adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: The evolution of the MBH–Mstar relation for the fiducial model at z = 0, 0.5, 1, and 2. Blue and red contours show the distribution of star-forming and quiescent galaxies at the redshifts shown. There are a significant number of (primarily star-forming) galaxies whose empirically assigned SMBH accretion rates are high enough to account for all their mass growth in the late Universe. These are shown as a distribution at MBH = 104.5 M⊙. The fraction of Mstar > 1010 M⊙ galaxies with MBH = 0 M⊙, f0, at a given redshift is indicated at the lower right of each panel. The distinct MBH–Mstar relation at z = 0 quickly disappears into an overlapping scattered distribution by z = 0.5 and beyond due to the statistical approach used to determine star formation histories in the UniverseMachine.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: Similar to Figure 3, the evolution of the MBH–Mstar relation for the fiducial model at z = 0, 0.5, 1, and 2. Here, however, blue and red contours indicate the galaxy populations that end up being star-forming and quiescent at z = 0. Compared to Figure 3, the red and blue populations remain distinct, indicating that the progenitors of z = 0 quiescent galaxies have hosted more massive SMBHs throughout the entirety of their histories. The progenitors of z = 0 star-forming galaxies have always hosted relatively undermassive SMBHs in comparison; however, they largely disappear by z = 2. This happens either because their stellar masses become <1010 M⊙ at higher redshift or because their SMBH masses have grown all of their mass at late times, leaving them with MBH = 0 M⊙. The fraction of galaxies with MBH = 0 M⊙, f0, is the same as the values shown in Figure 3.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: Left panel: individual galaxy growth histories on the MBH–Mstar relation. The z = 0 distributions of star-forming and quiescent galaxies are shown in blue and red contours. Black data points indicate a subset of the UniverseMachine galaxy population at z = 0. The growth histories of this subset are indicated by black lines with colored points indicating their position on this plot with increasing redshift on a green-to-pink color map. Quiescent galaxies with overmassive SMBHs at z = 0 have a more active stellar mass growth history at higher redshift (pink), whereas star-forming galaxies with undermassive SMBHs at z = 0 show more growth in both stellar and SMBH mass at lower redshift (green). Right panels: growth histories for z = 0 galaxies that host overmassive (top) and undermassive (bottom) SMBHs with z = 0 stellar masses in two different ranges (left and right panels). Galaxies with overmassive SMBHs at z = 0 have more horizontal tracks and grow their SMBH and stellar mass early, whereas star-forming galaxies at z = 0 have steeper tracks and grow their SMBH and stellar mass at late times.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: The MBH–Mstar ratio as a function of λsBHAR at z = 0 for the fiducial model and model variations 1 and 2, similar to Figure 2. The top panels show the derived probability distributions that result from our model (histograms) and the J. Aird et al. (2019) probability distributions (smooth curves). These two curves for all models closely match one another by construction, regardless of the differences in how we assign the λsBHAR values in the model variations. The right panels show the histograms of the MBH–Mstar ratio for the different SFR classification bins we use. Model variations 1 and 2 are both designed to preferentially assign high accretion rates to galaxies with overmassive SMBHs as test cases for our model.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: The z = 0.5 and z = 2 MBH–Mstar relations for the fiducial model and model variations 1 and 2. The z = 0 (J. E. Greene et al. 2020) relations are shown by the dotted lines for comparison in every panel. The differences in the method for assigning SMBH accretion rates produce similar relations at higher redshifts for all models. The primary difference is that there are slightly more z = 0 star-forming galaxies that make up the relation at z = 2. In the fiducial model, these galaxies grew their SMBHs late and, at higher redshifts, make up the fraction of galaxies with MBH = 0 M⊙, f0.