Do spiral arms enhance star formation efficiency?

The galaxies studied in this paper are part of the nominal PHANGS–ALMA sample of 74 galaxies, excluding extensions (Leroy et al., 2021b). PHANGS–ALMA targeted virtually all the massive, star-forming galaxies out to $D\approx 17$ Mpc, which are not highly inclined and which are visible from the ALMA site. The galaxies are representative of the $z=0$ star formation ‘main sequence’ (e.g. Noeske et al., 2007). We refer the interested reader to Leroy et al. (2021b) for a detailed description of the sample selection and properties.

This sub-sample of 28 galaxies with well-defined spiral arms spans stellar masses $9.5\lesssim\log(M_{\star}/{\rm M}_{\odot})\lesssim 11.1$, with a median $\log(M_{\star}/{\rm M}_{\odot})=10.5$, which is very similar to the median stellar mass in the whole PHANGS–ALMA sample ($10.4$). In terms of molecular gas mass ($8.6\lesssim\log(M_{\rm mol}/{\rm M}_{\odot})\lesssim 10.2$), the median of this spiral sub-sample ($\log(M_{\rm mol}/{\rm M}_{\odot})=9.5$) is slightly higher than the median in PHANGS–ALMA ($9.2$); for star formation rates ($-0.44\lesssim\log({\rm SFR}/[{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}])\lesssim 1.23$), the median is moderately higher ($\log({\rm SFR}/[{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}])=0.36$) than across PHANGS–ALMA ($0.00$). We list the galaxies studied in this paper in Table LABEL:table:sample along with some basic properties.

We measure molecular gas surface densities from the ¹²CO(2–1) transition using the public data from the PHANGS–ALMA survey. The observations cover the star-forming disc (typically close to the ${\sim}0.5R_{25}$ radius³³3$R_{25}$ is the radius where the average surface brightness is $\mu_{\rm B}=25$ mag arcsec^-2.) and accounting for ${\sim}70\%$ of all the CO emission (Leroy et al., 2021a). To determine the CO integrated intensity, we employ the zeroth-order moment maps based on the ‘broad’ masks presented in Leroy et al. (2021a) and publicly released in July 2022 (PHANGS–ALMA version 4.0). These masks feature high CO flux completeness at the expense of somewhat higher noise and thus are more suitable for our purpose.

The conversion of the CO(2–1) integrated intensity (in K km s^-1) to molecular gas surface density (in M_⊙ pc^-2) requires adopting both a conversion factor, $\alpha_{\rm CO}$, and a line ratio, $R_{21}=\mbox{CO(2--1)}/\mbox{CO(1--0)}$. We employed the $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ prescription adopted in many previous PHANGS studies, which includes a radial trend according to the metallicity gradient in galaxies (Sun et al. 2020, based on Accurso et al. 2017). We calculated azimuthal arm/interarm contrasts in radial bins (Sect. 2.7 and Fig. 1); thus, in practice, any radial dependence of $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ is effectively cancelled out (other than very small variations within each radial bin). This means that we would measure nearly identical contrasts if we assumed a constant Galactic of $\alpha_{\rm CO}=4.35$ M_⊙ pc^-2 (K km s^-1)^-1 or any other prescription that varies only with radius. However, azimuthal variations in the real $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ are not completely negligible and next we estimate the uncertainty introduced by assuming a purely radial conversion factor.

Under the assumption that $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ primarily tracks metallicity variations within galaxies, we indeed expect a predominantly radial trend with much more limited azimuthal effects. Systematic arm-to-interarm gas metallicity variations have been found in some galaxies (e.g. Ho et al., 2017, 2018; Sánchez-Menguiano et al., 2020), typically of the order of $\sim$0.05 dex in $12+\log({\rm O/H})$, while in other cases such arm-to-interarm variations were found to be even more limited or absent (e.g. Kreckel et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2022). According to the metallicity-dependent PHANGS $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ prescription (Sun et al., 2020), a change of 0.05 dex in metallicity would imply a change of 0.07-0.09 dex in $\alpha_{\rm CO}$. Therefore, we conservatively assume a 0.1 dex uncertainty on the molecular surface density contrasts as a consequence of neglecting azimuthal changes in $\alpha_{\rm CO}$.

Teng et al. (2024) recently put forward an $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ prescription that depends on CO velocity dispersion, tracing the CO optical depth (while, for near-solar metallicities, the correlation of $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ with metallicity is interpreted as coincidental, as both tend to drop with increasing radius). The CO velocity dispersion measured on 150 pc scales and averaged (intensity-weighted) over 1.5 kpc-sized apertures, $\langle\Delta v\rangle_{\rm 150\,pc}$, does not vary too much between arm and interarm regions. For our sample, the median $\langle\Delta v\rangle_{\rm 150\,pc}$ is only $13$% higher in spiral arms (with a scatter of ${\sim}25$%), which has an impact of only ${\sim}10$% on $\alpha_{\rm CO}$. This is well within the 0.1 dex uncertainty that we assume (but could introduce a systematic effect on $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and SFE contrasts at the ${\sim}10$% level).

