Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

The CHILES Continuum & Polarization Survey-II: Radio Continuum Source Catalog and Radio Properties

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The CHILES Con Pol survey produces a confusion-limited 1.4 GHz image with $1.67\,\mu\mathrm{Jy\,beam^{-1}}$ noise and a 1,678-source catalog; resolved sources dominate above $42\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$, and reliable spectral indices require $S/N…

desk verdict A genuinely useful deep 1.4 GHz catalog with careful source extraction and honest limitations, though the brighter-bin source counts inherit an unquantified systematic from the point-source-only completeness simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20200 v1 pith:CC2MSJJ5 submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.GA

Hansung B. Gim , Min S. Yun , Nicholas M. Luber , Emmanuel Momjian , D. J. Pisano , Kelley M. Hess , Julia Blue Bird , Lucas Hunt This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SurveysRadiocontinuumemissionExtragalacticsourcesSourcecatalogSpectralindexcountsVLACOSMOSfield
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

The paper reports the source catalog from the CHILES Continuum and Polarization survey, a thousand hours of L-band Very Large Array time on a single pointing in the COSMOS field. It claims the resulting 1.4 GHz image is confusion-limited at $1.67\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$ per beam and yields 1,678 sources above $7\sigma$ (flux densities above $11.7\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$). It also claims that resolved sources dominate above $S_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}} \ge 42\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$ and that radio spectral indices are trustworthy only when the total signal-to-noise ratio is at least 20. This matters because the catalog reaches the microjansky regime where star-forming galaxies, not AGN, dominate the radio sky.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by four widely separated VLA spectral windows (central frequencies 1.063, 1.447, 1.703, and 1.831 GHz) that are imaged jointly for the main continuum and separately for spectral indices. The main catalog combines the Blobcat extractor's model-independent integrated photometry with PyBDSF's Gaussian-fitting deblending of confused sources, adopting Blobcat for single sources and PyBDSF for blended ones. Spectral indices are derived from power-law fits to the four matched-beam SPW images, and the $S/N \ge 20$ reliability criterion is established empirically by showing that extreme indices ($\alpha < -1.5$ or $\alpha > 1.0$) disappear once that threshold is applied.

What would settle it

Run the Monte-Carlo completeness test with extended sources of realistic sizes (e.g., 2--3 times the beam) at flux densities of 50 to 500 $\mu\mathrm{Jy}$; if their recovery fraction is substantially below the point-source completeness curve, the Section 4.5 source counts are underestimated and the catalog's bright-end correction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a confusion-limited, microjansky-depth 1.4 GHz image of the COSMOS field together with a 1,678-source catalog. At the pointing center the RMS noise is $1.67\,\mu\mathrm{Jy\,beam^{-1}}$ with a $5.5''\times5.0''$ beam, and sources brighter than $S_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}} \ge 42\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$ are mostly resolved. Spectral indices come from power-law fits across four spectral windows spanning 1.063--1.831 GHz, and the paper shows that a total $S/N$ of at least 20 is required before the measured indices stop being dominated by noise; the distribution then peaks at $\alpha = -0.706$ with a secondary concentration near $\alpha \approx 0$. Comparisons with MIGHTEE and VLA-COSMOS show flux-density agreement at high flux densities but reveal incompleteness and confusion in earlier faint catalogs.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness correction assumes inserted test sources are point-like Gaussians with the beam size, so it does not measure the recovery rate of extended sources; since resolved sources dominate above $42\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$, the paper itself notes the source counts in the brighter regime may be slightly off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1,678-source catalog, with redshifts for 95.3% of sources, provides a microjansky-depth reference for star-forming galaxies and AGN out to $z \sim 3$.
  • Because resolved sources dominate above $42\,\mu\mathrm{Jy}$, the point-source-based completeness correction will undercount flux in the bright regime; the paper states its number counts there may be slightly off.
  • Requiring total $S/N \ge 20$ removes noise-driven extreme spectral indices, so deep surveys can adopt this as a quality cut before interpreting spectral index distributions.
  • Flux-density agreement with MIGHTEE and VLA-COSMOS at high flux densities, with clear discrepancies at the faint end, implies earlier published catalogs need completeness and confusion corrections before use in counts.
  • The spectral index distribution peaking at $\alpha = -0.706$ and the absence of significant $\alpha$--$P_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}}$ or $\alpha$--$z$ correlations support a picture in which local conditions, not redshift-dependent effects, set the synchrotron spectra of sub-mJy sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not done in the paper, is to repeat the completeness simulation with extended sources matched to the resolved population; if recovery drops, the bright-end counts in Table 4 would need upward revision.
  • The paper's $S/N \ge 20$ threshold likely varies with spectral baseline: indices from the two closely spaced high-frequency windows (separated by only 128 MHz) will need a higher $S/N$ than the full four-window fit, which the paper mentions but does not quantify.
  • Combining this catalog with higher-resolution 3 GHz COSMOS imaging could distinguish genuine extended emission from blending and sharpen both the resolved fractions and the faint source counts.
  • The overdensity of about 30 sources near $z \approx 2.6$, noted as a possible proto-cluster, is a concrete target for spectroscopic follow-up to test whether the survey is tracing large-scale structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the second paper of the CHILES Continuum & Polarization survey: a 1.4 GHz (effective 1.447 GHz) continuum image of a single VLA pointing in COSMOS with 1.67 µJy/beam RMS at the center and a 7σ catalog of 1,678 sources inside the 50% primary-beam area. The catalog is built from Blobcat as the primary extractor with PyBDSF used for deblending of 322 blended regions. The authors measure spectral indices by power-law fitting across four spectral windows, assert that S/N≥20 is required for a reliable index, derive radio powers using literature redshifts, compare flux densities with MIGHTEE and VLA-COSMOS, and present Euclidean-normalized source counts corrected for point-source completeness and effective area.

