Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 150 references

A MaNGA view of isolated galaxy mergers in the star-forming Main Sequence

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Isolated galaxy mergers trigger star formation, show no mass-matched AGN enhancement, and leave post-starburst remnants that quench from the outside in, according to spatially resolved spectra of 137 galaxies.

desk verdict The outside-in quenching claim is probably selection-driven, but the isolated merger sample is a useful contribution that deserves a careful revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10078 v1 pith:XQXYQ5MA submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.GA

P. Vásquez-Bustos , M. Argudo-Fernández , M. Boquien , N. Castillo-Baeza , A. Castillo-Rencoret , D. Ariza-Quintana This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymergersisolatedgalaxiesstarformationactivegalacticnucleipost-starburstintegralfieldspectroscopyMaNGAquenching
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 asks what a galaxy merger actually does to star formation and black-hole activity when the interacting galaxies sit in isolation, where no cluster environment can blur the signature. Using spatially resolved spectra of 137 galaxies divided into close pairs, pre-mergers, mergers, and post-mergers, it finds that the specific star-formation rate jumps at the merger and post-merger stages and that strong-AGN and star-forming regions occupy comparable fractions of the merger-stage spaxels. At fixed stellar mass, close pairs and strongly interacting galaxies show no difference in AGN fraction, which the authors read as evidence that AGN feedback is not the main thing that shuts off star formation after a merger. The paper's central spatial result is that the post-merger galaxies with post-starburst signatures are quenching outside-in, with young stars near the centre and older stars at the edge, a direction that points to the interaction itself rather than to secular aging. If this holds, mergers are not just starburst triggers; they also leave an observable trace in how, and where, galaxies stop forming stars.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a four-stage merger classification — close pairs, pre-mergers, mergers, and post-mergers — anchored by projected separation ($d \leq 100$ kpc) and a tidal-strength threshold, with post-mergers further split by post-starburst spectral features. The machinery that carries the quantitative claims is spaxel-by-spaxel spectro-photometric SED fitting of MaNGA cubes, which yields star-formation rate and stellar mass surface-density maps, together with spatially resolved WHAN diagrams (an emission-line classification using [N II]/Hα and Hα equivalent width that separates pure star-forming, strong-AGN, weak-AGN, retired, and passive spaxels). The outside-in quenching claim is carried specifically by radial profiles of the $D_n(4000)$ index (a 4000 Å break age indicator, with values below 1.67 marking younger populations): post-merger post-starburst galaxies have positive slopes, meaning younger cores and older outskirts.

What would settle it

Measure the radial $D_n(4000)$ gradient and the spatial extent of post-starburst emission in a larger, mass-matched sample of isolated post-merger galaxies with estimated burst ages; if the outside-in quenching claim is correct, younger cores and older outskirts should be present only in post-mergers with interaction signatures, and the gradient should steepen as the burst ages, whereas non-interacting post-starburst galaxies selected by the same emission-line criteria should not show the same signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that, for 137 galaxies in isolated systems classified into close pairs, pre-mergers, mergers, and post-mergers, integrated specific star formation rate is elevated in the merger and post-merger stages relative to close pairs and pre-mergers; that in the merger stage the fraction of strong-AGN spaxels is comparable to the fraction of pure star-forming spaxels, while close pairs and strongly interacting galaxies of the same stellar mass show no difference in AGN activity; and that the seven post-merger galaxies with post-starburst emission are quenching outside-in, with younger stellar populations in the inner regions and older populations in the outskirts, which the authors present as observational evidence that interactions can set the direction of quenching. The paper also argues that AGN feedback plays a minor role in quenching after a merger and that post-merger transformation proceeds slowly in isolated environments.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of galaxies into close pairs, pre-mergers, mergers, and post-mergers by visual inspection of images is assumed to be accurate and to represent one evolutionary timeline, so that differences between categories can be read as how an individual galaxy evolves through a merger.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the merger-stage ordering is a true timeline, the observed rise in integrated sSFR at the merger and post-merger stages means the interaction itself, not the pre-existing galaxy population, drives the star-formation enhancement.
  • The comparable strong-AGN and pure-star-forming fractions during the merger stage, together with the lack of a mass-matched AGN difference between close pairs and mergers, implies that nuclear activity and star formation are triggered together and that AGN feedback is not the dominant quenching channel after a merger.
  • Post-merger galaxies without post-starburst emission remain on the star-forming main sequence and appear to be minor-merger products, so only the major-merger branch of the sequence leads to rapid outside-in shutdown.
  • The positive $D_n(4000)$ radial slope in post-starburst post-mergers, opposite to the inside-out gradients of quenched close pairs, directly ties the direction of quenching to the interaction if the classification is correct.
  • The placement of post-starburst post-mergers between the main sequence and the quenched region, often with lenticular morphologies, implies that major mergers in isolation can build S0-like remnants and that the transformation takes hundreds of Myr to Gyr in low-density environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the outside-in quenching claim is that the radial extent of the post-starburst region should shrink with time since the burst; stacking MaNGA-like IFU data by estimated burst age would show the young-core/old-halo gradient steepening as quenching progresses.
  • Because the paper's AGN minority conclusion rests on WHAN classifications that can mislabel weak recent star formation as AGN, an independent check with [O III]/Hβ-based BPT or other emission-line ratio maps on the same spaxels would either confirm that the merger-stage AGN fraction is real or reduce it.
  • The same selection applied to post-starburst galaxies in clusters would isolate whether outside-in quenching is specific to isolated mergers or a general post-starburst phenomenon; cluster harassment might erase the signature.
  • If isolated post-mergers evolve slowly, then the scatter in quenching stage at fixed stellar mass should be larger in isolated systems than in denser environments, a prediction the current 137-galaxy sample is too small to test.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript classifies 137 galaxies from isolated systems (SIG/SIP/SIT/SIM catalogues) into merger stages: close pairs (CP, 40), pre-mergers (PrM, 21), mergers (M, 6), and post-mergers (PsM, 63), of which 7 are classified as post-starburst (PSB). Using MaNGA integral-field data, the authors perform spaxel-by-spaxel CIGALE spectrophotometric SED fitting, construct spatially resolved WHAN diagrams, and study integrated sSFR, AGN fractions, and radial Dn4000 profiles as functions of merger stage. The main claims are that mergers enhance star formation, that AGN plays only a minor role in post-merger quenching, and that the quenching in post-merger PSB galaxies proceeds outside-in, as inferred from a positive mean radial Dn4000 gradient (m = 0.12 ± 0.03) for the seven PSB galaxies. The paper includes a public visualization tool, detailed CIGALE parameter tables, and a data catalogue, and it compares its visual classification with independent merger indicators (DS18 p_merger and CAS parameters).