For simplicity, we adopted a constant line ratio of $R_{21}=0.65$ (Leroy et al., 2013; den Brok et al., 2021). The latest studies examining $R_{21}$ variations in galaxies, albeit at coarser resolution, measure a typical azimuthal scatter of $\sim$20% in $R_{21}$ as long as we exclude galaxy outskirts (den Brok et al., 2021; Leroy et al., 2022). This roughly agrees with previous studies, which typically found standard deviations of around 0.1 dex in $R_{21}$ within a given galaxy (Leroy et al., 2013; Yajima et al., 2021). The CO(2–1) line ratio is known to vary with local conditions, typically increasing towards galaxy centres and, more generally, mildly increasing with $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$. Leroy et al. (2022) suggest a power-law dependence, $R_{21}\propto\Sigma_{\rm SFR}^{0.13}$, comparing measurements across different galaxies. As a corollary, this could suggest slightly higher $R_{21}$ in spiral arms than in matched interarm regions, since $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ is typically higher in spirals. However, den Brok et al. (2021) found very limited differences in $R_{21}$ between arm and interarm within galaxies (if any, paradoxically larger $R_{21}$ in interarm regions, as seen in M51; den Brok et al. 2022). Therefore, there is no clear indication for a systematically higher $R_{21}$ in spiral arms, and the observed variations are well within the 0.1 dex azimuthal scatter that we assume. Thus, we take 0.1 dex as a reasonable uncertainty on the molecular contrast due to arm-to-interarm variations in $R_{21}$. Adding this in quadrature with the uncertainty in $\alpha_{\rm CO}$, we consider a global uncertainty of 0.14 dex in our estimate of molecular gas surface density contrast.

Razza et al. (in prep.) obtained ground-based narrow-band H$\alpha$ images for a total of 65 galaxies from the PHANGS–ALMA parent sample. These were observed with the Wide Field Imager (WFI) at the MPG 2.2-metre telescope in La Silla or with the DirectCCD camera at the du Pont 2.5-metre telescope in Las Campanas between 2016 and 2019 (these maps have appeared previously, e.g. in Pan et al. 2022). Both broad-band and narrow-band images were obtained, which allowed us to derive H$\alpha$ continuum-subtracted images. The resolution, limited by seeing, is typically ${\sim}1\arcsec$ at a full width at half maximum (FWHM) ranging from $0.6\arcsec$ to $1.3\arcsec$, ${\sim}100$ pc. The H$\alpha$ maps were corrected for filter transmission as well as [N ii] contamination (assuming $[\textsc{N\,ii}]/\textrm{H}\alpha=0.3$; see Schinnerer et al. 2019).

A robust conversion from H$\alpha$ fluxes to SFR should also account for obscured star formation; otherwise, extinction will make us underestimate SFRs in regions that are strongly obscured by dust. We use narrow-band H$\alpha$ observations to trace star formation, and calibrate the impact of extinction using Balmer-corrected H$\alpha$ maps. This is possible for a subset of 13 galaxies, and for a smaller field of view than the narrow-band maps, where we have extinction-corrected H$\alpha$ SFR maps from PHANGS–MUSE (Emsellem et al., 2022; Belfiore et al., 2023) at ${\sim}1\arcsec$ resolution. These rely on the Balmer decrement (see e.g. Groves et al. 2012), which allows us to measure extinction based on the $L_{\rm H\alpha}/L_{\rm H\beta}$ ratio (assuming case B recombination, temperature $T=10^{4}$ K, and density $n_{\rm e}=10^{2}$ cm^-3; see Belfiore et al. 2023 for details).

As shown in Appendix B, there is a tight correlation between the MUSE SFR contrasts with and without extinction (Spearman rank coefficient 0.97), with a systematic amplification of contrasts when extinction is accounted for. We find that the following power-law captures this systematic amplification very well:

Additionally, in Appendix B we also consider the uncertainty due to narrow-band H$\alpha$ calibration. We estimate this by comparing the narrow-band H$\alpha$ contrasts to the MUSE-based H$\alpha$ contrasts (ignoring extinction). The scatter in this case is slightly smaller than the effect of extinction, but not negligible (0.059 dex). Therefore, we add both in quadrature to obtain a representative uncertainty on the SFR contrasts of 0.122 dex. In Appendix D we discuss that diffuse ionised gas (DIG) is unlikely to have a major impact on SFR contrasts according to our observational strategy.

In Section 3.5, we consider the effect of including neutral atomic gas in the contrast measurements. We employ 21 cm interferometric maps from a number of surveys from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). Most of them come from new VLA observations for PHANGS (data that have previously appeared in Sun et al. 2022 and Chiang et al. 2023), while others come from THINGS (Walter et al., 2008), VIVA (Chung et al., 2009), HERACLES (Leroy et al., 2009), or specific programs on individual galaxies. The resolution of the H I maps ranges from ${\sim}10{-}60^{\prime\prime}$ (FWHM), depending on the target, which translates into a physical resolution of ${\sim}0.5{-}4$ kpc for our spiral galaxy sample.

We apply the following equation to transform H I observations to atomic gas surface density, which assumes an optically thin 21 cm emission:

For most galaxies, we use a set of stellar mass maps based on Spitzer $3.6$ $\mu$m imaging obtained from the Spitzer Survey of Stellar Structure in Galaxies (S⁴G; Sheth et al. 2010), with a PSF of $1.7^{\prime\prime}$. The mass maps rely on an Independent Component Analysis (ICA) correction for dust emission, present at $3.6$ $\mu$m on top of the photospheric emission from old stars. The method, introduced in Meidt et al. (2012), was applied to the entire S⁴G sample in Querejeta et al. (2015). It makes use of the neighbouring 4.5 $\mu$m band and exploits the fact that stellar and dust emission are expected to have very different [3.6]-[4.5] colours. Then, ICA (similar to principal component analysis, PCA) identifies the global stellar and dust [3.6]-[4.5] colours that best describe the two underlying components. Since dust emission at $3.6$ $\mu$m is strongest around star-forming regions, the arm/interarm contrast nearly always decreases when shifting from the original IRAC $3.6$ $\mu$m to the ICA-based dust-corrected stellar mass map. For the galaxies which are not in S⁴G, we use the original IRAC $3.6$ $\mu$m maps (not corrected with ICA, see Querejeta et al. 2021 for details).

