Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

New constraints on the evolution of the MHI-M* scaling relation combining CHILES and MIGHTEE-HI data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacking 6,598 spectra from two radio surveys yields a precise MHI–M* relation at z≈0.36, showing HI content grows roughly as (1+z)^2 while the slope stays constant.

desk verdict The combined MIGHTEE+CHILES stacked relation at z~0.36 is a solid new reference, but Table 1 has an internal inconsistency that makes Eq. 4 unreproducible as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00110 v3 pith:4CUIAEHM submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.GA

Alessandro Bianchetti , Francesco Sinigaglia , Giulia Rodighiero , Ed Elson , Mattia Vaccari , D.J. Pisano , Nicholas Luber , Isabella Prandoni
show 18 more authors
Kelley Hess Maarten Baes Elizabeth A.K. Adams Filippo M. Maccagni Alvio Renzini Laura Bisigello Min Yun Emmanuel Momjian Hansung B. Gim Hengxing Pan Thomas A. Oosterloo Richard Dodson Danielle Lucero Bradley S. Frank Olivier Ilbert Luke J.M. Davies Ali A. Khostovan Mara Salvato
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords HIgalaxies21cmlinespectralstackingscalingrelationsgalaxyevolutionMIGHTEEsurveyCHILESCOSMOSfield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish the most statistically powerful measurement to date of how atomic hydrogen mass relates to stellar mass in star-forming galaxies at redshift ~0.36. By stacking 21 cm spectra from two independent radio surveys, MIGHTEE and CHILES, it obtains (in log space) a slope of 0.32 ± 0.04 and a normalization of 6.65 ± 0.36. If correct, the relation shows that at fixed stellar mass galaxies at z ≈ 0.36 are roughly 60% richer in atomic gas than today's galaxies, and about 50% poorer than galaxies at z ≈ 1. The slope staying unchanged across redshift would imply that the processes governing atomic gas gain and loss do not depend strongly on stellar mass.

What carries the argument

The machinery is spectral-line stacking: extract a small 3D cubelet around each galaxy using its spectroscopic redshift, collapse to a spectrum, resample to a common 100 km/s velocity grid, weight each spectrum by the inverse noise, co-add, and integrate over ±350 km/s to get the mean HI mass in a stellar mass bin. Its two survey inputs are complementary: MIGHTEE is wide and shallower, CHILES is narrower and deeper, and their combination yields four mass bins with high signal-to-noise. A ~10% source-confusion correction is applied based on earlier simulations.

What would settle it

Run the identical stacking pipeline on the same data cubes but with spectroscopic redshifts from an independent, complete survey in COSMOS, and compare the highest-stellar-mass bin: if the recovered HI mass moves by more than ~0.2 dex, the claimed slope of 0.32 and the constant-slope conclusion would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combined MIGHTEE+CHILES stacking yields log10(MHI/Msun) = (0.32 ± 0.04) log10(M*/Msun) + (6.65 ± 0.36) at mean redshift 0.36, from 6,598 coadded spectra in four stellar mass bins (S/N > 5 in each). The paper further claims that this relation has a slope statistically indistinguishable from the z ≈ 0 and z ≈ 1 relations, and that its normalization evolves as MHI ∝ (1+z)^(1.99 ± 0.13) at fixed stellar mass. The author would state this as the best-constrained HI–stellar mass relation at this redshift to date, superseding the earlier MIGHTEE-only result, with the improvement coming from a larger merged spectroscopic catalog, stricter redshift quality cuts, RFI masking, and the combination of two independent data sets.