Significance. If the outside-in quenching result were robust, it would provide spatially resolved evidence connecting mergers to rapid quenching in low-density environments, a scenario that is plausible and of broad interest. The study uses standard public data, documents the SED-fitting setup, and makes a visualization tool available, which are useful for reproducibility. However, the central gradient result rests on only seven PSB galaxies selected via central-spaxel spectral criteria, and the analysis does not account for the resulting selection bias on Dn4000 or for galaxy-to-galaxy variance. The phrase 'observational proof' in the abstract and conclusions substantially overstates the evidentiary weight of a small, visually classified, descriptive study. The paper's other findings (e.g., enhanced sSFR in the merger/post-merger stages) are consistent with existing literature but would benefit from formal significance testing on galaxy-level samples.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 3.1.1 and Sect. 5.2 (Fig. 10)] The outside-in quenching claim rests on the positive mean Dn4000 gradient (m = 0.12 ± 0.03) for the seven PSB galaxies. Because PSB selection is made using the central spaxel only (candidates must fall in the PSB region of the WHα vs. (HδA+HγA)/2 diagram at the nucleus), the central Dn4000 is biased low by construction: a post-starburst population has low Dn4000, while older outer regions have high Dn4000. The observed gradient may therefore reflect selection conditioning rather than a quenching front propagating outside-in. In addition, the quoted slope uncertainty comes from the scatter in the mean radial profile, not from galaxy-to-galaxy variance, and the seven PSB galaxies span log M* from 8.7 to 11.1 with both early- and late-type morphologies. I recommend: (1) plotting individual Dn4000 profiles for the seven PSB galaxies; (2) reporting a galaxy-level bootstrap or mixed-effects test of the gradient against zero; (3) constructing a control sample matched in central Dn4000 or PSB strength from non-interacting MaNGA galaxies to demonstrate that the gradient is not a selection artifact; and (4) removing or substantially qualifying the phrase 'observational proof'.
  2. [Sect. 5.1] The manuscript states that 'some galaxies were re-classified or removed' after quality control, with removal when the MaNGA FoV was too small, centered only on the bulge, or lacking good coverage, but it does not report how many galaxies were affected or the exact criteria. Since Table 1 presents only the final counts (CP=40, PrM=21, M=6, PsM=63, PSB=7), the reader cannot assess whether the removals introduce selection bias correlated with the very properties under study. Please provide a full exclusion/reclassification log (galaxy IDs, original and final classifications, reason), and show that the main conclusions are stable under reasonable alternative treatments of the excluded galaxies.
  3. [Sect. 5.3, Figs. 13–15, Table 5] The claim that 'merger and post-merger stages present higher star formation activity (measured by their integrated sSFR)' is based on descriptive medians for six M and seven PSB galaxies. The interquartile ranges in Table 5 overlap substantially (e.g., CP: −10.85 ± 1.42; M: −9.87 ± 0.53; PsM: −10.09 ± 0.46), and no formal significance test is reported for the galaxy-level distributions. Please add significance tests that treat galaxies (not spaxels) as independent units, state the effective sample sizes, and clarify whether the enhancement survives mass matching or a control-sample comparison. The same applies to the AGN-fraction comparison in Fig. 11, where the M-category percentages are computed from six galaxies.
  4. [Abstract and Sect. 6] The phrase 'observational proof of the effect of interactions on the quenching process' overstates what a small, visually classified, single-survey sample can establish. Even if the Dn4000 gradient is robust to the selection effect described above, it is one observable consistent with outside-in quenching, not a proof. Please rephrase to 'consistent with' or 'provides evidence for', and explicitly mention the central-spaxel selection and the small sample sizes as caveats in the conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 5.2] Typographical and grammatical errors should be corrected, including 'shon' -> 'shown', 'di fferent' -> 'different' (appears throughout), and 'W AHN' -> 'WHAN' in Sect. 3.4.
  2. [Sect. 2.2 / Fig. 1] The text introduces the QA parameter but does not define it explicitly for the SIP case; please provide the definition or a precise reference to Argudo-Fernández et al. (2015) so that the threshold QA < −2 is self-contained.
  3. [Sect. 5.3] The main-sequence reference 'Argudo-Fernández et al. 2025, submitted' is used as the grey dashed line in Figs. 13 and 14; since it is not yet public, please add a footnote with the functional form or make the calibration publicly available so that the offset of the sample from the main sequence can be evaluated.
  4. [Fig. 10] The linear-fit slopes in the legend are quoted with uncertainties but without significance levels or goodness-of-fit values; please report p-values or confidence intervals for each slope, or state explicitly that the fits are purely descriptive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantial circularity: merger-stage classes, SFRs, and WHAN classifications are independently measured, and the only self-citations are non-load-bearing thresholds and reference lines.