The conversion from IRAC fluxes to stellar mass surface densities requires adopting a mass-to-light (M/L) ratio. We assume a constant M/L on the ICA-corrected $3.6$ $\mu$m maps following Meidt et al. (2014), which is expected to provide a reliable conversion to stellar masses within 0.1 dex (accounting for unconstrained age and metallicity differences, Meidt et al. 2014). For our purposes, we do not care about the exact normalisation of M/L, or about possible radial variations, as they will cancel out in the arm/interarm contrasts. We still conservatively assume an uncertainty of 0.1 dex on the arm/interarm stellar surface density contrasts to account for possible arm/interarm variations in M/L (the range of M/L expected at $3.6$ $\mu$m after correcting with ICA; Meidt et al. 2014). To test the robustness of our choice for the M/L and our adopted error bar, for 13 galaxies we compare the IRAC contrasts with contrasts measured from the MUSE stellar mass map and we find excellent agreement (see Appendix C). We also consider the typical change of 0.04 dex on the arm/interarm contrast due to the ICA correction as a conservative error bar. Adding both in quadrature, we obtain a global uncertainty of 0.11 dex for the stellar arm/interarm contrasts. Figure 13 confirms that the stellar contrasts based on the ICA-corrected maps agree well with independent estimates from stellar population fitting in PHANGS–MUSE, and that the uncertainty of 0.11 dex assumed here is reasonable (see Appendix C for details).

There are different approaches to derive arm/interarm contrasts in nearby galaxies. As illustrated in Fig. 1, our nominal method splits each galaxy into a number of radial bins in the plane of the galaxy; for each radial bin, we consider the mean⁵⁵5Using the median instead of the mean does not qualitatively affect our conclusions. We prefer the mean as we find that it is more robust, particularly for the interarm region, where the median often falls below the noise level (as already pointed out by Meidt et al. 2021). surface density within the footprint of each spiral segment at that radius (arm value), and divide it by the mean surface density within the ring outside the spiral mask (interarm value). We considered the intensity maps without clipping and, therefore, we should not be biased by non-detections. At the outermost radial bins, we require at least 50% of the spiral and interarm pixels in the ring to lie within the PHANGS–ALMA field of view for the measurement to be considered. The width of the radial bins is chosen to be 500 pc in the plane of the galaxy to mitigate stochastic sampling effects⁶⁶6This is just slightly above the maximum characteristic separation length between independent star-forming regions measured for PHANGS galaxies by Kim et al. (2022); we consider the effect of varying this bin width in Appendix F., which results in elliptical annuli in the plane of the sky (according to the disc inclination and position angle from the PHANGS sample table 1.6, which follow Lang et al. 2020). This allows us to plot each radial bin independently and examine trends with galactocentric radius. Each galaxy typically contributes around a dozen measurements in 500 pc-wide radial bins. Additionally, we also plot with a different symbol the average contrast across each spiral segment (typically two or three datapoints per galaxy, depending on how many spiral arms the galaxy has).

This radial approach has the advantage of simplicity, being easily reproducible, and assigning each pixel uniquely to one bin. To zeroth-order, gas in a spiral galaxy moves on approximately circular orbits, and stellar or gas surface density follow roughly exponential radial profiles; this motivates the interest of splitting bins by radius. However, since the pitch angle of spiral arms varies considerably from galaxy to galaxy, this method implies that, sometimes, a 500 pc radial bin will encompass a very large area of a spiral, spanning a large interval in azimuth (see Fig. 1), while in other cases, when the spiral is nearly perpendicular to the elliptical annulus, the resulting spiral bin will have a much smaller area. Thus, despite providing a uniform sampling in galactocentric radius, this method yields an inhomogeneous sampling in terms of spiral arm area.

In Appendix F, we consider two alternatives for the sampling of the arm/interarm contrasts. They both consider regularly spaced ‘boxes’ along each spiral segment, whose boundaries cut the log-spiral spine perpendicularly at regular intervals of 500 pc. The first alternative defines the interarm as all non-spiral pixels at matched galactocentric radii for each bin. In the second alternative approach, the spiral bins are defined exactly the same way, but the interarm is measured as adjacent boxes, on both sides immediately next to each spiral bin, to provide a more local reference for the interarm region. Even though the sampling method affects the actual values of the contrasts, our results remain qualitatively the same independently of these different choices.

We note that these methods differ from the arm/interarm contrasts presented in Querejeta et al. (2021). In that paper, the arm-to-interarm contrast was calculated as the ratio of the mean surface density within the spiral mask (considering all spiral segments simultaneously) to the mean surface density in the area outside the spiral mask at matched galactocentric radius. This results in a single number for each contrast per galaxy, and therefore differs from the present approach, which examines each spiral segment separately and considers the radial variation of the contrast. Our approach here is also different from the one in Meidt et al. (2021), who examined contrasts based on percentiles of stellar and molecular gas surface brightness as a function of radius, without explicit reference to the spiral morphology. Since we want to specifically study the role of spiral arms in this paper, we instead use the spiral masks from Querejeta et al. (2021). Our results yield a consistent picture with Meidt et al. (2021) regarding the relation between stellar and gas contrasts.

