adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: AT 2022dbl best-fit blackbody radius, temperature, and resulting bolometric luminosity (top to bottom panels; black filled and open markers for the first and second flares, respectively). The temperature and luminosity are within the range of a comparison sample of TDEs (S. van Velzen et al. 2020; gray), while the radius is on the lower end of the sample. Fits to the postpeak decline of the bolometric luminosity are also shown (bottom panel). Error bars denote 1σ uncertainties and are shown only for AT 2022dbl for clarity.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Compared to a sample of other Bowen TDEs, both flares of AT 2022dbl show typical peak bolometric luminosities (top) and decline rates (middle; same as top panel but normalized to the brightest point). The second flare of AT 2022dbl is fainter and shallower than the first. Error bars denote 1σ uncertainties. We also present the time-integrated bolometric luminosity (bottom) of each flare of AT 2022dbl (dashed lines) compared to those of optical-ultraviolet TDEs from the literature (see Table 6). Here we use only events with data between peak (or earlier) and 110 days postpeak, and we integrate between the first available point out to 110 days. AT 2022dbl shows relatively low emitted energy but within the range spanned by the comparison sample. Gray bands denote 1σ uncertainties around the AT 2022dbl values. All bolometric light curves are calculated from best-fit blackbody parameters.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Two-dimensional posterior distributions of MOSFiT model fits for both the first (red) and second (blue) flare. While the black hole mass and host-galaxy extinction are consistent for both flares, the b parameter supports both a full and partial disruption for the first flare, while preferring a full disruption for the second flare.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Hα luminosity (top), FWHM (middle), and offset (bottom) evolution of AT 2022dbl, compared with those of a sample of TDEs. AT 2022dbl has the lowest Hα luminosity and width of the sample consistently in both flares. Both flares are nearly identical in the Hα width.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Reprocessed accretion emission MOSFiT model fits to the first (top) and second (bottom) flares of AT 2022dbl.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Radio spectra at three different epochs (left; denoted in days since optical discovery) and the 15.5 GHz light curve (right) of AT 2022dbl, with dashed vertical lines marking the spectral epochs. Error bars denote 1σ uncertainties, and triangles mark 3σ nondetection upper limits.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Spectroscopic comparison of AT 2022dbl with a sample of Bowen TDEs in similar phases with respect to peak luminosity. The spectra have been continuum-subtracted to highlight the emission features. AT 2022dbl is clearly a member of the Bowen TDE class.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Our PROSPECTOR best-fit median model and 16th and 84th percentile ranges for the AT 2022dbl host-galaxy spectral energy distribution.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Illustration of a possible Hills mechanism formation channel for AT 2022dbl. Orbits of a binary star system of total mass Mbin = 2 M⊙ near a black hole of mass MBH = 106.2 M⊙ are shown in a phase space of pericenter distance (rp) vs. semimajor axis (aorb). The solid black diagonal line at rp = aorb corresponds to circular orbits (e = 0), while eccentric orbits lie below this line. The vertical green line denotes the approximate semimajor axis of AT 2022dbl, the shaded red region is its pericenter distance (see text for details), and the blue star denotes their intersection. The black dashed diagonal line corresponds to the typical orbits of stars captured by the Hills mechanism, spanned by the range of possible binary separations abin, from contact binaries (abin ≈ 2 R⊙) to binaries on the soft/hard boundary given by the galactic velocity dispersion (abin ≈ 62 R⊙). A binary of intermediate separation, abin ≈ 9 R⊙, marked by the black star, would result in an orbital period similar to that of AT 2022dbl yet with rp ≈ 10 times the tidal radius. Angular momentum relaxation through two-body scatterings could excite the captured star’s eccentricity without undergoing substantial changes in energy (and hence in aorb), bringing it toward the tidal radius on a nearly vertical track in this phase space (denoted by the green arrow). Thin gray lines show steady-state trajectories in this phase space, due to the combined effect of two-body relaxation and gravitational-wave inspiral. Well above the thick gray line, orbits evolve primarily due to relaxation along mostly vertical tracks, while below this line, gravitational-wave evolution is more rapid, and orbits follow a nearly horizontal trajectory.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Black hole mass vs. TDE Hα luminosity (left) and FWHM (right) around peak bolometric luminosity for AT 2022dbl (red) and the comparison sample in Figure 9 (blue). We do not find any strong correlations between black hole mass and Hα luminosity or width, indicating that the similarity of the Hα properties of the two AT 2022dbl flares is not solely related to the SMBH but is related to the star and/or its orbit. This strengthens the claim that the two flares of AT 2022dbl are related to the same star.
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: Continuum-subtracted spectra of AT 2022dbl near the peak luminosity of each flare compared to those of optical-ultraviolet TDEs from the literature. Phases are noted in rest-frame days relative to peak luminosity. The spectral features seen during both flares of AT 2022dbl are virtually identical to each other compared to the variability seen in the TDE population (especially regarding the Hα strength).