full rationale

The paper's central inferences—enhanced integrated sSFR in merger/post-merger galaxies, similar AGN fractions at fixed stellar mass, and outside-in quenching in post-merger post-starburst galaxies—are derived from MaNGA DAP measurements and CIGALE spectro-photometric SED fitting, not from the same quantities used to define the merger-stage categories. The merger-stage classification is visual and tidal (Sect. 3.1), using the QA threshold from Vásquez-Bustos et al. (2023) and Argudo-Fernández et al. (2015); this prior work supplies a selection criterion, not the measured outcome, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The submitted Argudo-Fernández et al. (2025) main sequence is used only as a reference line in Figs. 13–14 and does not enter the statistical comparisons. The most arguable self-referential element is the PSB identification (Sect. 3.1.1), which uses the central-spaxel WHα versus (HδA+HγA)/2 diagram, while the outside-in claim (Sect. 5.2, Fig. 10) uses the Dn4000 radial gradient of the same seven galaxies. Because PSB selection and Dn4000 are different spectral indices, the positive gradient is not equal to the selection criterion by construction; however, central-spaxel selection could bias the central Dn4000 downward, making the outside-in interpretation partly selection-dependent. That is a statistical/selection-bias concern, not a derivation-equivalence circularity, and the paper does not claim to predict a quantity that was fitted. The paper also acknowledges WHAN limitations (Sect. 6) and reports quality-control removals in Sect. 5.1 without exact counts, but these omissions affect robustness rather than circularity. Overall, no load-bearing argument reduces to its own input; the minor self-citations merely point to the source of the isolated-system catalogues and thresholds.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative results are conditional on a modest set of model choices and thresholds from the literature; the central evolutionary interpretation is not a derivation and does not introduce new particles, forces, or physical constants.