For each spiral segment, we measure the arm/interarm contrast in the surface density of stellar mass ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$), molecular gas ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$), star formation rate ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$), and SFE of the molecular gas (which we define as the inverse of the depletion time, ${\rm SFE}=1/\tau_{\mathrm{dep}}=\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}/\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$). The measurements are performed on radial bins following elliptical annuli of matched galactocentric radii with a width of 500 pc, as explained in Sect. 2.7 and illustrated in Fig. 1. We only consider measurements if at least 50% of the pixels in a given spiral bin (and 50% of the corresponding interarm region) fall within the PHANGS–ALMA footprint, which is typically rectangular. This condition excludes NGC 1365 completely, as the CO coverage beyond the bar is very limited. When performing this analysis, we also lacked narrow-band H$\alpha$ data for six galaxies⁸⁸8The galaxies without high-resolution PHANGS SFR maps are: NGC1097, NGC1637, NGC3507, NGC4536, NGC4579, and NGC5643., for which we could only consider $\Sigma_{\star}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$. This results in a total of 27 spiral galaxies (excluding NGC 1365, as explained above) and 59 spiral segments with $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ measurements, out of which 21 galaxies (44 spiral segments) also have $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ information. Table 1 summarises the contrast distributions that we obtain for different galaxy subsets and approaches. To make measurements more directly comparable, in Table 1 and the following figures involving SFRs, we only include stellar and CO contrasts for galaxies where SFR is available (i.e. the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ ranges correspond to the same set of radial bins as the SFR contrasts).

Figure 3 shows the median and dispersion of arm/interarm contrasts for each spiral segment across PHANGS galaxies ordered by decreasing stellar mass. The stellar contrast tends to be smaller and with more limited fluctuations, whereas the CO or SFR contrasts tend to span large ranges (their $x$ axis covers different ranges), implying that, even within a given galaxy and along a single spiral segment, there are significant fluctuations with galactocentric radius. In some cases, these fluctuations even lead to negative contrasts in the logarithmic scale, which is not necessarily unphysical, and simply points to radial bins where the mean interarm value is slightly higher than the mean arm value. Looking at the distribution of SFE contrast, we see that it is not systematically positive; while some galaxies do seem to show a slight preference for either enhanced or suppressed SFE in spirals, in most cases, the SFE contrast shows values both above and below unity within a galaxy. This already highlights the diversity of physical conditions in spiral arms; we examine SFE in more detail below in Sect. 3.4.

Figure 4 shows the aggregated distribution of contrasts across all the PHANGS radial bins in our sample at ${\sim}100$ pc resolution. For a more fair comparison, here we only include bins for which $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ measurements exist simultaneously at a given radius. It immediately stands out that the range of stellar mass contrasts is fairly modest compared to the contrast in molecular gas or star formation. The stellar contrast is typically between a few percent and around 50%, much smaller than $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ or $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrasts, which often reach factors of ${\sim}2{-}3$ (see Table 1). This is because even a moderate spiral potential can trigger a strong response in the gas (as shown by Roberts 1969). Meidt et al. (2021) also found much smaller stellar than molecular gas contrasts in the PHANGS sample (based on flux percentiles in galactocentric radial bins, without explicitly defining spiral masks).

The $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrasts follow a wide distribution, from just a few percent up to ${\sim}10$ in the most extreme cases. The median contrast is slightly higher for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ than $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, but the scatter is also particularly pronounced, exceeding the 16^th–84^th percentile range of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrasts by as much as a factor of two (Table 1). This implies that the fluctuations in arm/interarm contrast are larger for star formation than for molecular gas. This could reflect the fact that spiral arms act directly on the gas, and indirectly on star formation, involving additional physics that controls the collapse of gas to form stars and which introduces scatter. We discuss this further in Sect. 4.1.

One of the main questions that motivate this paper is quantifying whether star formation proceeds more efficiently in spiral arms than in interarm regions when examined at 100 pc scales. The right panel of Fig. 4 provides an answer to this: in some cases SFE is indeed enhanced in spiral arms, but in (many) other cases the opposite happens. We examine this problem in greater detail below in Sect. 3.4.

The magnitude of the molecular and SFR contrasts that we measure broadly agrees with previous results from the literature (most of them at lower spatial resolution), where typical gas surface densities were found to be a few times higher in spiral arms than in interarm regions (e.g. Vogel et al., 1988; Garcia-Burillo et al., 1993; Knapen & Beckman, 1996; Nakanishi & Sofue, 2003; Hitschfeld et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2020). In Querejeta et al. (2021) we also measured for PHANGS galaxies, using the same nominal masks albeit at lower resolution, that spiral arms have typically ${\sim}2$ times higher molecular gas and SFR surface densities than the interarm, with a range from less than a factor of $2$ up to a factor of ${\sim}10$ on a linear scale. Our results are also in qualitative agreement with the analysis presented in Pessa et al. (2021) and Pessa et al. (2022), who examined star formation scaling relations involving $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ in the PHANGS–MUSE sample (18 galaxies). Their main conclusion is that the relations involving stellar surface density vary strongly with galactic environment, with a higher normalisation in $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ as a function of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ for spiral arms than for ‘disc’ (which includes interarm regions). This implies that, while globally there is a nearly linear correlation between stellar mass and molecular gas mass in galaxies, in detail, the same relation cannot hold everywhere within discs, because $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ arm/interarm contrasts (or $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrasts) are much larger than the contrasts in $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$(as explicitly shown by Meidt et al. 2021). This results in a higher normalisation in the scaling relations of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ as a function of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ for spiral arms (Pessa et al., 2021, 2022).

