Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 86 references

A Comprehensive Multiwavelength Study of the OH Megamaser galaxy IRAS 09320+6134

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The ionized gas in IRAS 09320+6134 is a rotating disk plus an AGN-driven outflow whose kinetic efficiency is far below the level needed to quench star formation.

desk verdict Qualitative case for an AGN-driven outflow in IRAS09320 is solid; the energetic numbers need a robustness check before being used. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21838 v1 pith:YGSQMXY3 submitted 2025-06-27 astro-ph.GA

Claudia M. Cassanta , Rogemar A. Riffel , Andrew Robinson , Preeti Kharb , Thaisa Storchi-Bergmann , Jack Gallimore , Dinalva A. Sales , C. Hekatelyne
show 2 more authors
Stefi Baum Christopher O'Dea
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords OHmegamasergalaxyIRAS09320+6134AGN-drivenoutflowintegralfieldspectroscopymergerBPTandWHANdiagnosticsradiocontinuumkineticfeedback
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 maps the gas distribution, kinematics, and ionization of the central ~2 kpc of IRAS 09320+6134, a merging infrared-luminous galaxy known as an OH megamaser because it hosts an extremely luminous hydroxyl maser. It argues that the emission-line profiles require two kinematic components: a narrow component tracing a rotating disk and a broad, blueshifted component attributed to an AGN-driven outflow. The outflow carries a mass outflow rate of $\dot{M}_o = 0.122 \pm 0.026\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and its kinetic power is only about $2.8 \times 10^{-4}$ of the AGN bolometric luminosity. Because that efficiency sits far below the ~0.5% level that simulations associate with efficient star-formation suppression, the paper concludes that this outflow cannot quench the host galaxy on kinetic grounds alone, although it may redistribute gas within the central few kiloparsecs. The multiwavelength picture places the galaxy as a late-stage merger whose gas is photoionized predominantly by the AGN.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the two-Gaussian decomposition of every emission-line profile: a narrow component assigned to the disk and a broad component assigned to a single AGN-driven outflow. On top of that decomposition, the paper calculates the outflow energetics with the recombination recipe $M_o = m_p L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/(N_e j_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}(T))$, the mass outflow rate $\dot{M}_o = M_o V_{\mathrm{out}} / r$, and the kinetic power $\dot{E}_{\mathrm{out}} = \frac{1}{2}\dot{M}_o (V_{\mathrm{out}}^2 + 3\sigma_{\mathrm{out}}^2)$, together with the kinemetry method used to fit circular rotation to the narrow-component velocity field. The quantity that carries the argument is the kinetic efficiency $\epsilon = \dot{E}_{\mathrm{out}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}$, which is compared with the ~0.5% coupling threshold drawn from simulations.

What would settle it

A higher-spectral-resolution or higher-signal-to-noise map that resolves the broad component into two or more distinct velocity peaks, or that detects a redshifted far-side outflow lobe, would directly contradict the single-outflow hypothesis; alternatively, an independent measurement of the outflow electron density that departs from the adopted 2160 cm$^{-3}$ would rescale the mass outflow rate and the kinetic efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

IRAS 09320+6134 is a late-stage merger whose ionized gas within the central ~2 kpc is described by two Gaussian components in every bright emission line. The narrow component, with velocity dispersions below 200 km s$^{-1}$, follows a rotation model whose kinematic position angle agrees with the large-scale disk orientation, and the ratio of non-circular to circular motion stays near 0.04. The broad component, with dispersions between 500 and 650 km s$^{-1}$, is entirely blueshifted with bulk velocities up to about 500 km s$^{-1}$, which the paper interprets as the near side of an AGN-driven outflow. From the extinction-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity and a median electron density of 2160 cm$^{-3}$, the paper derives an ionized-gas mass of $1.01 \times 10^5\,M_\odot$, a mass outflow rate of $0.122 \pm 0.026\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and a kinetic power of $5.1 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Comparing this power with a bolometric luminosity of $1.8 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ estimated from [O III] yields a kinetic efficiency of about $2.8 \times 10^{-4}$. Emission-line ratio diagrams (BPT and WHAN) place both components in the AGN region, and the radio core, with its spectral index of $-0.62$ and brightness temperature of $6.5 \times 10^5$ K, adds an independent AGN signature, with the extended emission resembling that of radio-quiet quasars.

