Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no.

main ©ESO 2021

December 28, 2021

Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

Daniel Maschmann1 , Anne-Laure Melchior1 , Francoise Combes1, 2 , Barbara Mazzilli Ciraulo1 , Jonathan Freundlich3
and Alexander Drabent4

1
Sorbonne Université, LERMA, Observatoire de Paris, PSL university, CNRS, F-75014, Paris, France
e-mail: Daniel.Maschmann@observatoiredeparis.psl.eu, A.L.Melchior@oobservatoiredeparis.psl.eu
2
Collège de France, 11, Place Marcelin Berthelot, F-75005, Paris, France
3
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg, UMR 7550, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
4
Thüringer Landessternwarte, Sternwarte 5, 07778 Tautenburg, Germany

Received 18 September 2021/ accepted

arXiv:2112.12796v1 [astro-ph.GA] 23 Dec 2021

ABSTRACT

The respective contributions of gas accretion, galaxy interactions, and mergers to the mass assembly of galaxies, their morphological
transformations, and the changes in their molecular gas content and star formation activity are still not fully understood. Galaxies with
two kinematic components which are manifested as a double-peak (DP) in their emission lines, have been identified in a recent work
to play a major role in the morphological transformation towards larger bulges. Notably, star-forming DP galaxies display a central
star formation enhancement and are thought to be associated to a sequence of recent minor mergers. In order to probe merger induced
star formation mechanisms, we conducted observations of the molecular gas content of star-forming DP galaxies in the upper part of
the main sequence (MS) of star formation with the IRAM 30m telescope. In combination with existing molecular gas observations
from the literature, we gathered a sample of 41 such galaxies. We succeed to fit the same kinematic parameters to the optical ionised
and molecular gas emission lines for 24 (59 %) galaxies. We find a central star formation enhancement which is most likely the result
of a galaxy merger or galaxy interactions which is indicated by an excess of gas extinction found in the centre. This star formation is
traced by radio continuum emissions of 150 MHz, 1.4 GHz and 3 GHz, which are all three linearly correlated with the CO luminosity
described by the same slope. By comparing the measured star formation efficiency and the molecular gas mass fraction with the
expected values of the MS, we find a significantly larger amount of molecular gas in the present DP galaxies and larger depletion
times. We discard a scenario of large scale instabilities driving gas into the centre and find no direct link between the measured
kinematic signatures and inclination. This leads us to conclude that the observed DP galaxies are mostly the result of a recent merger
that funnelled molecular gas towards the centre, triggering efficient star formation there.
Key words. galaxies: kinematics and dynamics, galaxies: interactions, galaxies: evolution, galaxies: star formation, Methods: obser-
vational, techniques: spectroscopic, methods: data analysis

1. Introduction
The evolutionary state of galaxies depends mostly on their
growth rate and their efficiency to transform accreted gas into
stars. Galaxy interactions and mergers are well known to en-
hance the star formation rate (Bothun & Dressler 1986; Pimbblet
et al. 2002) and to increase the molecular gas content (Combes
et al. 1994; Violino et al. 2018; Lisenfeld et al. 2019). On
the contrary, the environment can be responsible for the final
quenching of the galaxy (Balogh et al. 1998). It is still an open
question whether the neutral hydrogen gas fraction changes in
merging systems: some studies find little differences in close
galaxy pairs (e.g. Zuo et al. 2018; Braine & Combes 1993) or
post-merger galaxies (e.g. Ellison et al. 2015), others find an en-
hancement of the atomic gas fraction in recently merged galaxies
(Huchtmeier et al. 2008; Ellison et al. 2018) or even a deficit in
the final stages of merging (Hibbard & van Gorkom 1996).
Galaxy interactions and mergers can also drive gas towards
the centre and hence fuel the nuclear black hole, enhancing ac-
tive galactic nuclei (AGN) activity and feedback (Croton et al.
2006; Springel et al. 2005), which can then influence star for-
mation in the host galaxy (Barrows et al. 2017; Concas et al.
2017; Woo et al. 2017). In cases of powerful AGN, the radia-
tion can shut down the star formation entirely (Di Matteo et al.
2005; Croton et al. 2006; Cattaneo et al. 2009). Using simula-
tions, Sanchez et al. (2021) have shown that two successive mi-
nor merger events can quench Milky-Way like galaxies through
AGN feedback.
To explain the overall growth of galaxy over cosmic time,
Tacchella et al. (2016b) described a scenario of recurring
episodes of gas infall and depletion phases. Gas is accreted in
larger amounts through streams from the surroundings (Dekel
et al. 2009) or through minor merger events causing a contrac-
tion of the gas disc and leading to efficient star formation sites
with a central enhancement (Dekel & Burkert 2014). This shifts
the galaxy towards the upper main sequence (MS) before the gas
depletion will let the galaxy descend underneath the MS. Smooth
gas accretion from filaments (Bouché et al. 2010; Davé et al.
2011, 2012; Feldmann 2013; Lilly et al. 2013; Dekel et al. 2013;
Peng & Maiolino 2014; Dekel & Burkert 2014) can explain that
most galaxies on the MS exhibit a rotating disc morphology
(Förster Schreiber et al. 2006; Genzel et al. 2006, 2008; Stark
et al. 2008; Daddi et al. 2010; Wuyts et al. 2011) and long sus-
tained star formation cycles of star-forming galaxies at z = 1 − 2
(Daddi et al. 2005, 2007; Caputi et al. 2006).
Based on the projected distance and velocity between galax-
ies, Ellison et al. (2008) and Patton et al. (2011) conducted stud-
ies on large galaxy pair samples and associated effects. As a
Article number, page 1 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main
function of the galaxy separation, they found an increase in cen-
tral star formation. By extending the pair search with quasi stel-
lar objects and AGNs, Ellison et al. (2011b) found that AGN
activity can be triggered by galaxy interactions before the final
coalescence.
As predicted by Begelman et al. (1980), galaxy mergers lead
at one point to the final coalescence of the super-massive black
holes of their progenitors. Earlier stages of this scenario have
been reported many times in form of dual AGNs (e.g. Genzel
et al. 2001; Koss et al. 2016, 2018; Goulding et al. 2019). Such
galaxy mergers can be identified through kinematic signatures
with spectroscopic observations. Post-coalescence mergers can
create two separated gas populations which can be observed as
double-peak (DP) emission lines and have been studied with the
motivation of AGN evolution studies (e.g. Comerford et al. 2009;
Liu et al. 2011; Koss et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2013; Comerford et al.
2013; Fu et al. 2015) in order to discuss their nature. DP signa-
tures and galaxy mergers were found to be related to merging
processes in Comerford et al. (2018) and Maschmann & Mel-
chior (2019). In a recent study, Mazzilli Ciraulo et al. (2021) suc-
ceeded to resolve two independent kinematic components using
integrated field spectroscopy of a DP emission line galaxy and
identified two galaxies in the process of merging, superimposed
in projection along the same line of sight.
A systematic search for DP emission line galaxies was con-
ducted by Ge et al. (2012) including also non AGN galaxies
such as star-forming or composite galaxies. In order to dis-
cuss the nature of DP emission line galaxies, Maschmann et al.
(2020) (hereafter M20) developed an automated selection pro-
cedure and found 5663 DP galaxies. They used reduced spectra
provided by the value-added Reference Catalogue of Spectral
Energy Distributions (RCSED) (Chilingarian et al. 2017). They
compared them to single-peaked galaxies with the same emis-
sion line signal to noise (S/N) properties and with the same red-
shift and stellar mass distribution. They found that DP galaxies
have a significant excess of lenticular galaxies and that star for-
mation is more likely happening in the central region. They also
discarded a scenario where a rotating disc would explain the
observed DP and concluded that a scenario of repetitive minor
mergers is responsible for the central star formation and causes
a bulge growth as proposed by Bournaud et al. (2007b).
In order to further explore the mechanism of star formation
in the context of galaxy interactions and mergers, we conducted
observations of DP emission line galaxies with the IRAM 30m
telescope. We thus can further determine their evolutionary state
by measuring their molecular gas reservoir and characterise their
star formation efficiency. We present galaxies which are situ-
ated at the upper MS and above and have existing radio contin-
uum observations. This will enable us to discuss different mech-
anisms of star formation and compare them to other types of
galaxies. We further aim to analyse the connection between the
ionised and molecular gas by comparing their kinematic distri-
butions.
This work is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe the
sample selection, the performed observations and the emission
line fitting procedure. In order to compare our galaxies, we also
describe existing galaxy samples with molecular gas observa-
tions. In Sect. 3, we analyse different star formation tracers, and
calculate the molecular gas content of the presented galaxy sam-
ples. We perform an aperture correction, present the Kennicutt-
Schmidt relation and explore the connection between the CO lu-
minosity and radio continuum emission. Last, we discuss our
results in Sect. 4 and present the conclusion in Sect. 5.
Article number, page 2 of 28
A cosmology of Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7 and h = 0.7 is assumed
in this work.
2. Data
DP emission line galaxies are a type of galaxies where the emis-
sion lines of the central ionised gas have a double peak shape.
This shape can be better modelled using a double Gaussian than
a single Gaussian function. As discussed in Sect. 1, this emission
line shape has been used in multiple studies to find galaxy merg-
ers or dual AGNs. But as discussed in detail in M20, since we
are only probing the central part of a galaxy, we cannot exclude
a rotating gaseous disc as the origin of the DP structure. In order
to probe the merging scenario resulting in DP emission lines, we
build up a galaxy sample of DP galaxies with CO observations
(hereafter DP sample). We, therefore, use new CO observations
and also gather existing CO measurements from the literature.
M20
1.5 This work (literature)
This work (new observations)
1.0
0.5
log( MS)
0.0
0.5
1.0
Mean uncertainty
1.5
2.0
10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5
log(M * / M )
Fig. 1. Offset from the MS for all CO samples as a function of stel-
lar mass (M∗ ) using the parametrisation of the MS found by Speagle
et al. (2014). The shaded area marks the 0.3 dex and the dashed lines the
±1 dex scatter. We use the SFR computed by Brinchmann et al. (2004)
and the stellar mass from Kauffmann et al. (2003). We show the M20
sample with grey dots and mark the DP sample (definition in Sect. 2.1
and 2.2) with red circles and stars. Circles represent galaxies with new
CO observations and stars galaxies where we obtained the CO measure-
ments from the literature. The contour lines show the density of the M20
sample. In the bottom left, we show the mean uncertainties.
2.1. M20 based sample selection
We start by selecting DP galaxies from M20 which were ob-
served during two observing runs with the IRAM 30m tele-
scope in April and December 2020. To probe the relation be-
tween galaxy merging and star formation mechanisms we only
select galaxies from the upper or above MS. We compute the
expected MS star formation rate SFRMS = SFR(MS; z, M∗ ) for
a given redshift and stellar mass M∗ , parametrised by Spea-
gle et al. (2014) and compute the offset from the MS as
δMS = SFR/SFRMS using the SFR computed by Brinchmann
et al. (2004) and the stellar mass from (Kauffmann et al. 2003).
From observations, the MS is estimated with a typical scatter of
δMS ∼ 0.3 dex (e.g Noeske et al. 2007; Rodighiero et al. 2011;
Whitaker et al. 2012; Schreiber et al. 2015). Indeed, galaxies
can be shifted above the MS due to large gas accretion or a mi-
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies
nor merger, as discussed by Tacchella et al. (2016b) relying on
cosmological simulations.
In order to find galaxies with increased star formation activ-
ity in comparison to the MS we select galaxies which are located
at least δMS = 0.3 dex above the MS. This is shown in Fig. 1 for
the parent M20 sample and our DP sample, selected here. To en-
sure the correct classification as star-forming (SF), we demand
all galaxies to be classified as SF or composite (COMP) using
the BPT diagram (Baldwin et al. 1981; Kewley et al. 2006b). To
display the position on the BPT diagram we compute the emis-
sion line ratios using the non-parametric fit from Chilingarian
et al. (2017) which is able to model non-Gaussian emission line
shapes, such as a DP.
We exclude all galaxies which are located below
δMS = 0.3 dex or which show significant signs of AGN
activity from the DP sample. However, such galaxies are not
excluded in literature samples which are selected in Sect. 2.5 to
discuss characteristics of star forming DP galaxies. With these
criteria, we aim to focus our work on galaxies with ongoing
star formation which can either be recently induced by galaxy
interaction or gas accretion (e.g. Bothun & Dressler 1986;
Pimbblet et al. 2002) or is the remaining of a faded starburst
event (Schawinski et al. 2009; French et al. 2015).
To discuss their star-forming activity based on synchrotron
emission, all galaxies must have at least one radio continuum ob-
servation at 150 MHz, 1.4 GHz or 3 GHz. These measurements
would also be sensitive to the contribution of possible hidden
AGNs. We thus select galaxies observed by the LOFAR Two-
metre Sky Survey (LoTSS) at 150 MHz (see Shimwell et al.
2019, for DR1), the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-
Centimeters (FIRST) at 1.4 GHz (White et al. 1997) or the Very
Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS) at 3 GHz (Lacy et al. 2020).
We use the integrated radio flux measured for each source. We
have used the LoTSS DR2 (early access) fluxes, as the DR2 of-
fers a larger coverage of SDSS DR7 footprint than the DR1. One
can note that the DP galaxies observed have been detected. Ra-
dio continuum emission at 1.4 GHz has been extensively stud-
ied as a tracer of SF (Condon 1992; Bell 2003; Schmitt et al.
2006; Murphy et al. 2011) and new generation low frequency
radio telescopes such as LOFAR at 150 MHz showed good po-
tential to trace SF (Calistro Rivera et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2019).
These SF tracer combined with measurements of the molecular
gas content through CO observations with the IRAM 30m tele-
scope enable us to better understand the evolutionary state of
the observed galaxies and characterise the origin of the observed
SF with respect to their DP. 34 DP galaxies meet these criteria,
which we observed with the IRAM 30m telescope.
2.2. Other literature data
In order to enlarge our sample, we further select DP galaxies
from published CO observations, which match the criteria de-
scribed in Sect. 2.1. To select DP galaxies, we perform a sim-
plified DP selection procedure as described in M20 but with no
emission line stacking and multiple selection stages. Our present
algorithm consists of a simple emission line fitting algorithm and
selection criteria but is finally relying on a visual inspection since
noisy spectra tend to be falsely selected to show DP emission
lines. This enables us to also select DP galaxies with strong per-
turbed gas kinematics, which deviate from double Gaussian pro-
files and would be sorted out by automated robust DP selection
algorithms as discussed in M20.
We start from the SDSS spectra and subtract the best
fitting stellar continuum template provided by Chilingarian
et al. (2017) to get the pure emission line spectrum. We fit
single and double Gaussian functions to the emission lines
Hβ, [OIII]λ4960, [OIII]λ5008, [OI]λ6302, [NII]λ6550, Hα,
[NII]λ6585, [SII]λ6718 and [SII]λ6733 simultaneously and use
a global velocity µ (resp. µ1 and µ2 for the double Gaussian fit)
and the Gaussian standard deviation σ (resp. σ1 and σ2 ) for
all emission lines but keep the individual emission line ampli-
tudes as free parameters. We also include the spectral instru-
mental broadening σinst to the fitted σ for each observed emis-
sion line individually
q to get the observed Gaussian velocity dis-
persion σobs = σ2inst + σ2 . We pre-select galaxies which are
selected by the F-test criteria, with an emission line separation
∆v = |µ1 − µ2 | of at least 200 km s−1 and an amplitude ratio of the
[OIII]λ5008 or Hα line to be between 1/3 and 3, as described
in detail in M20. The fitted emission lines are shown in Fig. 2
example for the Galaxy DP-7. We note that the continuum of
the [OI]λ6302 line shows a small dip. This is most likely due
to the fact that for the stellar continuum fit the emission lines
are masked and structures close to the emission lines cannot be
accurately modelled. Since we fit all emission lines simultane-
ously with the same kinematic parameters this has no effect on
the emission line fit.
We select 2 DP galaxies observed with the Combined Ar-
ray for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA) by
Bauermeister et al. (2013), 3 ultra luminous infrared galaxies
(ULIRG) observed with the 14m telescope of the Five College
Radio Astronomy Observatory (FCRAO) observed by Chung
et al. (2009) and 2 galaxies, observed with the IRAM 30m tele-
scope as part of the COLD GASS survey (Saintonge et al. 2011,
2017). In Sect. 2.5, we describe the total DP detection rate for
each public CO galaxy sample included in this work.
Finally, we gather a DP galaxy sample with CO observations
of 41 galaxies: we present new CO observations for 34 of them
and select the remaining 7 from the literature. This sample is pre-
sented in Table 1 with characteristic measurements such as the
redshift, stellar mass, SFR, radio continuum fluxes, the galaxy
size and inclination.
2.3. Observations
We observed DP galaxies during two observing runs from 21st
till 24th April 2020 and 23rd till 29th December 2020 with the
IRAM 30m telescope at Pico Veleta in Spain. Galaxies with
a redshift z < 0.144 could be observed simultaneously in the
CO(1-0) and CO(2-1) lines and 5 galaxies at higher redshift
were only observable in CO(1-0) at the time. The mean emis-
sion line wavelengths were about ∼ 3 mm for the CO(1-0) line
and ∼ 1.5 mm for the CO(2-1) line. Thick clouds and snow pre-
vented us from observing during 1.5 nights during the first run
and 2 nights during the second run but we were able to observe
all proposed galaxies during the remaining time under excellent
conditions.
The galaxies were observed using the broad-band EMIR re-
ceiver, tuned in single-band mode with a total band-width of
3.715 GHz per polarisation. This allows us to observe an av-
erage velocity range of 11 140 km s−1 for the CO(1-0) line and
5 570 km s−1 for the CO(2-1) line. The Wobbler switching mode
was used to carry out the observations and the backends WILMA
and FTS were used in parallel with a channel width of 2 MHz
and 0.195 MHz, respectively.
We pointed on average one hour at each galaxy and reached
noise levels between 0.1 and 1.8 mK (main-beam temperature),
smoothed over 60 km/s. Focus measurements were performed
Article number, page 3 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