In detail, the measured contrast in a given galaxy depends on resolution and, to a lesser degree, on methodology (which we discuss in Sect. 4.4). For example, for NGC 4321, Knapen et al. (1996) obtained an average molecular contrast of ${\sim}1.7$ and ${\sim}1.8$ for the north and south spiral, respectively, at a resolution of $15^{\prime\prime}$ (${\sim}1$ kpc). They targeted individual pointings with the Nobeyama 45 m telescope along the arms and immediate interarm regions (similar to the second binning alternative that we introduce in Appendix F). Despite the methodological differences, these molecular contrasts are very similar to the ones we obtain at 1.5 kpc resolution, $1.8$ and $1.6$ for each arm, respectively. However, when we shift to high resolution, the molecular contrasts become 2.7 and 2.4 for the north and south arm, respectively. This warns against direct comparison of contrasts derived at different resolutions.

The violin plots in Fig. 4 are split into grand-design spirals (17 galaxies) and the rest (multi-armed and flocculent, 11 galaxies). We follow the NIR visual classification from Buta et al. (2015) for galaxies in the S⁴G survey, and the definitions adopted in Meidt et al. (2021) otherwise. We find a significantly different distribution between the contrasts in grand-design galaxies and the rest for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$. For each tracer, the contrast is higher for grand-design spirals: the median surface density enhancement is 50% higher for stellar mass, and almost a factor of two higher for molecular gas and star formation. Meidt et al. (2021) also found that, at fixed 3.6 $\mu$m contrast, CO contrasts are slightly larger in grand-design spirals than in multi-arm and flocculent galaxies. We ran a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the two populations, finding a vanishingly small probability ($p<0.1\%$) that the grand-design contrasts are drawn from the same population as the rest of spirals for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$. This is not the case for SFE contrasts, though ($p=0.49$), which do not show a significant difference for grand-design spirals. A Jackknife approach also confirms this: if we remove one galaxy at a time and recompute medians, in all cases the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrast remains higher in grand-design spirals than in the rest. If we consider the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ contrast for an extended field of view (all $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ measurements across entire spiral arms, no longer limited to the PHANGS–ALMA field of view), the difference between grand-design spirals and the rest becomes even more acute, with a median $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ enhancement that is three times larger for grand-design (61%) than for the other spiral morphologies (21%), as shown in Fig. 14.

The difference in contrasts for grand-design spirals is also mirrored by a difference if we focus on the most massive galaxies. If we split the sample into the 50% of galaxies with the higher stellar masses (above the median $3.4\times 10^{10}$ M_⊙) and the lower stellar masses (below that median), we find higher contrasts for the higher-mass sub-sample, by a similar amount as for grand-design spirals (Table 1). The effect is very similar to the split between grand design galaxies and the rest; indeed, grand-design spirals are known to occur preferentially on galaxies with higher stellar masses (e.g. Bittner et al., 2017; Sarkar et al., 2023), and this is also the case for PHANGS galaxies (Stuber et al., 2023). Out of the 14 galaxies with the highest stellar masses, 12 galaxies (86%) are grand design, so both sub-samples are closely related. Yet, the difference is not driven exclusively by morphology, because even within grand-design spirals, we also found larger contrasts for the galaxies with higher stellar masses. We find moderate but positive rank correlation coefficients between the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrasts and total stellar mass of each galaxy (Spearman $\rho\sim 0.2$ for all datapoints, $p$ value $<1$%), but not between SFE contrast and the stellar mass of the galaxy. The correlations are similarly strong if we instead consider total SFR, and we also find a similar change in the distribution of contrasts when splitting the spiral sample into two halves based on total SFR (above and below the median of 2.29 M_⊙ yr^-1; also related to the split by stellar mass or morphology). However, we do not find any remarkable differences when splitting the sample based on being barred or unbarred, or based on early or late Hubble type.

In Table 1, we also consider the offset from the star-forming main sequence of galaxies ($\Delta$MS, based on Leroy et al. 2019), i.e. the vertical offset of each galaxy with respect to the best fit to the relation between SFR and $M_{\star}$. We find a clear trend for higher contrasts in the galaxies that lie preferentially above the main sequence ($\Delta$MS above $0.234$ dex, the median across the sample), comparable to the one for high $M_{\star}$. Interestingly, in this case we also find a difference for SFE contrast, which increases for galaxies in the upper half of the sample in terms of $\Delta$MS (median $1.23$ as opposed to $1.09$). Compared to the separation into grand design spirals and the rest, this slightly different SFE behaviour arises from similarly high SFR contrasts but somewhat more limited molecular contrasts for galaxies with a high $\Delta$MS. This is perhaps not too surprising; by imposing a high $\Delta$MS, we are preferentially selecting galaxies with comparatively high SFR (high SFR/$M_{\star}$), but at the same time those with a more limited $M_{\star}$, which results statistically in less extreme $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrasts. In any case, this demonstrates that the position of a galaxy on the star-forming main sequence matters in terms of the type of spiral response (even though, of course, there is significant scatter, as attested by the large range of 16^th–84^th percentile range).