Load-bearing premise

The updated merged spectroscopic catalog and the new redshift quality cuts fully remove the systematic that shifted the MIGHTEE-only stacking result relative to S22, so the corrected catalog is the final word on where each galaxy's line sits in the stack.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HI content at fixed stellar mass evolves as (1+z)^~2 between z=0 and z=1, meaning galaxies at z≈0.36 are intermediate between local and cosmic-noon values.
  • The slope of the MHI–M* relation is consistent across redshift, so stellar mass does not modulate HI gain/loss mechanisms over the last 8 Gyr.
  • Atomic gas grows or depletes more slowly than molecular gas and star formation (index ~1.99 vs ~3.6), suggesting a bottleneck in the HI→H2 conversion.
  • The updated MIGHTEE-only result supersedes the earlier S22 relation because the change is driven by the spectroscopic catalog, not by RFI masking or photometry.
  • This provides the strongest anchor at z~0.36 for calibrating galaxy simulations and semi-empirical models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the slope is truly mass-independent, stacking in finer mass bins at higher redshift should continue to find parallel relations; a future measurement at z>0.5 with the same method would provide a direct test.
  • The claimed bottleneck in HI→H2 conversion could be tested by comparing resolved HI and CO maps at matched physical scales once SKA-era telescopes reach z~0.4.
  • The catalog-driven shift in slope and normalization implies that similar stacking results from other fields may be systematically sensitive to spectroscopic incompleteness at the high-mass end; independent spectroscopic campaigns would settle this.
  • Extending the same combined-stacking technique to other deep extragalactic fields would check whether the COSMOS-specific cosmic variance affects the normalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper combines MIGHTEE-HI Early Science and CHILES 21-cm data in the COSMOS field to perform spectral-line stacking of star-forming galaxies at mean redshift <z> = 0.36. The authors split the sample into four stellar mass bins, apply RFI masking, a confusion correction, and a spectroscopic redshift quality cut, and derive a best-fit scaling relation log10(M_HI/Msun) = (0.32 +/- 0.04) log10(M*/Msun) + (6.65 +/- 0.36). They compare this relation with z ~ 0 and z ~ 1 results, infer an evolutionary index M_HI proportional to (1+z)^1.99 at fixed stellar mass, and discuss implications for the baryon cycle and H I-to-H2 conversion. The paper includes extensive validation: noise scaling with N, Gaussianity tests, cross-survey consistency checks, and an appendix isolating the origin of the difference with the earlier MIGHTEE-only result of S22.

Significance. If the central measurement is correct, this is the most statistically robust M_HI-M* relation at z ~ 0.36 to date, based on four stacks with S/N > 5 and on two independent surveys that agree within 1.5 sigma in all bins. The technical validation is a genuine strength: Figure 5 verifies the expected 1/sqrt(N) noise scaling, Appendix A.1 tests Gaussianity and applies a conservative outlier cut, and Appendix A.2 demonstrates consistency between MIGHTEE and CHILES. The main caveats are that the printed Table 1 does not reproduce the quoted Eq. (4), and that the evolutionary-index claim in Section 4.3 and Figure 11 is partly circular because it uses the paper's own z = 0.36 point and then rescales a local relation with that same index. After correcting the table/equation inconsistency, the paper would be a valuable reference measurement for the redshift evolution of the atomic gas content of star-forming galaxies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1, Eq. (4), Section 3.2] The confusion correction is applied inconsistently to the highest-mass bin. Section 3.2 states that a 10% confusion correction is applied, and the first three entries in Table 1 are indeed the uncorrected M_HI values reduced by 10% (3.62 -> 3.26, 5.28 -> 4.75, 9.61 -> 8.64). However, the fourth entry is 13.15 -> 12.84, which is only a 2.4% reduction; a 10% reduction would give 11.84. A least-squares fit to the printed corrected masses gives a slope of about 0.35 and an intercept of about 6.34, not the quoted Eq. (4) values (0.32 +/- 0.04, 6.65 +/- 0.36). If the fourth bin is corrected to 11.84, the fit reproduces Eq. (4). As published, the central relation cannot be reproduced from the paper's own final masses, and it is not stated whether Eq. (4) was fit to corrected or uncorrected masses. This must be fixed and clarified.