Paper: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies that at Least Some “Standard” Optical Tidal Disruption Events Are Partial Disruptions
Authors: Lydia Makrygianni, Iair Arcavi, Megan Newsome, Ananya Bandopadhyay, Eric R. Coughlin, Itai Linial, Brenna Mockler, Eliot Quataert, Chris Nixon, Benjamin Godson, Miika Pursiainen, Giorgos Leloudas, K. Decker French, Adi Zitrin, Sara Faris, Marco C. Lam, Assaf Horesh, Itai Sfaradi, Michael Fausnaugh, Ehud Nakar, Kendall Ackley, Moira Andrews, Panos Charalampopoulos, Benjamin D. R. Davies, Yael Dgany, Martin J. Dyer, Joseph Farah, Rob Fender, David A. Green, D. Andrew Howell, Thomas Killestein, Niilo Koivisto, Joseph Lyman, Curtis McCully, Morgan A. Mitchell, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Lauren Rhodes, Anwesha Sahu, Giacomo Terreran, Ben Warwick
Figure caption: The ultraviolet-to-optical color evolution of both AT 2022dbl flares is roughly constant in time, as seen in other optical-ultraviolet TDEs. However, the small but significant differences in color evolution between the flares from peak luminosity to late times is enough to argue against both flares being two lensed images of the same underlying event.
Paper: Was Earth’s Water Acquired Locally during the Earliest Phases of the Solar System Formation?
Authors: Lise Boitard-Crépeau, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Pierre Beck, Lionel Vacher, Piero Ugliengo
Figure caption: Temperature and density profiles, snowlines, and contribution of each BE. Upper left: temperature (brown) and density (blue) profile of the midplane with T1au = 280 K in Equation (2). Upper right: distribution of the water BEs computed by L. Tinacci et al. (2023). Lower left: comparison between a snowline computed with a single BE (BE = 4330 K and ν = 1 × 1012 s−1; M. P. Collings et al. 2015; cyan) and using the L. Tinacci et al. (2023) water BE distribution (black). Lower right: the dashed curves show the contribution of each BE bin with the matching color from the L. Tinacci et al. (2023) distribution above. The black curve is the same as the one on the left panel and uses the whole BE distribution. The left and right lower panels share the same vertical axis: water ice abundance relative to H-nuclei on the left axis and the amount of ice relative the maximum on the right axis (xice/xice,max in %).
Paper: Was Earth’s Water Acquired Locally during the Earliest Phases of the Solar System Formation?
Authors: Lise Boitard-Crépeau, Cecilia Ceccarelli, Pierre Beck, Lionel Vacher, Piero Ugliengo
Figure caption: Water-equivalent content by weight in the solar system and model predictions. Upper-left panel: midplane temperature of the disk using T1au = 145, 180, 200, and 300 K (from light blue to dark blue) in Equation (2). Lower-left panel: the solid curves show the snowlines calculated using the L. Tinacci et al. (2023) BE distribution for the different temperature profiles (color coded as above). The data points show the median values of the water-equivalent content by weight for different objects of the solar system (Section 3), where vertical bars represent the minimum and maximum range. Please note that the values reported in Table 1 are considered upper limits (see text). The uncertainty of the formation region of the various objects is shown as ellipses, distinguishing NC, CC, and comet populations. Right: computed snowlines using T1au = 200 K in Equation (2) and different models (see text)—BE distribution (solid line), single BE (dashed), and condensation at 180 K (dotted). The right and left panels share the same vertical axis.
Paper: Observed Antiparallel Correlation between Spiral Galaxy and Cosmic Filament Spins
Authors: Hao-da Wang, 昊达 汪, Peng Wang, 鹏 王, Min Bao, 敏 鲍, Yanmei Chen, 燕梅 陈, Xiao-xiao Tang, 潇潇 唐, Youcai Zhang, 友财 张, Xi Kang, 熙 康, Quan Guo, 铨 郭, Ming-Jie Sheng, 明捷 盛, Hao-Ran Yu, 浩然 于
Figure caption: Left panel: the position angle misalignment, Δϕ ≡ ϕstar − ϕgas, between stellar and gas components as a function of galaxy stellar mass, ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}({M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot })﹩. The blue line with error bars corresponds to spiral galaxies. Error bars represent typical 1σ uncertainties. Middle panel: the number distribution of spiral galaxies as a function of galaxy stellar mass, ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}({M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot })﹩. Galaxies are divided into two subsamples of almost equal size according to the ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}({M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot })=10.118﹩, indicated by the vertical dotted line. Right panel: the distribution of filament dynamical temperature ﹩{z}_{\mathrm{rms}}/{{\rm{\Delta }}}_{{{\rm{Z}}}_{\mathrm{AB}}}﹩ (see Section 2.2 for more details). Filaments are divided into either “cold” or “hot” by ﹩{z}_{\mathrm{rms}}/{{\rm{\Delta }}}_{{{\rm{Z}}}_{\mathrm{AB}}}=1﹩, as indicated by the vertical red dotted line.