Figure 5 shows a clear correlation between the contrast in $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, and a similarly strong correlation arises between $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$. This suggests that the stellar contrast largely dictates how strongly molecular gas and star formation pile up in a given arm. This is perhaps not too surprising, since the stellar contrast sets the depth of the spiral gravitational potential well. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients are $0.73$ and $0.61$, respectively. The trend is superlinear, in the sense that the response of the gas (and star formation) is amplified relative to the contrast in the stellar surface density. In the case of CO, the slope from a bisector fit is $m=1.8$, while for SFR it is even steeper, $m=2.9$. The rank coefficients and linear fits refer to the mean contrasts over entire spiral segments (more details, including all radial bins and uncertainties for the fits, in Table 4).

Meidt et al. (2021) measured CO contrasts at 150 pc resolution as a function of 3.6 $\mu$m contrast, and found that they follow approximately a 2:1 relation on a log–log scale, with some vertical offset above the reference 2:1 line, and with a Pearson correlation coefficient $R\sim 0.5$. Our measured slope of $m=1.8$ is thus in good agreement with Meidt et al. (2021), but we do not find a vertical offset here, and we find a tighter correlation with Spearman $\rho\sim 0.73$, which could arise from the different method followed (percentiles versus environmental masks). This superlinear relation is consistent with the expectation if gas is compressed as it flows supersonically in response to non-axisymmetric stellar structures (Roberts, 1969; Meidt et al., 2021).

Despite the strong correlation between stellar contrast and the contrast in molecular gas and SFR, the correlation between the contrasts in SFE and stellar surface density is much weaker ($\rho=0.34$). If we perturb the data points using a Gaussian distribution according to the error bars, the weak positive correlation vanishes (with a bootstrap of $N=10\,000$ runs, the average rank coefficient drops to $\rho=-0.09$). We comment on the impact on SFE in more detail below in Sect. 3.4.

We also examine the contrast in $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ as a function of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrast, as shown in Fig. 6. If the efficiency remains on average similar in spiral arms and interarm regions, we expect the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ as a function of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrast to be connected by the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation (Schmidt, 1959; Kennicutt, 1998). Indeed, we find an even stronger correlation ($\rho=0.78$) than between $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ or $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$. The best-fit regression relating the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrast to the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrast is slightly superlinear (slope $m=1.6$), implying that the star formation contrast exceeds on average the molecular contrast slightly for the cases where the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrast is highest. In other words, the spiral segments or bins with the highest contrasts typically show slightly more efficient star formation in the arms than in interarm regions. This is in agreement with the finding that there is a slightly increased SFE contrast for the highest $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ contrast (which at the same time corresponds to the highest $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrasts). We discuss this in more detail in Sect. 3.4.

Here we analyse whether spiral arms preferentially trigger the collapse of molecular gas to form stars, systematically boosting its SFE. We emphasise that by default we consider the efficiency associated with molecular gas only, ${\rm SFE}=\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}/\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}=1/\tau_{\mathrm{dep}}$ (sometimes labelled ${\rm SFE_{mol}}$). This is different from the SFE of the total gas (H I$+$H₂); we will examine the effect of including atomic gas below in Sect. 3.5.

The right panel of Fig. 4 demonstrates that SFE is not always enhanced in spiral arms. From a total of 422 radial bins, we find 244 bins in which SFE is higher in spiral arms (while in 178 bins it is higher in interarm regions). Thus, if we pick up random locations along spiral arms, in roughly six out of ten cases we will find a higher SFE in spirals.

The median SFE contrast across all radial bins is $1.16$. If we bootstrap the SFE values within their error bars $10\,000$ times, we confirm that the enhancement of the median with respect to unity is statistically significant (at the $4\sigma$ level). With a Jackknife approach, if we randomly remove half of the datapoints and repeat the process $N=10\,000$ times, the mean remains $1.16$ with a standard deviation of $0.03$ (in fact, only in ${\sim}5$ out of $10\,000$ random cases does removing half of the bins result in a mean SFE contrast below unity). This confirms that the result is robust. Yet, this enhancement of ${\sim}10{-}20$% in SFE is modest compared to the actual enhancement in $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ (median enhancement 120%), $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ (160%), and is even below the limited enhancement of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$(28%).

Our SFE measurements rely on H$\alpha$ fluxes corrected for extinction following the empirical calibration from Appendix B. If we were to take SFR as directly proportional to H$\alpha$, then the SFE enhancement would completely vanish, as shown in Fig. 12. This emphasises the importance of the extinction correction for SFR and SFE contrasts. For the subsample of 13 galaxies in PHANGS–MUSE, we find a median SFE contrast of $1.21$ from extinction-corrected H$\alpha$ (Balmer decrement). For the same galaxies and field of view as PHANGS–MUSE, our nominal SFE contrast has a median of $1.19$, which reassuringly demonstrates the success of our strategy to account for extinction on arm/interarm contrasts (Appendix B). Conversely, applying the velocity dispersion-dependent $\alpha_{\rm CO}$ from Teng et al. (2024) leads to an increase of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ contrasts at the ${\sim}10$% level, which results in SFE contrasts which are ${\sim}10$% higher.