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 10, Figure 11] The evolutionary index 1.99 +/- 0.13 is derived by fitting a power law to three points: z = 0 from G21, z = 0.36 from this work, and z = 1 from C22. The z = 0.36 point is the paper's own measurement. The left panel of Figure 11 then rescales the G21 local relation using this same index and shows agreement with the same three datasets. This agreement is therefore partly built into the fit and does not constitute an independent validation of the evolutionary index. The index itself is a legitimate fit, but the text and Figure 11 should be reframed to make clear that this is a consistency check of the adopted power-law form, not an independent confirmation.
  3. [Section 3.2, Appendix B] The confusion correction is a load-bearing assumption for the normalization of the final relation. Section 3.2 adopts the ~10% contamination level derived from MeerKAT-like simulations in S22 and applies it unchanged to CHILES and to the combined stack, despite the different synthesized beam sizes (VLA ~7 arcsec versus MeerKAT ~17 arcsec in this configuration) and different spatial resolutions. The correction is global, so it does not affect the slope, but it directly sets the zero-point of Eq. (4). A sensitivity test varying the correction within a plausible range (e.g., 0-20%) should be reported so that the quoted normalization uncertainty reflects this assumption rather than only the spectral noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 11 caption] The caption says the local relation is rescaled with an evolutionary power-law index of 1.8, while the text and Figure 10 report 1.99 +/- 0.13. Please harmonize the numbers.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 3.1] The text in Section 2 says the MIGHTEE Early Science data cover a total area of ~5 deg^2, while Section 3.1 says MIGHTEE covers the full COSMOS field of ~2 deg^2. Please clarify which area applies to the Early Science data cubes used here.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The definition of the integrated S/N in Eq. (3) is not fully transparent: it is written as a ratio between an integrated flux and a quantity involving N_ch and sigma, but the symbols are not defined precisely in the text. Please specify what N_ch is and how sigma is computed so that the formula can be evaluated directly.
  4. [Section 3.1] The statement that, for a galaxy in the overlapping region, 'we will have two spectra, which we will treat as two separate, independent instances' overstates statistical independence: the galaxy is the same, so the source properties are correlated even if the instrumental noise is independent. 'Independent noise realizations' would be more accurate.
  5. [Appendix A.1] The description of the KS test result as 'turned positive' is ambiguous: a p-value of 0.05 rejects Gaussianity at the usual 5% level, and after the 3-sigma cut the test does not reject. Reporting the actual p-values before and after the cut would be clearer.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central stacked relation is a direct measurement; the (1+z)^1.99 evolution index is fitted to the same points that are then 'matched' by rescaling G21 in Fig. 11, a mild by-construction step.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Figure 11 (left panel), paragraph beginning 'To have a further element of comparison']
    "First, we assume the scaling relation at z ∼ 0 by G21 and scale it to higher redshift by using the power-law index 1.99 ± 0.13 derived from Figure 10 at fixed stellar mass, assuming a constant slope and shifting the normalization to higher HI masses. ... As expected, the rescaled relation provides a good match with stacking observations at higher redshifts."

