Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Mapping Jet-Gas Coupling and energetic ionized outflows in High-Redshift Radio Galaxies with JWST/NIRSpec

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio jets at z~4 drive galaxy-scale outflows of warm ionized gas, but couple less than ~1% of their mechanical energy into that gas.

desk verdict The new IFU kinematics for six z>3.5 radio galaxies are valuable and the TGSS1530 analysis is genuinely new, but the headline outflow-efficiency range is contradicted by the paper's own tables, so the main feedback claim needs major revision before it can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06707 v1 pith:OG2TJARB submitted 2025-08-08 astro-ph.GA

Namrata Roy , Timothy Heckman , Alaina Henry This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords AGNfeedbackradiojetshigh-redshiftgalaxiesionizedgasoutflowsJWSTNIRSpecIFUjet-ISMcouplingW80kinematicsLjet-Lradioscaling
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

The paper uses JWST/NIRSpec integral-field spectroscopy of six powerful radio galaxies at $z \approx 3.5$--$4$ to ask whether radio jets can regulate galaxy growth during the peak epoch of galaxy formation. It finds that warm ionized gas is turbulent on kiloparsec scales in every source, with non-parametric line widths $W_{80} \approx 950$--$2500$ km/s, and that the broadest, fastest gas lies along the radio jet axis. From resolved maps it derives ionized gas masses of $\sim 1$--$8\times10^9\,M_\odot$, mass outflow rates of $80$--$950\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and kinetic powers of $10^{43.2}$--$10^{45.0}$ erg/s, corresponding to $0.15\%$--$2\%$ of the AGN bolometric luminosity—enough, by common feedback thresholds, to affect the host galaxy. It then compares these outflows to jet powers from a new radio-luminosity–jet-power calibration and concludes that less than $\sim 1\%$ of the jet's mechanical energy couples to the warm ionized gas; the rest is argued to reside in shock-heated hot gas or in the shock ionization that powers the emission-line nebulae.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by spatially resolved $W_{80}$ maps—a non-parametric line-width measure enclosing 80% of the line flux—built from the NIRSpec IFU cubes of $[{\rm O\,III}]\(\lambda5007\) (or H$\$\alpha$$), together with radial profiles computed in 1-kpc boxes along the projected radio axis. These maps are converted into resolved outflow properties through a standard prescription that uses $[{\rm S\,II}]$ doublet ratios for electron density and the $|v|>500$ km/s high-velocity channel to isolate the outflow component, yielding gas mass, $\dot{M}_{\rm out}$, momentum flux, and kinetic power $\dot{E} = \frac12 \dot{M} $v^{2}$$. The coupling-efficiency conclusion additionally leans on a newly fi

What would settle it

Measure the jet power of these six galaxies independently of Equation (5)—for example from X-ray cavity enthalpy, inverse-Compton lobe emission, or lobe minimum-energy arguments—and compare with the radio-derived values; a discrepancy of more than the calibration scatter would overturn the $<1\%$ coupling claim. Separately, deep X-ray observations could test whether a hot $T\sim10^7$ K phase with $E_{\rm th}\sim100\times$ the ionized outflow kinetic energy actually exists; its absence would falsify the paper's proposed energy budget.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a dual one. All six galaxies show broad $[{\rm O\,III}]\(\lambda5007\) (or H$\$\alpha$$ for TGSS1530) emission with $W_{80}$ from about 950 to more than 2500 km/s extending over tens of kiloparsecs, and the highest line widths, highest outflow rates, and peak kinetic powers are spatially coincident with radio cores or lobes. This spatial coincidence is the direct evidence for jet-driven feedback: the gas is not merely disturbed, it is disturbed along the jet's direction. Quantitatively, the outflows carry $0.15\%$--$2\%$ of $L_{\rm bol}$, which the paper argues is sufficient to impact galaxy evolution, yet only $\approx0.1$--$1\%$ of the inferred jet m