free parameters (4)
  • SFH grid: Age, tau_main, Age_bq, rSFR = Grid in Table 4: Age 11-13 Gyr, tau 1-9 Gyr, Age_bq 20-300 Myr, rSFR 0-10
    Central sSFR values come from CIGALE Bayesian fitting over this hand-chosen grid; the merger enhancement claims depend on it.
  • Dust attenuation grid: E(B-V)_lines, E(B-V)_factor, UV bump amplitude, delta = Grid in Table 4
    Choices of attenuation parameters affect recovered SFR and stellar mass.
  • Dn4000 young/old threshold = 1.67
    Adopted from Mateus et al. (2006); the outside-in quenching result is defined relative to this split.
  • Main sequence/quenched separation from two-Gaussian fit = Not reported explicitly
    Footnote 6: two Gaussians fitted to Pipe3D sSFR distributions per mass bin; used to define the quenched area and green valley in Figs. 14 and 15.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isolation criterion from Argudo-Fernandez et al. (2015) ensures that no external perturber drives the observed evolution.
    Invoked throughout to attribute sSFR and AGN changes to the in-situ interaction; if isolation is imperfect, environmental quenching could mimic outside-in patterns.
  • domain assumption Visual classification of galaxies into CP, PrM, M, and PsM is accurate and complete.
    Section 3.1 defines stages by visual inspection of SDSS and Pan-STARRS images; any misclassification propagates into all stage comparisons.
  • domain assumption The CIGALE delayed plus burst/quench SFH and modified Calzetti attenuation model adequately represent the observed galaxies.
    Section 3.3 and Table 4; if the SFH model is too restrictive, derived SFR and Mstar (and hence sSFR) are biased.
  • domain assumption WHAN diagram classes trace the dominant ionizing mechanism in each spaxel.
    Section 3.4; the paper itself notes weak or recent star formation can be misclassified as AGN in Sect. 5.2.
  • domain assumption Dn4000 with a threshold of 1.67 separates young from old stellar populations.
    Section 4.1; the outside-in quenching claim is built on this split.
  • domain assumption MaNGA's 1.5-2.5 effective radius coverage is sufficient to measure the radial gradients and integrated properties used.
    Section 5.1 notes CAS/M20 trends are weak because features lie outside the FoV, so the same concern applies to Dn4000 gradients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A MaNGA view of isolated galaxy mergers in the star-forming Main Sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQXYQ5MA

@misc{pith2026250210078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A MaNGA view of isolated galaxy mergers in the star-forming Main Sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQXYQ5MA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10078}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we carry out an analysis of star-formation and nuclear activity in the different stages during a galaxy merger identified in isolated systems (isolated galaxies, isolated pairs, and isolated triplets) using integral field spectroscopy from the SDSS-IV/MaNGA project. We classify galaxies into close pairs, pre-mergers, mergers, and post-mergers (including galaxies with post-starburst spectroscopic features), for a total sample of 137 galaxies. We constrained their star formation history from spectrophotometric SED fitting with CIGALE, and used spatially resolved WHAN diagrams, with other MaNGA data products to explore if there is any connection of their physical properties with their merging stage. In general, galaxies show characteristic properties intrinsically related to each stage of the merger process. Galaxies in the merger and post-merger stages present higher star formation activity (measured by their integrated sSFR). In the merger stage, the fraction of strong AGN spaxels is comparable to the fraction of spaxels with pure star-formation emission, with no difference between AGN activity in close pairs and strongly interacting galaxies with the same stellar mass. Our results support the scenario where galaxy interactions trigger star-formation and nuclear activity on galaxies. Nonetheless, AGN has a minor role in quenching galaxies following a merger, as AGN feedback might not have had sufficient time to inhibit star formation. In addition, we found that the quenching process in post-mergers galaxies with post-starburst emission is happening outside-in, being an observational proof of the effect of interactions on the quenching process. The transforming processes after a recent major galaxy interaction may happen slowly on isolated environments, where the system evolves in a common dark matter halo without any perturbation of external galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected distance to the nearest companion dnc, in Mpc, with respect to the tidal strength of the central galaxy on the system QA. Contour lines correspond to all the galaxies in the SIP and SIT, of them, green triangles and orange hexagons indicate galaxies in the SIT and SIP, respectively, with MaNGA data. The horizontal black solid line delimit the gray shaded area with dnc ≤ 100 kpc that we use to delimit close… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PSB diagnostic diagram (spectral index distributions Hα equiv￾alent width vs. HδA +HγA 2 ) for SIG, SIP, SIT, and SIM galaxies with MaNGA data considering the spectra associated to the central spaxel, and their associated error bars. The values for galaxies in each sample are presented with symbols and colours according to the legend. The red solid line and area indicate the PSB region. tion from the Galaxy Zoo proj… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatially resolved PSB diagram (Hα equivalent width vs. HδA +HγA 2 indices) for the seven PSB candidate galaxies in our samples, colour coded by the distance to the central spaxel as indicated in the colour bar. The red solid line and shaded gray area demarcate the PSB region. Article number, page 6 of 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MaNGA DAP products used as spectroscopic inputs in CIGALE to estimate physical properties from SED fitting for the galaxy 8241-12705 as example. From left to right: Hα emission line map, Hβ emission line map, and Dn4000 spectral index map. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Flu x [ 1 0 1 7 s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Custom filters over a high and low SNR MaNGA spectra. We show the spectra in two different spaxels for the MaNGA galaxy 12483- 12704, one with high SNR (upper panel) and another with low SNR (lower panel) selected from the MaNGA DAP datacube, for compari￾son. In both p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Signal-to-noise ratio maps for each custom filter for the merger galaxy 8241-12705. From upper left to lower right, SNR maps for filters M3992, M4542, M5446, N6097, N6908, O7473, O8281, and O9265, respectively. Model Parameter value SFH Age (Myr) 11000, 12000, 13000 τm…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatially resolved WHAN diagnostic diagram (upper panel) and map (lower panel) for the merger galaxy 8241-12705. Each colour, and color gradient, correspond to a WHAN category according to the legend and colorbar, respectively. The WHAN diagram and map has been cre￾ate…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatially resolved Σ SFR (left panel), Σ M⋆ (middle panel), and χ 2 (right panel) maps from the results of the spectro-photometric SED fitting with CIGALE for the galaxy 8241-12705. The scale of the χ 2 map is normalised to the maximum value. CP 66.10% 71.36% 89.52% 90…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of young and old spaxels for galaxies in each merger stage. We use the Dn(4000) parameter and the divisory value at Dn(4000) = 1.67 (as in Mateus et al. 2006) to separate between young (Dn(4000) ≤ 1.67, in blue) and old (Dn(4000) > 1.67, in orange) spaxels. Th…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Percentage of spaxels for each WHAN category for each merger stage. Blue colour bars represent the fractions of pure star￾forming (PSF) spaxels, purple colour bars represent the fractions of strong AGN (sAGN) spaxels, green colour bars represent the mean frac￾tions of…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Integrated S FR−M⋆ diagram for the 137 interacting galaxies in our sample. Galaxies classified as close pairs (CP) are represented by or￾ange triangle, galaxies classified as pre-mergers (PrM) are represented by green hexagonal marks, merger (M) galaxies are represent…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distribution of the integrated sSFR in the form of violin plots, for each merger stage. The colored area determines the density dis￾tribution for close pairs (CP, in orange), pre-mergers (PrM, in green), mergers (M, in red), non-PSB post-mergers (PsM, in blue), PSB po…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Integrated S FR− M⋆ diagram for the 137 galaxies in the sample as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Integrated S FR − M⋆ diagram for the 137 galaxies in the sample as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    S., Lambas, D