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: The MBH–Mstar ratio as a function of λsBHAR at z = 0 for the fiducial model and model variations 3 and 4, similar to Figures 2 and 7. The top panels show the derived probability distributions that result from our model (histograms) and the J. Aird et al. (2019) probability distributions (smooth curves). These two curves for all models closely match one another by construction, regardless of the differences in how we assign z = 0 MBH values in the model variations. The right panels show the histograms of the MBH–Mstar ratio for our different SFR classifications, illustrating the different assignment of MBH (relative to Mstar) for each model variation.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: Individual galaxy growth histories on the MBH–Mstar relation for our fiducial model (left panel), model variation 1 (center panel), and model variation 2 (right panel), similar to Figure 5. The z = 0 distribution of star-forming and quiescent galaxies is shown in blue and red contours in the background. The growth histories are indicated by lines that stem from black circles and are colored by increasing redshift on a green-to-pink color map. Model variations 1 and 2 preferentially assign high accretion rates to galaxies with overmassive SMBHs. Despite this intentional bias, we find that these massive SMBHs grow very little compared to their already very high SMBH masses.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: The MBH–Mstar relations at z = 0 for the fiducial model (left panel), model variation 3 (center panel), and model variation 4 (right panel). Model variation 3 assumes a strong correlation between MBH, Mstar, and SFR at z = 0. Model variation 4 assumes a tight correlation between MBH and Mstar with no correlation with SFR at z = 0. This last model is a typical point of comparison for simulation results, despite its limitations in accounting for the population of undermassive SMBHs in star-forming galaxies.
Paper: Diverse Pathways for Supermassive Black Hole–Galaxy Coevolution
Authors: Bryan A. Terrazas, James Aird, Alison L. Coil
Figure caption: Top panel: the total SMBH mass growth rate per unit Mpc3 as a function of redshift for each SFR classification phase (colors) and for all bins together (black). Bottom panel: the cumulative version of the top panel, showing the growth of SMBH mass over time.
Paper: New Interpretation for the Orientation of the LMC’s Gaseous Arms B and E Using ULLYSES 
Authors: April Horton, Suraj Poudel, Kathleen A. Barger, Scott Lucchini, David L. Nidever, Erica Chwalik, Frances H. Cashman, Andrew J. Fox, Nicolas Lehner, Dhanesh Krishnarao, Naomi McClure-Griffiths, Elena D'Onghia, Jason Tumlinson, Jo Vazquez, Lauren Sdun, Stone Gebhart, Katherine Anthony, Bryce Cole, Jacco Th. van Loon, John M. Dickey, Callum Lynn, Hiep Nguyen, Min-Young Lee
Figure caption: Position–velocity maps for sight lines 1–3 and 5–8, where the numbers in the upper right corner of the middle panel correspond to the sight line IDs in Table 1. Sight line 4 is highlighted in Figure 3. The vertical dashed lines in the left and middle panels are the locations of the sight line’s Galactic latitude and longitude, respectively. We mark the radial velocity of the stellar sight line with a star symbol along the vertical dashed line. We note that sight line 2 does not have a recorded radial velocity and we do not include a star symbol on its maps. We highlight that the stars along sight lines 3, 6, and 7 do not have radial velocities that fall within the bulk motion of the H I gas in the disk. We explain this is due to the sensitivity limit of GASKAP (see Appendix B). We find, using the more sensitive GASS observations, that sight lines 3, 6, and 7 have fainter emission at the radial velocity of the star. We choose to show the GASKAP position–velocity maps because of its smaller angular resolution and therefore, more detailed small-scale structure of the gas. The right panel contains the H I emission from the GASS (cyan) and GASKAP (black) observations. We indicate the boundaries of the LMC’s disk (gray) and the offset gas (red), as determined from the H I emission as discussed in Section 3 and recorded in Table 2, by filling in the area under the emission profiles. We overlay the velocity extent of the Fe II, Si II, and S II components highlighted by the vertical green, brown, and purple lines, respectively, along each sight line. For sight line 1, we fixed the velocity centroids for the Fe II (green) and Si II (brown) components and symbolize this with the circles on the plot.