Load-bearing premise

The jet mechanical powers are inferred from a 1.4 GHz radio luminosity–jet power relation calibrated on low-redshift X-ray cavity samples; if that calibration is biased or has large scatter when applied at $z\sim4$, the headline coupling-efficiency result of $\lesssim1\%$ is not secure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radio jets at $z>3.5$ are capable of redistributing hundreds of solar masses per year and depositing kinetic power at or above the $\sim0.5\%$ $L_{\rm bol}$ threshold that feedback models associate with quenching, so jet-driven feedback is a viable mechanism during the peak epoch of galaxy formation.
  • Because only $\lesssim1\%$ of the jet mechanical energy appears in warm ionized bulk motion, ionized-outflow studies alone systematically underestimate the feedback energy budget; the dominant reservoir should be a hot, X-ray-emitting phase with $E_{\rm th}\sim 100\times$ the ionized outflow kinetic energy.
  • The apparent anti-correlation between $\dot{E}_{\rm out}/L_{\rm jet}$ and radio source size implies compact, young jets couple most efficiently to the dense ISM, so early-stage jet feedback may be the most important for stirring the host galaxy.
  • Shock models with $v_{\rm shock}\approx600$--$1000$ km/s can produce the observed emission-line luminosities with shock front areas of 20--80 kpc$^2$, comparable to the outflow areas, so the line-emitting gas may itself be a calorimeter of jet energy loss rather than a passive tracer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $L_{\rm jet}$--$L_{1.4\,\rm GHz}$ relation carries large intrinsic scatter or evolves with redshift, the quoted $<1\%$ coupling efficiency will shift; the qualitative conclusion that jet energy is not dominated by warm-ionized bulk motion is more robust, since even order-of-magnitude changes in $L_{\rm jet}$ leave $\dot{E}_{\rm out}\ll L_{\rm jet}$.
  • A direct observational test is to measure the hot gas thermal energy of these same galaxies with deep X-ray observations: if no $T\sim10^7$ K phase with $E_{\rm th}\sim100\times$ the ionized outflow kinetic energy is present, the paper's proposed energy sink must be replaced.
  • Applying the same $W_{80}$ and outflow methodology to a matched sample of radio-quiet AGNs at $z\sim4$ would isolate the jet contribution; the paper's comparison already suggests jets produce a directional turbulence component absent in radio-quiet systems, but a controlled sample would make that quantitative.
  • If the compact-source efficiency trend is confirmed with larger samples, it would imply feedback is most effective before jets break out of the dense interstellar medium, shifting attention to young compact steep-spectrum sources as the principal feedback agents at early epochs.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/NIRSpec IFU observations of six powerful radio galaxies at z ≈ 3.5–4, mapping the morphology, kinematics, and energetics of warm ionized gas. It derives W80 line widths, electron densities from [SII], ionized gas masses, outflow rates, kinetic powers, and compares outflow energetics with AGN bolometric luminosity and with a newly calibrated L_jet–L_1.4GHz relation. The main claims are that all sources show large-scale jet-aligned outflows, that outflow kinetic power reaches 0.15–2% of L_bol (sufficient for feedback), and that only ≲1% of jet mechanical power is transferred to warm ionized gas. The kinematic data and spatial correlations are valuable, but the quantitative headline numbers are internally inconsistent with the paper's own tables.