    Alonso, M. S., Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P., & Coldwell, G. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1017 Argudo-Fernández, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A110 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2007

  3. [3]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Athanassoula, E. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 160, Astrophysical Discs - an EC Summer School, ed. J. A. Sellwood & J. Goodman, 351

    1999

  4. [4]

    H., Sancisi, R., & del Burgo, C

    Balcells, M., van Gorkom, J. H., Sancisi, R., & del Burgo, C. 2001, AJ, 122, 1758

    2001

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips, M

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

    1981

  6. [6]

    L., Miller, C., Nichol, R., Zabludoff, A., & Goto, T

    Balogh, M. L., Miller, C., Nichol, R., Zabludoff, A., & Goto, T. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 587

    2005

  7. [7]

    L., Morris, S

    Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 54

    1999

  8. [8]

    K., Heckman, T

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Heckman, T. M., Zhu, G. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2513

    2016

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    J., Arnold, J

    Barton, E. J., Arnold, J. A., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., & Wechsler, R. H. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1538

    2007

  2. [10]

    J., Geller, M

    Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 660 Barton Gillespie, E., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2003, ApJ, 582, 668

    2000

  3. [11]

    2001, Ap&SS, 276, 847

    Bekki, K. 2001, Ap&SS, 276, 847

    2001

  4. [12]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 3111

    Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3111

    2016

  5. [13]

    B., Schaefer, A., et al

    Belfiore, F., Westfall, K. B., Schaefer, A., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 160

    2019

  6. [14]

    F., Phleps, S., Somerville, R

    Bell, E. F., Phleps, S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 270

    2006

  7. [15]

    F., van der Wel, A., Papovich, C., et al

    Bell, E. F., van der Wel, A., Papovich, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 167

    2012

  8. [16]

    2003, A&A, 405, 31

    Bergvall, N., Laurikainen, E., & Aalto, S. 2003, A&A, 405, 31

    2003

  9. [17]

    J., et al

    Bergvall, N., Marquart, T., Way, M. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A72

    2016

  10. [18]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 663, A50

    Boquien, M., Buat, V ., Burgarella, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A50

    2022

  12. [20]

    2014, A&A, 571, A72

    Boquien, M., Buat, V ., & Perret, V . 2014, A&A, 571, A72

    2014

  13. [21]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

  14. [22]

    A., Galliano, F., et al

    Boquien, M., Duc, P. A., Galliano, F., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 2124

    2010

  15. [23]

    A., Wu, Y ., et al

    Boquien, M., Duc, P. A., Wu, Y ., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4561

    2009

  16. [24]

    A., et al

    Boquien, M., Lisenfeld, U., Duc, P. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A19

    2011

  17. [25]

    J., & Combes, F

    Bournaud, F., Jog, C. J., & Combes, F. 2005, A&A, 437, 69

    2005

  18. [26]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 93

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C.-P., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 93

    2008

  19. [27]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 Bruzual A., G. 1983, ApJ, 273, 105

    2003

  20. [28]

    2011, A&A, 533, A93

    Buat, V ., Giovannoli, E., Heinis, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A93