In Figure 5 we found a strong correlation between $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ or $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ contrasts, but a weaker correlation for SFE contrasts (right panel of Fig. 5, $\rho=0.34$). This suggests that, while the stellar mass contrast is a clear driver of the accumulation of gas and, indirectly, star formation, it is not as directly linked, in general, with a boost in SFE. Yet, if we focus on the largest $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ contrasts, the median SFE contrast increases significantly. For example, for the top 50% in $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ contrasts ($>1.23$, or $>0.09$ in log), the median SFE contrast rises to $1.40$, and goes up to $2.34$ if we focus on the top 10% of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ contrasts ($>1.97$, or $>0.29$ in log). Therefore, the largest stellar contrasts do result, on average, in a noticeable increase of SFE. When splitting the sample into grand-design spirals and the rest, a difference in SFE contrasts is not apparent.

Our findings agree with some previous studies which did not find significant differences among spiral types in terms of SFE, either observationally (e.g. Bigiel et al., 2008; Leroy et al., 2008; Kreckel et al., 2016; Foyle et al., 2010) or using simulations (e.g. Dobbs et al., 2011). Our results also roughly agree with the analysis of PHANGS–MUSE galaxies presented in Pessa et al. (2021, 2022). The arm versus disc variation in the resolved Kennicutt-Schmidt relation ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ vs $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$) was found to be very limited, the same as the corresponding coefficients in the $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$-$\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$-$\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$ plane, in agreement with the SFE arm/interarm contrast oscillating around unity that we have found in this paper. In particular, Pessa et al. (2021) found that spirals show slightly higher $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ at fixed $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ compared to disc values, but only below $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}\lesssim 100$ M_⊙/pc² (at higher $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, discs are actually slightly above spirals in the molecular Kennicutt-Schmidt relation; see their Fig. 9). We emphasise that the binned data in Pessa et al. (2021) aggregate measurements from different galaxies and the disc environment includes both interarm regions and discs without spiral masks. Therefore, this is not necessarily representative of the arm/interarm contrasts measured within individual galaxies, and the fact that the offset is small agrees with our overall findings. Our results also agree with Romanelli et al. (in prep.), who do not find significant differences between arm and interarm regions in terms of molecular cloud SFE (inferred cloud lifetime divided by depletion time).

So far, we have considered the contrasts based on molecular gas, without accounting for atomic gas. This seems like a reasonable choice, since molecular gas often dominates the inner parts of galaxies, and is more closely related to star formation (Bigiel et al., 2008; Leroy et al., 2013). Another reason to focus on the molecular phase is the higher resolution of our CO observations compared to H I. Yet, the arm/interarm contrast in atomic gas is interesting, and it can tell us not only about the accumulation of gas, but also the transformation of atomic to molecular gas driven by spiral compression.

In this Section, we consider the impact of including atomic gas in arm/interarm contrasts, which we can unfortunately only examine at lower resolution (a few tens of arcsec for H I, i.e. $\sim$kpc scales, instead of ${\sim}100$ pc scales for CO). We limit our analysis to the cases where H I achieves a physical resolution of 2.5 kpc or better (15 galaxies, keeping in each case the original H I resolution, matching CO to this resolution), restricted to the extent of the PHANGS–ALMA field of view. Table 2 lists the distribution of arm/interarm contrasts for this subsample of H I galaxies. The H₂ contrast drops very significantly from high to low resolution (matched to H I), and the SFE contrast also drops slightly. We examine the effect of resolution more closely in Sect. 3.8. Even at matched resolution, the H I contrast is typically ${\sim}10$% lower than the H₂ contrast (while H I+H₂ shows intermediate contrasts). This is also confirmed if we explicitly look at the molecular-to-atomic ratio ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$/$\Sigma_{\mathrm{atom}}$), which shows a $13$% higher median in spiral arms.

Figure 7 compares point-by-point the contrast of total gas (H I+H₂) as a function of molecular contrast (H₂) matched to the resolution of H I. The correlation is very strong (Spearman $\rho=0.90$). Most datapoints cluster around relatively low contrast values (mostly ${\lesssim}0.5$ in log scale), and in those cases the agreement between H I+H₂ and H₂ contrast is good (following the 1:1 line). Overall, the drop in the contrasts when including H I is small (median 6% lower for the average over segments, only 3% lower for all radial bins). For exceptionally high contrasts, however, the H₂ contrast exceeds the one for total gas by $\sim$0.1-0.2 dex ($30{-}60$%). The relation between H I+H₂ and H₂ contrast can be fitted by a power-law with slope $0.67$ (but we note that the fit tends to overestimate the difference with respect to the 1:1 line for the largest contrasts).

The boost in molecular-to-atomic ratio ($\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$/$\Sigma_{\mathrm{atom}}$) in spirals points to some conversion of atomic to molecular gas due to the compression associated with spiral arms. At the same time, photodissociation of H₂ downstream of the arm could play a role (e.g. Schinnerer et al., 2013). In any case, we find a higher H₂ than H I contrast, which suggests that spiral arms might trigger the formation of molecules and do not simply gather preexisting molecular gas; in addition, spiral arms might enhance the density enough to form CO (and not only H₂), transforming some CO-dark molecular gas to molecular gas that efficiently emits in the CO line (e.g. Dobbs & Bonnell, 2007b; Smith et al., 2014). We caution that the limited resolution of the H I observations might wash out some of these effects. Observations of H I at higher physical resolution would be highly desirable to deepen our understanding of such phase transitions associated with spiral arms.