Load-bearing premise

The outflow interpretation rests on assuming that each emission-line profile is exactly two Gaussian components, with the broad one being a single AGN-driven outflow; if the broad component actually contains multiple kinematic components, or comes from a scattered wind or jet-cocoon instead, the derived radius, velocity, mass outflow rate, and kinetic efficiency would all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The narrow-component velocity field is consistent with rotation in a plane aligned with the large-scale disk, so the inner gas kinematics are rotation-dominated at radii beyond the outflow region.
  • Both the disk gas and the outflowing gas are photoionized by the AGN rather than by circumnuclear star formation.
  • The outflow kinetic efficiency of about $2.8 \times 10^{-4}$ falls roughly two orders of magnitude below the ~0.5% coupling that simulations require for efficient star-formation suppression, so kinetic feedback from this AGN cannot quench the host by itself.
  • If the same low kinetic efficiencies hold across the other OH megamaser galaxies studied, the OHM/AGN phase may redistribute gas inside the central few kiloparsecs rather than expel it, with radiative AGN feedback contributing the main suppression.
  • The radio morphology of a core with two-sided emission resembling radio-quiet quasars adds independent evidence for an active nucleus in a late-stage merger.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-outflow interpretation is the most fragile step; higher-spectral-resolution data that split the broad component into separate velocity peaks would turn the reported outflow mass and rate into upper limits on a coherent outflow.
  • Because the outflow is seen only in blueshift, an assumed symmetric biconical geometry would double the mass outflow rate, although the paper models a one-sided near-side cone.
  • If the outflow electron density were closer to the disk value of ~200 cm$^{-3}$ rather than the adopted 2160 cm$^{-3}$, the derived outflow mass and rate would be roughly ten times larger, bringing the kinetic efficiency closer to, but still below, the 0.5% threshold.
  • The seven-galaxy sample pattern (AGN-dominant ionization in advanced mergers, outflows in four of seven objects, all with sub-threshold kinetic efficiencies) suggests the OH megamaser phase marks the onset of AGN feedback that has not yet become dynamically dominant; that hypothesis could be tested by comparing this sample with non-masing (U)LIRGs at similar merger stages.
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. The paper presents a multiwavelength study of the OH megamaser galaxy IRAS09320+6134 (UGC 5101) using GMOS-IFU spectroscopy, HST ACS imaging, and VLA L-band radio continuum data. The central result is that the ionized gas within the inner ~2 kpc consists of two kinematic components: a narrow component (sigma <= 200 km/s) well described by a rotating disk, and a broad, entirely blueshifted component (sigma ~ 500-650 km/s) interpreted as a single AGN-driven outflow. From the broad Halpha luminosity, [S II] electron density, and assumed outflow radius and velocity, the authors derive an ionized gas mass of M_o = (1.01 +/- 0.21) x 10^5 M_sun, a mass outflow rate of Mdot_o = 0.122 +/- 0.026 M_sun/yr, a kinetic power of Eout = (5.1 +/- 0.1) x 10^40 erg/s, and a kinetic efficiency relative to the AGN bolometric luminosity of epsilon ~ 2.8 x 10^-4. BPT and WHAN diagnostics and the radio core spectral index and brightness temperature are used to conclude that an AGN dominates the gas ionization in both components and likely drives the outflow, which is too weak to quench the host galaxy on kinetic grounds alone.