    2011

  21. [29]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    2015

  22. [30]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V ., & Iglesias-Páramo, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413

    2005

  23. [31]

    M., Gaskell, C

    Burstein, D., Faber, S. M., Gaskell, C. M., & Krumm, N. 1984, ApJ, 287, 586 Calderón-Castillo, P. & Smith, R. 2024, A&A, 691, A82

    1984

  24. [32]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  25. [33]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 97

    Chang, Y .-Y ., Lin, L., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 97

    2022

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05064

    Chen, P.-B., Wang, J., Chen, Y .-M., Xu, X.-Y ., & Cao, T.-W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05064

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5709

    Chen, Y .-M., Shi, Y ., Wild, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5709

    2019

  29. [37]

    H., Sánchez-Gallego, J., et al

    Cherinka, B., Andrews, B. H., Sánchez-Gallego, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 74 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi ´nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687

    2019

  30. [38]

    2016, A&A, 585, A43

    Ciesla, L., Boselli, A., Elbaz, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A43

    2016

  31. [39]

    2017, A&A, 608, A41

    Ciesla, L., Elbaz, D., & Fensch, J. 2017, A&A, 608, A41

    2017

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Inskip, K. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 57

    2011

  33. [41]

    L., et al

    Coccato, L., Fraser-McKelvie, A., Jaffé, Y . L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 201

    2022

  34. [42]

    L., Cortesi, A., et al

    Coccato, L., Jaffé, Y . L., Cortesi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2955

    2020

  35. [43]

    M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al

    Comerford, J. M., Nevin, R., Negus, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 53

    2024

  36. [44]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1

    2003

  37. [45]

    W., Kaviraj, S., Lintott, C

    Darg, D. W., Kaviraj, S., Lintott, C. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1043 de Mello, D. F., Smith, L. J., Sabbi, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 548 Di Matteo, P., Combes, F., Melchior, A. L., & Semelin, B. 2007, A&A, 468, 61 Di Teodoro, E. M. & Fraternali, F. 2014, A&A, 567, A68 Domín...

    2010

  38. [46]

    Fischer, J. L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3661

    2018

  39. [47]

    A., et al

    Drory, N., MacDonald, N., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 77 Duarte Puertas, S., Vilchez, J. M., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A71

    2015

  40. [48]

    & Renaud, F

    Duc, P.-A. & Renaud, F. 2013, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Ver- lag, ed. J. Souchay, S. Mathis, & T. Tokieda, V ol. 861, 327

    2013

  41. [49]

    & Martel, H

    Dumont, A. & Martel, H. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2866

    2021

  42. [50]

    C., González-García, A

    Eliche-Moral, M. C., González-García, A. C., Aguerri, J. A. L., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A48

    2012

  43. [51]

    C., Prieto, M., Gallego, J., & Zamorano, J

    Eliche-Moral, M. C., Prieto, M., Gallego, J., & Zamorano, J. 2011, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI, ed. M. R. Zapatero Osorio, J. Gorgas, J. Maíz Apellániz, J. R. Pardo, & A. Gil de Paz, 173–179

    2011

  44. [52]

    C., Rodríguez-Pérez, C., Borla ff, A., Querejeta, M., & Tapia, T

    Eliche-Moral, M. C., Rodríguez-Pérez, C., Borla ff, A., Querejeta, M., & Tapia, T. 2018, A&A, 617, A113

    2018

  45. [53]

    L., Mendel, J

    Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Scudder, J. M., Patton, D. R., & Palmer, M. J. D. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3128

    2013

  46. [54]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2043

    2011

  47. [55]

    L., Teimoorinia, H., Rosario, D

    Ellison, S. L., Teimoorinia, H., Rosario, D. J., & Mendel, J. T. 2016, MNRAS, 458, L34

    2016

  48. [56]

    L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2491

    2019

  49. [57]

    L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L92

    2022

  50. [58]

    M., Friel, E

    Faber, S. M., Friel, E. D., Burstein, D., & Gaskell, C. M. 1985, ApJS, 57, 711

    1985

  51. [59]

    M., Willmer, C

    Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265

    2007

  52. [60]

    & Merritt, D

    Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

    2000

  53. [61]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41

    2005

  54. [62]

    2011, A&A, 525, A150

    Giovannoli, E., Buat, V ., Noll, S., Burgarella, D., & Magnelli, B. 2011, A&A, 525, A150

    2011

  55. [63]

    2005, MNRAS, 357, 937

    Goto, T. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 937

    2005

  56. [64]

    C., Okamura, S., et al

    Goto, T., Nichol, R. C., Okamura, S., et al. 2003, PASJ, 55, 771 Article number, page 17 of 30 A&A proofs: manuscript no. SFHmerger

    2003

  57. [65]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S37

    2018

  58. [66]

    2023, A&A, 669, A23

    Grajales-Medina, D., Argudo-Fernández, M., Vásquez-Bustos, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A23