Significance. If the catalog is taken as a delivered resource, it is a valuable ultra-deep 1.4 GHz sample in COSMOS; the resolved/unresolved fraction and spectral index distributions are useful for studying the faint radio source population. The use of two independent extractors, the explicit deblending strategy, and external cross-checks against MIGHTEE and VLA-COSMOS are strengths, as is the consistency with independent P(D) model counts. The headline source counts, however, inherit an unquantified systematic from applying a point-source completeness correction to a source population that is dominated by resolved sources above 42 µJy.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3 and §4.5, Eq. (1)] The completeness correction applied to the source counts is measured from Monte Carlo injections of point-like 2D Gaussians at the synthesized beam size and is recovered with PyBDSF alone, while the production catalog is based on Blobcat detections with PyBDSF used only to deblend sources (§2.2.1). Figure 4 and Table 2 show that resolved sources dominate at S1.4GHz ≥ 42 µJy, and Eq. (1) divides every count bin by C_j (point-source completeness) and the effective area without any correction for the different recovery rate or flux measurement bias of extended sources. The text acknowledges that the brighter counts 'might be slightly off' but gives no bound, so the 40–150 µJy and 150–500 µJy bins in Table 4 and their comparison in Figure 10 carry an unquantified systematic. Please add an extended-source completeness/recovery simulation, restrict the counts to a regime where the point-source completeness assumption is valid, or provide a quantitative systematic error budget for these bins.
  2. [§4.2.1 and Figure 5] The S/N≥20 threshold for a 'reliable' spectral index is inferred only from the disappearance of extreme values in the observed distribution. Because the measurement noise in the four SPW fits is the quantity at issue, an injection/recovery simulation, or at least a bootstrap or leave-one-SPW-out validation on the real data, is needed to demonstrate that the fitted index is unbiased and that the quoted α uncertainties are accurate at S/N~20. This is particularly relevant because spectral indices are derived for 96.2% of sources, many using only two SPWs, including the closely spaced SPW3/4 pair.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2.2 and Table 1] Please state explicitly whether the SPW spectral index fits use peak or integrated flux densities; the fitting text mentions ϵ_peak, but the table lists both quantities.
  2. [§4.2.1 and Figure 5] The text says the histogram peak is at α = −0.725 while the panel labels and other text give α = −0.706; please reconcile these values.
  3. [§3.2] The text contains the typo 'Sptizer' where 'Spitzer' is meant, and the Figure 7 caption contains 'Deroved' instead of 'Derived'.
  4. [References] The companion 'Paper 1' is cited as 'Luber et al. in press' and appears in Figure 10 as 'CCP (Luber et al. 2024)', but no bibliographic entry for this work is included in the reference list.
  5. [§4.5, Eq. (1)] The summation in Eq. (1) uses j for C_j and A_j while the surrounding text defines C_i and A_i; please use consistent indices and clarify that S_mean is the weighted mean total flux density in each bin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the catalog and derived properties are measured against independent external data, and no fitted parameter is fed back as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central products are a 7-sigma source catalog from a new VLA image and derived properties such as source sizes, spectral indices, radio powers, and source counts. The source counts in Eq. (1) are computed directly from the catalog flux densities, measured completeness fractions, and primary-beam effective areas; no count model or fitted parameter is used as an input to the detection or photometry, so the counts are not forced by construction. The completeness simulation in Sec. 2.3 is a recovery test on injected point-source Gaussians, and while the paper itself concedes that resolved sources dominate above about 42 microJy and that the brighter-bin counts 'might be slightly off,' this is an acknowledged systematic limitation rather than a circular reduction, because the correction does not presuppose the final counts. Spectral indices are computed from flux densities measured in the four SPW images with a power-law fit; the S/N >= 20 reliability threshold is inferred from the data, and no fitted spectral index is used to re-derive the catalog. Comparisons are made against independent external surveys, including MIGHTEE and VLA-COSMOS, and against literature source counts. The P(D) model line in Fig. 10 is taken from companion Paper I by the same team, but it is used only as a comparison curve, not as the basis for the individual source catalog or the binned counts, and its known dependence on the chosen pixel range is disclosed in the text. The self-citations to Paper I for calibration, imaging, and P(D) analysis are methodological references rather than load-bearing derivations of this paper's empirical claims. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalog analysis does not introduce new physical entities. The main assumptions are standard astrophysical models (power-law spectra) and standard source extraction practices. The most significant caveat is the point-source-only completeness simulation, which is acknowledged by the authors.