Significance. If the quantitative results are correct, this would be the largest uniform IFU sample of jet-driven feedback at z > 3.5, with direct implications for models of AGN feedback and galaxy quenching. Strengths include the publicly available data, the consistent methodology across six targets, the spatially resolved nature of the maps, and the comparison with radio-quiet quasars. However, the central quantitative claims are not supported by the paper's own tabulated values, and key systematic assumptions are not propagated into the energetics. The current version requires major revision before the conclusions can be relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Tables 1 and 2] The quoted kinetic efficiencies do not match the tabulated numbers. Dividing Table 2 KE_outflow by Table 1 L_AGN gives log10(KE/L_bol) = -3.60, -3.77, -2.69, -2.70, -3.82, -4.33 for TGSS, TNJ0205, 4C03, 4C19, TNJ0121, TNJ1338 respectively, i.e. 0.025%, 0.017%, 0.20%, 0.20%, 0.015%, 0.005%. The abstract and conclusions state 0.15%–2%, while §4.2 states 0.15%–8%. The maximum value from the tables is 0.2%, below the ~0.5% feedback threshold discussed in §4.2. This internal inconsistency directly undermines the 'sufficient to impact galaxy evolution' claim.
  2. [§4.4, Figure 23, Table 1 and 2] The claim that 'only 0.1–1%' of jet mechanical power couples to the warm ionized gas is contradicted by 4C03: from Table 1 log Ljet = 46.65 and Table 2 log KE = 44.96, giving KE/Ljet ≈ 2%, not <1%. The abstract's '≲1%' is thus not uniformly supported. Since the coupling-efficiency headline depends on this ratio, the paper should present the per-source ratio and revise the stated range accordingly, or explain why 4C03 is treated differently.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (5)] The new L_jet–L_1.4GHz scaling relation is calibrated on low-redshift X-ray cavity samples and then applied to z ≈ 3.5–4 radio galaxies. The HzRGs lie near the upper end of the calibration range, and the relation implicitly assumes no redshift evolution in jet composition, environment, or cavity energetics. The quoted scatter in the calibration (intercept uncertainty ±1.23 dex) is not propagated into the KE/Ljet ratios or into the N17 re-analysis. Because the main coupling conclusion is a ratio involving Ljet, the authors should show how the result changes under plausible systematic shifts (e.g., ±0.5 dex) or with independent jet-power estimators.
  4. [§3.1.3, Eqs. (2) and (4)] The outflow masses and kinetic powers rest on several unquantified assumptions: (i) electron densities from single-Gaussian fits to [SII], which likely trace the narrow, non-outflow gas rather than the high-velocity component; (ii) clumping factor Ce = 1; (iii) solar oxygen abundance; (iv) for TGSS1530, Av = 0.8 borrowed from another source. These enter the mass and power linearly or, for extinction, exponentially. A sensitivity analysis is needed to show whether the 0.15–2% and <1% conclusions are robust to reasonable variations in these assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (1)] W50 is used in Eq. (1) and later in §3.1.3 for v_out, but the paper only defines W80. Please define W50 or replace with W80 for consistency.
  2. [§2.2] Typo: 'TGSS150' should be 'TGSS1530'.
  3. [Figure 6, bottom-left panel] The text describes an enhancement 'around ~25 kpc', but the listed outflow size for TGSS is 21 kpc. Please check the radial distance scale and the axis origin.
  4. [§4.5] The text says 'only a small fraction (∼0.3%)' of jet energy is in the emisson-line outflows, while the abstract and §4.4 quote ≲1%. These numbers should be stated consistently.
  5. [Table 1 caption] Table 1 states L_AGN is from [OIII]5007, but TGSS1530 lacks [OIII] coverage. Please specify what estimator is used for TGSS (e.g., Hα-based) and whether this affects the reported L_AGN.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: outflow and jet energetics rest on independent, externally calibrated inputs; the abstract/table efficiency mismatch is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Outflow masses, rates, and kinetic powers are computed with standard published prescriptions (Cano-Díaz et al. 2012; Veilleux et al. 2020, 2023; Cresci et al. 2023) applied to measured [OIII]/Hα luminosities, [SII] electron densities, and line widths. The AGN bolometric luminosities are independent [OIII]-based estimates. Jet mechanical powers are obtained from a new L_jet–L_1.4GHz scaling relation fitted to low-redshift X-ray cavity samples (Rafferty et al. 2006; Bîrzan et al. 2004; Cavagnolo et al. 2010; Daly et al. 2012; Ineson et al. 2017), not fitted to the high-redshift outflow measurements. The headline comparison—outflow kinetic power relative to L_bol and to L_jet—therefore combines independently measured quantities rather than reducing to a fitted parameter. Citations to Roy et al. (2024) and Heckman et al. (2024) are methodological or contextual; the equations are restated in this paper and the new sample is analyzed here, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. A separate, non-circular concern is that the abstract and conclusions quote kinetic efficiencies of 0.15%–2%, while dividing Table 2 KE_outflow by Table 1 L_AGN gives ~0.005%–0.2%; this internal inconsistency undermines the quantitative headline but is an arithmetic/correctness problem, not a circular-reasoning reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central energetic results depend on a modest set of fitted or assumed parameters: the new L_jet calibration (slope and intercept), an adopted extinction, clumping factor, solar abundance, and representative shock/ionization parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The key unvalidated assumption is the high-z extrapolation of the L_jet-L_radio relation.