Table 1. Characteristics of DP galaxy sample

ID SDSS Designation z log(M∗ /M ) SFR F150 MHz F1.4 GHz F3 GHz D25 i
M yr−1 mJy mJy mJy arcsec o

DP-1 - 0.0269 11.0 7.7 - 5.8 3.1 65.8 66

DP-2 - 0.0271 10.5 3.9 - 5.4 2.8 82.2 61
DP-3 - 0.0274 10.5 3.5 - 5.0 2.3 61.6 58
DP-4 - 0.0367 11.1 13.4 - 21.0 10.6 60.9 -
DP-5 - 0.0368 11.1 7.4 - 9.7 8.1 59.7 48
DP-6 - 0.0372 10.5 5.8 - 2.6 1.8 43.5 50
DP-7 - 0.0379 10.9 10.1 - 9.1 5.4 25.2 -
DP-8 - 0.0386 10.7 9.3 - 2.7 1.6 44.6 64
DP-9 - 0.0390 11.0 43.5 8.5 4.8 2.9 38.5 52
DP-10 - 0.0390 11.0 7.3 - 4.1 - 41.4 56
DP-11 - 0.0405 11.2 7.4 - 18.0 3.9 47.0 -
DP-12a - 0.0427 10.9 12.3 - - 3.3 47.4 62
DP-13 - 0.0457 10.9 10.4 8.4 1.6 1.8 43.7 56
DP-14 - 0.0462 11.0 7.2 15.2 3.3 2.8 49.6 -
DP-15 - 0.0479 10.8 24.8 - 3.3 1.9 25.3 43
DP-16a - 0.0490 10.4 9.1 36.4 22.3 7.8 65.8 -
DP-17 - 0.0538 11.1 7.5 10.7 2.8 2.0 45.2 57
DP-18b - 0.0621 11.0 21.5 - - 1.7 27.5 -
DP-19 - 0.0677 10.7 17.0 7.2 2.4 - 19.6 36
DP-20 - 0.0690 11.1 36.7 6.0 5.1 2.8 27.1 46
DP-21 - 0.0715 10.9 25.2 6.9 2.9 1.2 25.2 -
DP-22c - 0.0731 10.6 17.5 - 24.6 17.0 4.5 -
DP-23c - 0.0763 11.1 19.8 - 16.4 7.1 19.4 -
DP-24 - 0.0815 10.9 22.4 10.4 5.2 1.4 31.0 -
DP-25 - 0.0844 11.0 28.0 10.1 4.0 2.1 22.6 39
DP-26 - 0.0902 11.1 18.5 18.8 4.1 2.2 23.2 61
DP-27 - 0.1065 10.8 43.7 6.9 1.1 - 19.3 51
DP-28c - 0.1087 11.2 55.8 13.1 10.7 5.2 20.1 -
DP-29 - 0.1124 10.8 15.2 7.8 1.5 - 15.0 45
DP-30 - 0.1194 10.8 12.7 5.6 1.9 - 18.2 40
DP-31 - 0.1211 10.8 23.7 8.4 2.0 - 13.2 66
DP-32 - 0.1230 11.2 80.6 8.7 1.7 1.2 13.8 39
DP-33 - 0.1244 11.0 35.6 8.7 3.5 - 14.6 29
DP-34 - 0.1400 11.1 63.8 11.5 2.1 1.2 12.2 -
DP-35 - 0.1437 11.1 36.5 5.4 2.8 1.0 19.0 -
DP-36 - 0.1601 10.8 47.1 4.8 1.0 - 15.3 61
DP-37 - 0.1638 11.1 65.9 10.9 2.2 1.0 14.1 39
DP-38b - 0.1762 11.5 61.5 - 1.1 - 22.6 -
DP-39 - 0.1801 11.4 19.3 5.3 1.6 - 19.3 21
DP-40 - 0.1906 11.0 21.1 6.5 1.4 - 9.9 42
DP-41 - 0.1938 10.7 11.4 3.1 1.5 - 9.8 -

Notes: The DP emission line galaxies sample consisting of 41 galaxies which have been observed in CO. We conducted CO observations for 34
galaxies and mark observations from the literature. We note galaxies taken from Saintonge et al. (2017) with the footnote a, from Bauermeister
et al. (2013) with b and c for observations taken from Chung et al. (2009). We show the SDSS designation, redshift, stellar mass (Kauffmann
et al. 2003) and SFR (Brinchmann et al. 2004) and radio fluxes at 150 MHZ taken from Shimwell et al. (2019), 1.4 GHz (White et al. 1997) and at
3 GHz (Lacy et al. 2020). D25 is the optical diameter at the 25 mag isophote taken from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)1 . We used
the radii computed from the SDSS r-band observation or if available photometric B-band observation. We further present the galaxy inclination
calculated from a 2D Sérsic profile fit as described in detail in Sect. 3.3.

at the beginning of the night and at dawn, as well as pointing
measurements every 2 hours. The temperature scale we use here
is main-beam temperature and the beam size is λ/D = 2200 at
2.8 mm and 1200 at 1.4 mm wavelength with an average beam
efficiency of ηmb = T∗A /Tmb = 0.76 and 0.56 respectively. The
observation data were reduced using the CLASS/GILDAS soft-
ware. We transformed the observed main-beam temperature into
units of spectral flux density by using the IRAM 30m antenna
Article number, page 4 of 28
factor of 5 Jy/K. This allows us to better compare our observa-
tions to existing CO samples.
2.4. CO line fitting
The SDSS 300 fibre only probes the central few kpc of a galaxy
in comparison to the IRAM 30m CO(1-0) beam of 2200 which
covers roughly the entire galaxy at a redshift z > 0.05. So these
two measurements probe not only different types of gas, they
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

DP-7 20 6 7.5

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
5"
40'1

H 4 10 [OIII]5008 5.0
[OIII]4960
DEC. (2000.0) 14°

[OI]6302
10 2 2.5
5
00"

0 0.0
0 2 0
2.5
5 2.5 2.5
2.5
30"

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.5 2.5 2.5
14h37m16s R.A.14(2000.0)
s 13s 12s 1000 500 0 500 1000 1000 500 0 500 1000 1000 500 0 500 1000 1000 500 0 500 1000
20 200 Comb. fit
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

80 CO10 CO21
[SII] 6718 100 Comb. fit
60 H 6565 15
[NII] 6585 10 100

Tmb, mJy
40 [SII] 6733 50
20 [NII] 6550 5 0
0
0 0
10 2.5 25 50
0 0.0 0 0
10 2.5 25 50
1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1

Fig. 2. Example of combined emission line fit for DP-7. We show the Legacy survey snapshot on top left and mark the position and size of the
SDSS 300 fibre in red and with green (resp. black) dashed lines the FWHM of the CO(1-0) (resp. CO(2-1)) beam of the IRAM 30m telescope. The
top row displays next to the snapshot the Hβ, [OIII]λ4960, [OIII]λ5008 and [OI]λ6302 emission lines and in the bottom panels the [NII]λ6550, Hα,
[NII]λ6585, [SII]λ6718, [SII]λ6733 and the CO(1-0) and CO(2-1) lines. We show the double Gaussian fit with the blueshifted (resp. redshifted)
component in blue (resp. red) and the total fitted function in green. Tick marks indicate the line position, deviating sometimes from the expected
redshift. For the Hα, [NII]λ6550, 6585 doublet we display the lines with respect to the expected Hα line velocity and the [SII]λ6718, 6733 with
respect to the [SII]λ6718 line velocity. Residuals are plotted below each emission line fit.

also probe different regions of the galaxy. However, in a scenario in each molecular emission line. The CO fit results are presented
where a merger event, a galaxy interaction or the accretion of a in Tab. B.1 and B.2.
large amount of gas have funnelled the gas into the central region
fuelling the star formation, we would expect the molecular gas to
follow similar kinematics as the ionised gas with the latter being 2.5. Comparison with other galaxy samples
mainly emitted by these star-forming regions. This assumption In order to discuss the peculiarities of our DP galaxy sample,
motivates a combined fitting approach where we fix the same we assemble here complementary galaxy samples with existing
Gaussian kinematic parameters µ1,2 and σ1,2 obtained from the CO observations from the literature at different redshifts, star-
optical ionised gas emission lines (described in Sect. 2.2) to the forming activity and evolutionary states. For each sample, we
CO lines. We thus only fit the emission line amplitudes. We then perform a single and double Gaussian fit to the SDSS emission
evaluate if we are able to model the CO emission lines with the line spectrum, if available, as described in Sect. 2.2 to discuss
same kinematic parameters as found in the SDSS emission line the DP fraction of each sample.
spectrum. We, therefore, compute the RMS outside the CO emis-
sion lines and check if the residuals of the performed fit exceed
3 times the RMS value. If this is the case, a significant deviation 2.5.1. COLD GASS sample
from the residuals would indicate a molecular gas component
which cannot be represented by the velocity distribution found We use 360 CO(1-0) detected galaxies from the final COLD
in the ionised gas. If we do not find significant deviations from GASS sample (Saintonge et al. 2011, 2017), observed with
the RMS, we adopt this fit and flag the CO line to indicate a suc- the IRAM 30m telescope with M∗ greater than M∗ > 1010 M
cessful combined fit. We first check the CO(2-1) observation (if and 0.025 < z < 0.050. These constraints exclude the
available) since this observation probes a smaller region than the COLD GASS-low extension which is composed of galaxies of
CO(1-0) observation. Therefore, if we do not succeed to perform 109 M < M∗ < 1010 M . We discard these galaxies since they
a combined fit in the CO(2-1) line, we do not fit the CO(1-0) with have M∗ of about ∼ 1 − 2 dex smaller than the discussed DP
this approach. In galaxy DP-15, we succeed to fit a combined fit sample. Due to their smaller gravitational potential, these galax-
only in the CO(2-1) line but not in the CO(1-0) line. ies play a different role in terms of merger-induced star forma-
tion. The selected sample represents the local galaxy population
We finally find 24 (59 %) galaxies with a successful com- since it was selected randomly out of the complete parent sample
bined fit and show, in Fig. 2, an example of combined fit re- of the SDSS within the ALFALFA footprint. We find 13 galaxies
sults with all included lines for DP-7. Those CO lines for which to be identified with a DP, whereas we select 2 of these for our
the combined fit approach failed are fitted independently. We fit present DP sample in Sect. 2.2.
them with a single, a double and a triple Gaussian function and
select the best fit through an F-test as performed for the ionised 2.5.2. M sample
gas emission line fit in Sect. 2.2. In Fig. A.2 to A.6, we show all
results with only the Hα line and the [NII]λ6550, 6585 doublet To characterise galaxies which are scattered around the star-
and the CO lines. We mark a successful combined fit with a flag forming main sequence (MS) at higher redshift (z = 0.5 − 3.2),
Article number, page 5 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main
we compose a CO detected sample which is a part of the sam-
ple used in Tacconi et al. (2018). This sample is associated with
the MS at higher redshift and we name it the M sample. The
purpose of this sample is to compare the molecular gas content
and scaling relations of gas depletion time and molecular gas
fractions of DP galaxies with galaxies associated with the MS.
We gather 51 MS galaxies from the PHIBSS1 survey (Tacconi
et al. 2013) observed with IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferome-
ter (PdBI) in CO(3-2) at two groups of redshift z = 1 − 1.5 and
z = 2 − 2.5, 87 MS galaxies from the PHIBSS2 survey (Tacconi
et al. 2018; Freundlich et al. 2019) observed with NOEMA in
CO(2-1) or (3-2) at z = 0.5 − 2.7, 9 MS galaxies at z = 0.5 − 3.2
observed by with IRAM PdBI in CO(2-1) or (3-2) (Daddi et al.
2010; Magdis et al. 2012), 6 MS galaxies from the Herschel-
PACS Evolutionary Probe (PEP) survey (Lutz et al. 2011) ob-
which is classified as a Seyfert galaxy and thus does not meet
the criteria of the selection procedure for our DP sample. This
provides us 94 ULIRGs enabling us to compare our DP sample
with strong IR and radio sources.
2.5.5. Low SF sample
To study the difference between star-forming galaxies and galax-
ies at late stages of a starburst, or with even quenched SF, we
gather a low SF sample. Therefore, we use 11 galaxies from
Schawinski et al. (2009) which are CO(1-0) detected with the
IRAM 30m telescope. These galaxies are early-type galaxies at
a redshift of 0.05 < z < 0.10, currently undergoing the process
of quenching or show late-time star formation. We further select
17 CO(1-0) and (2-1) detected post-starburst galaxies with little
served with the IRAM PdBI in CO(2-1) at redshift z = 1 − 1.2
(Magnelli et al. 2012) and 8 MS gravitationally lensed galaxies
observed with the IRAM PdBI in CO(3-2) at z = 1.4 − 3.2 (Sain-
tonge et al. 2013, and references therein). As shown in Fig. 3,
this sample is scattered around the MS with some outliers of up
to δMS = 1 dex. In comparison to the sample used in Tacconi
et al. (2018) we discuss the COLD GASS sample, the EGNOG
sample and ULIRGs separately and exclude all sub samples of
galaxies situated above the MS. We compose the M sample with
161 galaxies. Even though this sample lies at higher redshift than
our DP sample, we are able to discuss underlying mechanisms
which account for deviation from the scaling relations found by
Tacconi et al. (2018) and which are sampling various stages of
cosmic evolution. Due to their high redshifts, we do not have
optical spectra and thus are unable to estimate their DP fraction.
2.5.3. EGNOG sample
We use 31 CO(1–0) or (3–2) detected above MS galaxies from
the EGNOG survey (Bauermeister et al. 2013) at redshift z =
0.06 − 0.5. These galaxies are mainly characterised by star for-
mation enhancement and show starbursts in some cases. We have
SDSS spectra for 26 of these galaxies and find 11 galaxies ex-
hibiting a DP, of which 2 are selected to be part of our present
DP sample (discussed in Sect. 2.2). This sample is similar to the
present DP sample in terms of SFR (Brinchmann et al. 2004),
M∗ (Kauffmann et al. 2003) and redshift. One main difference is
the absence of radio continuum observations for the most part of
this sample.
2.5.4. ULIRG sample
To compare our galaxies with the brightest infra-red (IR) galax-
ies, we assemble a sample of ultra luminous infrared galax-
ies (ULIRG) with existing CO detections performed with the
IRAM 30m and the FCRAO 14m telescope. These galaxies ex-
hibit a starburst or are identified as strong quasars. We select:
18 ULIRGs detected in CO(1-0), (2-1) or (3-2) at z = 0.2 −
ongoing star formation (∼ 1M yr−1 ) at 0.01 < z < 0.12 (French
et al. 2015), of which 4 are exhibiting DP emission lines in the
SDSS spectra. We add 15 bulge-dominated, quenched galaxies
with large dust lanes detected in CO(1-0) and (2-1) with the
IRAM 30m telescope at 0.025 < z < 0.133 (Davis et al. 2015),
of which 3 have DP emission line in the SDSS spectra. Finally,
we add 2 quenched massive spiral galaxies at z ∼ 0.1 detected
in CO(1-0) with the IRAM 30m telescope (Luo et al. 2020).
The low SF sample, thus, consists of 45 galaxies creating a well
suited counterpart to MS and above-MS galaxies.
2.5.6. MEGAFLOW sample
Furthermore, we aim to discuss our observations with respect
to recent NOEMA observations, conducted by Freundlich et al.
(2021). They measured CO(3-2) and (4-3) detection limits for 6
galaxies at z = 0.6 − 1.1 which have confirmed in- and outflows
in the circumgalactic medium. They succeeded to detect a sig-
nal by stacking their observations. These observations were a pi-
lot program of the MusE GAs FLOw and Wind (MEGAFLOW)
survey. They aim to test the quasi-equilibrium model and the
compaction scenario describing the evolution of galaxies along
the main sequence, implying a tight relation between SF activ-
ity, the gas content and in-/outflows. This sample will help us to
discuss different mechanisms of compaction due to filaments or
merger driven inflows, increasing both the molecular gas content
and the star formation efficiency which is discussed in Sect. 4.1.
2.6. Sample characteristics
2.6.1. Main sequence
To compare the evolutionary state according to the MS of all
samples, we show in Fig. 3 their location with respect to the MS.
We estimate the SFR for a given stellar mass and redshift follow-
ing Speagle et al. (2014): SFRMS = SFR(MS; z, M∗ ) and com-
pute the offset from the MS as δMS = SFR/SFRMS . The esti-
mated uncertainty of SFRMS is 0.2 dex (Speagle et al. 2014). We
use the SFR estimations provided by Brinchmann et al. (2004)
0.6 with far IR luminosities of log(LFIR /L ) > 12.45 (Combes and M∗ by Kauffmann et al. (2003) for our DP sample, the EG-
et al. 2011), 15 ULIRGs detected in CO(2-1), (3-2) or (4-3) at NOG sample, the COLD GASS sample and the low SF sample,
z = 0.6 − 1.0 with log(LFIR /L ) > 12 (Combes et al. 2013), if available. We find a mean uncertainty of 0.45 dex for the SFR
27 ULIRGs detected in CO(1-0) at z = 0.04 − 0.11 with and 0.1 dex for M∗ . For the M and the MEGAFLOW samples,
LFIR = 0.24 − 1.60 1012 L (Chung et al. 2009) and 37 CO(1- we use SFR and M∗ values provided in the literature. An es-
0) detected ULIRGs at z < 0.3 with LFIR = 0.29 − 3.80 1012 L timation of the mean uncertainties is 0.25 and 0.2 dex for the
(Solomon et al. 1997). We identify 3 DP galaxies out of 8 SDSS SFR and M∗ respectively (Tacconi et al. 2018; Freundlich et al.
galaxies published by Chung et al. (2009) which are also part of 2019, 2021). For the ULIRGs, we use literature M∗ estimate if
our present sample (defined in Sect. 2.2). We, furthermore, find available and compute the SFR from the LFIR following Kenni-
1 DP galaxy out of 8 SDSS galaxies in Solomon et al. (1997) cutt (1998). Many of these galaxies are known to host powerful
Article number, page 6 of 28
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

COLDGASS
M sample
ULIRG Mean uncertainty
2 low SF sample
MEGAFLOW
EGNOG
DP detected
This work
1
log( MS)

2
9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0
log(M * / M )
Fig. 3. Offset from the MS as in Fig. 1. We show the DP sample with red dots, the EGNOG sample with blue dots, the COLD GASS sample
with grey dots, the low SF sample as black dots, the ULIRG as green dots, the M sample with turquoise dots and the MEGAFLOW sample
with magenta dots. The literature samples are introduced in Sect. 2.5.1-2.5.6 and a detailed description of the MS is done in Sect. 2.6.1. We mark
galaxies from other samples which were identified to exhibit a DP emission line with red circles. We show contour lines for ULIRG in green and
for the COLD GASS sample combined with the M sample in grey. In the top right we show the mean uncertainties of all samples and discuss the
individual uncertainties for each sample in the text.