    The index 1.99±0.13 is the best-fit slope of log10 MHI versus log10(1+z) through exactly the three observational points shown: G21 at z=0, this work at z=0.36, and C22 at z=1 (Section 4.3, Figure 10). Rescaling G21 with that same index and then reporting that it 'provides a good match' with those same points is tautological: the agreement is imposed by the least-squares fit rather than being an independent check. The text's 'As expected' acknowledges this. This self-referential step only affects the instructive left panel of Fig. 11 and the comparison with NUM; it does not invalidate the directly stacked Eq. (4).

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (4), is a direct weighted-mean stacking measurement: MHI is obtained by coadding MIGHTEE and CHILES spectra (Eqs. 1-2) and the quoted relation is a bootstrap least-squares fit to the resulting four bin masses. Nothing in that chain defines the fit slope/intercept in terms of the target relation; the stacking is validated by noise-scaling tests (Fig. 5) and survey consistency (Appendix A.2). The S22 confusion correction is a borrowed constant (10%) from a prior overlapping-author paper, but it is not load-bearing for the slope and is an externally published simulation estimate; at most it is a minor self-citation. The one genuine by-construction element is the Fig. 11 left-panel 'match': the 1.99 index is fitted to the very points that the rescaled G21 curve is then said to match. The paper flags this with 'As expected,' so it is an acknowledged illustration rather than an independent prediction. I also note, without treating it as circularity, that Table 1's printed MHI,corr column is internally inconsistent with the stated 10% correction (last bin: 13.15 -> 12.84, a 2.4% reduction) and a least-squares fit to the printed corrected masses gives approximately (0.35, 6.34) rather than Eq. (4); this is a reproducibility/correctness concern for the central numbers, not a circularity. Overall: one secondary self-referential step, central measurement independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fit is anchored by hand-set choices (integration window, bin edges, MS threshold, 3 sigma cut) and a self-cited confusion correction, none of which enters the quoted errors. The only number genuinely fitted to data is the evolutionary index, which summarizes three points. Standard cosmology and the optically thin 21 cm assumption are uncontroversial inputs from the literature. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (6)
  • Confusion correction factor = 10% (subtracted from MHI, about 0.046 dex)
    Adopted from the team's S22 MeerKAT-like simulations and applied uniformly to both surveys and all bins (Section 3.2). The VLA/CHILES beam is much smaller, so its confusion should differ; this shifts the normalization that supports the 'HI richer than z=0' claim.
  • Velocity integration window = +/- 350 km/s
    Chosen to maximize stacked S/N (Section 3). The stacked line is stated to extend to about +/- 500 km/s, so some flux may be missed; the choice is not propagated into the error budget.
  • Stellar mass bin edges = 8.0 to 9.5, 9.5 to 9.8, 9.8 to 10.5, > 10.5 in log M*/Msun
    Selected heuristically to keep enough spectra per bin for S/N > 5 (Section 2.1.2). With only four points, the fitted slope depends on these edges.
  • Main sequence exclusion threshold = 0.6 dex below the Popesso et al. (2023) main sequence
    Used to remove about 25% of massive galaxies from the high-mass bin (Section 2.1.2, Figure 3). The threshold comes from Rodighiero et al. (2011) and changes the high-mass point.
  • Evolutionary index = 1.99 +/- 0.13
    Power-law fit in log(1+z) to three points at fixed log M*/Msun = 10 (Figure 10): G21 at z=0, this work at z=0.36, C22 at z=1. It is a fit to three points, not a derivation, and it is reused in Figure 11 to rescale the local relation.
  • Spectrum selection threshold = 3 sigma on the distribution of channel-mean fluxes
    Applied after the Gaussianity test (Appendix A.1) to remove outlier spectra. A galaxy with real line wings beyond +/- 350 km/s could be removed by this cut, biasing the sample against broad HI profiles.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat Planck 2020 LambdaCDM cosmology (H0 = 67.4, Omega_m = 0.315) and Chabrier (2003) IMF.
    Stated in Section 1. Standard in the field; affects luminosity distances and stellar masses at the few percent level.
  • standard math The 21 cm line is optically thin and the Roberts (1962) conversion from flux density to HI mass applies.
    Invoked in Section 3 (Eq. 1). Robust for the gas column densities typical of these galaxies.
  • domain assumption The continuum after visibility-domain subtraction is well fit by a second-order polynomial across the stack window.
    Baseline subtraction in Section 4.1, Figure 6. Residual continuum errors would bias MHI and are not included in the error bars.
  • domain assumption Stacked noise is Gaussian and the channel rms outside +/- 350 km/s is the full uncertainty on MHI.
    Assumed in Eq. 3 and all stated errors. Appendix A.1 shows per-spectrum mean fluxes are non-Gaussian before the 3 sigma cut, so residual non-Gaussianity is plausible.
  • ad hoc to paper The 10% confusion contamination derived from MIGHTEE-like MeerKAT simulations (S22) applies unchanged to CHILES and the combined stack.
    Section 3.2 adopts the S22 correction without re-simulation for the much smaller CHILES beam. The paper shares authors with S22, so this is a self-cited assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New constraints on the evolution of the MHI-M* scaling relation combining CHILES and MIGHTEE-HI data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CUIAEHM

@misc{pith2026250200110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New constraints on the evolution of the MHI-M* scaling relation combining CHILES and MIGHTEE-HI data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CUIAEHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00110}
}
read the original abstract