Significance. If the two-component decomposition and the single-outflow interpretation are correct, the paper provides a direct, quantitative case study of an OH megamaser galaxy in a late-stage merger: AGN photoionization dominates both the disk and outflow gas, and the ionized outflow kinetic efficiency is far below the ~0.5% threshold used in cosmological simulations. The study is strengthened by the public availability of the data, the kinemetry modeling with residuals below 20 km/s for the disk component, the quantitative radio spectral index and brightness temperature measurements, and the placement of the result on a compiled sample of more than 600 galaxies. The main weakness is that the outflow mass and energy estimates rest on the adopted two-Gaussian hypothesis and on several systematic assumptions whose uncertainties are not propagated; in addition, the extinction correction as written appears internally inconsistent. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they currently leave the quantitative outflow properties less certain than the quoted 1-sigma errors imply.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (5)] The decomposition into exactly two Gaussians is an adopted hypothesis rather than a tested model. The Gauss-Hermite fit motivates the need for more than one component but it does not establish that exactly two Gaussians are sufficient or that the broad component is a single coherent outflow. This matters numerically because in Eq. (5) the 3*sigma^2 term contributes about 81% of Eout for sigma = 600 km/s (3*600^2 divided by 500^2 + 3*600^2 = 0.81). If the broad component blends kinematically distinct gas, or if it arises from a disk wind or jet-cocoon rather than a single large-scale outflow, Mdot, Eout, and epsilon would change by order unity or more. Please report fit residuals and a model comparison (one-, two-, and three-Gaussian or non-parametric profile fits) for representative spaxels, and quantify how the derived outflow quantities change under alternative decompositions.
  2. [Appendix A and Fig. A1] The broad [O III] component has sigma ~ 250 km/s and blueshifted velocities up to about -800 km/s, while the broad Halpha, [N II], and [S II] components have sigma ~ 500-650 km/s and velocities near -500 km/s. This line-dependent difference is not discussed in the paper. It suggests either that the broad component is not the same gas in all lines, or that the two-Gaussian fit behaves differently for weak lines. Since the outflow mass and energy are derived from Halpha and [N II] alone, please quantify whether the [O III] kinematics are consistent with the adopted single-outflow model or require an additional kinematic component.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The extinction correction is internally inconsistent. The observed broad Halpha luminosity is L_Halpha = (2.9 +/- 0.12) x 10^39 erg/s and the quoted extinction-corrected value is (8.7 +/- 0.6) x 10^40 erg/s, a factor of 30. With A_V = 4.5 mag and the Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law (R_V = 3.1), the extinction at Halpha is approximately 5.9 mag, corresponding to a correction factor of about 235; even if A_V were mistakenly applied at Halpha, the factor would be about 63. Please clarify what A_V represents, recompute the corrected Halpha luminosity accordingly, and propagate the corrected value into M_o, Mdot_o, and Eout.
  4. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (4)-(5) and Section 3.4] The uncertainties quoted for Mdot_o and Eout reflect only flux and measurement errors. The systematic uncertainties in the assumed electron temperature (15000 K), the ad hoc outflow radius r = 0.5 arcsec (roughly half of the FWHM of the broad-component flux distribution), the unknown projection and geometry of V_out, and the bolometric correction L_bol = 3500 L_[O III] are not propagated. Since the kinetic efficiency epsilon is the paper's key physical conclusion, please provide a systematic error budget or show explicitly that epsilon remains below 0.005 for a plausible range of these parameters, such as T_e = 10^4-2 x 10^4 K, r = 0.3-1.0 arcsec, and inclination corrections to V_out.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in the sentence 'We chose this specific line because it is the strongest one observed in the nuclear region of of IRAS09320' - 'of of' should be 'of'.
  2. [Section 4.2] In the phrase 'the recipe to determine the mass outflow rate, i.g., the ratio', 'i.g.' should be 'i.e.'.
  3. [Abstract and Figure 1 captions] The Halpha + [N II] wavelength notation appears as 'λλ 6548, 84' in the abstract and in some figure captions; this should be 'λλ 6548, 6584' for clarity and consistency with the rest of the text.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Figure 3] The broad-component velocity map shows a slight gradient that is interpreted as outflow-disk interaction, but this interpretation would be strengthened by showing the narrow-component velocity residuals from the kinemetry model on the same scale and discussing the possible contribution of beam smearing to the nuclear sigma increase in the narrow component.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the outflow mass and kinetic efficiency are computed from measured luminosities, densities, and velocities via standard textbook relations; the two-component decomposition is an explicitly adopted assumption, and self-citations in the sample comparison are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (i) fit two Gaussian components per emission line (Section 2.4); (ii) measure broad-component Halpha luminosity, [S II] electron density, velocity, and dispersion (Sections 3.3-3.4); (iii) compute ionized-gas mass using standard recombination/emissivity relations (Eqs. 1-3, after Osterbrock & Ferland 2006); (iv) estimate the mass outflow rate from Mdot = M_o V_out / r (Eq. 4); (v) obtain kinetic power from Eq. 5 and compare with L_bol inferred from [O III] using an external relation (Heckman et al. 2005). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is used to predict a quantity that was itself used to set a free parameter. The identification of the broad component as an outflow is an explicit interpretive assumption, stated in Section 2.4: 'We have adopted the usual hypothesis that the narrow component represents the gas emission in the disk, while the broad component represents non-circular motions, associated to outflows.' This is a modeling premise, not a derived result; the mass/energy estimates are conditional on it but are not circular. The AGN classification relies on external BPT/WHAN diagnostics (Kewley et al. 2001; Kauffmann et al. 2003; Schawinski et al. 2007; Cid Fernandes et al. 2011), independent of the kinematics. Self-citations appear in the series comparison (Sales et al. 2015, 2019; Hekatelyne et al. 2018a,b, 2020, 2024; Riffel et al. 2021c) and for the outflow recipe, but the recipe is restated in the paper and is a textbook relation, so these citations are not load-bearing. The kinemetry disk model is a fit to the narrow-component velocity field, and the small residuals are used only as qualitative evidence, not as an independent prediction. The internal tension in Appendix A (broad [O III] sigma ~250 km/s versus broad Halpha/[S II] sigma 500-650 km/s) is a physical-interpretation caveat about the single-outflow decomposition, but it is not circularity. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on standard literature-based inputs (distance, emissivity, diagnostic boundaries, bolometric conversion) rather than newly fitted free parameters. The main hand-chosen inputs are the electron temperature, the outflow radius, the extinction correction, and the bolometric factor; the text acknowledges them but does not propagate all their uncertainties.