AGNs which can contribute substantially to the IR flux. Further-
more, the aperture effects and possible contribution of compan-
ions can also contribute to a systematic overestimation of both
the SFR and the stellar mass (Strong & Mattox 1996). We use
the same uncertainties as for the M and MEGAFLOW samples
which are in line with the discussion on uncertainties of FIR-
based SFR and SED based stellar masses in Genzel et al. (2015).
However, since we cannot quantify systematic uncertainties we
use these estimates with caution.
We find that the M sample, the majority of the COLD GASS
sample, the MEGAFLOW sample and parts of the low SF sam-
ple are situated within the MS. We observe that parts of the
COLD GASS and the low SF sample are shifted below the MS.
As expected due to their high IR luminosities, we find ULIRGs
to be located far above the MS and in some cases even more than
2 dex. Since their SFR is estimated using LFIR , it is well possi-
ble, that in some cases, non-stellar gas heating from the AGN
dominates the IR emission, biasing the SFR estimation as shown
in Ciesla et al. (2015). We find the DP and EGNOG samples sit-
uated in the same environment: in the upper MS or above with
high stellar masses of ∼ 1011 M∗ and below the ULIRG sample.
2.6.2. BPT diagram
We use the BPT diagnostic diagram (Baldwin et al. 1981) to
classify our galaxy samples based on optical emission line ra-
tios [OIII]λ5008/Hβ on the y-axis and [NII]λ6585/Hα on the x-
axis. Relying on the criteria empirically found by Kewley et al.
(2006b), we differentiate between star-forming (SF) galaxies,
active galactic nuclei (AGN) and composite (COMP) galaxies,
which are characterised by both mechanisms: SF and AGN. In
the top panel of Fig. 4 we show the position on the BPT dia-
gram of the COLD GASS, the EGNOG and the low SF sam-
ple. Depending on which function fits the data better, we use the
Gaussian or the non-parametric emission line estimate provided
by Chilingarian et al. (2017). We mark galaxies which have a
detected DP emission line, as described in Sect. 2.2 with red
circles. In order to characterise each emission line component
for the galaxies of our DP sample individually, we classify each
of them separately. We present both classifications in the lower
panel of Fig. 4 and list their classification in Tab. 2
Article number, page 7 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

Table 2. Characteristics of observed galaxies

10 galaxies of other samples ID Morphology BPT1 BPT2 NG DN
AGN
5 kpc
[OIII]/H (5008Å/4863Å)

3 DP-1 LTG comp sf 3† 269.9†

2 DP-2 LTG comp comp 1† -
DP-3 LTG sf sf 2† 117.1†
1 DP-4 Merger comp comp 4† 27.3†
0.5 DP-5 LTG comp sf 12† 61.5†
COLD GASS
DP-6 LTG sf sf 13† 115.2†
0.3 EGNOG
ULIRG
0.2 1†
Low SF sample SF COMP DP-7
DP-8
Merger
LTG
comp
sf
comp
sf 1†
-
-
DP detected
0.1 DP-9 LTG comp comp 3† 64.2†
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 DP-10 S0 sf sf 2† 313.0†
5 DP galaxies of this work DP-11 Merger comp comp 20† 15.6†
3 DP-12a LTG sf sf 1† -
[OIII]/H (5008Å/4863Å)

DP-13 LTG comp comp 2† 146.1†

2 DP-14 Merger sf sf 1† -
DP-15 S0 + T sf sf 6† 174.3†
1
DP-16a Merger comp comp 6† 161.5†
0.5 DP-17 S0 sf sf 4† 138.2†
DP-18b LTG + T comp sf 3† 85.5†
0.3 DP-19 S0 + T sf sf 3† 399.8†
0.2 blue-peak
DP-20 S0 comp sf 2† 104.4†
red-peak DP-21 Merger comp sf 3† 651.6†
0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 DP-22c Merger comp comp 8† 129.0†
[NII]/H (6585Å/6565Å) DP-23c Merger comp comp 4† 7.9†
DP-24 Merger comp sf 4† 42.1†
Fig. 4. BPT diagrams to classify our galaxy samples into different DP-25 S0 + T sf sf 1† -
galaxy types based on ionised gas emission line ratios (Kewley et al. DP-26 S0 comp agn 2† 370.4†
2006b). The black solid line separates active galactic nuclei (AGN) DP-27 S0 + T comp comp 1† -
and composite (COMP) galaxies and the dashed black line star-forming DP-28c Merger comp comp 1† -
(SF) galaxies from COMP galaxies. In the top panel, we show galaxies
DP-29 S0 sf sf 1+ -
of the literature samples with existing SDSS spectra. We use Gaussian
or non-parametric emission line fits, in case of a non Gaussian emission DP-30 S0 sf sf 1+ -
line shape, provided by Chilingarian et al. (2017). We mark galaxies of DP-31 S0 sf sf 1+ -
the literature samples with detected DP emission lines using red circles. DP-32 LTG comp sf 2+ 303.7+
In the bottom panel, we show for each galaxy of the DP sample the DP-33 S0 sf sf 1+ -
blueshifted and redshifted peaks represented by blue and red squares DP-34 Merger sf sf 1+ -
respectively, and connect them by a black dashed line. In comparison DP-35 Merger sf sf - -
to the top panel, we zoomed into the region where we detect DP galax- DP-36 LTG + T sf sf 1+ -
ies to resolve both components. For galaxies where one of the needed DP-37 S0 sf sf 1+ -
emission lines is below 3 σ, we indicate the emission line ratio limits by
DP-38b Merger sf sf 1+ -
arrows. In both panels, we show contour lines representing galaxies of
the RCSED catalogue which have a S/N > 3 in all required emission DP-39 S0 + T comp comp 1+ -
lines. DP-40 S0 sf sf 1+ -
DP-41 Merger sf agn - -

2.6.3. Morphology and galaxy environment
To further characterise the evolutionary state of the galaxies, we
visually inspect the legacy survey images (Dey et al. 2019) and
categorise them as mergers if we see an optical perturbation, as
late-type galaxies (LTG) if we can identify a spiral disc or as S0
if we can identify a disc with the bulge dominating the shape.
The results found by Domínguez Sánchez et al. (2018) with a
machine-learning based classification, which was used in M20,
inspired this classification. We also flag LTG and S0 galaxies
which have tidal features, since this can be the sign of a recent
merger or interaction. We present in Table 2 the morphological
type of each galaxy of the DP sample.
To discuss the impact of the environment, we identify the as-
sociated group galaxies using Saulder et al. (2016) for galaxies at
z < 0.11 and Yang et al. (2007) for galaxies at z > 0.11. In Saul-
der et al. (2016), galaxy groups were identified using a group
Article number, page 8 of 28
Notes: Column 2 shows the morphological classification based on vi-
sual inspection. Galaxies which show tidal features are indicated with a
‘+ T´ We also show the BPT classification of the blueshifted and red-
shifted components in columns 3 and 4 respectively. We display the
number of galaxies NG associated in the same group in column 5 and
the distance to the closest neighbour in the column 6. We use prefer-
ably Saulder et al. (2016) which is denoted with a † and for galaxies at
z > 0.11 we use Yang et al. (2007), denoted with an +. The denotations
a, b and c are the same as in Table 1.
finding algorithm which was calibrated with cosmological simu-
lation. The group finding algorithm in Yang et al. (2007) is a halo
based friends-of-friends finding algorithm. Both algorithms pro-
vide the number of galaxies in the group and we can measure the
projected distance to the closest neighbour. In Tab. 2, we present
the environment parameters for each DP galaxy.
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies
8 Mean uncertainty
log(sSFRFibre / yr 1)
9 parametric emission-line fit to account for the entire system. We
10 SF RCSED
E(B-V) < 0.2 mag
0.2 mag < E(B-V) < 0.4 mag
0.4 mag < E(B-V) < 0.6 mag
0.6 mag < E(B-V) < 0.8 mag
11 0.8 mag < E(B-V)
This work
11 10 9 8
log(sSFRH / yr 1)
Fig. 5. Comparison of sSFR estimation inside the SDSS 300 fibre. We
show the sSFR estimated from extinction corrected Hα luminosities
(SFRHα ) on the x-axis and the sSFR inside the fibre (SFRfibre ) estimated
by Brinchmann et al. (2004). We show the DP sample with red cir-
cles and the galaxies with a S/N> 10 in the Hα line of the RCSED
catalogue (Chilingarian et al. 2017) with black contour lines. We, fur-
thermore, show the median of groups of different gas extinction E(B-V)
computed following equation 2 with solid thick lines and a black dashed
line which denotes SFRHα = SFRfibre . We show with a black error bar
the mean estimated uncertainties of the star formation rates, including
stellar mass uncertainties.
3. Analysis
3.1. Star formation
To compute the extinction-corrected luminosity of the Hα emis-
sion line, we follow Calzetti (2001):
Lint (Hα) = Lobs (Hα) 100.4κ(Hα)E(B−V) , (1)
where Lint (Hα ) is the intrinsic and Lobs (Hα ) the observed Hα lu-
minosity. κ(Hα ) is the reddening curve parametrised by Calzetti
et al. (2000) at the Hα rest frame wavelength and E(B-V), the
colour excess, is computed as:
" #
(Hα/Hβ)obs
E(B − V) = 1.97 log10 , (2)
2.86
following Momcheva et al. (2013) and Domínguez et al. (2013).
The dust extinction estimate is based on the assumption of an
intrinsic Hα/Hβ ratio of 2.86, appropriate for a temperature of
T = 104 K and an electron density of ne = 102 cm−3 for a case B
recombination (Osterbrock & Ferland 2006). We can thus com-
pute the Hα-based SFR as SFR(Hα) = 7.9 × 10−42 × Lint (Hα)
following Kewley et al. (2002).
We compute the SFRHα inside the SDSS 300 fibre for both
emission line components of the DP sample but also for the
total emission line luminosity using the non-parametric emis-
sion line fit provided by Chilingarian et al. (2017). To discuss
the quality of this estimation, we compare the SFRHα estima-
tion with SFR estimation of the SDSS fibre SFRfibre provided by
Brinchmann et al. (2004), based on an emission line modelling
to avoid creating biases in the SFR estimated from the emission
lines as a function of metallicity or stellar mass. This approach
also takes the diffuse emission inside a galaxy into account. In
Fig. 5, we show the specific star formation rate sSFR = SFR /
M∗ inside the 300 fibre using the stellar mass estimate (Kauff-
mann et al. 2003), considering the SFRHα on the x-axis and the
SFRfibre on the y-axis. We present galaxies from the RCSED
catalogue with a S/N > 10 in the Hα emission line with black
contours and show the mean values of groups of different ex-
tinction E(B-V) computed following Eq. 2. We show the DP
sample with red dots using the SFR estimation with the non-
find the sSFRHα to be underestimated of around 1 dex in com-
parison to the SFRfibre for the DP sample. This systematic effect
correlates with the measured gas extinction. We observe a mean
value of E(B − V) = 0.65 ± 0.17mag for the DP sample which
is in agreement with the observed offset for SF galaxies of the
RCSED with comparable gas extinction values. Although we
corrected the Hα luminosity for extinction, strong dust obscura-
tion can shield parts of the optical light from star formation sites.
This phenomenon was discussed in greater detail in Sanders &
Mirabel (1996) and references therein. To calculate the SFR cor-
rectly, the estimation of the Hα luminosity has to be combined
with IR estimations as performed e.g. in Pancoast et al. (2010).
This means that the calculated SFRHα for both components is
systematically underestimated but still provides an estimation
enabling us to compare the SF contribution of both components.
Ongoing SF in galaxies can happen equally distributed in the
disc as a result of slow gas accretion from the surroundings (e.g.
Peng & Renzini 2020) or can be concentrated in the centre due
to an abrupt in-fall of gas into the centre. The latter case is un-
derstood to be caused by mergers or galaxy interactions (Hern-
quist & Mihos 1995; Barton Gillespie et al. 2003; Li et al. 2008;
Ellison et al. 2011a). Besides the SFRfibre , Brinchmann et al.
(2004) estimated the SFRtotal for the entire galaxy, enabling us
to test if SF is happening in the central parts of the galaxy or
is equally distributed in the disc. In Fig. 6, we show the ratio of
R = SFRfibre /SFRtotal for the DP sample, the EGNOG sample
the COLD GASS survey and the low SF sample. We also show
subsets of BPT classifications as discussed in Sect. 2.6.2. This
diagnostic method is only meaningful for galaxies at lower red-
shift since the 300 SDSS fibre covers the entire galaxy at higher
redshift. We thus exclude the galaxies of z ∼ 0.5 of the EGNOG
survey from this study. We also do not show galaxies of the M
sample, neither from the ULIRG sample, since these galaxies
have either no SDSS spectral observation or do not show any
difference between fibre and total SFR due to high redshift. Note
that the SFRtotal is calculated using star formation history mod-
elling which relies on a first estimate of SFRfibre from Brinch-
mann et al. (2004). This can result in a SFRtotal estimate smaller
than the SFRfibre creating ratios slightly greater than one.
For the DP and EGNOG samples, we find a clear tendency
towards a ratio of 1 (RDP = 0.85+0.20 +0.11
−0.25 and REGNOG = 0.94−0.43 ,
respectively). The subset of DP galaxies with a successful com-
bined fit show an even stronger tendency of a central starburst
with RDP = 0.92+0.14
−0.22 . This shows that the majority of the star
formation is happening in the centre. As discussed in M20, DP
emission line galaxies classified as SF show an enhancement
of central star formation which is in agreement with the ra-
tio found for the EGNOG sample, since we identified 11 DP
galaxies in this sample. In contrast to that, we find the oppo-
site effect with no central enhancement of SF for galaxies of
the COLD GASS survey (RCOLD GASS = 0.18+0.33 −0.10 ) . The low
SF sample describes a very broad distribution with no clear ten-
dency (Rlow SF = 0.44+0.30
−0.31 ). This might be due to the fact that the
SFR estimate for these galaxies is very low and is dominated by
the measurement uncertainties.
Article number, page 9 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

10 This work EGNOG COLD GASS Low SF sample

comb. fit Seyfert
Counts (arbitrary scale)

8 SF
COMP
6
4
2
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
SFRfibre / SFRtotal SFRfibre / SFRtotal SFRfibre / SFRtotal SFRfibre / SFRtotal
Fig. 6. Ratio of the SFR inside the 300 SDSS fibre SFRfibre and the total SFR SFRtotal (Brinchmann et al. 2004). We show this relation for galaxies
processed by Brinchmann et al. (2004), which are from left to right the DP galaxies, 23 galaxies of the EGNOG survey, 161 galaxies of the COLD
GASS sample and 74 galaxies of the low SF sample. We show subsets of BPT classification of SF in yellow, COMP in magenta and AGN in
black and the total histogram in grey. For the DP sample, we also show the subset of galaxies with successful combined fit with a hatched blue
histogram. The scales of the histograms are in arbitrary units.