Paper: Observed Antiparallel Correlation between Spiral Galaxy and Cosmic Filament Spins
Authors: Hao-da Wang, 昊达 汪, Peng Wang, 鹏 王, Min Bao, 敏 鲍, Yanmei Chen, 燕梅 陈, Xiao-xiao Tang, 潇潇 唐, Youcai Zhang, 友财 张, Xi Kang, 熙 康, Quan Guo, 铨 郭, Ming-Jie Sheng, 明捷 盛, Hao-Ran Yu, 浩然 于
Figure caption: The bottom subfigures in each panel show the probability distribution of ﹩{\rm{\cos }}(\theta )﹩, where θ is the angle between the galaxy spin and the filament spin. The left panel presents the spin of the stellar component of galaxies, while the right panel shows the spin of the gas component, as indicated at the top center of each panel. Blue and red solid lines represent low-mass and high-mass galaxies, respectively. The horizontal black dashed line denotes the expected distribution for a uniform random orientation of ﹩{\rm{\cos }}(\theta )﹩. Color-filled regions indicate the 1σ statistical uncertainties derived from 10,000 null-hypothesis realizations. The mean value of ﹩{\rm{\cos }}(\theta )﹩ and the p-value from the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test (pKS) are displayed at the top center. Aligned and antialigned trends are highlighted with yellow arrows. The upper subfigures in each panel show the discrepancy, in standard deviation units of the randomized distribution, between the observed curve and the mean of the random distributions as a function of ﹩{\rm{\cos }}(\theta )﹩.
Paper: Observed Antiparallel Correlation between Spiral Galaxy and Cosmic Filament Spins
Authors: Hao-da Wang, 昊达 汪, Peng Wang, 鹏 王, Min Bao, 敏 鲍, Yanmei Chen, 燕梅 陈, Xiao-xiao Tang, 潇潇 唐, Youcai Zhang, 友财 张, Xi Kang, 熙 康, Quan Guo, 铨 郭, Ming-Jie Sheng, 明捷 盛, Hao-Ran Yu, 浩然 于
Figure caption: The spiral galaxy spin–filament correlation, ﹩| \cos (\theta )| ﹩, as a function of galaxy stellar mass, ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}{M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot }﹩. The horizontal dotted line (﹩| \cos (\theta )| =0.5﹩) indicates that the galaxy spin is randomly distributed with respect to the filament orientation. The solid blue line with stars and red line with circles represent the stellar and gas components, respectively, as indicated in the legend. The shaded regions in corresponding colors represent the ﹩1/\sqrt{N}﹩ statistical uncertainty, where N is the number of galaxies in each bin. Yellow arrowheads denote trends aligned either parallel or perpendicular.
Paper: Observed Antiparallel Correlation between Spiral Galaxy and Cosmic Filament Spins
Authors: Hao-da Wang, 昊达 汪, Peng Wang, 鹏 王, Min Bao, 敏 鲍, Yanmei Chen, 燕梅 陈, Xiao-xiao Tang, 潇潇 唐, Youcai Zhang, 友财 张, Xi Kang, 熙 康, Quan Guo, 铨 郭, Ming-Jie Sheng, 明捷 盛, Hao-Ran Yu, 浩然 于
Figure caption: Left panel: the average distance (represented by blue lines with star symbols, corresponding to the left y-axis) and ﹩{\rm{\cos }}(\theta )﹩ values (shown in red lines with solid circles, corresponding to the right y-axis) are plotted for both low-mass and high-mass galaxies. Error bars indicate the 1σ uncertainties. Right panel: similar to the bottom-left panel of Figure 3, but shows the effect of filament dynamical temperature. The low-mass galaxy sample is divided into two subsamples based on the dynamical temperature of their host filaments. The red and green lines represent the lowest and highest one-third of the sample in terms of filament dynamical temperature, respectively.
Paper: Element Nucleosynthetic Origins from Abundance Spatial Distributions beyond the Milky Way
Authors: Zefeng Li, Mark R. Krumholz, Anna F. McLeod, A. Mark Swinbank, Emily Wisnioski, J. Trevor Mendel, Francesco Belfiore, Giovanni Cresci, Giacomo Venturi, Jia-Lai Kang
Figure caption: Two-point autocorrelation functions (thick solid lines) for oxygen (blue), nitrogen (red), and sulfur (yellow) and our best-fit parametric models (thin dashed curves). In both panels, correlation = 0 means uncorrelated and = 1 means perfectly correlated. The upper panel shows the measured autocorrelation, while the lower panel shows the true autocorrelation corrected by our median estimate for the factor by which the autocorrelation is reduced by measurement uncertainties, to focus on the shape of the curve, which is what controls the fit for the injection width parameter. The stripes on the left represent the values of injection widths with each element shown in the same colors as their corresponding elements. In the lower panel, we show the enrichment source contribution fractions using three horizontal bars (J. Rybizki et al. 2017) in the same colors as their corresponding elements. The fitted injection width parameters for oxygen (the blue stripe) and sulfur (the yellow stripe) agree well with the characteristic maximum radii of SN blast waves in the ISM from both numerical simulations (59 pc; A. N. Kolborg et al. 2022) and theoretical models (67 pc; B. T. Draine 2011). The fitted injection width parameters for nitrogen (the red stripe) is much smaller than those for oxygen and sulfur, suggesting AGB stars as dominant origin sites.