free parameters (1)
  • Power-law spectral index model S ~ nu^alpha = fitted per source, mode -0.706
    The spectral index is a fitted parameter for each source, used to compute k-corrections and radio powers. This is a standard astrophysical model, not an ad hoc parameter.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The radio flux density follows a power law across the four SPW frequencies.
    Stated in Section 2.2.2 as reasonable given the narrow frequency range. Used for all spectral index fits.
  • domain assumption The completeness of point-source recovery, measured with PyBDSF on inserted Gaussians, applies to the full catalog including resolved sources.
    Section 2.3 inserts only point sources with beam-sized Gaussians; resolved sources are known to dominate above 42 microJy, so the completeness correction may be inaccurate in brighter bins.
  • domain assumption The RMS noise image used for source detection accurately represents the local noise.
    Used by both Blobcat and PyBDSF; the RMSD task with 150-pixel radius and 3-sigma clipping is a standard but imperfect estimator, especially near bright sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The CHILES Continuum & Polarization Survey-II: Radio Continuum Source Catalog and Radio Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CC2MSJJ5

@misc{pith2026250420200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The CHILES Continuum & Polarization Survey-II: Radio Continuum Source Catalog and Radio Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CC2MSJJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20200}
}
abstract

The COSMOS HI Large Extragalactic Survey (CHILES) Continuum & Polarization (CHILES Con Pol) survey is an ultra-deep continuum imaging study of the COSMOS field conducted using the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array. We obtained 1000 hours of L-band ($\lambda = 20$ cm) observations across four spectral windows (1.063-1.831 GHz) on a single pointing and produced a confusion limited image with an apparent RMS noise of 1.67 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ with a synthesized beam of 5$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$5$\times$5$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$0. This paper reports a 1.4 GHz radio continuum source catalog containing 1678 sources detected above 7$\sigma$ (flux densities greater than 11.7 $\mu$Jy), identified using two independent source extraction programs applied to the Stokes $I$ image. Resolved sources dominate at flux density S$_{1.4GHz} \ge 42 $\mu$Jy. Radio spectral index for each source was derived using a power-law fit across the four spectral windows, and we found that a robust spectral index measurement requires a total signal-to-noise ratio of at least 20. Comparisons with previous 1.4 GHz radio continuum surveys show good overall consistency, but evidence for a high degree of catalog incompleteness and the effects of source confusion are evident for some of the earlier studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three examples of source deblending performed by PyBDSF. In each case, Blobcat had difficulty fully separating the five (left), four (middle), and three (right) sources in these examples. The white ellipse in lower right corner of each panel represents the synthesized beam size of the CHILES Con Pol. A major shortcoming of Blobcat is that it is not able to deblend overlapping sources (Hales et al. 2012). To address … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Catalog completeness as a function of an input S/N. The completeness is measured through the Monte-Carlo simulations and the error bar indicates 1σ uncertainty. Our catalog is complete 86% at 7σ and 96% at S/N=15. 3. MULTI-WAVELENGTH DATA There is a wealth of photometric datasets available in the COSMOS field, spanning the wavelengths from X-ray through millimeter. This study leverages this rich multi-wavelength dat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The histogram of redshifts is presented with a bin size of 0.1, where zspec is shown with the blue line and zphot is with the green filled histogram. Majority (51.0%) are located within z < 1. The determination of whether a source is resolved or unresolved in astronomical observations is commonly based on the ratio of integrated flux density to peak flux density. Specifically, the inclusion of extended emission from… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ratio of integrated flux density to peak flux density