3.2. CO luminosity and H2 mass metallicity for galaxies with no spectral measurements avail-
able. We find a mean conversion factor for the DP sample
To derive the total H2 mass, we first compute the intrinsic of αCO = 3.85 ± 0.08 M /(K km s−1 pc2 ), which is similar
CO luminosity with the velocity integrated transition line flux to the conversion factor we find for the EGNOG sample of
FCO(J→J−1) and calculate 3.86 ± 0.09 M /(K km s−1 pc2 ), the low SF sample (3.86 ±
0.12 M /(K km s−1 pc2 )) or the COLD GASS sample (3.84 ±
L0CO(J→J−1)
!2
3.25 × 107 FCO(J→J−1)  νrest −2 DL
! !
= , 0.10 M /(K km s−1 pc2 )). For ULIRGs, we find a slightly higher
K km s−1 pc2 (1 + z) Jy km s−1 GHz
where νrest is the rest CO line frequency and DL the luminos-
ity distance (Solomon et al. 1997). We thus can derive the total
molecular gas mass including a correction of 36 % for interstel-
Mpc conversion factor of αCO = 4.00 ± 0.39 M /(K km s−1 pc2 ). For
(3) those galaxies where we do not find stellar masses to compute
the conversion factor, we use the mean value of the sample to
compute the molecular gas mass. This estimation is adapted
for MS galaxies (e.g. Tacconi et al. 2018) and might be over-
estimated in comparison to the conversion factor of αCO =
lar helium using:
MH2 = αCO L0CO(J→J−1) /rJ1 ,
where the mass-to-light ratio αCO denotes the CO(1-0)
luminosity-to-molecular-gas-mass conversion factor and
rJ1 = FCO (1→0) /FCO (J→J−1) is the CO line ratio.
The conversion factor estimated for the Milky Way and
nearby star-forming galaxies with similar stellar metallicities
to the Milky Way, including a correction for stellar helium, is
0.80 M /(K km s−1 pc2 ) for ULIRG as discussed in Solomon
et al. (1997) and we therefore use this conversion for these galax-
(4) ies. The molecular gas mass of the three ULIRGs which we
adapted for our DP sample from Chung et al. (2009) are cal-
culated using Eq. 5 in order to keep a consistent molecular gas
mass estimate.
To compare the calculated molecular gas masses, we need to
assume the line ratio r J1 . In Genzel et al. (2015), Tacconi et al.
(2018) and Freundlich et al. (2021), a line ratio of r21 = 0.77 and
αG = 4.36 ± 0.9 M /(K km s−1 pc2 ) (Strong & Mattox 1996;
Abdo et al. 2010). As discussed in Wolfire et al. (2010) and
Bolatto et al. (2013), the CO conversion factor depends on the
metallicity and we use a mean value for the correction estab-
lished by Genzel et al. (2012) and Bolatto et al. (2013), and
adopted by Genzel et al. (2015), Tacconi et al. (2018) and Fre-
undlich et al. (2021):
q
αCO = 0.67 × exp(0.36 × 108.67−log Z ) × 10−1.27×(8.67−log Z) , (5)
where log Z = 12 + log(O/H) is the gas-phase metallicity on the
Pettini & Pagel (2004) scale, which we can estimate from the
stellar mass using
log Z = 8.74 − 0.087 × (log(M∗ ) − b)2 ,
with b = 10.4 + 4.46 × log(1 + z) − 1.78 × (log(1 + z))2 (Genzel
et al. 2015, and references therein). Optical emission line ra-
tios are a robust estimate of the gas-phase metallicity as dis-
cussed in Pettini & Pagel (2004). However, in order to es-
timate the gas-phase metallicity for the entire galaxies and
not only the central 300 region, we use equation 6. Further-
more, this approach is enabling us to compute the gas-phase
Article number, page 10 of 28
r31 = 0.5 was assumed, which is here used for the M sample. For
the ULIRGs, we choose ratios of r21 = 0.83, r31 = 0.52 and r41 =
0.42 which are empirically motivated by recent observations (see
Genzel et al. 2015, and references therein).
3.3. Aperture correction
The closest galaxies that we observed are not entirely covered
by the CO(1-0) 2200 beam resulting in an incomplete measure-
ment of the molecular gas. To account for the gas content out-
side the telescope beam, we perform an aperture correction as
described in Lisenfeld et al. (2011). They assume an exponential
distribution function of the CO gas as CO maps of local spiral
galaxies have shown to be well described by such a distribution
(6) (Nishiyama et al. 2001; Regan et al. 2001; Leroy et al. 2008).
To approximate the apparent galaxy size we extract the optical
radius at the 25 mag isophote r25 (see Table 1). As discussed in
Lisenfeld et al. (2011), we can assume re /r25 = 0.2 where re is
the CO scale length. We measure the galaxy inclination using
the minor-to-major axial ratio b/a estimated from a 2D Sérsic
profile fit using the photometric diagnostic software statmorph2
2
https://statmorph.readthedocs.io
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

(Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2019). We compute the inclination i as: 4 tdepl = 1.23 Gyr
3 M sample
s COLDGASS

year 1 kpc 2)
(b/a)2 − q20 ULIRG
cos i = , (7) 2 low SF sample
1 − q20
EGNOG
where q0 describes the intrinsic axial ratio of an edge-on obser-
1 This work
DP detected
vation and is set to q0 = 0.2 (Catinella et al. 2012; Aquino-Ortíz 0

SFR total /M
et al. 2018). For galaxies classified as mergers we set the inclina-
tion to 0◦ since we cannot identify their orientation with a Sérsic 1
profile. Following Lisenfeld et al. (2011), we compute the aper-
ture correction factor as: 2

log(
(Z ∞ Z ∞ 
 2 x 2
 ! !2 
2 y cos(i)  3 Mean uncertainty
fa = πre +
2

dx dy exp −ln(2) 
ΘB ΘB 4
  
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
log( H2 total /M pc 2)
 )−1
x2 + y2 
 p
,

exp − 
re 0.0 DP decomposition
(8) blue-peak
red-peak
0.5 SF

/M year 1 kpc 2)
where ΘB is the FWHM of the observation beam. We carry out
the integration numerically. We present the aperture correction COMP
AGN
factors and the corrected molecular gas masses in Table B.3. We
set the correction factor for DP-18 and DP-38 to 1 since these 1.0
galaxies have been observed using interferometry and have thus
accurate molecular mass measurements. We measure a mean 1.5
correction factor for the DP sample of fa = 1.27.
SFR H

2.0
log(

3.4. Kennicutt-Schmidt relation

We show in Fig. 7 the empirical Kennicutt-Schmidt (KS) rela-
tion which relates the gas density and SFR in a given region
through a power law (Schmidt 1959; Kennicutt 1998). In the
top panel of Fig. 7 we show the unresolved KS relation and plot
on the x-axis the SFR surface density ΣSFR = SFR/πR2 and on
the y-axis the molecular gas surface density ΣH2 = MH2 /πR2 .
R is the half-light radius provided in the literature from opti-
cal high resolution images if available or computed from a 2D
Sérsic profile which are adjusted to the legacy r-band image in
Sect. 3.3. We use the same SFR estimates as used for the MS
offset estimation in Sect. 2.6.1. We plot straight lines of constant
depletion times tdepl = MH2 /SFR of 0.1,1 and 10 Gyr. We also
mark the MS depletion time of 1.23 Gyr computed by Tacconi
et al. (2018) for the mean redshift (z = 0.09) and stellar mass
Mean uncertainty
2.5
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
log( H2 fibre /M pc 2)
Fig. 7. The Kennicutt-Schmidt relation for the CO samples. On the top
panel, we show the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation using the total molecular
gas mass and the star formation rate of the entire galaxy and normalise
both quantities using the half-light radii of the galaxies. We show the
DP sample with red dots, the EGNOG sample with blue dots, the COLD
GASS sample with grey dots, the low SF sample with black dots, the
M sample with turquoise dots and ULIRGs are presented with green
dots. We mark galaxies from other samples which where identified as
DP galaxies with red circles and mark active galaxies of the low SF and
COLD GASS sample with stars(see Sect. 2.6.2). In the lower panel, we
(log(M∗ /M ) = 10.9) of the DP sample. We display the mean
uncertainties with an error bar which include an average surface
estimation uncertainty of 0.2 dex (van der Wel et al. 2012).
We observe the DP and the EGNOG samples to be compat-
ible with a constant depletion time of 1 Gyr which is an indi-
cator that these galaxies have recently accreted a large amount
of gas. These two samples are filling a slight under-density of
measurements between the region dominated by nearby galaxies
of COLD GASS survey and the M sample which lies at higher
redshifts. We find the majority of the low SF sample to show a
comparable relation as the M sample with some galaxies shifted
towards lower star formation efficiencies with associated deple-
tion times of about 10 Gyr. We observe the same behaviour for
galaxies of the COLD GASS survey which have larger depletion
times. We marked galaxies classified as AGNs with stars follow-
ing the classification in Sect. 2.6.2 and in fact, the majority of
galaxies with very high depletion times are classified as AGNs
which is consistent with a scenario where the AGN is quench-
ing ongoing star formation (e.g. Shimizu et al. 2015). However,
some of these galaxies do not show any AGN activity which can
show the decomposition of the 24 DP galaxies, for which we succeeded
in performing a combined fit (see Sect. 2.4). We display blue (resp. red)
squares for the blueshifted (resp. redshifted) component and connect the
two components with a black dashed line. We use the SFR estimated
by Hα emission of each component and the observed H2 mass of each
component and normalise them to the surface of the 300 SDSS fibre.
We furthermore mark the BPT classification of each peak with yellow
(resp. magenta) stars for SF (COMP) galaxies and black dots for AGNs.
In both panels, we show dashed lines denoting constant tdepl of 0.1, 1
and 10 Gyr and a solid black line corresponding to a depletion time of
1.23 Gyr computed by Tacconi et al. (2018) for the mean redshift and
stellar mass of the DP sample. We display in both panels error bars to
show the mean estimated uncertainties. However, in the lower panel, we
do not include uncertainties estimated from the surface measurement.
be late stages of star formation, a hidden AGN or an exhausted
gas reservoir. In contrast, all ULIRGs have significantly shorter
depletion times of ∼ 0.01 Gyr and show the largest range of ΣH2
measurements. Furthermore, as we discussed in Sect. 2.5, their
SFR might be overestimated due to AGN contributions since it
Article number, page 11 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

was computed using LFIR , shifting the galaxies towards regions
associated with shorter depletion times.
In the lower panel of Fig. 7, we show the KS relation for the
DP galaxies with a successful combined fit (see Sect. 2.4). Since
3.5. Molecular gas scaling relations
The evolutionary state of a galaxy is strongly dependent on
its star formation rate with the molecular gas as its reservoir.
We thus characterise the CO samples using the molecular gas-
we find similar gas distributions between the ionised and the
molecular gas, we can assume that the majority of the detected
molecular gas (see Sect. 2.4) is situated in the central part of the
galaxy fuelling central star formation as discussed in Sect. 3.1.
We show on the x-axis ΣSFR Hα , the SFR surface density esti-
mated using the extinction-corrected Hα luminosity of each peak
component (see Sect. 3.1). As discussed in Sect. 3.1, this SFR es-
timation is systematically underestimated of about 1 dex for the
DP sample. On the x-axis, we show the individual H2 mass sur-
face density ΣH2 fibre , without applying any aperture correction.
Both surface densities are calculated for the SDSS 300 fibre. We
also display the mean uncertainties as in the top panel. How-
to-stellar mass ratio (µgas = MH2 /M ) and the depletion time
(tdepl = MH2 /SFR). In Fig. 8, we show µgas and tdepl as a func-
tion of log(1 + z) for a redshift range of 0 < z < 3.
These relations visualise how the molecular gas fraction de-
creases steeply since z ∼ 3, whereas in parallel the depletion
time slightly increases, showing that ongoing star formation de-
pends on the available molecular gas. We present the DP sample,
the M sample, the COLD GASS sample, the low SF sample, the
EGNOG sample, the ULIRG sample and the estimated limits for
the MEGAFLOW sample and their estimation through stacking.
We show the expected scaling relations parametrised by Tac-
coni et al. (2018) for the average stellar mass of the DP sample
ever, no uncertainties for the surface measurements are included of log(M∗ /M ) = 10.9 ± 0.2, which is close to the mean stellar
which lead to significantly smaller error bars. We show the red-
shifted (resp. blueshifted) peak with a red (resp. blue) square
and connect them with a dashed line. We, furthermore, display
the BPT classification of each peak individually (see Sect 2.6.2).
As discussed in Sect. 3.1, the SFRHα estimations are most likely
underestimated causing a shift towards larger tdepl as observed in
the top panel of Fig. 7. Since the SFRHα is systematically under-
estimated, we are only able to effectively compare the relative
difference in tdepl of the two components.
In theory, an evenly distributed rotating gaseous disk can
create a DP structure. In such a scenario, we would expect to
observe similar SF efficiencies in each component. This would
result in comparable tdepl values and both components would be
aligned with the lines of constant tdepl in the KS-relation. In con-
trast to that, in a merger scenario where two different gas popu-
lations create a DP structure, we would expect to observe two
different SF mechanisms. This can be manifested in two dif-
ferent values of tdepl and thus the two components would not
be aligned with the lines of constant tdepl . In the lower panel
of Fig. 7, we observe different alignments: some galaxies show
both components with equal tdepl values regarding the measured
uncertainties and others with significantly different tdepl values.
The largest separation is measured for the galaxy DP-23. Both
components are classified as COMP (see Sect 2.6.2) and we esti-
mated equal star formation rates in each peak. However, we find
molecular gas masses in the two peaks which differ of a factor
of 6.2. In fact, galaxy mergers such as DP-23 can show two dif-
ferent gas components with significantly different star formation
efficiencies. Furthermore, a galaxy merger or galaxy interaction
can funnel gas into the galaxy centre creating an inner rotating
gaseous disk with equal star formation efficiencies. In order to
further probe the underlying mechanism, we compared the sepa-
ration of both components on the KS-relation with the separation
measured on the BPT diagram (see Sect 2.6.2). We also investi-
gated in the measurements of different depletion time in contrast
to the morphological classification and their environment (see
Sect. 2.6.3). Even though, we find arguments to explain the ori-
gin of the DP structure for individual galaxies, such as DP-23,
we are unable to find a direct link or correlation for the entire DP
sample. This might also be due to the fact that our combined fit
is approximating two Gaussian components which do not neces-
sarily probe two separated gas components. To correctly classify
multiple components in a galaxy, observations with optical in-
tegrated field spectroscopy and spatially resolved measurements
of the molecular gas are needed.
Article number, page 12 of 28
mass of the M sample (log(M∗ /M ) = 10.8 ± 0.4). We find that
the M sample is still well described by the empirical line and
thus present the scatter of 0.4 dex for the expected scaling rela-
tion. We choose this scaling relation since the majority of the
literature samples discussed here (COLD GASS, EGNOG, parts
of the ULIRGs and the M sample) were used to obtain this rela-
tion valid over large parts of cosmic time.
We find that galaxies of the low SF sample have a large scat-
ter in µgas and exhibit a dichotomy in the depletion time. Some
of these galaxies are quenched due to exhausted gas reservoirs or
stopped their SF due to AGN activity. This allows a wide range
of gas fractions and shifts the depletion time in some cases to
long time scales. This dichotomy is also observed for the COLD
GASS survey and we find a clear domination of AGNs in this
area.
ULIRGs, in contrast, show a large scatter of gas fractions
of 1 to 2 dex and very short depletion times of around 0.01 Gyr,
which might be also an effect of overestimation of their SFR. As
discussed in Sect. 2.6.1 the estimation of the stellar mass can be
as well overestimated due to the presence of strong AGNs. This
makes it challenging to conclude on their evolutionary state of
gas accretion and depletion through a merger event. The DP and
EGNOG samples are shifted above the expected gas fraction in-
dicating an unusual large gas reservoir but a depletion time com-
parable with the expected values, with some tendencies towards
shorter depletion times. This indicates an efficient star formation
mechanism comparable to e.g. the M sample but with a signifi-
cantly larger gas reservoir.
In Fig. 9, we show µgas and tdepl divided by their average
value on the MS as a function of their relative distance to the
SFR on the MS (δMS). The values of tdepl (MS) and µgas (MS)
are calculated according to Tacconi et al. (2018) and SFRMS is
computed following Speagle et al. (2014). We show black lines
to indicate the expected relative deviation of µgas and tdepl for the
measured distance to the MS. Dashed lines show the scatter of
the MS measured by Tacconi et al. (2018). We present the same
samples as for Fig. 9 but show for the MEGAFLOW sample the
stacked estimation for galaxies with identified outflows and in-
flows separately.
We identify the M sample to be scattered around the ex-
pected values on the MS, where we also find the majority of the
COLD GASS sample and the estimation of the MEGAFLOW
sample. Some parts of the COLD GASS and the low SF sam-
ple are shifted below the MS but still show large amounts of
molecular gas and larger tdepl values. As discussed in Sect. 3.4,
these outliers are mostly mostly dominated by an AGN. We find
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

M sample ULIRG DP detected

1 COLDGASS low SF sample This Work
MEGAFLOW EGNOG MEGAFLOW stacked

0
gas)
log(

2 Mean uncertainty

1
log(tdepl / Gyr)

2 Mean uncertainty
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
log(1 + z)
Fig. 8. Gas fraction µgas = MH2 /M∗ (top panel) and depletion time tdepl = MH2 /SFR (bottom panel) as a function of log(1 + z). We show the
observed DP galaxies (red), the EGNOG sample (blue), the COLD GASS sample (grey), the low SF sample (black), ULIRG (green), the M
sample (turquoise) and the detection limits of the MEGAFLOW galaxies (magenta). With an empty circle, we show the estimation based on
stacking from Freundlich et al. (2021). The solid black lines represent the scaling relations found by Tacconi et al. (2018) scaled to the mean stellar
mass of the DP sample log(M∗ /M ) = 10.9. The dashed line mark the scatter of 0.4 dex found for the M sample.