free parameters (7)
  • Slope of L_jet-L_radio relation = 0.64 +/- 0.03
    Fitted by least squares to combined low-z X-ray cavity samples (Eq 5).
  • Intercept of L_jet-L_radio relation = 17.68 +/- 1.23
    Fitted by least squares to combined low-z X-ray cavity samples (Eq 5).
  • Extinction Av for TGSS1530 = 0.8
    Assumed from a z=4.1 radio galaxy (Roy et al. 2024), not measured for TGSS1530.
  • Electron density clumping factor Ce = 1
    Assumed to be of order unity in the [OIII]-based mass formula (Eq 4).
  • Oxygen abundance [O/H] = 0 (solar)
    Assumed solar abundance in Eq 4 for all sources.
  • Shock velocity for ionization model = 800 km/s
    Illustrative value chosen within the 600-1000 km/s range from Allen et al. (2008) models.
  • Ionization parameter U = 1e-2
    Median value estimated from BPT diagnostics and CLOUDY models, used for photoionization energy check.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination describes the H-alpha luminosity and ionized gas mass relation (Eq 2).
    Standard nebular physics, invoked for TGSS1530 and as basis for the [OIII] formula used elsewhere.
  • domain assumption The [SII] 6717/6731 ratio measures the electron density of the outflowing gas component.
    Used to convert line luminosities to masses and outflow rates; the ratio is integrated over all velocity components, not isolated to |v|>500 km/s.
  • domain assumption The L_jet-L_1.4GHz calibration derived from low-z radio galaxies holds for z~4 HzRGs.
    Needed to compute jet mechanical powers and coupling efficiencies; extrapolated without accounting for redshift evolution or environmental differences.
  • domain assumption Gas with |v|>500 km/s is outflowing rather than tracing rotation or other dynamical motions.
    Velocity threshold used to isolate outflow component; no modeling of gravitational potential or inclination.
  • domain assumption Shock models from Allen et al. (2008) are applicable to the observed emission-line gas.
    Used to estimate shock energy flux for the nebulae, with an assumed 800 km/s shock velocity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping Jet-Gas Coupling and energetic ionized outflows in High-Redshift Radio Galaxies with JWST/NIRSpec." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OG2TJARB

@misc{pith2026250806707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping Jet-Gas Coupling and energetic ionized outflows in High-Redshift Radio Galaxies with JWST/NIRSpec},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OG2TJARB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06707}
}
abstract