free parameters (4)
  • Electron temperature Te = 15000 K
    Assumed typical AGN value (Section 3.4) for converting [S II] ratio to Ne in PyNeb; not measured or fitted, and differs from the T=1e4 K implicit in the Halpha emissivity.
  • Outflow radius r = 424 pc (0.5 arcsec)
    Chosen as half the FWHM of the broad [N II] flux distribution (Section 4.2); enters linearly in the mass outflow rate.
  • Bolometric conversion factor = 3500
    Empirical Lbol = 3500 L[OIII] from Heckman et al. (2005); used to derive the AGN luminosity and the kinetic efficiency.
  • Visual extinction AV = 4.5 +/- 0.8 mag
    Derived from the Halpha/Hbeta ratio of the integrated nuclear spectrum; uncertainty is not propagated into the extinction-corrected Halpha luminosity or the outflow mass.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Distance to IRAS09320 of 175 Mpc from z=0.03937 assuming H0=67.8 km/s/Mpc.
    Used to convert arcseconds to parsecs and to compute luminosities; affects all physical scales, the outflow radius, and the mass rate linearly.
  • domain assumption Theoretical [N II] lambda6583/6548 ratio fixed at 3.06 during fitting.
    Standard atomic ratio from Osterbrock & Ferland (2006); used to constrain the two-Gaussian fits.
  • domain assumption Case B Halpha emissivity j_Halpha = 3.3534e-25 erg cm^3 s^-1 and the mass-outflow recipe of Hekatelyne et al. (2024).
    Underlies Eqs. (1)-(4) for outflow mass and rate; assumes a spherical volume with a filling factor that cancels.
  • domain assumption BPT and WHAN diagnostic boundaries (Kewley et al. 2001; Kauffmann et al. 2003; Schawinski et al. 2007; Cid Fernandes et al. 2011).
    Used to classify gas ionization as AGN vs. star-forming; different boundary placements could shift borderline spaxels.
  • domain assumption AGN bolometric luminosity estimated as Lbol = 3500 L[OIII] (Heckman et al. 2005).
    Empirical conversion with known scatter; used to compute the outflow kinetic efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Multiwavelength Study of the OH Megamaser galaxy IRAS 09320+6134." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGSQMXY3

@misc{pith2026250621838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Multiwavelength Study of the OH Megamaser galaxy IRAS 09320+6134},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGSQMXY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21838}
}
abstract