2 2
Mean uncertainty
Mean uncertainty
1 1
log(tdepl /tdepl(MS))
gas / gas(MS))

0 0
MEGAFLOW ULIRG
log(

1 MEGAFLOW outflow stacked 1 low SF sample

MEGAFLOW inflow stacked EGNOG
M sample DP detected
COLDGASS This Work
2 2
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
log( MS) log( MS)
Fig. 9. Gas fraction divided by their average values on the MS µgas /µgas (MS) (top panel) and depletion time tdepl /tdepl (MS) (bottom panel) as a
function of their relative distance to the main sequence δMS = SFR/SFRMS . We use the predicted tdepl (MS) and µgas (MS) according to Tacconi
et al. (2018) and use the parametrisation of SFRMS following Speagle et al. (2014). We show the observed DP galaxies (red), the EGNOG sample
(blue), the COLD GASS sample (grey), the low SF sample (black), ULIRG (green), the M sample (turquoise). For the MEGAFLOW sample, we
show the detection limits of each galaxy (magenta) and with an empty square (resp. star) their estimation they reached by stacking for galaxies
identified with an outflow (resp. inflow) (Freundlich et al. 2021). The solid black lines represent the scaling relations estimated for the MS found
by Tacconi et al. (2018) scaled to the mean stellar mass of the DP sample log(M∗ /M ) = 10.9. The dashed line mark the scatter of 0.4 dex found
for the M sample.
ULIRG to show an increase of µgas which is expected for their
distance to the MS. However, we observe in some cases shorter
tdepl as we expect from Tacconi et al. (2018). This might be due
to an ongoing star burst or an over-estimation of the SFR as dis-
cussed in Sect. 2.6.1. We find the DP and the EGNOG samples
to show larger µgas values as expected for the relative distance
to the MS. This systematic shift indicates that these galaxies re-
cently increased their molecular gas reservoir. As we described
in Sect. 3.4, the DP and the EGNOG samples show larger tdepl
values as expected for the MS galaxies. This is compatible with
the systematic shift towards larger tdepl values in Fig. 9 for these
galaxies.
3.6. Inclination
A rotating disc creating different velocity measurements within
the line of sight of a galaxy can create a double horn or double
peak signature (e.g. Westmeier et al. 2014). In such a scenario,
we would expect to see at least a correlation between the galaxy
inclination and the full width half maximum (FWHM) of the CO
Article number, page 13 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

Table 3. Number of available radio measurements for the CO samples

5.0 Merger
Counts

. Sample CO 150 MHz 1.4 GHz 3 GHz

2.5 DP sample 41 25 (61 %) 39 (95 %) 29 (71 %)
0.0 EGNOG 24 1 (4 %) 6 (25 %) 4 (17 %)
2 M sample 161 3(1.9 %) 0(0 %) 0(0 %)
20o < i < 40o COLD GASS 213 17 (8 %) 44 (21 %) 31 (15 %)
Counts

ULIRG 97 42 (43 %) 56 (58 %) 76 (78 %)

1 Low SF 45 23 (51 %) 11 (24 %) 8 (18 %)
0 Notes: We present the number of available radio continuum measure-
2
40o < i < 60o ments in all three radio frequencies used in Fig. 11. The percentages do
Counts

not represent the radio detection rate, since not all samples are located
1 in the observed foot print of the used radio surveys.

0
2 mechanisms result in a spectrum described by a power-law of
i > 60o S(ν) ∝ να , where S(ν) is the radio flux and α the spectral index.
Counts

SF is directly depending on the molecular gas reservoir and

1
0 300 400 500 600 700
FWHM, [km s 1]
Fig. 10. Histograms of CO FWHM for the DP sample. We show galax-
ies classified as mergers in the top panel and galaxies divided in three
groups of inclination i in the panels underneath.
emission lines. We therefore performed a single Gaussian fit to
the CO emission lines and compare the measured FWHM to the
galaxy inclination i which we estimated in Sect. 3.3. In Fig.10
we show histograms of the FWHM of DP galaxies with an incli-
nation of 20◦ < i < 40◦ , 40◦ < i < 60◦ and i > 60◦ . We present
the FWHM of galaxies classified as mergers separately since the
Sérsic profile we fit to the r-band image is not necessarily repre-
senting disc orientation of the galaxies.
We are not able to find a trend or a correlation between the
measured FWHM and the galaxy inclination. The rotation veloc-
ity of disc galaxies is also depending on the galaxy mass (Tully
& Fisher 1977) but by taking their stellar mass into account we
were still not able to detect any tendencies. These findings are in
agreement with findings on ionised gas velocity dispersions and
galaxy inclination of a larger DP sample (M20). To disentangle
perturbations or kinematic components of galaxy mergers from
rotating discs, as performed in Mazzilli Ciraulo et al. (2021), ob-
servations with integrated field spectroscopy are needed for the
individual galaxies.
3.7. CO and radio luminosity
Star formation sites accelerate electrons and positrons in super-
novae remnants to high energies, emitting synchrotron radiation
when interacting with the galaxies magnetic field (e.g. Condon
1992). It is thus possible to directly trace the star formation
with radio continuum observations, which is a well-established
technique at 1.4 GHz (Condon 1992; Bell 2003; Schmitt et al.
2006; Murphy et al. 2011) and has proved to be valid also at
150 MHz, as shown in Calistro Rivera et al. (2017) and Wang
et al. (2019). In contrast, electrons and positrons can also be
accelerated in relativistic jets of AGNs and shock regions as
discussed in e.g. Meisenheimer et al. (1989). In extended radio
lobes, these high energy particles interact with the magnetic field
creating sychrotron emission (see e.g. Krause et al. 2012). Both
Article number, page 14 of 28
thus another way to exploit this connection is the relation be-
tween the radio luminosity and L0CO . This relation has been
known for a long time using the 1.4 GHz radio continuum, and
dates back to the beginning of CO observations (Rickard et al.
1977; Israel & Rowan-Robinson 1984; Murgia et al. 2002).
Recently, Orellana-González et al. (2020) quantified this rela-
tion as L0CO = (1.04 ± 0.02) L1.4 GHz − 14.09 ± 0.21 for galaxies
at z < 0.27 for more than 5 orders of magnitude of the luminosi-
ties. We here aim to test this relation for the selected CO samples
by distinguishing between star-forming galaxies and those with
AGN contribution and include radio measurements at 150 MHz
provided by the LoTSS DR2 (see for DR1 Shimwell et al. 2019)
and at 3 GHz taken from the VLASS (Lacy et al. 2020). We use
the 1.4 GHz observations from the FIRST survey (White et al.
1997) or the NVSS (Condon et al. 1998). In Table 3, we present
the fraction of available radio measurements for the different
samples. We had early access to the LoTSS DR2 which is not
covering the entire northern hemisphere. We thus can only take
galaxies into account which are within the observed footprint.
We compute the radio luminosity as:
!2
36 π × 1018 Fν
! !
Lν DL
= , (9)
W Hz−1 (1 + z)1+α Jy Mpc
where Fν is the integrated radio continuum flux at the ob-
served frequency, DL the luminosity distance and α the spectral
index (Condon et al. 2019). We calculate the spectral index using
2 radio measurements ν1 and ν2 at two different frequencies:
log(Fν1 /Fν2 )
α= (10)
log(ν1 /ν2 )
We use preferably the radio measurements at 150 MHz and
1.4 GHz, if available, otherwise a combination with the 3 GHz
measurement. For these galaxies, where we only have a single
measurement, we use α = −0.7 (Condon et al. 2019) as an ap-
proximation.
We classify galaxies of all samples if available with the BPT
diagram (Kewley et al. 2006a) and build up SF-COMP subsam-
ples of all galaxies classified as SF or COMP and active galax-
ies for those classified as AGN (see Sect. 2.6.2). For ULIRGs,
we use classifications provided in the literature since we have
no SDSS spectra enabling detailed BPT classification. We clas-
sify all Low Intensity Narrow Emission-line Regions (LINER),
Seyfert galaxies and quasars as an active subsample. All used
works of ULIRGs show large fractions of Strong radio galaxies,
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

L0CO = (0.82 ± 0.06) L150MHz - (9.54 ± 1.39) L0CO = (0.80 ± 0.05) L1.4GHz - (8.62 ± 1.03) L0CO = (0.87 ± 0.08) L3GHz - (10.00 ± 1.75)
11 low SF sample Orellana-González et al. (2020) ULIRG
M sample COLD GASS EGNOG
This work
10.5
log( L0CO / K km s 1 pc2)

10
9.5
9 SF
COMP
8.5 AGN

8 Mean uncertainty Mean uncertainty Mean uncertainty

21 22 23 24 25 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 22 23 24 25 26
log( L150Mhz / W Hz 1) log( L1.4GHz / W Hz 1) log( L3GHz / W Hz 1)

Fig. 11. Correlation between L0CO and radio luminosity at 150 MHz (left panel), 1.4 GHz (middle panel) and 3 GHz (right panel). We show k-
corrected radio luminosity following Eq. 9. We show with circles the DP sample in red, the EGNOG galaxies (blue), ULIRG (green), the low SF
sample (black), the COLD GASS sample (grey) and the M sample (turquoise). We mark galaxies which are classified as active/AGN with a black
dot in the centre and use a yellow (resp. purple) star to highlight galaxies classified as SF (resp. COMP). In the middle panel we show the best
fit for nearby galaxies found by Orellana-González et al. (2020) with a red dashed line. We fit a straight line in all three relations to all galaxies
classified as SF or COMP and display the best fit with a black solid line. In each panel, we show the average uncertainties in the lower right corner
with error bars.