    2023

  59. [67]

    & Bekki, K

    Henderson, B. & Bekki, K. 2016, ApJ, 822, L33 Hernández-Toledo, H. M., Cortes-Suárez, E., Vázquez-Mata, J. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4164

    2016

  60. [68]

    F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 202

    2010

  61. [69]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  62. [70]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  63. [71]

    Ji, I., Peirani, S., & Yi, S. K. 2014, A&A, 566, A97

    2014

  64. [72]

    S., Pan, H.-A., et al

    Jin, G., Dai, Y . S., Pan, H.-A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 6

    2021

  65. [73]

    H., Penner, K., et al

    Jogee, S., Miller, S. H., Penner, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1971

    2009

  66. [74]

    2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, [Online; accessed 2016-01-15]

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, [Online; accessed 2016-01-15]

    2001

  67. [75]

    Joseph, R. D. & Wright, G. S. 1985, MNRAS, 214, 87

    1985

  68. [76]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

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

    2003

  69. [77]

    S., Deller, A

    Kaviraj, S., Shabala, S. S., Deller, A. T., & Middelberg, E. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 774

    2015

  70. [78]

    C., van der Hulst, J

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J., Keel, W. C., van der Hulst, J. M., Hummel, E., & Roet- tiger, K. A. 1987, AJ, 93, 1011

    1987

  71. [79]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

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

    2006

  72. [80]

    Knapen, J. H. & Cisternas, M. 2015, ApJ, 807, L16

    2015

  73. [81]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  74. [82]

    2011, ApJ, 739, 57

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 57

    2011

  75. [83]

    Lacerda, E. A. D., Sánchez, S. F., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3073

    2020

  76. [84]

    Lacerna, I., Rodríguez-Puebla, A., Avila-Reese, V ., & Hernández-Toledo, H. M. 2014, ApJ, 788, 29

    2014

  77. [85]

    N., Silverman, J

    Lackner, C. N., Silverman, J. D., Salvato, M., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 137

    2014

  78. [86]

    G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & O’Mill, A

    Lambas, D. G., Alonso, S., Mesa, V ., & O’Mill, A. L. 2012, A&A, 539, A45

    2012

  79. [87]

    G., Tissera, P

    Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Alonso, M. S., & Coldwell, G. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1189

    2003

  80. [88]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 31

    Laufman, L., Scarlata, C., Hayes, M., & Skillman, E. 2022, ApJ, 940, 31

    2022

  81. [89]

    R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

    Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83

    2016

  82. [90]

    R., Westfall, K

    Law, D. R., Westfall, K. B., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 52

    2021

  83. [91]

    H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C., Li, I. H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T. M. 2002, ApJS, 140, 303

    2002

  84. [92]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 720

    Li, W., Nair, P., Rowlands, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 720

    2023

  85. [93]

    C., Jian, H.-Y ., et al

    Lin, L., Cooper, M. C., Jian, H.-Y ., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1158

    2010

  86. [94]

    C., Weiner, B

    Lin, L., Koo, D. C., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L51

    2007

  87. [95]

    R., Koo, D

    Lin, L., Patton, D. R., Koo, D. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 232

    2008

  88. [96]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1137

    2008

  89. [97]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 590

    2010

  90. [98]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163

    2004

  91. [99]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

    1998

  92. [100]

    Mancillas, B., Combes, F., & Duc, P. A. 2019, A&A, 630, A112

    2019

  93. [101]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

    2004

  94. [102]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 141

    Marian, V ., Jahnke, K., Mechtley, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 141

    2019

  95. [103]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 721 Méndez-Abreu, J., Debattista, V

    Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 721 Méndez-Abreu, J., Debattista, V . P., Corsini, E. M., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2014, A&A, 572, A25

    2006

  96. [104]

    G., & Nilo Castellon, J

    Mesa, V ., Alonso, S., Coldwell, G., Lambas, D. G., & Nilo Castellon, J. L. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1046

    2021

  97. [105]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 96

    Michiyama, T., Iono, D., Nakanishi, K., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 96

    2016

  98. [106]

    Mihos, J. C. & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641

    1996

  99. [107]

    P., Macciò, A

    Moster, B. P., Macciò, A. V ., Somerville, R. S., Naab, T., & Cox, T. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3750

    2011

  100. [108]

    R., Alexander, D

    Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., Aird, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L83

    2015

  101. [109]

    1999, ApJ, 523, L133

    Naab, T., Burkert, A., & Hernquist, L. 1999, ApJ, 523, L133

    1999

  102. [110]

    Nair, P. B. & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJS, 186, 427

    2010

  103. [111]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 76

    Nevin, R., Blecha, L., Comerford, J., & Greene, J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 76

    2019

  104. [112]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1

    Nevin, R., Blecha, L., Comerford, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1