We present a multiwavelength study of the gas distribution, kinematics and excitation of the OH megamaser galaxy IRAS 09320+6134 (UGC 5101) using Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph Integral Field Unit, Hubble Space Telescope, and Very Large Array observations. The HST ACS F814W i-band and H$\alpha$ + [N II] $\lambda\lambda$ 6548,84 narrow-band images indicate that this galaxy is a late-stage merger. The ionized gas emission in the inner $\sim$ 2 kpc radius, traced by the GMOS data, is consistent with two kinematic components: (i) a rotating disk, observed as a narrow component in the emission-line profiles, with velocity dispersion of $\sigma$ $\leq$ 200 km s$^{-1}$, and (ii) an outflow, traced by a broad component in the emission-line profiles, with $\sigma\geq$ 500 km s$^{-1}$. The disk component is well reproduced by a model of rotation in a plane with similar orientation to that of the large-scale galaxy disk. The outflow component presents bulk velocities of up to -500 km s$^{-1}$ and corresponds to a mass outflow rate of $\dot{M}_o = 0.122 \pm 0.026 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Emission-line ratio diagrams indicate that the gas excitation is mainly due to an active galactic nucleus, likely the driver of the outflow. The VLA radio image reveals a dominant radio core with two-sided emission along the NE-SW direction. The radio core's spectral index and brightness temperature indicate AGN emission, with the extended emission resembling both in morphology and spectral index the emission observed in radio-quiet quasars. Combined with previous similar studies of other OHM galaxies, the present work supports that this phase is linked to the triggering of an AGN, that seems to occur in the final stages of a merger.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panels show the HST ACS F814W - i band image (left) and Hα + [N ii]λλ6548, 84 narrow-band image (right) of IRAS 09320. The central rectangle shows the GMOS field of view. The middle panels show the GMOS-IFU continuum image within a spectral window 5700–6200 Å (left) and a pseudo narrow-band image covering the Hα + [N ii]λλ6548, 84 emission lines (right). The color bars show the continuum in logarithmic units… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of emission line fitting for the Hα+[N ii]λλ6548, 6583 complex. The top panel shows the fit for the nuclear spaxel, with two Gaus￾sian curves per emission line, while the bottom panel displays the fit with a single Gaussian curve per emission line for an extra-nuclear spaxel, located 1.8 arcsec northwest of the nucleus. The dashed black line represents the ob￾served spectrum and the continuous red line repr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maps of the distribution and kinematics of the gas in the galaxy IRAS 09320, for the emission line [N ii]λ6583. From top to bottom, we have the maps for the narrow component and for the broad component. Flux distributions are shown in the first column, in logarithmic units of erg s−1 cm−2 spaxel−1 . In the second and third columns are the maps of velocity fields and velocity dispersion, respectively, in units of km … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VLA L-band continuum (top) and spectral index (bottom) im￾ages of IRAS 09320, with the nucleus located in the lower right. The up￾per left structure is a neighbor radio galaxy. The continuum is shown as grayscale-filled contours and the contour levels are (black) 62 µJ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio maps of emission line intensities for the narrow (top) and broad (bottom) components. On the left, in logarithmic units, ratios of [N ii]λ6583/Hα are shown, and on the right, ratios of [S ii]λλ6717, 6731/Hα [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electron density maps for the narrow (left) and the broad components (right), in units of number of electrons per cm3 . Gray regions correspond to locations where one or both emission lines were not detected above 3σ noise level in the continuum and locations where the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: log(EW Hα) versus log([N ii]λ6583/Hα) WHAN diagram for the broad component (left), corresponding to the ionized gas outflow, and respective excitation map (right). The dots represent the values for each spaxel and the lines represent the separation limits between the d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [N ii] velocity maps (top) and kinemetric coefficients (bottom) resulting from the kinemetry fit. On the top panels, from left to right, we present maps of the observed gas velocity field for the narrow component, circular velocity map, kinemetric best-fitting velocity…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: presents a plot of AGN bolometric luminosity ver￾sus the kinetic power of ionized outflows, based on measurements of more than 600 galaxies and covering seven orders of magni￾tude in AGN luminosity. The dataset is primarily drawn from Riffel et al. (2021c), updated to …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Alam S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219...12A 219, 12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  3. [3]

    Allington-Smith J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114..892A 114, 892

    doi:10.1086/341712 2002

  4. [4]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..217A 526, 217

    Almeida I., Nemmen R., Riffel R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..217A 526, 217

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2673 2023

  5. [5]

    A., Zou F., Wang S., He Z., Kilerci E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accf18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951....7A 951, 7

    Ayubinia A., Xue Y., Nguyen Le H. A., Zou F., Wang S., He Z., Kilerci E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accf18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951....7A 951, 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf18 2023

  6. [6]

    A., Salzer J

    Baan W. A., Salzer J. J., LeWinter R. D., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...509..633B 509, 633

    work page doi:10.1086/306504 1998

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  8. [8]

    Berton M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..87B 614, A87

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832612 2018

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Binette L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..53B 684, A53

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    Briggs D. S., 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    1995

  3. [11]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    Cid Fernandes R., Stasi \'n ska G., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18244.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1687C 413, 1687

    2011

  5. [13]

    Dall'Agnol de Oliveira B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3890D 504, 3890