we thus do not select any SF-COMP subsample for them since Table 4. Fit results of L0CO - radio correlation
we are not able to correctly characterise their AGN contribution. Relation Slope Intersection σ P
This classification allows us to test the radio flux as a tracer of L0CO − L150 MHz 0.82 ± 0.06 -9.54 ± 1.39 0.32 0.88
molecular gas in SF galaxies and to discuss the behaviour of ac- L0CO − L1.4 GHz 0.80 ± 0.05 -8.62 ± 1.03 0.26 0.87
tive galaxies. L0CO − L3 GHz 0.87 ± 0.08 -10.01 ± 1.75 0.23 0.83
In Fig. 11, we show the correlation between L0CO and radio
luminosity at 150 MHz, 1.4 GHz and 3 GHz. The average uncer- Notes: Best fit results for a linear fit of CO luminosties as a function of
tainties of the observed radio fluxes are 7 % at 150 MHz, 5 % at radio luminosities. We show the slope, the intersection the scatter σ and
1.4 GHz and 11 % at 3 GHz and are indicated by an error bar. the Pearson coefficient P.
We mark active galaxies with dots, SF galaxies with yellow stars
and COMP galaxies with purple stars. We find a good agree-
ment with the empirical correlation found by Orellana-González
et al. (2020) for L1.4 GHz and observe a similar behaviour for a central starburst induced by galaxy interactions. By comparing
the SF-COMP subsamples at 3 GHz and 150 MHz. We note that galaxy interactions and the importance of bars in galaxies, Elli-
galaxies classified as AGNs do not follow such a linear relation. son et al. (2011a) found that bars are responsible for 3.5 times
Especially ULIRGs show an clear excess in radio luminosity more triggered central star formation than galaxy-galaxy inter-
in comparison to galaxies with comparable L0CO measurements. actions. As described in Sect. 3.1, we clearly see a central star
This might be an indicator that the radio continuum emission formation enhancement which might be an indication for a cen-
is dominated by the AGN and is thus not correlated with the tral compact star formation site. This can be the result of a recent
molecular gas anymore. We fit a straight line to all three re- galaxy interaction or merger which effectively funnelled gas into
lations by only using the SF subsamples and show the fit re- the centre. In order to test this scenario we motivated a com-
sults in Table 4. For the L0CO − L1.4 GHz relations, we find a less bined fitting algorithm (see Sect. 2.4), where we fitted the CO
steeper slope (0.80 ± 0.05) than Orellana-González et al. (2020) emission lines with the same kinematic parameters found in the
(1.04 ± 0.02). However, taking the scatter of 0.32 into account optical ionised gas emission lines. This approach is only valid if
these two estimates are still comparable. Interestingly, we find the molecular gas reservoir is located in the central star forma-
similar parameters for the L0CO − L150 MHz , the L0CO − L1.4 GHz and tion site since the CO observation probe a larger area in com-
the L0CO − L3 GHz relations with nearly the exact same slope. parison to the optical 300 SDSS fiber. We succeed to fit the same
kinematic components in 24 (59 %) of the DP sample. These
galaxies show on average an even higher central star formation
4. Discussion enhancement as discussed in Sect. Sect. 3.1.
4.1. Central Star formation The accretion of gas from the surrounding such as stream-
fed galaxies was described in Dekel et al. (2009) with star-
As mentioned in the Sect. 1, galaxy interactions and galaxy bursts induced by merger of mass ratio 1:10. The merger mech-
mergers can trigger star formation (Bothun & Dressler 1986; anism formed steady streams enhancing the growth of the cen-
Pimbblet et al. 2002). Relying on larger galaxy samples with 105 tral spheroid leading to later Hubble Types. This is an alternative
SDSS DR4 galaxy pairs, Li et al. (2008) found that galaxy inter- model to one of violent merger where the galaxies morphology is
actions can trigger SF. Based on a systematic search for galaxy destroyed and is in agreement with the hierarchical bulge growth
pairs in the SDSS DR7, Patton et al. (2011) found evidence for described in Bournaud et al. (2007b).
Article number, page 15 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main
The fact that we find similar kinematic signatures in the
molecular gas and the central ionised gas in 59 % of our sample
suggests a tight connection between these two measurements.
In addition to that, we find a centrally-enhanced SF which is
even stronger for the galaxies with similar kinematics in molec-
ular and ionised gas. These findings indicate a compact central
star formation site which is the result of an effective molecular
gas transportation into the galaxy centre. This scenario is rem-
iniscent of the gas compaction phase suggested for z = 2 − 4
galaxies by observations (e.g. Barro et al. 2013, 2017) and simu-
lations (Zolotov et al. 2015; Tacchella et al. 2016a,b) according
to which galaxies experience a central enhancement of SF due to
gas contraction at their centres, before inside-out depletion and
quenching. This model was further described over large scales
of cosmic time by Tacchella et al. (2016b) with repetitive com-
paction and depletion phases shifting galaxies up and down the
main sequence before finally quenching. Since our galaxies are
0.3 dex above the MS, the central SF enhancement and the simi-
lar kinematic distribution in the ionised and molecular gas might
be a sign for an ongoing compaction phase. In such a scenario a
recent minor merger event, a galaxy interaction or a disc insta-
bility funnelled gas into the central parts igniting star formation.
In Sect. 3.5, we find the DP and EGNOG samples with sig-
nificantly larger molecular gas fractions of on average 0.8 dex
than for galaxies of the same mass and redshift ranges found by
Tacconi et al. (2018). However, by using the CO-to-molecular-
radius (Leroy et al. 2008). Contrarily to eh samples discussed
here, these spiral galaxies do not show signs of a central star for-
mation enhancement or of large-scale instabilities. Taking into
account the fact that DP galaxies show large gas velocity dis-
persions deviating from the Tully-Fisher relation (M20), it is un-
likely that we observe evenly distributed and stable rotating discs
of molecular gas. In contrast to that, it might be possible that we
observe a rotating disc of molecular gas in the very centre of the
galaxies. This disc can be the result of gas which fell into the
central region creating a strong central star formation site. This
mechanisms is indeed very different from the scenario described
in Bigiel et al. (2008) and Leroy et al. (2008).
In a recent study of star-forming galaxies selected from the
xCOLD GASS survey, Yu et al. (2021) tested two compet-
ing models to explain an increase of the gas velocity disper-
sions with integrated field spectroscopy: gravitational instability-
driven transport and stellar feedback. They found that tur-
bulences which are only driven by stellar feedback under-
predict the measured gas velocity dispersions. They clearly
favour the model of gravitational instability which creates non-
axisymmetric torques that move mass inwards (Bournaud et al.
2007a, 2009, 2010; Ceverino et al. 2010; Goldbaum et al. 2015,
2016; Krumholz & Burkhart 2016; Krumholz et al. 2018). They
conclude that these processes are identical with what is observed
at high redshift, creating high SFR (Yu et al. 2021). By com-
paring these galaxies with our present DP sample, we find sim-
gas-mass conversion factor of αCO = 0.80 M /(K km s−1 pc2 )
which is adopted for ULIRG Solomon et al. (1997), we would
get compatible molecular gas fractions. The EGNOG sample
consists of galaxies with significant star formation enhancement.
Furthermore, this sample exhibits a large fraction (42 %) of DP
emission line galaxies as discussed in Sect. 2.5.3. In Fig. 9, we
observe both samples to be situated between the population of
the M sample and the extreme case of ULIRG. Both samples are
defined to be situated at the upper MS and above (see Sect. 2.6.1)
but are also showing an increase of molecular gas mass fraction
with only a slight decrease in depletion time. The MEGAFLOW
sample which consists of galaxies showing in- and outflows in
the circumgalactic medium are maintaining their star formation
as described in the quasi-equilibrium model(Freundlich et al.
2021). These galaxies are well compatible with star formation
efficiencies measured for the MS. The offset of the DP sample,
we observe in Fig. 9 might be an indication that large amounts of
gas were recently accreted through a merger event and were ef-
fectively funnelled into the central region where we observe the
majority of the ongoing star formation.
4.2. Rotating or collapsing disc
Using HI and H2 maps in combination with resolved UV and IR
observations to trace the SFR spatially, Bigiel et al. (2008) found
that ΣSFR and ΣH2 are related through a Schmidt-type power law
(Schmidt 1959) with index N = 1.0±0.2 in spiral galaxies. At the
same time, they found little or no correlation between ΣSFR and
ΣHI . This means that in spiral galaxies H2 gas forms stars with
a constant efficiency. For the same data set, Leroy et al. (2008)
measured the star formation efficiency (SFE), which is the SFR
surface density per H2 surface density, to be nearly constant at
(0.525 ± 0.25) Gyr−1 which is equivalent to an H2 depletion time
of 1.9 Gyr at their 800 pc resolution. These observations are in
good agreement with a scenario where giant molecular clouds
(GMC) are formed from the inter-stellar medium (ISM) which
is mostly atomic hydrogen. This manifests in a smooth transi-
tion of an atomic-to-molecular gas fraction as a function of the
Article number, page 16 of 28
ilar stellar masses and star formation rates. By performing an
emission line fit as described in Sect. 2.4, we find that all their
galaxies exhibit single Gaussian shaped emission line. There
is only a moderate central SFR enhancement with a ratio of
SFRfibre /SFRtotal = 0.47 (See Sect. 3.1), and only 1 galaxy ex-
hibiting a clear enhancement. We also observe larger gas veloc-
ity dispersion in the 300 SDSS fibre of 166 km s−1 in average for
the DP sample and only 96 km s−1 for the galaxies of Yu et al.
(2021).
Taking into account the fact that we do not find a direct con-
nection between measured velocities and galaxy inclination as
discussed in Sect. 3.6, the mechanism behind the observed DP
might be driven by gas perturbation or a misaligned central disc.
In M20 galaxy interactions, mergers or gas exhaustions were dis-
cussed to create DP signatures which are not connected to the
galaxy inclination. Since our observations differ also from the
scenario of gravitational instability-driven transport, we might
see a mechanism that funnelled large amounts of gas into the
central region more effectively. A recent merger scenario has not
destroyed the galaxy morphology due to a low mass-ratio (minor
merger). We can further exclude a fly-by scenario which removes
the torque of the gas disc, since we only see close companions
within 100 Mpc for 7 galaxies from which 4 are visual mergers
(See Sect. 2.6.3). Taking the central star formation enhancement
into account, we favour a galaxy minor merger scenario as the
underlying mechanism of the observed DP structure. This sce-
nario is as well supported by the observed clear excess of gas
extinction in the central 300 , as discussed in Sect. 3.1. In order to
distinguish this scenario from a central collapsed rotating disc,
observations with integrated field spectroscopy of the the centre
are needed in order to kinematically resolve the origin of the DP
signature.
4.3. CO and radio Luminosity
The evolutionary state of galaxies is mostly determined by its
growth rate and star formation efficiency. The connection be-
tween the star formation rate and the molecular gas density is
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies
an important subject of research, since it quantifies the effective-
ness of new stars forming (see Bigiel et al. 2008, and references
therein). In a recent study, Chown et al. (2021) showed that LCO
and IR emission at 12 µm describe an even more robust correla-
tion than LCO and SFR. This provides a better estimator to pre-
dict the molecular gas mass for different kind of galaxies. This
is neither significantly affected by the presence of an obscured
AGN nor is relying on a correct choice of the CO-to-H2 conver-
sion factor.
Ongoing star formation is also measurable in the IR regime
where dust grains are heated from the ultraviolet light emit-
ted by young stars. As discussed in Sect. 3.7, electrons are ac-
celerated in supernova remnants of massive young stars emit-
ting synchrotron radiation. The underlying process of these two
emissions is star formation and the radio continuum–infrared
(RC–IR) correlation has been studied extensively for star-
forming galaxies (e.g. Bell 2003; Ibar et al. 2008; Ivison et al.
2010; Smith et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2015). Although the RC–IR
correlation has been known for a long time to be one of the tight-
est in galaxy physics, Molnár et al. (2021) emphasised the poor
match of IR and radio samples, that could bias the calibration.
They find a slightly non-linear correlation of slope 1.11 ± 0.01.
In order to extend the RC–IR correlation, Orellana-González
et al. (2020) found a three dimensional connection LCO , L1.4 GHz
and the infrared luminosity LIR for galaxies with a redshift
smaller than z < 0.27. They excluded quasar-like objects to fo-
cus on star formation activity. To further explore this relation,
we tested the correlation between LCO and the radio continuum
luminosity at 150 MHz, 1.4 GHz and 3 GHz. We find as well a
linear relation for galaxies classified as SF or COMP with the
BPT diagram (see Sect. 2.6.2) for all three radio continuum mea-
surements. We performed a linear fit and find a slightly flatter
relation between LCO and L1.4 GHz in comparison to Orellana-
González et al. (2020). Furthermore, we find nearly the same
slope for LCO -L150 MHz relation (0.80 ± 0.06), the LCO -L1.4 GHz
relation (0.79 ± 0.04) and the LCO -L3 GHz relation (0.87 ± 0.07).
We also find that these linear relations are not valid for the
majority of ULIRG which are mostly active galaxies such as
Quasars or AGNs. Galaxies with high IR luminosities were ob-
served to be nearly all advanced mergers with circum-nuclear
starburst and AGN activity (Sanders & Mirabel 1996). Such
galaxies might characterise an important stage of quasar forma-
tion and powerful radio galaxies, which is compatible with the
large offset that ULIRG show between CO and radio continuum
luminosities. It is still under debate to which relative fractions
the ongoing starburst and the AGN are contributing to the IR
and radio continuum luminosities (e.g. Dietrich et al. 2018).
In contrast to that the measured constant slope for SF and
COMP over a wide range of radio wavelengths, might be an indi-
cator that the underlying process is dominated by star formation
with comparable efficiencies. This is also in agreement with the
fact that we find all DP galaxies with comparable depletion times
in the KS relation of around 1 Gyr (see Sect. 3.4). In particular,
the good agreement between 1.4 GHz, 3 GHz and 150 MHz sug-
gests that the latter observable is a robust tracer for star forma-
tion (Calistro Rivera et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2019). This would
also mean that the presented DP sample is dominated by star for-
mation with no significant AGN contribution. Furthermore, we
can use the radio continuum as a reliable star formation tracer.
Given the facts that we do not find arguments supporting a rotat-
ing disc scenario as the underlying mechanism of the DP struc-
ture (see Sect. 4.2) and the observed central SF enhancement (see
Sect. 4.1) support the theory that the presented DP sample con-
sists of peculiar galaxies: they represent a sequence of a recent
minor merger which funnelled gas into the central region cre-
ating a strong SF region which is dominating the radio contin-
uum emission. These galaxies can be used to further estimate
the properties of merger induced star formation with spatially
resolved observations.
5. Conclusions
We presented new observations of the molecular gas content for
34 DP emission line galaxies with ongoing star formation sit-
uated 0.3 dex above the MS with existing radio continuum ob-
servations. We further selected 7 DP galaxies from existing CO
samples matching the same criteria. We performed a combined
emission line fitting method where we fit the same double Gaus-
sian parameters, found in the central optical ionised gas emission
lines, to the CO lines, measured for the entire galaxy. We suc-
ceeded to find similar kinematic signatures for these two mea-
surements in 24 (59 %) DP galaxies. By comparing the SFR in-
side the SDSS fibre and of the total galaxy, we find a clear cen-
tral enhancement of star formation. Taking into account the fact
that we do not find kinematic signatures which correlate with
the galaxy inclination we might see a central disc which is mis-
aligned with its galaxy. However, the DP signature might be the
result of an additional gas component which recently fell into
the galaxy centre. Both scenarios might be the result of a recent
merger event which has increased the molecular gas content and
funnelled gas into the central region where the majority of the
stars are formed. This is manifested in similar kinematic signa-
tures found in the ionised and the molecular gas. This is also in
agreement with the observed excess of gas extinction the their
centre.
Such a recently ignited star formation is traced by radio con-
tinuum emission of 150 MHz, 1.4 GHz and 3 GHz which are all
three linearly correlated with LCO described by the same slope.
This might be a signature of a synchrotron emission which is
mostly dominated by star formation. In such a scenario, the
merger induced central star formation is happening without a
simultaneous increase in AGN activity.
Even though, we find striking arguments that the observed
central star formation and the large molecular gas reservoir are
the result of a recent merger, we cannot exclude the possibility
that we observe gas rich spiral galaxies with a central molecular
disc formed due to large scale instabilities. In such a scenario
we would observe a central rotating disc which might not be
aligned with the host galaxy orientation. To further probe our
findings and to distinguish between rotating disc and merger-
induced central star formation, high resolution observations of
the molecular and ionised gas would be necessary. A spatial
decomposition of kinematically extended gas would enable us
to further characterise the dynamics of these systems and draw
conclusions on the origin of double-peak emission line galaxies.
In addition, we could also explore spatial resolved star forma-
tion and compare their efficiency with findings for regular spiral
galaxies (Bigiel et al. 2008; Leroy et al. 2008) in order to con-
clude on the underlying process of star formation and galaxy
growth.
Acknowledgements. We thank the anonymous referee who helped us to improve
our emission line fitting procedure which finally strengthened the arguments in
our analysis and discussion. We thank Anaëlle Halle for the fruitful discussions
on the manuscript and Susanne Maschmann for helpful advise on the English
language. This work is based on observations carried out under the two project
numbers 198-19 and 166-20 with the IRAM 30m telescope at Pico Veleta in
Spain. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN
(Spain). Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Sci-
Article number, page 17 of 28
 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main
ence, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS-IV acknowledges support and re-
sources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of
Utah. The SDSS web site is www.sdss.org. SDSS-IV is managed by the As-
trophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS
Collaboration including the Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institu-
tion for Science, Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group,
the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli In-
stitute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) / University
of Tokyo, the Korean Participation Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab-
oratory, Leibniz Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut
für Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik (MPA
Garching), Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National
Astronomical Observatories of China, New Mexico State University, New York
University, University of Notre Dame, Observatário Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio
State University, Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Obser-
vatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, University of Arizona, University of Colorado Boulder, University
of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University of Utah, University of Virginia,
University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and
Yale University. The Legacy Surveys (http://legacysurvey.org/) consist of three
individual and complementary projects: the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey
(DECaLS; NOAO Proposal ID # 2014B-0404; PIs: David Schlegel and Arjun
Dey), the Beijing-Arizona Sky Survey (BASS; NOAO Proposal ID # 2015A-
0801; PIs: Zhou Xu and Xiaohui Fan), and the Mayall z-band Legacy Survey
(MzLS; NOAO Proposal ID # 2016A-0453; PI: Arjun Dey). DECaLS, BASS
and MzLS together include data obtained, respectively, at the Blanco telescope,
Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Obser-
vatory (NOAO); the Bok telescope, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona;
and the Mayall telescope, Kitt Peak National Observatory, NOAO. The Legacy
Surveys project is honoured to be permitted to conduct astronomical research on
Iolkam Du‘ag (Kitt Peak), a mountain with particular significance to the Tohono
O’odham Nation.
LOFAR is the Low Frequency Array designed and constructed by ASTRON.
It has observing, data processing, and data storage facilities in several coun-
tries, which are owned by various parties (each with their own funding sources),
and which are collectively operated by the International LOFAR Telescope (ILT)
foundation under a joint scientific policy. The ILT resources have benefited from
the following recent major funding sources: CNRS-INSU, Observatoire de Paris
and Université d’Orléans, France; BMBF, MIWF-NRW, MPG, Germany; Sci-
ence Foundation Ireland (SFI), Department of Business, Enterprise and Inno-
vation (DBEI), Ireland; NWO, The Netherlands; The Science and Technology
Facilities Council, UK; Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland; The
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Italy. This research made use of the
Dutch national e-infrastructure with support of the SURF Cooperative (e-infra
180169) and the LOFAR e-infra group. The Jülich LOFAR Long Term Archive
and the German LOFAR network are both coordinated and operated by the Jülich
Supercomputing Centre (JSC), and computing resources on the supercomputer
JUWELS at JSC were provided by the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing e.V.
(grant CHTB00) through the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC).
This research made use of the University of Hertfordshire high-performance
computing facility and the LOFAR-UK computing facility located at the Univer-
sity of Hertfordshire and supported by STFC [ST/P000096/1], and of the Italian
LOFAR IT computing infrastructure supported and operated by INAF, and by the
Physics Department of Turin university (under an agreement with Consorzio In-
teruniversitario per la Fisica Spaziale) at the C3S Supercomputing Centre, Italy.
References
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 133
Aquino-Ortíz, E., Valenzuela, O., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2133
Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5
Balogh, M. L., Schade, D., Morris, S. L., et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, L75
Barro, G., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 47
Barro, G., Faber, S. M., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 104
Barrows, R. S., Comerford, J. M., Zakamska, N. L., & Cooper, M. C. 2017, ApJ,
850, 27
Barton Gillespie, E., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2003, ApJ, 582, 668
Bauermeister, A., Blitz, L., Bolatto, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 132
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307
Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794
Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846
Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207
Bothun, G. D. & Dressler, A. 1986, ApJ, 301, 57
Bouché, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001
Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007a, ApJ, 670, 237
Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Martig, M. 2009, ApJ, 707, L1
Article number, page 18 of 28
Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., Teyssier, R., Block, D. L., & Puerari, I. 2010,
MNRAS, 409, 1088
Bournaud, F., Jog, C. J., & Combes, F. 2007b, A&A, 476, 1179
Braine, J. & Combes, F. 1993, A&A, 269, 7
Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151
Calistro Rivera, G., Williams, W. L., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS,
469, 3468
Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449
Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682
Caputi, K. I., Dole, H., Lagache, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637, 727
Catinella, B., Kauffmann, G., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1959
Cattaneo, A., Faber, S. M., Binney, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 213
Ceverino, D., Dekel, A., & Bournaud, F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2151
Chilingarian, I. V., Zolotukhin, I. Y., Katkov, I. Y., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 14
Chown, R., Li, C., Parker, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1261
Chung, A., Narayanan, G., Yun, M. S., Heyer, M., & Erickson, N. R. 2009, AJ,
138, 858
Ciesla, L., Charmandaris, V., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A10
Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., Braine, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A124
Combes, F., García-Burillo, S., Braine, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A41
Combes, F., Prugniel, P., Rampazzo, R., & Sulentic, J. W. 1994, A&A, 281, 725
Comerford, J. M., Gerke, B. F., Newman, J. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 956
Comerford, J. M., Nevin, R., Stemo, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 66
Comerford, J. M., Schluns, K., Greene, J. E., & Cool, R. J. 2013, ApJ, 777, 64
Concas, A., Popesso, P., Brusa, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A36
Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575
Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693
Condon, J. J., Matthews, A. M., & Broderick, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 148
Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11
Daddi, E., Alexander, D. M., Dickinson, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 173
Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., Walter, F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 686
Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680
Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98
Davé, R., Oppenheimer, B. D., & Finlator, K. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 11
Davis, T. A., Rowlands, K., Allison, J. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3503
Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451
Dekel, A. & Burkert, A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1870
Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999
Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168
Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604
Dietrich, J., Weiner, A. S., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3562
Domínguez, A., Siana, B., Henry, A. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 145
Domínguez Sánchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., &
Fischer, J. L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3661
Ellison, S. L., Catinella, B., & Cortese, L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3447
Ellison, S. L., Fertig, D., Rosenberg, J. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 221
Ellison, S. L., Nair, P., Patton, D. R., et al. 2011a, MNRAS, 416, 2182
Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011b, MNRAS,
418, 2043
Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135,
1877
Feldmann, R. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1910
Förster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1062
French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 1
Freundlich, J., Bouché, N. F., Contini, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1900
Freundlich, J., Combes, F., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A105
Fu, H., Myers, A. D., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 72
Ge, J.-Q., Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Bai, J.-M., & Zhang, S. 2012, ApJS, 201, 31
Genzel, R., Burkert, A., Bouché, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59
Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Combes, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 69
Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 786
Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 20
Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Rigopoulou, D., Lutz, D., & Tecza, M. 2001, ApJ,
563, 527
Goldbaum, N. J., Krumholz, M. R., & Forbes, J. C. 2015, ApJ, 814, 131
Goldbaum, N. J., Krumholz, M. R., & Forbes, J. C. 2016, ApJ, 827, 28
Goulding, A. D., Pardo, K., Greene, J. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, L21
Hernquist, L. & Mihos, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 448, 41
Hibbard, J. E. & van Gorkom, J. H. 1996, AJ, 111, 655
Huchtmeier, W. K., Petrosian, A., Gopal-Krishna, McLean, B., & Kunth, D.
2008, A&A, 492, 367
Ibar, E., Cirasuolo, M., Ivison, R., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 953
Israel, F. & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1984, ApJ, 283, 81
Ivison, R. J., Magnelli, B., Ibar, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L31
Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33
Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541
Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., & Barton, E. J. 2006a, AJ, 131, 2004
Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., Jansen, R. A., & Dopita, M. A. 2002, AJ, 124, 3135
Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006b, MNRAS, 372,
961
 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Treister, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, L22
Koss, M. J., Blecha, L., Bernhard, P., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 214
Koss, M. J., Glidden, A., Baloković, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, L4
Krause, M., Alexander, P., Riley, J., & Hopton, D. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3196
Krumholz, M. R. & Burkhart, B. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1671
Krumholz, M. R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J. C., & Crocker, R. M. 2018, MNRAS,
477, 2716
Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001
Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782
Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Jing, Y. P., & White, S. D. M. 2008,
MNRAS, 385, 1903
Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772,
119
Lisenfeld, U., Espada, D., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A102
Lisenfeld, U., Xu, C. K., Gao, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A107
Liu, L., Gao, Y., & Greve, T. R. 2015, ApJ, 805, 31
Liu, X., Civano, F., Shen, Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 110
Liu, X., Shen, Y., Strauss, M. A., & Hao, L. 2011, ApJ, 737, 101
Luo, Y., Li, Z., Kang, X., Li, Z., & Wang, P. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L116
Lutz, D., Poglitsch, A., Altieri, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A90
Magdis, G. E., Daddi, E., Sargent, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, L9
Magnelli, B., Saintonge, A., Lutz, D., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A22
Maschmann, D. & Melchior, A.-L. 2019, A&A, 627, L3
Maschmann, D., Melchior, A.-L., Mamon, G. A., Chilingarian, I. V., & Katkov,
I. Y. 2020, A&A, 641, A171
Mazzilli Ciraulo, B., Melchior, A.-L., Maschmann, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 653,
A47
Meisenheimer, K., Roser, H. J., Hiltner, P. R., et al. 1989, A&A, 219, 63
Molnár, D. C., Sargent, M. T., Leslie, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 118
Momcheva, I. G., Lee, J. C., Ly, C., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 47
Murgia, M., Crapsi, A., Moscadelli, L., & Gregorini, L. 2002, A&A, 385, 412
Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 67
Nishiyama, K., Nakai, N., & Kuno, N. 2001, PASJ, 53, 757
Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43
Orellana-González, G., Ibar, E., Leiton, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1760
Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and
active galactic nuclei
Pancoast, A., Sajina, A., Lacy, M., Noriega-Crespo, A., & Rho, J. 2010, ApJ,
723, 530
Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., Simard, L., McConnachie, A. W., & Mendel, J. T.
2011, MNRAS, 412, 591
Peng, Y.-j. & Maiolino, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3643
Peng, Y.-j. & Renzini, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, L51
Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59
Pimbblet, K. A., Smail, I., Kodama, T., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 333
Regan, M. W., Thornley, M. D., Helfer, T. T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 218
Rickard, L. J., Palmer, P., Morris, M., Turner, B. E., & Zuckerman, B. 1977, ApJ,
213, 673
Rodighiero, G., Daddi, E., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L40
Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140
Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 22
Saintonge, A., Kauffmann, G., Kramer, C., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 32
Saintonge, A., Lutz, D., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 2
Sanchez, N. N., Tremmel, M., Werk, J. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 116
Sanders, D. B. & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749
Saulder, C., van Kampen, E., Chilingarian, I. V., Mieske, S., & Zeilinger, W. W.
2016, A&A, 596, A14
Schawinski, K., Lintott, C. J., Thomas, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1672
Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243
Schmitt, H. R., Calzetti, D., Armus, L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 173
Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74
Shimizu, T. T., Mushotzky, R. F., Meléndez, M., Koss, M., & Rosario, D. J. 2015,
MNRAS, 452, 1841
Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A1
Smith, D. J. B., Jarvis, M. J., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2232
Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., & Barrett, J. W. 1997, ApJ, 478,
144
Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS,
214, 15
Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776
Stark, D. P., Swinbank, A. M., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2008, Nature, 455, 775
Strong, A. W. & Mattox, J. R. 1996, A&A, 308, L21
Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016a, MNRAS, 458, 242
Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 457, 2790
Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179
Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74
Tully, R. B. & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661
van der Wel, A., Bell, E. F., Häussler, B., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 24
Violino, G., Ellison, S. L., Sargent, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2591
Wang, L., Gao, F., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A109
Westmeier, T., Jurek, R., Obreschkow, D., Koribalski, B. S., & Staveley-Smith,
L. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1176
Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., & Franx, M. 2012, ApJ, 754,
L29
White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & Gregg, M. D. 1997, ApJ, 475, 479
Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. F. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1191
Woo, J.-H., Son, D., & Bae, H.-J. 2017, ApJ, 839, 120
Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Lutz, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 106
Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 153
Yu, X., Bian, F., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5075
Zolotov, A., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327
Zuo, P., Xu, C. K., Yun, M. S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 2