We present spatially resolved maps of morphology, kinematics, and energetics of warm ionized gas in six powerful radio galaxies at z=3.5-4, using JWST/NIRSpec IFU to quantify jet-driven feedback in the early universe. All sources exhibit broad [OIII] emission-line profiles with W80 (line width) values of 950-2500 km/s across $\sim$10s of kpc, signifying large-scale outflows. The outflowing nebulae are preferentially aligned with the radio jet axis, suggesting jet-driven origin. On average, the regions with the broadest lines and highest velocities are co-spatial with radio lobes or cores, and exhibit the strongest kinetic power. Ionized gas masses associated with the outflows span 1 to 8 $\times 10^{9} \ M_\odot$, with total mass outflow rates of 80-950 Msun/yr and kinetic powers between 10^{43.2} and 10^{45.0} erg/s. The outflow kinetic power corresponds to 0.15%-2% of the AGN bolometric luminosity, sufficient to impact galaxy evolution. However, only $\lesssim 1$\% of the jet mechanical energy couples to the warm ionized gas via outflows, consistent with predictions from hydrodynamic simulations. A large fraction of the jet energy may instead reside in shock-heated hot gas, supported by X-ray detection, or used to thermalize the gas and produce the observed emission-line nebulae. Our results demonstrate that radio jets in massive, gas-rich systems at high-redshift can inject significant kinetic and thermal energy to the surroundings, providing direct evidence for jet-driven feedback operating during the peak epoch of galaxy formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The JWST/NIRSpec IFU spectra extracted from around the detected radio core in the northern part of TGSS1530. The spectrum shown are integrated within a box aperture of 2.5′′ each side, centered at the location of the radio core: (232.708◦ , 10.825◦ ). The gray-shaded region shows 1-σ errors in the measured fluxes. The rest-frame optical nebular emission lines visible in the spectral window are marked by black dashed… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Narrowband wavelength slices of the Hα flux distribution in TGSS1530, constructed from the NIRSpec datacube. Each panel shows the spatially resolved morphology at successive spectral slices, starting from the blueshifted side of the Hα line (λ = 0.6532 µm, v = −1461 km s−1 ) to the redshifted side (λ = 0.6588 µm, v= +1096 km s−1 ), with a ∆λ = 4 ˚A interval (corresponding to ∆v ≈ 182 km s−1 ). These maps reveal how … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity channel maps of the Hα line emission in TGSS1530. The panels show the spatial distribution of the ionized gas at different velocity intervals relative to the systemic velocity (v sys). The top-left panel shows the high-velocity blueshifted gas (v < −500 km s−1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Map of W80 = v90 − v10 from Hα, a standard gas kinematic tracer, which is the line width containing 80% of the emission line flux. Here v90 and v10 are velocities at 90th and 10th percentile of the overall emission line profile in each spaxel. Broad line wi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatially resolved maps of ionized gas mass, mass outflow rate, momentum and outflow power in TGSS1530, along with radial trends of mass outflow rate and outflow kinetic power shown along the jet axis. Upper left: spatially resolved map of ionized gas mass surface dens…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Narrowband channel maps of [OIII]λ5007 emission in 4C03+24. Each panel shows the spatial distribution of [OIII] flux along successive spectral slices from the blueshifted side of the line (v ≈ −1900 km s−1 ) to the redshifted side (v ≈ +1010 km s−1 ) in ∼ 3 − 4 ˚A inte…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatially resolved maps of ionized gas in 4C03+24 traced by [OIII]5007 emission line. The star and the two crosses show the putative radio core and lobes. The left panel shows the [OIII] moment-0 (integrated flux) map, revealing the extended ionized gas morphology alig…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top row (left to right): Spatially resolved maps of ionized gas mass, kinetic energy, and momentum flux in 4C03+24. The color scale, units, and contour definitions follow those used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Narrowband channel maps of [OIII]λ5007 emission in 4C+19.71, constructed along wavelength slices from the blue to red side of the emission line, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spatially resolved maps of [OIII]5007 moment 0 flux map (left panel), W80 line width map (middle panel) and radial profile of W80 as a function of distance along the putative jet axis (right panel) in 4C+19.71. The symbols, contours, and annotations follow the same co…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Narrowband channel maps of [OIII]λ5007 emission in TNJ0205+2242. The panels show flux slices along the wavelength axis from λ = 0.4975 µm to λ = 0.5025 µm in 3 − 4 ˚A intervals, siimilar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: Integrated [OIII] moment-0 (flux) map of TNJ0205 showing extended ionized gas emission aligned along the radio axis. The green star marks the radio core and green crosses denote the radio lobes. Middle: Map of non-parametric line width (W80), which traces kinema…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spatially resolved maps of ionized gas mass surface density, kinetic energy and momentum in TNJ0205+2242, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Velocity-resolved [OIII]λ5007 channel maps in TNJ0121+1320 illustrate the kinematic evolution of the ionized gas across the emission line profile. In the most blueshifted slices (λ < 0.5000 µm), the emission is concentrated in two compact knots separated by ∼ 1 ′′(∼ 7…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Spatially resolved [OIII]λ5007 emission in TNJ0121. Left: [OIII] moment-0 map the clumpy and asymmetric ionized gas distribution, with the brightest emission concentrated near the radio core (green star) and a secondary, spatially offset clump lying ∼ 2 ′′ to the east…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Spatially resolved [OIII]λ5007 emission-line maps for TNJ1338. Left: [OIII] moment-0 (integrated flux) map with black contours tracing the [OIII] flux and the white cross marking the position of the northern radio lobe. A significant concentration of ionized gas is ob…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Violin plots showing the distribution of W80 line widths across all spaxels in the combined sample of radio￾quiet quasars observed with JWST/NIRSpec IFU (Veilleux et al. 2023; Vayner et al. 2023; Marshall et al. 2023; Cresci et al. 2023, : top row). This is compared t…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Left panel: globally integrated mass outflow rate vs. AGN bolometric luminosity reported in the literature using a variety of IFU/long-slit spectroscopy. Gray symbols indicate low-redshift AGNs from the combined literature (Nesvadba et al. 2006; Brusa et al. 2016; Rev…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Jet power vs. radio power calibration in radio galaxies. Blue, yellow, green and red circles show the ob￾served measurements presented in Rafferty et al. (2006); Cav￾agnolo et al. (2010); Daly et al. (2012); Ineson et al. (2017). Their combined sample spans ∼ 9 orders…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Left panel: Kinetic power of the ionized outflows versus radio jet mechanical power for the z ∼ 2.5 radio galaxy sample from Nesvadba et al. (2017) (gray stars) and the z > 3.5 radio galaxies presented in this work (triangles) We have computed the jet and outflow powe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20, doi: 10.1086/589652 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f...