The improved sensitivity of interferometric facilities to the 21-cm line of atomic hydrogen (HI) enables studies of its properties in galaxies beyond the local Universe. In this work, we perform a 21 cm line spectral stacking analysis combining the MIGHTEE and CHILES surveys in the COSMOS field to derive a robust HI-stellar mass relation at z=0.36. In particular, by stacking thousands of star-forming galaxies subdivided into stellar mass bins, we optimize the signal-to-noise ratio of targets and derive mean HI masses in the different stellar mass intervals for the investigated galaxy population. We combine spectra from the two surveys, estimate HI masses, and derive the scaling relation log10(MHI) = (0.32 +- 0.04)log10(M*) + (6.65 +- 0.36). Our findings indicate that galaxies at z=0.36 are HI richer than those at z=0, but HI poorer than those at z=1, with a slope consistent across redshift, suggesting that stellar mass does not significantly affect HI exchange mechanisms. We also observe a slower growth rate HI relative to the molecular gas, supporting the idea that the accretion of cold gas is slower than the rate of consumption of molecular gas to form stars. This study contributes to understanding the role of atomic gas in galaxy evolution and sets the stage for future development of the field in the upcoming SKA era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single-channel map from the MIGHTEE-H I Early Science data cube extracted at frequency f ≈ 1036 MHz (z ≈ 0.36). The brown dashed rectangle marks the area imaged in the CHILES data cube. The blue dashed circle marks the region where the primary beam (PB) model of MeerKat is equal to 0.5. The red dashed circle marks the same limit for the VLA and is positioned at the center of CHILES. 27 Release 1, v2.2, 2023 March. 4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Physical properties of the sample at 〈z〉 = 0.36: normalized histograms of redshift (top left), stellar mass (top right), SFR (bottom left), and sSFR (bottom right). We display the distributions related to MIGHTEE and CHILES in blue and red, respectively. We also assign an uncertainty to each bin, given by the Poisson shot noise. The dashed vertical line indicates the median value for the two surveys. In all cases, t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2D histogram of stellar mass vs. SFR for the sample at 0.22 < z < 0.49. A model for the MS from P. Popesso et al. (2023) at z = 0.36 is also superimposed (black solid line). The black dashed lines mark a 0.6 dex scatter estimate (G. Rodighiero et al. 2011). Magenta stars represent the average log M and log SFR for each of the stellar mass bins that will be used for stacking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Noise rms normalized to the number of stacked spectra N as a function of N. The curves are obtained at each N by measuring the rms of the flux densities of all channels of the stacked spectrum (see the text for further details). The uncertainties are estimated through …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MH I stacks in the four studied stellar mass bins. The used bin width is Δv = 100 km s−1 . The yellow shaded area represents the integration range in the rest￾frame velocity domain, spanning from −350 km s−1 to +350 km s−1 . The red dotted line marks the MH I = 0 line.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the MH I−Må scaling relation for star-forming galaxies. Our stacking results (z ∼ 0.36) are displayed as blue squares, fitted by the blue linear law with the related uncertainty (blue shaded area). Green squares and the green solid line represent the stack…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MH I−Må scaling relations measured from star-forming galaxies in the nearby Universe. The data points and best-fit curves—when both are available—are represented with the same color coding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Atomic hydrogen mass evolution as a function of redshift. We display the points extracted at log(M/Me) ∼ 10 for three different scaling relations, at z = 0 from our fit to ALFALFA data (G21), z = 0.36 from the combined MIGHTEE+CHILES stack, and z = 1 from CATz1 (C22)…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the MH I−Må scaling relation for star-forming galaxies. Left panel: we plot the scaling relation at z ∼ 0 computed by G21 and upscale it with the evolutionary power-law index 1.8 at redshift z = 0.36 and z = 1.01. We also add observational data: data poin…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A comparison between the estimated, first-order evolutionary trend of gas and SFR in the range 0 < z < 1 and at fixed stellar mass (log 1 M = 0). Left panel: atomic hydrogen mass as a function of redshift (solid gray line), compared to the molecular gas model (L. J. …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of mean channel fluxes (Jy beam−1 ) per each stacked spectrum in MIGHTEE, excluding the channels lying within the integration region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A direct comparison of the resulting stacked spectra from MIGHTEE (top row) and CHILES (bottom row) over the same stellar mass bins. We report the stacked spectra as blue solid lines. The bin width used is Δv = 100 km s−1 . The text box in each panel reports the H I m…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A comparison between the MH I−Må scaling relation obtained from MIGHTEE (blue stars) and CHILES (brown triangles) and the best-fitting linear relations to the measurements for each survey (solid lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Weak Evolution of Cosmic Atomic Hydrogen over the Past 4.5 Billion Years

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combining FAST and DESI data for 2.5 million galaxies shows cosmic atomic hydrogen density declined by only a factor of 1.35 over 4.5 Gyr, far less than the 2.46-fold decline in star formation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Staveley-Smith, L., de Blok, W

    Barnes, D. G., Staveley-Smith, L., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 486