Including atomic gas also affects the SFE. Table 2 shows that the median SFE contrast increases by $8$% when considering the total gas (H₂+H I) instead of only H₂. As expected, the change is even more extreme if we consider H I only, which results in an SFE contrast typically ${\sim}20$% higher than when considering only H₂. The difference is particularly strong for the largest molecular contrasts, where considering the SFE of the total gas (H I$+$H₂) results in contrasts nearly a factor of ${\sim}2$ higher than focusing exclusively on the molecular phase. To make further progress, it becomes essential to obtain observations of atomic gas at higher physical resolution. We discuss this further in Sect. 4.3.

Here we examine whether the arm/interarm contrast shows significant fluctuations with galactocentric radius. Figure 8 shows our measurements of the arm/interarm contrast in elliptical annuli (radial bins of 500 pc) as a function of the galactocentric radius of each bin normalised by $R_{25}$. There is a very significant scatter in the contrasts at fixed $R/R_{25}$, but the running medians also show that there are some (mild) trends with radius. The enhancement of the stellar contrast above unity becomes on average a factor of ${\sim}8$ larger from the innermost to the outer radii that we sample; the median contrast in stellar mass surface density monotonically rises from just 5% in the innermost bin, up to 38% at $0.5\,R_{25}$, and then plateaus around this value. The trend is confirmed if we use the MUSE-based stellar mass maps instead (Appendix C). Thus, spiral arm stellar contrasts are damped in inner galaxies relative to middle radii; stellar surface densities become much larger as we approach galaxy centres, while the interarm values become comparatively higher with respect to the spiral density enhancement.

The molecular gas contrast shows a more stable behaviour with radius, with running medians fluctuating around a factor $2$-$2.5$. Compared to the molecular contrast, the SFR contrast shows a strong decline towards the innermost normalised radial bins. A visual inspection of the maps suggests that this is mostly due to efficient star formation in inner rings or around bar ends, beyond the actual log-spiral mask. In other words, precisely around the point where log-spiral arms end in galactic centres or connect to a bar, there is plenty of scattered star formation, which falls inside the interarm footprint. As a consequence, the SFE contrast also shows its lowest value for the innermost bin (factor of ${\sim}0.7$), largely associated with the surroundings of bar ends and star-forming rings beyond spirals, while over most radii the running medians remain around unity or slightly above.

The large majority of the spiral galaxies in our sample are dominated by two spiral arms (22 out of 28, or 79%). Here, for two-armed spirals, we examine whether the radial variations in contrasts that we observe are symmetric or largely uncorrelated for opposite spiral arms.

If the contrasts were exactly symmetric, we would expect a perfect correlation between opposite spiral arms (rank coefficient approaching unity), with scatter only due to measurement uncertainties. On the other hand, if the radial fluctuations along a given arm were totally independent from the other arm, we would expect a lack of correlation ($\rho$ close to zero). If we calculate the Spearman rank correlation coefficient for contrasts in opposite arms, we find a relatively strong correlation for the stellar component ($\rho=0.61$), a weaker correlation for the molecular and SFR contrast ($\rho=0.36$ and $0.43$, respectively), and an even smaller correlation for the SFE contrast ($\rho=0.21$). Therefore, there seems to be some degree of connection between both arms (the arms somehow ‘know about each other’), but the large scatter implies that fluctuations along one arm are not always perfectly mirrored by changes in the contrast of the other spiral arm. In Sect. 4.2 we discuss the stronger arm-to-arm correlation in NIR than in CO or SFR.

The main difference between the arm/interarm contrasts presented in this paper and those from Querejeta et al. (2021) and other previous works is the resolution of the data. Here we consider contrasts measured from data at ${\sim}$100 pc resolution as opposed to previous studies working on kpc-resolutions. In this Section, we directly assess the effect of resolution on the contrasts by comparing our ${\sim}$100 pc resolution results with the results if we convolve the maps to 1.5 kpc resolution. This is the physical resolution used in the contrasts presented in Querejeta et al. (2021), as it is the best common resolution possible across all PHANGS galaxies limited by the SFR tracer (WISE 22 $\mu$m). In order to convolve the maps to 1.5 kpc resolution, we employ the kernels from Aniano et al. (2011).

Figure 9 shows that there is a reasonably good correlation between the contrast measured at 1.5 kpc and at 100 pc resolution (ranks $\rho\sim 0.8{-}0.9$ for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, $\rho=0.67$ for SFE). In any case, there is some scatter, especially for SFE, which is a more indirect quantity. More importantly, there is a systematic offset towards higher contrasts, especially for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, when we shift to high resolution. This is well expected because using data at 1.5 kpc will somewhat dilute the signal. The contrasts measured at 100 pc are typically 8%, 38% and 44% higher than at 1.5 kpc resolution for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$, and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, respectively (median difference). The lower change for $\Sigma_{\mathrm{\star}}$  is probably because the stellar mass distribution is intrinsically smoother than $\Sigma_{\mathrm{mol}}$ or $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$. For SFE, if we focus on the contrasts above unity, the median increase is 9% (up to 23% if we focus on contrasts above 1.3). Indeed, at high contrast values, the amplification at high resolution is slightly larger for SFR than for CO (for contrasts above 2, the median increase for SFR is 80%, as opposed to 36% median amplification for CO); this is why the highest SFE contrasts also get slightly boosted at high resolution compared to low resolution.