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  2. [2]

    2019, A&A, 632, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935544

    Balmaverde, B., Capetti, A., Marconi, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935544

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935544 2019

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 4290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1070

    Baron, D., & Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1070

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1070 2019

  4. [4]

    A., & Heckman, T

    Baum, S. A., & Heckman, T. 1989, ApJ, 336, 702, doi: 10.1086/167044

    work page doi:10.1086/167044 1989

  5. [5]

    C., & Cioffi, D

    Begelman, M. C., & Cioffi, D. F. 1989, ApJL, 345, L21, doi: 10.1086/185542

    doi:10.1086/185542 1989

  6. [6]

    V., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A

    Bicknell, G. V., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., Sutherland, R. S., & Nesvadba, N. P. H. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3493, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty070 B ˆ ırzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 800, doi: 10.1086/383519

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty070 2018

  7. [7]

    2016, A&A, 588, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527900

    Brusa, M., Perna, M., Cresci, G., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527900

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527900 2016

  8. [8]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.11.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8140011 Cano-D ´ ıaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.11.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8140011 Cano-D ´ ıaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118358

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8140011 2023

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1066

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, A&A, 574, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424980

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Gallerani, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424980

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    P., & Proga, D

    Ciotti, L., Ostriker, J. P., & Proga, D. 2010, ApJ, 717, 708, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/708

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Collet, C., Nesvadba, N. P. H., De Breuck, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526872

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Fabian, A

    Crawford, C. S., Fabian, A. C., & Johnstone, R. M. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/235.1.183

    1988 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Gabel, J. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 116, doi: 10.1086/376792

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, A&A, 672, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346001

    Cresci, G., Tozzi, G., Perna, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346001

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x Dall’Agnol de Oliveira, B., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Kraemer, S. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1067

    2006

  9. [17]

    Baum, S. A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2498, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21060.x De Breuck, C., van Breugel, W., Minniti, D., et al. 1999, A&A, 352, L51, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909178 De Breuck, C., Seymour, N., Stern, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/...

    2012

  10. [18]

    Dunn, R. J. H., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 959, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11080.x

    2006

  11. [19]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00446

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    J., McDowell, J

    Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    D., et al

    Falkendal, T., De Breuck, C., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732485 31

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478 F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M.,¨Ubler, H., Davies, R. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ca2 Gab´ anyi, K.´E., Frey, S., Gurvits, L. I., Paragi, Z., &

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 200, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaec82

    Perger, K. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 200, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaec82

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Zakamska, N

    Greene, J. E., Zakamska, N. L., & Smith, P. S. 2012, ApJ, 746, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/86

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Swinbank, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu515

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 —. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 21, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11010021

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    1991, ApJ, 381, 373, doi: 10.1086/170660

    Breugel, W. 1991, ApJ, 381, 373, doi: 10.1086/170660

    1991 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Roy, N., Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., Roy, N., Best, P. N., & Kondapally, R. 2024, ApJ, 977, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3e

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    F., & Elvis, M

    Hopkins, P. F., & Elvis, M. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 7, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x

    2010

  23. [31]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Ineson, J., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., & Mingo, B. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx189

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Venemans, B

    Intema, H. T., Venemans, B. P., Kurk, J. D., et al. 2006, A&A, 456, 433, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064812

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Thomson, A. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz556

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Mainieri, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab549

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3259

    Ji, X., & Yan, R. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3259

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    F., et al

    Kakkad, D., Sani, E., Rojas, A. F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac103

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92b

    Kim, C., Woo, J.-H., Luo, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92b

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2647

    Kolwa, S., De Breuck, C., Vernet, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2647

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Perna, M., Willott, C

    Marshall, M. A., Perna, M., Willott, C. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346113

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, astropy/astroscrappy: v1.0.5 Zenodo Release, v1.0.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1482019

    McCully, C., Crawford, S., Kovacs, G., et al. 2018, astropy/astroscrappy: v1.0.5 Zenodo Release, v1.0.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1482019

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 —. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Y., et al

