsev, I. D. & Kaisina, E. I. 2013, AJ, 146,

    2013 doi

  13. [97]

    C., Kazantzidis, S., & Weinberg, D

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad46d9 Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., & Weinberg, D. H. 2012, MNRAS, 4 20,

    2012 doi

  14. [154]

    Larson, R. B. 1972, Nature, 236,

    1972

  15. [155]

    & Kobayashi, C

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1047 Vincenzo, F. & Kobayashi, C. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 80 Vlaji´c, M., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Freeman, K. C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 36

    2020 doi

  16. [169]

    C., Minchev, I., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007 Quillen, A. C., Minchev, I., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397,

    2009 doi

  17. [189]

    J., Williams, B

    doi:10.1086/386358 Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, Ap JS, 183, 67 Daniel, K. J. & Wyse, R. F. G. 2015, MNRAS, 447,

    2009 doi

  18. [217]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9279 Lacey, C. G. & Fall, S. M. 1985, ApJ, 290,

    1985 doi

  19. [220]

    1993, A &A, 500, 391 Erb, D

    doi:10.3 847/1538- 4357/ac2cbd Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., et al. 1993, A &A, 500, 391 Erb, D. K. 2008, ApJ, 674, 151 Feuillet, D. K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 48 9, 1742 Finlator, K. & Davé, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2181 Frankel, N., Sanders, J...

    1993

  20. [229]

    doi:10.1093 /mnras/169.2.229 Larson, R. B. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 31 Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 278 2 Lian, J., Thomas, D., & Maraston, C. 2018a, MNRAS, 481, 4000 Lian, J., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 476, 3883 Lian, J., Zasowski,...

    1976

  21. [239]

    & Prantzos, N

    doi:10.1086/430512 Boissier, S. & Prantzos, N. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 398 Bresolin, F., Gieren, W., Kudritzki, R.-P ., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 309 Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P ., & Urbaneja, M. A. 2022, ApJ, 940, 32 Calura, F., Palla, M., Morselli, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523,

    2000 doi

  22. [253]

    2016, MNRAS, 461 , 1760 Ho, I.-T., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Kewley, L

    doi:10.1086/422640 Hirschmann, M., De Lucia, G., & Fontanot, F. 2016, MNRAS, 461 , 1760 Ho, I.-T., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2030 Izotov, Y . I., Stasi´nska, G., Meynet, G., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 955 Kang, X., Zhang, F., Chang, R., Wang, L., &...

    2016 doi

  23. [261]

    1963, ApJ, 137, 758 Schönrich, R

    doi:10.1017/S1743921319004277 Schmidt, M. 1963, ApJ, 137, 758 Schönrich, R. & Binney, J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 203 Schönrich, R. & McMillan, P . J. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1154 Sellwood, J. A. & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336,

    1963 doi

  24. [320]

    Z., Kudritzki, R., Evans, C., et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3430 Gazak, J. Z., Kudritzki, R., Evans, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 182 Gieren, W., Pietrzy´nski, G., Soszy ´nski, I., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 703 Graf, R. L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., et al. 2024, arXiv:2410. 21377. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.21377 Gogarten, ...

    2015 doi arXiv

  25. [392]

    Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, October 1997., 392 Peng, Y .-

    ISBN 0521550610. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, October 1997., 392 Peng, Y .-. jie . & Maiolino, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443,

    1997

  26. [456]

    F., Eracleous, M., et al

    Binder, B., Williams, B. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758,

    2012

  27. [519]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3 Krumholz, M. R. 2014, Phys. Rep., 539,

    2014 doi

  28. [554]

    2016, MNRAS, 458,

    Toribio San Cipriano, L., García-Rojas, J., Esteban, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458,

    2016

  29. [785]

    1046/j.1365- 8711.2002.05806.x Sextl, E., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Weller, J., et al

    doi:10. 1046/j.1365- 8711.2002.05806.x Sextl, E., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Weller, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 94 Sextl, E., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Zahid, H. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 9 49, 60 Sextl, E., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Burkert, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 9 60,

    2002

  30. [875]

    X., Hou, J

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty089 Chang, R. X., Hou, J. L., Shen, S. Y ., & Shu, C. G. 2010, ApJ, 722 , 380 Chen, Q.-H., Grasha, K., Battisti, A. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4801 Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2001, ApJ, 554, 10 44 Cohen, R. E., McQuinn, K. B. W., Murray, ...