of the sources detected in the CHILES Con Pol survey (left panel) and histograms and fractions of unresolved and resolved sources (right panel) as a function of flux density. (A) The resolved sources based on th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radio spectral index distribution of the CHILES Con Pol radio continuum sources. The peak of the histogram is placed on the α = −0.725, implying that the majority of µJy radio sources are dominated by star formation. Panels (B)-(G) display histograms of the spectra…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hexbin plots (2D histograms) of radio spectral index as a function of 1.4 GHz power (panel A) and zbest (panel B). The red line indicates the linear regression computed by a robust linear model (lmRob function) in R (R Core Team 2013). α=1 α=0 α=−1 1020 1022 1024 1026 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Deroved 1.4 GHz power of individual sources are shown as a function of redshift on the left panel while the same distribution is shown as a hexbin plot on the right panel to reflect the source density better. On the left panel, green open squares and black open diamond…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio of flux densities of between MIGHTEE and CHILES Con Pol catalogs with as a function of the CHILES Con Pol 1.4 GHz flux density. Panels (A) and (B) show the comparison of the CHILES Con Pol sources with the R = 0 MIGHTEE catalog, while panels (C) and (D) prese…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The ratio of flux densities of the VLA-COSMOS sources with respect to those of the CHILES Con Pol sources as a function of CHILES Con Pol 1.4 GHz flux density. The left panel shows the comparison of the CHILES Con Pol with the VLA-COSMOS (Schinnerer et al. 2010) and th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Euclidean-normalized radio source counts including those of the CHILES Con Pol 7σ catalog sources (black squares). Published source counts by other recent surveys are also shown for comparison: Hale et al. (2023) for COSMOS field (green triangles), Matthews et al. (20…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Bell, E. F. 2003, ApJ, 586, 794, doi: 10.1086/367829

    doi:10.1086/367829 2003

  3. [3]

    Dwarakanath, K. S. 2018, ApJ, 865, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad698

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad698 2018

  4. [4]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  5. [5]

    M., Rawlings, S., & Willott, C

    Blundell, K. M., Rawlings, S., & Willott, C. J. 1999, AJ, 117, 677, doi: 10.1086/300721

    doi:10.1086/300721 1999

  6. [6]

    2003, A&A, 403, 857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030382

    Bondi, M., Ciliegi, P., Zamorani, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 403, 857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030382

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030382 2003

  7. [7]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  8. [8]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 187, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 112.02 Calistro Rivera, G., Williams, W. L., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1040

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1040 1995

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    L., Perley, R

    Carilli, C. L., Perley, R. A., Dreher, J. W., & Leahy, J. P. 1991, ApJ, 383, 554, doi: 10.1086/170813

    1991 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al

    Casey, C. M., Cooray, A., Capak, P., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L33

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2003, A&A, 398, 901, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021721

    Ciliegi, P., Zamorani, G., Hasinger, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 398, 901, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021721

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 de Zotti, G., Massardi, M., Negrello, M., & Wall, J. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0026-0

    1992

  6. [14]

    P., Andrews, S

    Driver, S. P., Andrews, S. K., da Cunha, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2728

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    1986, A&A, 168, 17

    Eckart, A., Witzel, A., Biermann, P., et al. 1986, A&A, 168, 17

    1986

  8. [16]

    1981, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 57, 453, doi: 10.1007/BF01025868