    Meenakshi, M., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2251

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    P., & Raymond Oonk, J

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Tadhunter, C., Bernhard, E. P., & Raymond Oonk, J. B. 2021, A&A, 656, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141766

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    V., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    V., Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Wagner, A. Y., Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2934

    Mukherjee, D., Bodo, G., Mignone, A., Rossi, P., & Vaidya, B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2934

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Alexander, D

    Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., Fine, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt751

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., De Breuck, C., Lehnert, M. D., Best, P. N., & Collet, C. 2017, A&A, 599, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528040

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    2007, A&A, 475, 145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078175

    Gilbert, A., & van Breugel, W. 2007, A&A, 475, 145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078175

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & van Breugel, W

    Gilbert, A. M., & van Breugel, W. 2008, A&A, 491, 407, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810346

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., Lehnert, M. D., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 693, doi: 10.1086/507266 O’Dea, C. P. 1998, PASP, 110, 493, doi: 10.1086/316162 O’Dea, C. P., & Saikia, D. J. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00131-w

    2006 doi

  46. [54]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  47. [55]

    L., R¨ ottgering, H

    Pentericci, L., Van Reeven, W., Carilli, C. L., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., & Miley, G. K. 2000, A&AS, 145, 121, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000104

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, A&A, 679, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346649

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Marshall, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346649

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216, doi: 10.1086/507672

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab107

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdcad

    Revalski, M., Meena, B., Martinez, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdcad

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee72

    Roy, N., Bundy, K., Cheung, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee72

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    2021a, ApJ, 913, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1e6

    Roy, N., Bundy, K., Nevin, R., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 913, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1e6

    doi

  54. [62]

    2021b, ApJ, 922, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0 32

    Roy, N., Moravec, E., Bundy, K., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 922, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0 32

    doi

  55. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4bda

    Roy, N., Heckman, T., Overzier, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4bda

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 74, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2058

    Ruschel-Dutra, D., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schnorr-M¨ uller, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 74, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2058

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/23

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Villar-Mart ´ ın, M., et al

    Saxena, A., Overzier, R. A., Villar-Mart ´ ın, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.12199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.12199

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    2007, ApJS, 171, 353, doi: 10.1086/517887

    Seymour, N., Stern, D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 353, doi: 10.1086/517887

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    T., Davies, R

    Shimizu, T. T., Davies, R. I., Lutz, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5860, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2802

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Smail, I., & Blundell, K. M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1240

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Lehmer, B

    Smail, I., Blundell, K. M., Lehmer, B. D., & Alexander, D. M. 2012, ApJ, 760, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/132

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2021, A&A, 653, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140686

    Speranza, G., Balmaverde, B., Capetti, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140686

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    M., Vernet, J

    Swinbank, A. M., Vernet, J. D. R., Smail, I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv366 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, A&A, 685, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347436 van Ojik, R., Roettgering, H

    Ulivi, L., Venturi, G., Cresci, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347436 van Ojik, R., Roettgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., &

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Hunstead, R. W. 1997, A&A, 317, 358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9608092

    1997 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    L., Ishikawa, Y., et al

    Vayner, A., Zakamska, N. L., Ishikawa, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.13751, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.13751

    2023 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    D., & Aalto, S

    Veilleux, S., Maiolino, R., Bolatto, A. D., & Aalto, S. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0121-9

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10f

    Veilleux, S., Liu, W., Vayner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10f

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2021, A&A, 648, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039869 Villar Mart ´ ın, M., Emonts, B

    Venturi, G., Cresci, G., Marconi, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039869 Villar Mart ´ ın, M., Emonts, B. H. C., Cabrera Lavers, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039642

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    Y., & Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., & Bicknell, G. V. 2011, ApJ, 728, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/29

    2011 doi

  74. [82]

    Y., Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., & Umemura, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/136

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    2024, A&A, 683, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348531

    Wang, W., Wylezalek, D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348531

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    2025, A&A, 696, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553668

    Wang, W., De Breuck, C., Wylezalek, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553668

    2025 doi

  77. [85]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab164e

    Xu, X., Arav, N., Miller, T., & Benn, C. 2019, ApJ, 876, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab164e

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    A., & Plesha, R

    Xu, X., Arav, N., Miller, T., Kriss, G. A., & Plesha, R. 2020, ApJS, 247, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5f68

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.