    2010 doi

  31. [913]

    C., et al

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19728.x Bland-Hawthorn, J., Vlaji ´c, M., Freeman, K. C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629,

    2011

  32. [929]

    & Boissier, S

    doi:10.48550 /arXiv.astro- ph/0002145 Prantzos, N. & Boissier, S. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 338 Prochaska, J. X., Werk, J. K., Worseck, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, The COS-Halos Sur- vey: Metallicities in the Low-redshift Circumgalactic Med ium, 837, 2,

    2000

  33. [1178]

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/1178 Olsen, K. A. G., Miller, B. W., Suntze ff, N. B., et al. 2004, AJ, 127,

    2004 doi

  34. [1599]

    2008, A&A, 489 , 555 Rogers, N

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15054.x Recchi, S., Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 489 , 555 Rogers, N. S. J., Skillman, E. D., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2022, Ap J, 939, 44 Romano, D., Karakas, A. I., Tosi, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A3 2 Roškar, R., Debattista, V . P ...

    2009

  35. [1645]

    & Díaz, A

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2033 Mollá, M. & Díaz, A. I. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 521 Mondal, C., Subramaniam, A., & George, K. 2019, Journal of As trophysics and Astronomy, 40,

    2005 doi

  36. [1866]

    A., Heckman, T

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw397 Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kau ffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898 van den Bergh, S. 1962, AJ, 67, 486 Vincenzo, F., Matteucci, F., Belfiore, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS , 455, 4183 Vincenzo, F. & Kobayashi, C. 2018, MNRAS, 478,

    2004 doi

  37. [2217]

    F., Dalcanton, J

    Williams, B. F., Dalcanton, J. J., Stilp, A., et al. 2013, ApJ , 765, 120 Xiang, M. & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599 Yin, J., Hou, J. L., Prantzos, N., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 497 Yin, J., Shen, S., & Hao, L. 2023, ApJ, 958,

    2013

  38. [2351]

    V ., Laporte, C

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1316 Carr, C., Johnston, K. V ., Laporte, C. F. P ., et al. 2022, MNRA S, 516,

    2022 doi

  39. [2674]

    doi:10.1086/383297 Pagel, B. E. J. 1997, Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolutio n of Galaxies, by Bernard E. J. Pagel, pp

    1997 doi

  40. [3576]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2683 Davies, B., Kudritzki, R.P ., Lardo, C. et al. ApJ, 847, 112 Di Teodoro, E. M. & Peek, J. E. G. 2021, ApJ, 923,

    2021 doi

  41. [3643]

    G., Gibson, B

    Pilkington, K., Few, C. G., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2012, A&A, 54 0, A56. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117466 Pilyugin, L. S., Grebel, E. K., & Kniazev, A. Y . 2014, AJ, 147, 131 Pipino, A., Lilly, S. J., & Carollo, C. M. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 14

    2012 doi

  42. [5067]

    P ., Bianchi, S., et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2403 Casasola, V ., Cassarà, L. P ., Bianchi, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A18 Casasola, V ., Bianchi, S., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 668 , A130. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245043 Catinella, B., Saintonge, A., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2018, M NRAS, 476,

    2017 doi

  43. [5639]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 29 Loebman, S

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac479 Liu, C., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Zhao, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 29 Loebman, S. R., Debattista, V . P ., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2016 , ApJ, 818, L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L6 Maciel, W. J., Costa, R. D. D., & Uchida, M. M. M. 2003, A&A, 397 , 667 Mag...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.