    Freedman, D., & Diaconis, P. 1981, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 57, 453, doi: 10.1007/BF01025868

    1981 doi

  9. [17]

    B., Hales, C

    Gim, H. B., Hales, C. A., Momjian, E., & Yun, M. S. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 143.40

    2015

  10. [18]

    B., Yun, M

    Gim, H. B., Yun, M. S., Owen, F. N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1011

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Whittam, I

    Hale, C. L., Whittam, I. H., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2668, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3320

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Murphy, T., Curran, J

    Hales, C. A., Murphy, T., Curran, J. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 979, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21373.x

    2012

  13. [21]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    Hasinger, G., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 1634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1672

    Herrero-Illana, R., P´ erez-Torres, M.´A., Randriamanakoto, Z., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1672

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Hale, C

    Heywood, I., Jarvis, M. J., Hale, C. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3021

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Jamrozy, M., Konar, C., Machalski, J., & Saikia, D. J. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1286, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12772.x

    2008

  19. [27]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 6, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0006 Jim´ enez-Andrade, E

    Jarvis, M., Taylor, R., Agudo, I., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 6, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0006 Jim´ enez-Andrade, E. F., Murphy, E. J., Momjian, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5c

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Taylor, G

    Kumar, P., Schinzel, F. K., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba93

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Thompson, T

    Lacki, B. C., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/1

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & Peacock, J

    Laing, R. A., & Peacock, J. A. 1980, MNRAS, 190, 903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/190.4.903

    1980 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Lutz, D., et al

    Magnelli, B., Ivison, R. J., Lutz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424937

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Condon, J

    Matthews, A. M., Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Mauch, T. 2021, ApJ, 909, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd37

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Condon, J

    Mauch, T., Cotton, W. D., Condon, J. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2008, A&A Rv, 15, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    Miley, G., & De Breuck, C. 2008, A&A Rv, 15, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    A., & Mead, A

    Miller, L., Peacock, J. A., & Mead, A. R. G. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 207 18 Gim et al

    1990

  29. [37]

    2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source Finder

    Mohan, N., & Rafferty, D. 2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source Finder. http://ascl.net/1502.007

    2015

  30. [38]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Alberdi, A., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 421

    2018

  31. [39]

    F., Taylor, A

    Ocran, E. F., Taylor, A. R., Vaccari, M., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., & Prandoni, I. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2954 Orr` u, E., Murgia, M., Feretti, L., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913837

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Owen, F. N. 2018, ApJS, 235, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4a1

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    N., & Morrison, G

    Owen, F. N., & Morrison, G. E. 2008, AJ, 136, 1889, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/1889

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    H., et al

    Prandoni, I., Parma, P., Wieringa, M. H., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 517, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054273 R Core Team. 2013, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    Rau, U., Bhatnagar, S., & Owen, F. N. 2016, AJ, 152, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/124

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Rees, M. J. 1967, MNRAS, 136, 279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.3.279

    1967 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, A&A, 663, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039750

    Retana-Montenegro, E. 2022, A&A, 663, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039750

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    N., Tasse, C., et al

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Tasse, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038828

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H., et al

    Sanders, D. B., Salvato, M., Aussel, H., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 86, doi: 10.1086/517885

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    T., Bondi, M., et al

    Schinnerer, E., Sargent, M. T., Bondi, M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 384, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/384

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., & Beck, R. 2013, A&A, 556, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321707

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1504 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Schinnerer, E., Finoguenov, A., et al

    Sinha, A., Basu, A., Datta, A., & Chakraborty, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1504 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Schinnerer, E., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 295, doi: 10.1086/516583 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Novak, M., Bondi, M., et al. 2017a, A&A, 602, A1, doi: 10.10...

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 413

    Sutherland, W., & Saunders, W. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 413

    1992

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Tasse, C., Shimwell, T., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038804

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M., Miley, G. K., & Willis, A. G. 1979, A&AS, 35, 153 van der Vlugt, D., Algera, H. S. B., Hodge, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcaa3

    1979 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    H., Riley, J

    Whittam, I. H., Riley, J. M., Green, D. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2080, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts478

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    H., Prescott, M., Hale, C

    Whittam, I. H., Prescott, M., Hale, C. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3307

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Reddy, N

    Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., & Condon, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 803, doi: 10.1086/323145

    2001 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.