Paper: New Interpretation for the Orientation of the LMC’s Gaseous Arms B and E Using ULLYSES 
Authors: April Horton, Suraj Poudel, Kathleen A. Barger, Scott Lucchini, David L. Nidever, Erica Chwalik, Frances H. Cashman, Andrew J. Fox, Nicolas Lehner, Dhanesh Krishnarao, Naomi McClure-Griffiths, Elena D'Onghia, Jason Tumlinson, Jo Vazquez, Lauren Sdun, Stone Gebhart, Katherine Anthony, Bryce Cole, Jacco Th. van Loon, John M. Dickey, Callum Lynn, Hiep Nguyen, Min-Young Lee
Figure caption: Left: a position–velocity longitude slice through the path of arm B and its rotated 180° trajectory. Middle: a position–velocity latitude slice through arm B’s 90° and 270° rotations. In both the left and middle panels, the black dots are the velocity centroids from the Voigt profile fitting of each sight line’s Fe II components. The dots are located at the sight lines’ Galactic longitudes (left) and Galactic latitudes (middle). Right: an integrated H I column-density map from GASKAP that outlines the path of arm B and its 90°, 180°, and 270° rotations (each labeled in bold) around arm B’s starting point (marked by the solid black point) as determined from the D. L. Nidever et al. (2008) Gaussian decomposition of the LAB data: ﹩(l,b)=(280\mathop{.}\limits^{^\circ }50,-31\mathop{.}\limits^{^\circ }20)﹩. Each of the eight sight lines are labeled.
Paper: New Interpretation for the Orientation of the LMC’s Gaseous Arms B and E Using ULLYSES 
Authors: April Horton, Suraj Poudel, Kathleen A. Barger, Scott Lucchini, David L. Nidever, Erica Chwalik, Frances H. Cashman, Andrew J. Fox, Nicolas Lehner, Dhanesh Krishnarao, Naomi McClure-Griffiths, Elena D'Onghia, Jason Tumlinson, Jo Vazquez, Lauren Sdun, Stone Gebhart, Katherine Anthony, Bryce Cole, Jacco Th. van Loon, John M. Dickey, Callum Lynn, Hiep Nguyen, Min-Young Lee
Figure caption: View of the entire simulated MW and MC system shown in Cartesian coordinates. The Sun is located at (x, y, z) = (−8.122, 0, 0.023) kpc, and the z-axis is aligned with the Galactic north pole. Left: background showing the projected gas density of the MW material with velocity field overlaid with red arrows. The velocities are shown in the LMC center-of-mass frame. The red arrow in the bottom right corner of the left panel is shown for scale. White plus marks denote the centers of the MW, LMC, and SMC. Right: same as the left, except showing the LMC material, again with the velocity field shown with respect to the LMC’s center-of-mass motion.
Paper: New Interpretation for the Orientation of the LMC’s Gaseous Arms B and E Using ULLYSES 
Authors: April Horton, Suraj Poudel, Kathleen A. Barger, Scott Lucchini, David L. Nidever, Erica Chwalik, Frances H. Cashman, Andrew J. Fox, Nicolas Lehner, Dhanesh Krishnarao, Naomi McClure-Griffiths, Elena D'Onghia, Jason Tumlinson, Jo Vazquez, Lauren Sdun, Stone Gebhart, Katherine Anthony, Bryce Cole, Jacco Th. van Loon, John M. Dickey, Callum Lynn, Hiep Nguyen, Min-Young Lee
Figure caption: Similar position–velocity plots as in Figure 13. Left: a Galactic longitude slice through the path of arm E and its rotated 180° trajectory. Middle: a Galactic latitude slice through arm E’s 90° and 270° rotations. Again, the black dots are the velocity centroids from the Voigt profile-fitting analysis for the Fe II components. Right: an integrated H I column-density map from GASKAP that outlines the path of arm E and its 90°, 180°, and 270° rotations (labeled in bold) around ﹩(l,b)=(280\mathop{.}\limits^{^\circ }69,-31\mathop{.}\limits^{^\circ }19)﹩, i.e., the starting point of arm E as determined by D. L. Nidever et al. (2008).