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Baan W

    Darling J., 2007, in Chapman J. M., Baan W. A., eds, Vol. 242, Astrophysical Masers and their Environments. pp 417--426, @doi 10.1017/S1743921307013531

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Davies R., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2413 , 498, 4150

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..604D 433, 604

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Dors O. L. J., Arellano-C \'o rdova K. Z., Cardaci M. V., H \"a gele G. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468L.113D 468, L113

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1453D 444, 1453

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Takeuchi T

    Fiorenza S. L., Takeuchi T. T., Ma ek K. E., Liu C. T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...784..140F 784, 140

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Glowacki M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac63b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931L...7G 931, L7

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    C., V \'e ron-Cetty M

    Gon c alves A. C., V \'e ron-Cetty M. P., V \'e ron P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..135..437G 135, 437

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Ramos Almeida C., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12020017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...17H 12, 17

    Harrison C. M., Ramos Almeida C., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12020017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...17H 12, 17

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Costa T., Tadhunter C

    Harrison C. M., Costa T., Tadhunter C. N., Fl \"u tsch A., Kakkad D., Perna M., Vietri G., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..198H 2, 198

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Ptak A., Hornschemeier A., Kauffmann G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/491665 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634..161H 634, 161

    Heckman T. M., Ptak A., Hornschemeier A., Kauffmann G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/491665 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634..161H 634, 161

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    Hekatelyne C., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5319H 474, 5319

    doi

  18. [26]

    Hekatelyne C., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3966H 479, 3966

    doi

  19. [27]

    A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Kharb P., Robinson A., Sales D., Cassanta C

    Hekatelyne C., Riffel R. A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Kharb P., Robinson A., Sales D., Cassanta C. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2632H 498, 2632

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Kharb P., Cassanta C

    Hekatelyne C., Storchi-Bergmann T., Riffel R. A., Kharb P., Cassanta C. M., Robinson A., Sales D. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710844H 527, 10844

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Hermosa Mu \ n oz L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..43H 683, A43

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.193H 647, A193

    Hess K. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.193H 647, A193

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    M., J rgensen I., Allington-Smith J

    Hook I. M., J rgensen I., Allington-Smith J. R., Davies R. L., Metcalfe N., Murowinski R. G., Crampton D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..425H 116, 425

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Walterbos R

    Hoopes C. G., Walterbos R. A. M., Rand R. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..669H 522, 669

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Elvis M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401....7H 401, 7

    Hopkins P. F., Elvis M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401....7H 401, 7

    2010

  26. [34]

    G., Wu X.-B., Han J

    Hou L. G., Wu X.-B., Han J. L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704..789H 704, 789

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Han J

    Hou L. G., Han J. L., Kong M. Z., Wu X.-B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...72H 732, 72

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Huang Y., Zhang J., Liu W., Xu J., 2018, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-018-9524-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JApA...39...34H 39, 34

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Imanishi M., Terashima Y., Anabuki N., Nakagawa T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...596L.167I 596, L167

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    A., 2005, @doi [Astrophysics] 10.1007/s10511-005-0011-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Ap.....48...99K 48, 99

    Kandalyan R. A., 2005, @doi [Astrophysics] 10.1007/s10511-005-0011-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Ap.....48...99K 48, 99

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Karachentseva V

    Karachentsev I. D., Karachentseva V. E., Huchtmeier W. K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...451..817K 451, 817

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    2003

  33. [41]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Baum S

    Kharb P., O'Dea C. P., Baum S. A., Colbert E. J. M., Xu C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..177K 652, 177

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Veilleux S., Sanders D

    Kim D. C., Veilleux S., Sanders D. B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...508..627K 508, 627

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    T., Copin Y., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09902.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..787K 366, 787

    Krajnovi \'c D., Cappellari M., de Zeeuw P. T., Copin Y., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09902.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..787K 366, 787

    2006

  37. [45]

    Y., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..625L 43, 625

    Lo K. Y., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..625L 43, 625

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J., Lonsdale C

    Lonsdale C. J., Lonsdale C. J., Smith H. E., Diamond P. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...592..804L 592, 804

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Farrah D., Smith H

    Lonsdale C. J., Farrah D., Smith H. E., 2006, in Mason J. W., ed., , Astrophysics Update 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 285, @doi 10.1007/3-540-30313-8_9

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    Lucatelli G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.4468L 529, 4468

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    Luridiana V., Morisset C., Shaw R. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..42L 573, A42