Article number, page 19 of 28

 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

Appendix A: Spectra
In Fig. A.1 to A.6 we show all galaxies of the DP sample. We
present their 7000 × 7000 legacy survey snapshot (Dey et al. 2019),
the ionised gas emission lines Hα and the [NII]λ6550, 6585 dou-
blet and the CO spectra. We further show the fit results as dis-
cussed in Sect. 2.4.

Appendix B: Observation Tables

In Table B.1 (resp. B.2), we present the parameters for the CO(1-
0) (resp. CO(2-1)) line obtained by our fitting procedure de-
scribed in Sect. 2.4. In Table B.3 we present the CO-to-M2 con-
version factor, the molecular gas mass, the aperture correction
factor, the estimated molecular gas mass fraction and depletion
time.

Article number, page 20 of 28

 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

Table B.1. Observed CO(1-0) line parameters

ID Comb. fit I1 CO(1−0) µ1 σ1 I2 CO(1−0) µ2 σ2 I3 CO(1−0) µ3 σ3

Jy km s− 1 km s− 1 km s− 1 Jy km s− 1 km s− 1 km s− 1 Jy km s− 1 km s− 1 km s− 1
DP-1 0 8.1 ± 0.1 -154 ± 1 30 ± 1 22.1 ± 0.3 -52 ± 1 71 ± 1 23.1 ± 0.5 124 ± 1 60 ± 1
DP-2 1 8.1 ± 0.4 -85 ± 8 100 ± 4 7.4 ± 0.5 143 ± 11 94 ± 6 - - -
DP-3 1 8.0 ± 0.3 -137 ± 4 90 ± 2 6.6 ± 0.3 103 ± 5 91 ± 3 - - -
DP-4 1 21.1 ± 1.3 -283 ± 17 157 ± 9 37.6 ± 1.9 67 ± 15 168 ± 8 - - -
DP-5 0 7.6 ± 0.2 -225 ± 1 32 ± 1 17.5 ± 0.4 -118 ± 1 90 ± 1 12.9 ± 0.2 155 ± 1 68 ± 1
DP-6 1 3.3 ± 0.1 -100 ± 1 84 ± 1 4.4 ± 0.1 122 ± 1 76 ± 1 - - -
DP-7 1 27.4 ± 1.7 -132 ± 8 105 ± 6 20.8 ± 1.5 129 ± 8 85 ± 6 - - -
DP-8 1 9.3 ± 0.5 -62 ± 10 113 ± 6 7.0 ± 0.4 159 ± 7 79 ± 4 - - -
DP-9 1 9.5 ± 0.4 -75 ± 8 110 ± 4 5.6 ± 0.4 137 ± 9 87 ± 5 - - -
DP-10 0 8.9 ± 0.2 -167 ± 1 76 ± 1 3.7 ± 0.2 95 ± 1 42 ± 1 7.0 ± 0.2 261 ± 1 47 ± 1
DP-11 0 18.7 ± 0.3 -98 ± 2 168 ± 2 8.5 ± 0.2 250 ± 1 62 ± 2 - - -
DP-12a 0 15.4 ± 0.2 -96 ± 1 74 ± 1 13.3 ± 0.2 96 ± 1 43 ± 1 - - -
DP-13 0 10.0 ± 0.3 -104 ± 1 75 ± 2 7.5 ± 0.2 110 ± 1 63 ± 2 - - -
DP-14 1 6.8 ± 0.4 -145 ± 11 99 ± 5 8.5 ± 0.5 93 ± 12 121 ± 6 - - -
DP-15 0 5.9 ± 0.1 -115 ± 1 30 ± 1 12.1 ± 0.2 27 ± 1 66 ± 1 - - -
DP-16a 0 13.1 ± 0.2 -146 ± 1 80 ± 1 27.5 ± 0.3 190 ± 1 111 ± 1 - - -
DP-17 0 6.0 ± 0.2 -256 ± 2 71 ± 2 7.6 ± 0.3 38 ± 4 112 ± 2 3.8 ± 0.2 250 ± 1 35 ± 2
DP-18b 1 10.2 ± 0.6 -112 ± 9 120 ± 6 7.5 ± 0.5 184 ± 8 101 ± 5 - - -
DP-19 1 3.1 ± 0.2 -91 ± 6 90 ± 3 4.0 ± 0.2 129 ± 8 89 ± 4 - - -
DP-20 0 3.7 ± 0.2 -201 ± 1 35 ± 1 14.4 ± 0.1 -67 ± 1 128 ± 1 4.9 ± 0.4 141 ± 3 30 ± 1
DP-21 0 4.2 ± 0.3 -149 ± 3 48 ± 2 6.6 ± 0.4 84 ± 4 94 ± 2 - - -
DP-22c 0 35.6 ± 0.7 -158 ± 1 108 ± 1 29.6 ± 0.6 16 ± 1 40 ± 1 - - -
DP-23c 1 5.1 ± 0.4 -148 ± 17 136 ± 10 31.8 ± 2.4 147 ± 17 125 ± 9 - - -
DP-24 0 20.4 ± 0.3 24 ± 1 136 ± 1 - - - - - -
DP-25 0 9.5 ± 0.3 -70 ± 4 101 ± 3 7.3 ± 0.3 162 ± 2 66 ± 3 - - -
DP-26 0 7.3 ± 0.3 -244 ± 2 67 ± 2 9.6 ± 0.1 -15 ± 1 111 ± 2 2.1 ± 0.4 167 ± 5 30 ± 2
DP-27 0 3.2 ± 0.2 -120 ± 5 93 ± 3 - - - - - -
DP-28c 1 6.2 ± 0.3 -129 ± 5 117 ± 3 14.4 ± 0.6 174 ± 9 156 ± 6 - - -
DP-29 0 2.9 ± 0.2 -94 ± 4 80 ± 4 1.8 ± 0.2 216 ± 2 33 ± 4 - - -
DP-30 1 1.6 ± 0.2 -106 ± 23 120 ± 11 2.5 ± 0.3 121 ± 16 92 ± 8 - - -
DP-31 1 3.8 ± 0.2 -58 ± 5 99 ± 3 2.2 ± 0.2 222 ± 10 116 ± 7 - - -
DP-32 0 6.9 ± 0.3 -79 ± 2 80 ± 2 7.0 ± 0.2 185 ± 2 78 ± 2 - - -
DP-33 1 6.2 ± 0.3 -74 ± 8 113 ± 5 3.6 ± 0.2 163 ± 4 72 ± 3 - - -
DP-34 1 5.2 ± 0.3 -82 ± 7 115 ± 4 5.1 ± 0.3 177 ± 6 92 ± 3 - - -
DP-35 1 2.6 ± 0.2 -90 ± 13 147 ± 6 3.2 ± 0.3 206 ± 24 139 ± 10 - - -
DP-36 1 3.6 ± 0.3 -95 ± 11 119 ± 8 1.8 ± 0.2 192 ± 19 108 ± 10 - - -
DP-37 1 6.2 ± 0.2 -179 ± 2 113 ± 2 6.1 ± 0.2 148 ± 2 112 ± 2 - - -
DP-38b 1 4.6 ± 0.3 -165 ± 12 131 ± 8 3.0 ± 0.2 144 ± 9 112 ± 6 - - -
DP-39 1 2.8 ± 0.3 -221 ± 15 140 ± 11 1.8 ± 0.2 103 ± 15 118 ± 10 - - -
DP-40 1 3.2 ± 0.3 -96 ± 13 171 ± 8 1.1 ± 0.2 229 ± 11 107 ± 9 - - -
DP-41 1 2.4 ± 0.2 -87 ± 5 115 ± 3 1.8 ± 0.2 197 ± 12 128 ± 8 - - -

Notes: The denotations a, b and c are the same as in table 1. We present CO(1-0) fitting parameters from the fitting procedure described in Sect. 2.4.
We note if we performed a combined fit using the kinematic parameters from the optical ionised gas emission lines from the SDSS spectrum with
the flag combined fit. We further present the intensity ICO(1−0) , the peak position µ and the Gaussian σ for each line component.

Article number, page 21 of 28

 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

'15"

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
7°57 DP-1
200 CO10 300 CO21
00" 100 200

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

" H 6565
56'45 100 100
[NII] 6550 [NII] 6585
30" 0 0
100 25 25
15" 0 0 0
25
14h31m20R.A.
s 18s 17s 16s 10 25
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
DP-2 Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
300 Comb. fit CO10 100 Comb. fit CO21
'45"
5°04 40
200

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

H 6565 50
30" [NII] 6585 20
100
15" [NII] 6550 0 0
0
00" 10
0 0
0
25 50
14h21m32s 30s 29s
R.A. (2000.0) 28s 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1

5'00"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-3
13°0 40 Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
" 400
04'45 H 6565 100

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

20
30" 200 [NII] 6585
[NII] 6550 0 0
15" 0 25
10 50
00" 0 0 0
10 25
13h07m05 s 03s 02s 01s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1

2'00 "
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-4
26°5 CO10 CO21
" 200 H 6565 100 Comb. fit 200
Comb. fit
51'45 [NII] 6585
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

30" 100 50 100

[NII] 6550
15" 0 0 0
10 25 50
00" 0 0 0
10 25 50
14h17mR.A.
23s (2000.0)
21s 20s 19s 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-5
8'1 5" 150 CO10 200 CO21
26°1 100
H 6565 100
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

00" [NII] 6585 50 100

" 50
1 45
7'
0
[NII] 6550 0 0
20
30" 5
0 0 0
5 20 50
14h19m19R.A.
s 17s 16s 15s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
8'45"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-6
14°0 H 6565 20 Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
200 50
30"
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

[NII] 6585 0
15" 100
[NII] 6550 0
20
00" 100 25
" 0
0 45
7'
10
0
25
0
25
16h05m00R.A.
s 04m58s
(2000.0) 56
s
1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-7
0'1 5" 75 100 Comb. fit CO10 200 Comb. fit CO21
14°4 H 6565
[NII] 6585
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

50 50 100
00"
" 25 [NII] 6550 0
3 45
9' 0
100
30" 0
25
0
50
0
10 25 50
14h37m16R.A.
s 14s 13s 12s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Fig. A.1. Fit results of ionised gas emission lines and CO(1-0)/CO(2-1) lines. We show on the left the 7000 × 7000 legacy survey snapshots (Dey
et al. 2019) and mark the position of the SDSS 300 fibre in red, the IRAM CO(1-0) (resp. CO(2-1)) beam of 2300 (resp. 1200 ) with a green (resp.
black) dashed line. For interferometry observations of DP-18 and DP-38 conducted by Bauermeister et al. (2013), we show the beam with a blue
ellipse. For DP-22, DP-23 and DP-28, we show the FCRAO CO(1-0) beam of 5000 . Next to the snapshots, we show the Hα emission line and the
[NII]λ6550/6585 doublet fitted with a double Gaussian function. On the right-hand side, we show the CO(1-0) and the CO(2-1) line, if observed,
fitted by a single, a double or a triple Gaussian functions. In case of an successful combined fit as described in Sect. 2.4, we indicate this in the top
left of the CO panels. For a detailed description of the fitting procedure, see Sec. 2.4.

Article number, page 22 of 28

 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

8'15"

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
DP-8
27°3 200 40 Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
00" H 6565 20 50

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

"
37'45 100
[NII] 6585 0 0
30" [NII] 6550 20
0 50
15"
50
0 0 0
10 1500 1000 500 25 50
14h12m41
R.A. 39
s s 38s 37s
(2000.0) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
5'30" DP-9 Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
60°0 40 Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
150
15" 100

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

100 H 6565 20
00" [NII] 6585 50
50 [NII] 6550 0
"
0 45
4' 0 20
0
25
5
30" 0 0 0
25
5 20
9h00mR.A.
10s (2000.0)
06s 04s 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-10
3'00" 150 CO10 CO21
12°0 50
" 100 H 6565 100
02'45

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

25
50 [NII] 6585
30" [NII] 6550 0 0
15" 0 25
20 50
0 0 0
10 20 50
13h24mR.A.
00s (2000.0)
57s 56s 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-11
9'45" 150 CO10 200 CO21
14°3 H 6565 50
[NII] 6585 25
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

30" 100 100

50
15" [NII] 6550 0
0
0
00" 10 25 50
0 0 0
13h53m12R.A.
s 10s 09s 08s 10 25
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-12
9'00" CO10 CO21
14°1 300 H 6565 100 200
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

"
18'45 200
50 100
100 [NII] 6585
30" [NII] 6550 0
0 0
15" 10 0 0
0
10 10 25
2h04m01 s $ 03m58s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1

3'00"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-13
28°3 150 50 CO10 150 CO21
" H 6565
32'45 100
Tmb, mJy

25
DEC. (2000.0)

100 [NII] 6585

30" 50
50 [NII] 6550 0
0
15" 0 25
5
00" 0
5
0 0
25 25
10h57m19R.A.
s 17s 16s 15s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
0 0"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

54 ' DP-14
29° 200 Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
" H 6565
53'45 20
50
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

100
30" [NII] 6585
[NII] 6550 0 0
15" 0 10 25
00" 0 0 0
10 1500 1000 500 0 10 25
11h35m10R.A.
s 08s 07s 06s 05s
(2000.0) 500 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-15
1'45" CO10 Comb. fit CO21
25°4 300 H 6565
50
Tmb, mJy

100
DEC. (2000.0)

30 " 200
[NII] 6585
15" 100
[NII] 6550 0 0
0 " 0
10
0 0
0 0
10 50
14h54m18R.A.
s 16s 15s 14s 25
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Fig. A.2. Continuation of Fig. A.1

Article number, page 23 of 28

 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

6'30"

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
DP-16
32°5 100 CO10
15"
H 6565

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

100 50
00"
[NII] 6585
" [NII] 6550 0
5 45
5' 0
10
30"
0
0
10 20
9h19m57R.A.
s 55s 54s 53s 52s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 11000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
° 36 '30" DP-17 Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
28 100
H 6565 40 CO10 100 CO21
15"

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

00" 50 [NII] 6585 20 50

" 0
35'45 0 [NII] 6550 0
30" 5
0 0 0
5 20 25
9h41m45R.A.
s 43s 42s 41s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-18
8'00"
14°1 100 H 6565 40 Comb. fit CO10
"
17'45

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

20
50 [NII] 6585
30" [NII] 6550 0
15" 0
5 20
00" 0
5
0
23h34mR.A.
57s (2000.0)
55s 54s 53s 20
1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

0 " DP-19
9 ' 0 20
47°2 150 Comb. fit CO10 50 Comb. fit CO21
" H 6565 10
28'45
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

100 25
[NII] 6585 0
30" 50
[NII] 6550 0
15 " 0
5
10 25
10
0 0
00" 5
0
10 25
12h08m56s 52s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
8'15"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-20
52°4 75 CO10 200 CO21
00"
H 6565
50
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