Paper: New Interpretation for the Orientation of the LMC’s Gaseous Arms B and E Using ULLYSES 
Authors: April Horton, Suraj Poudel, Kathleen A. Barger, Scott Lucchini, David L. Nidever, Erica Chwalik, Frances H. Cashman, Andrew J. Fox, Nicolas Lehner, Dhanesh Krishnarao, Naomi McClure-Griffiths, Elena D'Onghia, Jason Tumlinson, Jo Vazquez, Lauren Sdun, Stone Gebhart, Katherine Anthony, Bryce Cole, Jacco Th. van Loon, John M. Dickey, Callum Lynn, Hiep Nguyen, Min-Young Lee
Figure caption: Individual integrated H I emission velocity channel maps over the velocity range of +190 ≤ vLSR ≤ +340 km s−1 from the GASS survey. We label the locations of the eight sight lines in our project with stars, and their numbers correspond to the IDs in Table 1. We label the velocity range of each panel at the top of each plot. The predicted locations of arm B and arm E from the Gaussian decomposition of the LAB survey in D. L. Nidever et al. (2008) are highlighted by the dashed black line and dotted black line, respectively.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: (a) Correlation plot between the ASW BEs range computed in this work for different species and the theoretical binding energies from the recent literature. (b) Correlation plot between the mean ASW BEs computed in this work for different species and experimental binding energies obtained from the recent literature. (c) Comparison of computed and literature BEs. The purple dots mark the BEs on the CWS, while the light-colored range signifies the distribution of BEs (between the minimum and maximum BEs) on the ASW, with both terms computed in this work. The red and green dots represent the literature’s theoretical and experimental binding energies, respectively, as listed in Table 3. In plots (a) and (b), the straight line refers to y = x for the sake of comparison with linear correlation. All energies are given in K.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Top panel: side view of the crystalline water (010) P-ice surface model, showing the dangling hydrogen (dH) and oxygen (dO) atoms. Bottom panel: side view of the amorphous water ice surface model, with the labels identifying the different dangling hydrogen (dH) and oxygen (dO) adsorption sites, marked as dH(1–6) and dO(7–8), respectively.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Correlation between (a) DFT//DFT and ONIOM2-corrected CCSD(T) BEED, (b) DFT//DFT and DFT//HF-3c BEED, and (c) DFT//HF-3c and ONIOM2-corrected CCSD(T) BEED for the adsorption of iCOMs on crystalline ice. The BEED values are given in Kelvin. The intercept is set to zero.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Set of iCOMs considered in this work. Color code: red for oxygen, white for hydrogen, gray for carbon, and blue for nitrogen.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Summary of the DFT//HF-3c BEs (with ZPE corrections), in K, of the iCOMs on the periodic amorphous water ice model. The first column lists the iCOMs, columns 2–9 present the ZPE-corrected binding energies on different adsorption sites of the amorphous ice model, and column 10 lists the mean BE, along with the standard deviation. The color gradient from gray to black indicates smaller to larger BE values.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Correlation between DFT//DFT BEED and ZPE-corrected BE for the adsorption of iCOMs on crystalline ice. The BEs are given in Kelvin. The intercept is set to zero.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Distribution of BEED values (in K) computed on the crystalline and amorphous ice models for iCOMs (gray) compared with the small mixed species of S. Ferrero et al. (2020) (green), N-bearing species of B. Martínez-Bachs et al. (2024) (blue), and S-bearing species of J. Perrero et al. (2022a) (orange). The top four plots represent the total BEED and its components (electronic, Elec; dispersive interactions, Disp) on the crystalline ice surface. The bottom plots indicate the amorphous BEED values. On the crystalline ice surface, dispersive forces show little variation across species, while electronic forces vary widely depending on the adsorbates’ ability to form H-bonds with the ice surface. All the plots, including the components in CWS, are normalized to 1 for comparison.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Different adsorption geometries for CH3CHO, CH3CH2OH, CH3CH2CHO, HOCH2CHO, HOCH2CH2OH, and CH3COOCH3 at the HF-3c level of theory. The two structures differ in the orientation of the adsorbed species on the ice model, the number of H-bonds formed between the adsorbate and ice surface, as well as the H-bond lengths. The two BEs obtained for each species using DFT//HF-3c are also listed in Table 1. The H-bond lengths are given in Å and the BEs are given in Kelvin.