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    Mart \' nez-Paredes M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3577M 454, 3577

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Morganti R., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10681.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371..157M 371, 157

    2006

  44. [52]

    Netzer H., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...666..806N 666, 806

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Ostriker J

    Novak G. S., Ostriker J. P., Ciotti L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...26N 737, 26

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    Oda S., Tanimoto A., Ueda Y., Imanishi M., Terashima Y., Ricci C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..179O 835, 179

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei . University Science Books, Mill Valley

    2006

  48. [56]

    J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...532A..71R 532, A71

    Rau U., Cornwell T. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...532A..71R 532, A71

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    Revalski M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f3d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930...14R 930, 14

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3100R 478, 3100

    Richings A. J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3100R 478, 3100

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    A., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501L..54R 501, L54

    Riffel R. A., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501L..54R 501, L54

    doi

  52. [60]

    Riffel R., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4064R 501, 4064

    doi

  53. [61]

    A., et al., 2021c, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3265R 504, 3265

    Riffel R. A., et al., 2021c, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3265R 504, 3265

    doi

  54. [62]

    A., Riffel R., Storchi-Bergmann T., Costa-Souza J

    Riffel R. A., Riffel R., Storchi-Bergmann T., Costa-Souza J. H., Souza-Oliveira G. L., Bianchin M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1476R 528, 1476

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    380, Cosmic Masers: Proper Motion Toward the Next-Generation Large Projects

    Roberts H., Darling J., 2024, in Hirota T., Imai H., Menten K., Pihlstr \"o m Y., eds, Vol. 380, Cosmic Masers: Proper Motion Toward the Next-Generation Large Projects. pp 16--20, @doi 10.1017/S1743921323002314

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911...38R 911, 38

    Roberts H., Darling J., Baker A. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911...38R 911, 38

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359..433R 359, 433

    Rossa J., Dettmar R. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359..433R 359, 433

    2000 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...406..505R 406, 505

    Rossa J., Dettmar R. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...406..505R 406, 505

    2003 doi

  59. [67]

    D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131..185R 131, 185

    Rothberg B., Joseph R. D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131..185R 131, 185

    2006 doi

  60. [68]

    Ruschel-Dutra D., Dall'Agnol De Oliveira B., 2020, danielrd6/ifscube v1.0 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3945237

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    Ruschel-Dutra D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507...74R 507, 74

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...25S 799, 25

    Sales D. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...25S 799, 25

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3350S 486, 3350

    Sales D. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3350S 486, 3350

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    B., Mirabel I

    Sanders D. B., Mirabel I. F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ARA&A..34..749S 34, 749

    1996 doi

  65. [73]

    K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1415S 382, 1415

    Schawinski K., Thomas D., Sarzi M., Maraston C., Kaviraj S., Joo S.-J., Yi S. K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1415S 382, 1415

    2007

  66. [74]

    C., Harrison C

    Silpa S., Kharb P., Ho L. C., Harrison C. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...47S 958, 47

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Storchi-Bergmann T., Schnorr-M \"u ller A., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0611-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3...48S 3, 48

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Darling J., Haynes M

    Suess K. A., Darling J., Haynes M. P., Giovanelli R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..220S 459, 220

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tody D., 1986, in Crawford D. L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI. p. 733, @doi 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  70. [78]

    U V., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/203/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..203....9U 203, 9

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    Ulivi L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.122U 685, A122

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    C., Sanders D

    Veilleux S., Kim D. C., Sanders D. B., Mazzarella J. M., Soifer B. T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS...98..171V 98, 171

    1995 doi

  73. [81]

    B., Kim D

    Veilleux S., Sanders D. B., Kim D. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..139V 522, 139

    1999 doi

  74. [82]

    Wu Z., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A.148W 669, A148

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Xu Y., Luo Y., Kang X., Li Z., Li Z., Wang P., Libeskind N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928..100X 928, 100

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    S., Henkel C., Kadler M., Greenhill L

    Zhang J. S., Henkel C., Kadler M., Greenhill L. J., Nagar N., Wilson A. S., Braatz J. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...450..933Z 450, 933

    2006 doi

  77. [85]

    S., Wang J

    Zhang J. S., Wang J. Z., Di G. X., Zhu Q. F., Guo Q., Wang J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A.110Z 570, A110

    2014 doi

  78. [86]

    G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    van Dokkum P. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    2001 doi

Pith tools

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