    2001

  2. [2]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

  3. [3]

    N., & Bagla, J

    Bera, A., Kanekar, N., Chengalur, J. N., & Bagla, J. S. 2019, ApJL, 882, L7

    2019

  4. [4]

    2010, AJ, 140, 1194 Blue Bird, J., Davis, J., Luber, N., et al

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1194 Blue Bird, J., Davis, J., Luber, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 153

    2010

  5. [5]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    2008

  6. [6]

    2014, A&A, 564, A67

    Boselli, A., Cortese, L., Boquien, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A67

    2014

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275

    Brown, T., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275

    2017

  8. [8]

    2014, Natur, 506, 63

    Madau, P. 2014, Natur, 506, 63

    2014

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    L., & Walter, F

    Carilli, C. L., & Walter, F. 2013, ARAA, 51, 105

    2013

  2. [10]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Krajnovic, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

    2011

  3. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 875

    Catinella, B., Saintonge, A., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 875

    2018

  4. [12]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 34

    Catinella, B., Schiminovich, D., Cortese, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 34

    2013

  5. [13]

    2010, MNRAS, 403, 683

    Catinella, B., Schiminovich, D., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 683

    2010

  6. [14]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  7. [15]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2

    Chen, Q., Meyer, M., Popping, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2

    2021

  8. [16]

    Chowdhury, A., Kanekar, N., & Chengalur, J. N. 2022, ApJL, 941, L6

    2022

  9. [17]

    N., Sethi, S., & Dwarakanath, K

    Chowdhury, A., Kanekar, N., Chengalur, J. N., Sethi, S., & Dwarakanath, K. S. 2020, Natur, 586, 369

    2020

  10. [18]

    S., & Sethi, S

    Chowdhury, A., Kanekar, N., Das, B., Dwarakanath, K. S., & Sethi, S. 2021, ApJL, 913, L24

    2021

  11. [19]

    D., Frank, B., Sekhar, S., & Taylor, A

    Collier, J. D., Frank, B., Sekhar, S., & Taylor, A. R. 2021, in XXXIVth General Assembly and Scienti fic Symp. Int. Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS)( Piscataway, NJ: IEEE ), 14

    2021

  12. [20]

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al., 2021 CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy v2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 3377984

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Mortlock, A., Bluck, A

    Conselice, C. J., Mortlock, A., Bluck, A. F. L., Grützbauch, R., & Duncan, K. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1051

    2013

  14. [22]

    2021, PASA, 38, e035

    Cortese, L., Catinella, B., & Smith, R. 2021, PASA, 38, e035

    2021

  15. [23]

    M., Valentino, F., et al

    Daddi, E., Rich, R. M., Valentino, F., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L21

    2022

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 93

    2013

  17. [25]

    Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 768 de Blok, W. J. G., Healy, J., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A109

    2018

  18. [26]

    J., Staveley-Smith, L., & Boyle, B

    Delhaize, J., Meyer, M. J., Staveley-Smith, L., & Boyle, B. J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1398 Dénes, H., Kilborn, V. A., Koribalski, B. S., & Wong, O. I. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1294 DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 58

    2013

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Dodson, R., Momjian, E., Pisano, D. J., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 59

    2022

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 691, A163

    Eibensteiner, C., Sun, J., Bigiel, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A163

    2024

  21. [29]

    C., Baker, A

    Elson, E. C., Baker, A. J., & Blyth, S. L. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4894

    2019

  22. [30]

    C., Blyth, S

    Elson, E. C., Blyth, S. L., & Baker, A. J. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4366

    2016

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 45

    Evoli, C., Salucci, P., Lapi, A., & Danese, L. 2011, ApJ, 743, 45

    2011

  24. [32]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 993

    Fabello, S., Catinella, B., Giovanelli, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 993

    2011

  25. [33]

    L., Capak, P., Hsieh, B

    Faisst, A. L., Capak, P., Hsieh, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 122 Fernández, X., Gim, H. B., van Gorkom, J. H., et al. 2016, ApJL, 824, L1 Fernández, X., van Gorkom, J. H., Hess, K. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 770, L29

    2016

  26. [34]