" 100 100

4 45
7' [NII] 6585 25
30"
[NII] 6550 0 0
0 25
5 10
15" 0 0
10
0
25
5
13h43m20R.A.
s 16s 14s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-21
7'00" 100 CO10 100 CO21
55°2
" H 6565 20
26'45
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

50 50
[NII] 6585
30" [NII] 6550 0
0
15" 0
2.5 0 0
0.0
2.5 10 20
11h07m50s 46s 44s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
'15"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-22
2°49 CO10
00" 100 H 6565 200
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

"
4 45
8 ' 50 [NII] 6585
30" [NII] 6550 0
0
15" 10
0
50
0
12h13m48 s 46s 45s 44s 10 50
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
"
07'30
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-23
13°
30 H 6565
100 Comb. fit CO10
15"
[NII] 6585
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

20 50
00" 10 [NII] 6550
" 0
0 45
6'
0
2.5 25
30" 0.0 0
2.5 25
10h21m45R.A.
s 43s 42s 41s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Fig. A.3. Continuation of Fig. A.1

Article number, page 24 of 28

 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
DP-24
7'45" 60
52°5 75 CO10 150 CO21
30" 40 100

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

50
H 6565 20
15" 25 [NII] 6550 [NII] 6585 50
0 0
00" 0
2.5 20
"
56'45 0.0 0 0
2.5 10 20
12h04m40s
R.A. (2000.0) 36s 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
DP-25 Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
2'15" 150 40 CO10 CO21
50°5 100
H 6565

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

100 20 50
00"
" 50 [NII] 6585
51 45
' [NII] 6550 0 0
0
30" 5 0
0 0
5 10 25
11h43m28s 24s
R.A. (2000.0) 22s 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
3'30"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-26
51°5 150
40 CO10 CO21
15" 40 H 6565 100

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

[NII] 6585 20
00" 20 50
" [NII] 6550 0
5 45
2' 0
2.50
30" 0.0 0 0
20 25
13h19mR.A.
46s (2000.0)
42s 40s 1500 1000 500 0 5001 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 1000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-27
4'00" CO10 CO21
56°1 75 10 40
" H 6565
Tmb, mJy

13'45
DEC. (2000.0)

50 20
25 [NII] 6585 0
30" [NII] 6550 0
0
15" 2.5 10 20
0.0 0 0
2.5 20
11h40m54 s 50s 48s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-28
6'00" 75 Comb. fit CO10
29°0 100
" H 6565 50
05'45
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

50 [NII] 6585 25
30" [NII] 6550 0
0
15" 10 25
0 0
10 25
13h56mR.A.
12s (2000.0)
10s 09s 08s 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

" DP-29
50° 11'30 20 CO10 CO21
15" H 6565 10 50
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

50
00" [NII] 6585 0
" [NII] 6550 0
10'45 0 10
0 0
30" 0
25
15h04R.A.
m42s 38s 5 10
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
1'15"
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-30
48°2 60 CO10 CO21
10 Comb. fit 40 Comb. fit
00" 40 H 6565
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

" 20
2 45
0'
20 [NII] 6585 0
30" [NII] 6550 0
0
2.5 5
15" 0.0 0
10
0
5 10
15h09mR.A.
14s (2000.0)
10s 2.5
1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
0'1 5 "
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

50°4 DP-31
20 Comb. fit CO10 75 Comb. fit CO21
00" 100 50
10
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

" H 6565
39 45
' 50 0 25
[NII] 6550 [NII] 6585
30" 0 10
0
10
15" 0 0 0
5 10 25
12h44m10s 06s
R.A. (2000.0) 04s 1500 1000 500 0 500 11000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1

Fig. A.4. Continuation of Fig. A.1

Article number, page 25 of 28

 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
9'15" DP-32
48°5 H 6565
40 CO10 100 CO21
100
00"

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

20 50
" 50 [NII] 6585
58'45
[NII] 6550 0 0
30" 05 10
15" 0 0 0
25
13h07m08R.A.
s 04s 02s 5 10
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
3'30" DP-33 Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
50°4 150 Comb. fit CO10 CO21
H 6565 20 50 Comb. fit
15" 100

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

00" 50 [NII] 6585 0 0

" [NII] 6550
42 45
' 0 10 25
30" 0
5
0
10
0
25
13h08R.A.
m50s 46s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-34
8'45" Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
55°4 100 H 6565 20 50

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

30" [NII] 6585

50
15" [NII] 6550 0 0
05
00" 0
25
0
0 25
20
14h36m20 s 16s 14s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-35
6'00"
52°3 Comb. fit CO10 Comb. fit CO21
" 10
35'45 50
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

50 H 6565 0
30" [NII] 6550 [NII] 6585 0
15" 05 10
10 25
0 0
00" 5 10
0
25
13h57R.A.
m08s 04s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1 Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-36
4'45" 60 20 Comb. fit CO10
50°4
10
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

30" 40 H 6565
20 [NII] 6585 0
15" [NII] 6550
0 10
00" 5 0
0
10
11h37R.A.
m06s 02s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 11000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-37
1'30" Comb. fit CO10
53°4 60 H 6565 20
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

15" 40
20
[NII] 6585 10
00" [NII] 6550 0
" 0
40'45 5 10
0 0
5 10
14h18R.A.
m06s 02s 00s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-38
4'3 0" 40 H 6565 Comb. fit CO10
10°2 10
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

15" 20 [NII] 6585

00" [NII] 6550 0
0
"
23 45
' 2.5
0.0 0
2.5 10
9h14m28 s 26s 25s 24s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 0
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å

DP-39
5'30" CO10
56°3 10 Comb. fit
H 6565 [NII] 6585
Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

15" 20
[NII] 6550 0
00"
" 05
34'45 5
0
0 5
14h40R.A.
m20s 16s 14s
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 1 1000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Fig. A.5. Continuation of Fig. A.1

Article number, page 26 of 28

 Maschmann et al.: Central star formation in double-peak gas rich radio galaxies

Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
0" DP-40
0'0 CO10
48°0 40 10 Comb. fit
H 6565 5

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

20 [NII] 6585 0
30" [NII] 6550
0 5
15" 5 5
0 0
00"h m s 5 5
11 03 36 32s 30s
R.A. (2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 11000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
DP-41 Flux, 10e-17erg/cm2/s/ Å
6'00" Comb. fit CO10
49°5 40 10
"

Tmb, mJy
DEC. (2000.0)

55'45
20 H 6565 [NII] 6585 0
30" [NII] 6550
0
15" 5
0
0
5
14h32R.A.
m14s 10s 5
(2000.0) 1500 1000 500 0 500 11000 1500 2000 500 0 500
Velocity, km s Velocity, km s 1
Fig. A.6. Continuation of Fig. A.1

Table B.2. Observed CO(2-1) line parameters

ID Comb. fit I1 CO(2−1) µ1 σ1 I2 CO(2−1) µ2 σ2 I3 CO(2−1) µ3 σ3

Jy km s− 1 km s− 1 km s− 1 Jy km s− 1 km s− 1 km s− 1 Jy km s− 1 km s− 1 km s− 1
DP-1 0 13.4 ± 0.2 -156 ± 1 36 ± 1 79.0 ± 0.6 -28 ± 1 103 ± 1 13.7 ± 0.3 160 ± 1 42 ± 1
DP-2 1 22.3 ± 1.0 -85 ± 8 100 ± 4 15.3 ± 1.0 143 ± 11 94 ± 6 - - -
DP-3 1 27.9 ± 0.9 -137 ± 4 90 ± 2 23.6 ± 0.9 103 ± 5 91 ± 3 - - -
DP-4 1 50.5 ± 3.0 -283 ± 17 157 ± 9 89.7 ± 4.4 67 ± 15 168 ± 8 - - -
DP-5 0 21.6 ± 0.2 -232 ± 1 42 ± 1 29.4 ± 0.3 -28 ± 1 135 ± 1 - - -
DP-6 1 8.7 ± 0.2 -100 ± 1 84 ± 1 12.1 ± 0.3 122 ± 1 76 ± 1 - - -
DP-7 1 49.3 ± 3.0 -132 ± 8 105 ± 6 42.5 ± 3.1 129 ± 8 85 ± 6 - - -
DP-8 1 18.6 ± 1.0 -62 ± 10 113 ± 6 10.3 ± 0.6 159 ± 7 79 ± 4 - - -
DP-9 1 31.8 ± 1.3 -75 ± 8 110 ± 4 17.3 ± 1.0 137 ± 9 87 ± 5 - - -
DP-10 0 8.8 ± 0.1 -222 ± 1 30 ± 1 40.0 ± 0.4 -13 ± 1 149 ± 1 13.3 ± 0.2 260 ± 1 52 ± 1
DP-11 0 69.5 ± 0.4 35 ± 1 238 ± 1 18.7 ± 0.2 295 ± 1 50 ± 1 - - -
DP-12a 0 13.6 ± 0.3 -135 ± 1 36 ± 1 23.2 ± 0.3 -20 ± 1 80 ± 1 21.6 ± 0.5 112 ± 3 36 ± 1
DP-13 0 32.1 ± 0.1 -11 ± 1 123 ± 1 6.6 ± 0.3 112 ± 1 30 ± 1 - - -
DP-14 1 11.8 ± 0.7 -145 ± 11 99 ± 5 14.6 ± 0.7 93 ± 12 121 ± 6 - - -
DP-15 1 27.9 ± 1.2 -125 ± 6 91 ± 3 31.0 ± 1.2 92 ± 5 83 ± 3 - - -
DP-17 0 7.9 ± 0.2 -283 ± 1 33 ± 1 31.6 ± 0.4 45 ± 2 230 ± 1 5.6 ± 0.1 274 ± 1 30 ± 1
DP-19 1 4.2 ± 0.2 -91 ± 6 90 ± 3 9.3 ± 0.5 129 ± 8 89 ± 4 - - -
DP-20 0 12.6 ± 0.2 -215 ± 1 32 ± 1 37.5 ± 0.4 -89 ± 1 89 ± 1 24.7 ± 0.3 121 ± 1 53 ± 1
DP-21 0 6.0 ± 0.1 -186 ± 1 30 ± 1 14.6 ± 0.4 -1 ± 3 139 ± 1 - - -
DP-24 0 52.9 ± 0.3 8±1 129 ± 1 - - - - - -
DP-25 0 14.4 ± 0.3 -117 ± 1 62 ± 1 22.2 ± 0.4 112 ± 1 101 ± 1 5.3 ± 0.1 209 ± 1 30 ± 1
DP-26 0 16.5 ± 0.3 -246 ± 1 56 ± 1 20.7 ± 0.7 -45 ± 1 90 ± 1 17.3 ± 0.3 148 ± 1 51 ± 1
DP-27 0 15.0 ± 0.3 13 ± 1 137 ± 1 - - - - - -
DP-29 0 12.6 ± 0.2 -63 ± 1 96 ± 1 4.0 ± 0.1 117 ± 1 30 ± 1 6.3 ± 0.2 229 ± 1 32 ± 1
DP-30 1 10.4 ± 1.0 -106 ± 23 120 ± 11 6.8 ± 0.6 121 ± 16 92 ± 8 - - -
DP-31 1 14.1 ± 0.5 -58 ± 5 99 ± 3 12.7 ± 0.8 222 ± 10 116 ± 7 - - -
DP-32 0 10.8 ± 0.2 -116 ± 1 47 ± 1 26.4 ± 0.3 112 ± 1 106 ± 1 - - -
DP-33 1 13.0 ± 0.6 -74 ± 8 113 ± 5 11.0 ± 0.5 163 ± 4 72 ± 3 - - -
DP-34 1 18.5 ± 0.8 -82 ± 7 115 ± 4 10.2 ± 0.4 177 ± 6 92 ± 3 - - -
DP-35 1 15.0 ± 0.7 -90 ± 13 147 ± 6 19.8 ± 1.5 206 ± 24 139 ± 10 - - -

Notes: The same as TableB.1 but for CO(2-1) measurements

Article number, page 27 of 28

 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

Table B.3. Results of molecular gas mass estimation

ID L0CO(1−0) L0CO(2−1) αCO MH2 fa CO(1−0) Mcorr H2 log(µgas ) tdepl
108 Ll 108 Ll M / (K km s− 1 pc2 ) 109 M 109 M Gyr
DP-1 17.5 ± 0.2 8.7 ± 0.1 3.9 6.9 1.6 11.0 -0.9 1.4
DP-2 5.2 ± 0.2 3.1 ± 0.1 3.8 1.9 1.9 3.7 -1.0 1.0
DP-3 5.0 ± 0.1 4.4 ± 0.1 3.8 1.9 1.6 3.0 -1.0 0.9
DP-4 36.2 ± 1.4 21.6 ± 0.8 4.0 14.5 1.9 28.0 -0.7 2.1
DP-5 23.6 ± 0.3 7.9 ± 0.0 4.0 9.4 1.7 15.6 -0.9 2.1
DP-6 4.8 ± 0.1 3.3 ± 0.1 3.8 1.8 1.4 2.5 -1.1 0.4
DP-7 31.7 ± 1.5 15.1 ± 0.7 3.9 12.2 1.2 14.6 -0.7 1.4
DP-8 11.1 ± 0.5 4.9 ± 0.2 3.8 4.2 1.3 5.5 -0.9 0.6
DP-9 10.6 ± 0.4 8.6 ± 0.3 3.9 4.1 1.3 5.3 -1.2 0.1
DP-10 13.7 ± 0.2 10.9 ± 0.1 3.9 5.4 1.3 7.1 -1.2 1.0
DP-11 20.4 ± 0.3 16.5 ± 0.1 4.1 8.3 1.6 13.3 -1.1 1.8
DP-12a 24.0 ± 0.2 12.2 ± 0.2 3.9 9.3 1.4 12.7 -0.8 1.0
DP-13 16.9 ± 0.4 9.3 ± 0.1 3.8 6.5 1.3 8.7 -0.9 0.8
DP-14 15.0 ± 0.6 6.5 ± 0.2 3.9 5.9 1.7 9.7 -1.0 1.4
DP-15 18.9 ± 0.2 15.5 ± 0.4 3.8 7.2 1.2 8.3 -0.9 0.3
DP-16a 44.9 ± 0.4 - 3.8 16.9 2.1 34.7 0.1 3.8
DP-17 23.3 ± 0.6 15.1 ± 0.1 4.0 9.3 1.4 12.7 -1.0 1.7
DP-18b 31.6 ± 1.3 - 3.9 12.4 1.0 12.4 -0.9 0.6
DP-19 15.2 ± 0.7 7.2 ± 0.3 3.8 5.7 1.1 6.3 -0.9 0.4
DP-20 51.1 ± 1.0 41.4 ± 0.3 4.0 20.3 1.2 23.7 -0.7 0.6
DP-21 25.7 ± 1.1 12.2 ± 0.3 3.9 9.9 1.2 11.8 -0.9 0.5
DP-22c 162.2 ± 2.2 - 3.8 60.9 1.0 61.0 0.2 3.5
DP-23c 100.0 ± 6.7 - 3.9 39.4 1.0 40.4 -0.5 2.0
DP-24 63.5 ± 0.8 41.1 ± 0.2 3.8 24.4 1.3 31.4 -0.4 1.4
DP-25 55.8 ± 1.4 34.9 ± 0.4 3.9 21.7 1.1 24.5 -0.6 0.9
DP-26 72.5 ± 2.0 52.0 ± 0.7 3.9 28.4 1.1 31.3 -0.6 1.7
DP-27 17.1 ± 1.0 20.1 ± 0.3 3.8 6.5 1.1 7.0 -0.9 0.2
DP-28c 114.9 ± 3.8 - 4.0 45.7 1.0 46.9 -0.5 0.8
DP-29 28.3 ± 1.5 34.3 ± 0.4 3.8 10.7 1.1 11.3 -0.7 0.7
DP-30 28.0 ± 2.4 29.1 ± 2.1 3.8 10.6 1.1 11.5 -0.8 0.9
DP-31 42.2 ± 2.0 46.7 ± 1.7 3.8 15.9 1.0 16.4 -0.6 0.7
DP-32 100.1 ± 2.5 66.9 ± 0.7 4.0 39.8 1.1 41.8 -0.6 0.5
DP-33 71.9 ± 2.8 44.1 ± 1.5 3.8 27.6 1.1 29.3 -0.5 0.8
DP-34 96.3 ± 3.4 67.3 ± 2.1 3.9 37.1 1.0 38.9 -0.5 0.6
DP-35 57.5 ± 3.7 86.2 ± 4.1 3.9 22.3 1.1 24.9 -0.7 0.7
DP-36 67.1 ± 4.8 - 3.8 25.3 1.0 26.5 -0.4 0.6
DP-37 158.9 ± 3.8 - 3.9 61.4 1.1 64.6 -0.3 1.0
DP-38b 114.0 ± 6.1 - 4.1 46.8 1.0 46.8 -0.8 0.8
DP-39 73.7 ± 5.8 - 4.1 30.0 1.1 33.3 -0.9 1.7
DP-40 75.2 ± 5.5 - 3.8 28.6 1.0 29.3 -0.5 1.4
DP-41 77.5 ± 5.1 - 3.8 29.1 1.0 30.1 -0.2 2.6

Notes: The denotations a, b and c are the same as in Table 1. We present the total intrinsic CO(1-0) (resp. CO(2-1)) luminosity L0CO(1−0) (resp.
L0CO(2−1) ) with Ll = K km s−1 pc2 , the luminosity-to-molecular gas mass conversion factor αCO , the measured molecular gas mass MH2 , the aperture
correction factor fa CO10 , the aperture corrected molecular gas mass Mcorr H2 , the mass fraction µgas and the depletion time tdepl .

Article number, page 28 of 28