Paper: Binding Energies of Interstellar Complex Organic Molecules on Water Ice Surfaces: A Quantum Chemical Investigation
Authors: Harjasnoor Kakkar, Berta Martínez-Bachs, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Piero Ugliengo, Albert Rimola
Figure caption: Measured temperatures, with their error bars, at which five iCOMs have been observed in the gas phase by J. Frediani et al. (2025) vs. the theoretical desorption temperatures, calculated using the BE and preexponential factors of this work. The vertical bars show the spread in the computed BE.
Paper: Warped Disk Galaxies. II. From the Cosmic Web to the Galactic Warp
Authors: Woong-Bae G. Zee, S. Lyla Jung, Sanjaya Paudel, Suk-Jin Yoon
Figure caption: Left: the normalized histogram of the number of satellites per central galaxy for the unwarped control sample (dashed black), S-type (red), and U-type warped galaxies (blue). The mean satellite count for each category is described by filled triangle symbols, showing that warped galaxies systematically host more satellites than their unwarped counterparts. Middle: the distribution of satellite-to-central stellar mass ratios for the same three groups. The mean mass ratio is displayed as triangle symbols, revealing that warped galaxies tend to host lower-mass satellites on average. Right: the radial number density of satellites as a function of projected separation (rp) from the central galaxy, for unwarped control galaxies (dashed black), S-type (red), and U-type (blue) warped galaxies. The shaded region represents Poisson errors for each bin.
Paper: Warped Disk Galaxies. II. From the Cosmic Web to the Galactic Warp
Authors: Woong-Bae G. Zee, S. Lyla Jung, Sanjaya Paudel, Suk-Jin Yoon
Figure caption: Upper: density distribution of stacked satellite galaxies in Δx–Δy space relative to their central galaxies for the unwarped control sample (left), S-type warped galaxies (middle), and the residual map obtained by subtracting the control sample from the S-type distribution (right). White contours are drawn at 0.5σ intervals. An equal number of all stacked satellites, randomly selected from the control sample, is used as indicated. Larger and smaller black arrows mark the directions of the stronger and weaker warp sides, respectively. Lower: same as the upper panels, but for U-type warped galaxies.
Paper: Warped Disk Galaxies. II. From the Cosmic Web to the Galactic Warp
Authors: Woong-Bae G. Zee, S. Lyla Jung, Sanjaya Paudel, Suk-Jin Yoon
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2, but for central galaxies that host at least six satellites (Nsat ≥ 6).
Paper: Warped Disk Galaxies. II. From the Cosmic Web to the Galactic Warp
Authors: Woong-Bae G. Zee, S. Lyla Jung, Sanjaya Paudel, Suk-Jin Yoon
Figure caption: Upper: probability density function, P(Δθ), of the misalignment angle between the mean orientation of satellite distributions (θS-F, solid thick line) and the major axis of central edge-on disk galaxies (θC-F, dashed line) relative to the direction of the nearest filament for the unwarped sample (black), S-type (red), and U-type (blue). The shaded region represents Poisson errors for each bin. For comparison, the expected isotropic distribution with the same number of central and satellite galaxies is shown as a gray horizontal line, while the 3σ range of its random distribution is shaded in gray. Lower: same as upper panels, but for central galaxies that host at least six satellites (Nsat ≥ 6).
Paper: Warped Disk Galaxies. II. From the Cosmic Web to the Galactic Warp
Authors: Woong-Bae G. Zee, S. Lyla Jung, Sanjaya Paudel, Suk-Jin Yoon
Figure caption: A schematic diagram of the relative orientation between DM halos and nearby large-scale filaments (gray shaded region) for S-type (red ellipse) and U-type (blue ellipse) warped galaxies. The figure highlights a characteristic difference in alignment: satellites around S-type warped galaxies tend to follow the direction of the nearest filament, while those around U-type warped galaxies are preferentially oriented perpendicular to the filament axis.