    C., Annunziatella, M., et al

    Forrest, B., Marsan, Z. C., Annunziatella, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 47 Geréb, K., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T. A., Guglielmino, G., & Prandoni, I. 2013, A&A, 558, A54 Geréb, K., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T. A., Hoppmann, L., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2015, A&A, 580, A43

    2020

  27. [35]

    P., Kent, B

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Kent, B. R., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2598

    2005

  28. [36]

    G., Wang, J., & Lin, L

    Guo, H., Jones, M. G., Wang, J., & Lin, L. 2021, ApJ, 918, 53

    2021

  29. [37]

    G., & Behroozi, P

    Guo, H., Wang, J., Jones, M. G., & Behroozi, P. 2023, ApJ, 955, 57

    2023

  30. [38]

    S., et al

    Gupta, Y., Ajithkumar, B., Kale, H. S., et al. 2017, CSci, 113, 707

    2017

  31. [39]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 49

    2018

  32. [40]

    L., Elson, E., et al

    Healy, J., Blyth, S. L., Elson, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4901

    2019

  33. [41]

    L., Verheijen, M

    Healy, J., Blyth, S. L., Verheijen, M. A. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A76

    2021

  34. [42]

    M., Luber, N

    Hess, K. M., Luber, N. M., Fernández, X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2234

    2019

  35. [43]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3726

    Hoppmann, L., Staveley-Smith, L., Freudling, W., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3726

    2015

  36. [44]

    P., Giovanelli, R., & Brinchmann, J

    Huang, S., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, ApJ, 756, 113

    2012

  37. [45]

    J., Le Fèvre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55 Jaffé, Y. L., Verheijen, M. A. W., Haines, C. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1202

    2013

  38. [46]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4795

    Janowiecki, S., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4795

    2017

  39. [47]

    2016, in Proc

    Jarvis, M., Taylor, R., Agudo, I., et al. 2016, in Proc. MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA (Trieste: PoS )

    2016

  40. [48]

    J., Bon field, D

    Jarvis, M. J., Bon field, D. G., Bruce, V. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1281

    2013

  41. [49]

    & MeerKAT Team 2016, in Proc

    Jonas, J. & MeerKAT Team 2016, in Proc. MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA (Trieste: PoS ), 1

    2016

  42. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 61

    Karim, A., Schinnerer, E., Martìnez-Sansigre, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 61

    2011

  43. [51]

    Kennicutt, R. C. J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  44. [52]

    A., Jones, D

    Kleiner, D., Pimbblet, K. A., Jones, D. H., Koribalski, B. S., & Serra, P. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4692

    2017

  45. [53]

    B., Chengalur, J

    Lah, P., Pracy, M. B., Chengalur, J. N., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1447

    2009

  46. [54]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24

    2016

  47. [55]

    2024, A&A, 690, A169

    Laudage, S., Eibensteiner, C., Bigiel, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A169

    2024

  48. [56]

    J., Le Fèvre, O., Renzini, A., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le Fèvre, O., Renzini, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70

    2007

  49. [57]

    L., et al

    Lin, L., Pan, H.-A., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L33

    2019

  50. [58]

    M., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T

    Maccagni, F. M., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T. A., Geréb, K., & Maddox, N. 2017, A&A, 604, A43

    2017

  51. [59]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  52. [60]

    S., Ponomareva, A

    Maddox, N., Frank, B. S., Ponomareva, A. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A35

    2021

  53. [61]

    M., Blyth, S

    Maddox, N., Hess, K. M., Blyth, S. L., & Jarvis, M. J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2613

    2013

  54. [62]

    M., Obreschkow, D., Jarvis, M

    Maddox, N., Hess, K. M., Obreschkow, D., Jarvis, M. J., & Blyth, S. L. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1610 Mancera Piña, P. E., Posti, L., Fraternali, F., Adams, E. A. K., & Oosterloo, T. 2021a, A&A, 647, A76 Mancera Piña, P. E., Posti, L., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2021b, A&A, 651, L15

    2015

  55. [63]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156

    2012

  56. [64]

    2009, in Proc

    Meyer, M. 2009, in Proc. Panoramic Radio Astronomy, wide- field 1-2 GHz research on galaxy evolution (Trieste: PoS )

    2009

  57. [65]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, L85

    Morselli, L., Renzini, A., Enia, A., & Rodighiero, G. 2021, MNRAS, 502, L85

    2021

  58. [66]