    2023

  105. [113]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1793

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793

    2009

  106. [114]

    G., et al

    Pasha, I., Lokhorst, D., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, L21

    2021

  107. [115]

    M., Wild, V ., Walcher, C

    Pawlik, M. M., Wild, V ., Walcher, C. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3032

    2016

  108. [116]

    J., Wang, L., Alpaslan, M., et al

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Alpaslan, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A51

    2019

  109. [117]

    J., Kovaˇc, K., et al

    Peng, Y .-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇc, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193 Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21

    2010

  110. [118]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3261

    Petersson, J., Renaud, F., Agertz, O., Dekel, A., & Duc, P.-A. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3261

    2023

  111. [119]

    Poggianti, B. M. & Barbaro, G. 1997, A&A, 325, 1025

    1997

  112. [120]

    D., Hogg, D

    Quintero, A. D., Hogg, D. W., Blanton, M. R., et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 190 Ramos Almeida, C., Bessiere, P. S., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 687

    2004

  113. [121]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4922

    Renaud, F., Segovia Otero, Á., & Agertz, O. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4922

    2022

  114. [122]

    R., Bell, E

    Robaina, A. R., Bell, E. F., Skelton, R. E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 324

    2009

  115. [123]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

    2015

  116. [124]

    F., Quinn, P

    Roukema, B. F., Quinn, P. J., Peterson, B. A., & Rocca-V olmerange, B. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 835

    1997

  117. [125]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Sánchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V ., Hernandez-Toledo, H., et al. 2018, Rev. Mexi- cana Astron. Astrofis., 54, 217 Sánchez, S. F., Pérez, E., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., et al. 2016a, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 52, 171 Sánchez, S. F., Pérez, E....

    1955

  118. [126]

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

    1996

  119. [127]

    J., Shao, L., et al

    Santini, P., Rosario, D. J., Shao, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A109

    2012

  120. [128]

    L., McAlpine, W., et al

    Satyapal, S., Ellison, S. L., McAlpine, W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1297

    2014

  121. [129]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 134

    Sazonova, E., Alatalo, K., Rowlands, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 134

    2021

  122. [130]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

    Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Sarzi, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

    2007

  123. [131]

    D., et al

    Silva, A., Marchesini, D., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 124

    2021

  124. [132]

    D., Mainieri, V ., Lehmer, B

    Silverman, J. D., Mainieri, V ., Lehmer, B. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1025

    2008

  125. [133]

    F., Cox, T

    Snyder, G. F., Cox, T. J., Hayward, C. C., Hernquist, L., & Jonsson, P. 2011, ApJ, 741, 77

    2011

  126. [134]

    M., Perea, J

    Solanes, J. M., Perea, J. D., & Valentí-Rojas, G. 2018, A&A, 614, A66

    2018

  127. [135]

    L., Fu, H., Brownstein, J

    Steffen, J. L., Fu, H., Brownstein, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 107

    2023

  128. [136]

    C., Aceves, H., et al

    Tapia, T., Eliche-Moral, M. C., Aceves, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A105

    2017

  129. [137]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  130. [138]

    & Toomre, J

    Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

    1972

  131. [139]

    A., Thuan, T

    Trevisan, M., Mamon, G. A., Thuan, T. X., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4815 Vásquez-Bustos, P., Argudo-Fernandez, M., Grajales-Medina, D., Duarte Puer- tas, S., & Verley, S. 2023, A&A, 670, A63

    2021

  132. [140]

    2007, A&A, 472, 121

    Verley, S., Leon, S., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 121

    2007

  133. [141]

    M., et al

    Villforth, C., Hamilton, T., Pawlik, M. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 812

    2017

  134. [142]

    Walt, S. v. d., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  135. [143]

    K., Schawinski, K., Treister, E., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Sanders, D

    Weigel, A. K., Schawinski, K., Treister, E., Trakhtenbrot, B., & Sanders, D. B. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2308

    2018

  136. [144]

    B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M

    Westfall, K. B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 231

    2019

  137. [145]

    E., McIntosh, D

    Weston, M. E., McIntosh, D. H., Brodwin, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3882

    2017

  138. [146]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4354

    2022

  139. [147]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2835

    2013

  140. [148]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 66

    Woo, J.-H., Son, D., & Rakshit, S. 2020, ApJ, 901, 66

    2020

  141. [149]

    2018, A&A, 613, A13

    Yuan, F.-T., Argudo-Fernández, M., Shen, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A13

    2018

  142. [150]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1259 Article number, page 18 of 30 P

    Zheng, Y ., Wild, V ., Lahén, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1259 Article number, page 18 of 30 P. Vásquez-Bustos et al.: A MaNGA view of isolated galaxy mergers in the star-forming Main Sequence Appendix A: Spatially resolved maps For this study, we selected a total of 12 produ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.