    2011, IJMPD, 20, 989

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, IJMPD, 20, 989

    2011

  59. [67]

    2019, ComAC, 6, 2

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, ComAC, 6, 2

    2019

  60. [68]

    2014, arXiv: 1406.0966

    Obreschkow, D., & Meyer, M. 2014, arXiv: 1406.0966

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 2279

    Oliver, S., Frost, M., Farrah, D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2279

    2010

  62. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1124

    Padmanabhan, H., & Loeb, A. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1124

    2020

  63. [71]

    J., Santos, M

    Pan, H., Jarvis, M. J., Santos, M. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 256

    2023

  64. [72]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, L51

    Peng, Y.-j., & Renzini, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, L51

    2020

  65. [73]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

    2023

  66. [74]

    Rajohnson, S. H. A., Frank, B. S., Ponomareva, A. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2697

    2022

  67. [75]

    H., et al

    Rhee, J., Lah, P., Briggs, F. H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1879

    2018

  68. [76]

    N., Briggs, F

    Rhee, J., Lah, P., Chengalur, J. N., Briggs, F. H., & Colless, M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2675

    2016

  69. [77]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4646

    Rhee, J., Meyer, M., Popping, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4646

    2023

  70. [78]

    A., Briggs, F

    Rhee, J., Zwaan, M. A., Briggs, F. H., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2693

    2013

  71. [79]

    Roberts, M. S. 1962, AJ, 67, 437

    1962

  72. [80]

    2011, ApJL, 739, L40

    Rodighiero, G., Daddi, E., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2011, ApJL, 739, L40

    2011

  73. [81]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 19

    Rodighiero, G., Renzini, A., Daddi, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 19

    2014

  74. [82]

    B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Romeo, A. B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5656

    2020

  75. [83]

    B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Romeo, A. B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1002 16 The Astrophysical Journal, 982:82 (17pp), 2025 April 1 Bianchetti et al

    2023

  76. [84]

    N., Begum, A., & Karachentsev, I

    Roychowdhury, S., Chengalur, J. N., Begum, A., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1435

    2009

  77. [85]

    Chengalur, J. N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3700

    2015

  78. [86]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 319

    Saintonge, A., & Catinella, B. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 319

    2022

  79. [87]

    J., et al

    Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 22 Sánchez Almeida, J., Elmegreen, B. G., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., &

    2017

  80. [88]

    Elmegreen, D. M. 2014, A&ARv, 22, 71

    2014

  81. [89]

    2008, A&ARv, 15, 189

    Sancisi, R., Fraternali, F., Oosterloo, T., & van der Hulst, T. 2008, A&ARv, 15, 189

    2008

  82. [90]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  83. [91]

    2018, A&A, 618, A85

    Schreiber, C., Glazebrook, K., Nanayakkara, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A85

    2018

  84. [92]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1

    2007

  85. [93]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1835

    Serra, P., Oosterloo, T., Morganti, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1835

    2012

  86. [94]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L13

    Sinigaglia, F., Rodighiero, G., Elson, E., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L13

    2022

  87. [95]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4192

    Sinigaglia, F., Rodighiero, G., Elson, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4192

    2024

  88. [96]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15

    2014

  89. [97]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 157

    2020

  90. [98]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179

    2018

  91. [99]

    H., Szomoru, A., et al

    Verheijen, M., van Gorkom, J. H., Szomoru, A., et al. 2007, ApJL, 668, L9

    2007

  92. [100]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 111

    Walter, F., Carilli, C., Neeleman, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 111

    2020

  93. [101]

    S., Serra, P., et al

    Wang, J., Koribalski, B. S., Serra, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2143

    2016

  94. [102]

    2022, A&A, 660, A142

    Wang, T.-M., Magnelli, B., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A142

    2022

  95. [103]

    R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A184

    2023

  96. [104]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11

    2022

  97. [105]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E. J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

    2000

  98. [106]

    2018, PASP, 130, 094101

    Zhou, Z., Wu, H., Zhou, X., & Ma, J. 2018, PASP, 130, 094101

    2018

  99. [107]

    Zwaan, M. A. 2000, PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 17 The Astrophysical Journal, 982:82 (17pp), 2025 April 1 Bianchetti et al

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.