Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Deep neutral hydrogen observations of the early-type galaxy NGC 2768: collided by a newly discovered satellite galaxy?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep neutral hydrogen observations of NGC 2768 reveal a faint gas envelope and a high-velocity clump that the authors identify as a newly discovered, dark-matter-dominated satellite galaxy that collided with NGC 2768 about 0.38 Gyr ago.

desk verdict New FAST HI data reveal a large gas envelope around NGC 2768 and a plausible but under-validated satellite interpretation that needs tougher error analysis before it can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04703 v1 pith:3DY22B3I submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA

Nai-Ping Yu , Ming Zhu , Jin-Long Xu , Chuan-Peng Zhang , Xiao-Lan Liu , Peng Jiang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:individual:NGC2768interactionsstructureneutralhydrogenobservationsdwarfsatellitegalaxydarkmatterS0transitioncircumgalacticgas
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

Using deep 21-cm neutral hydrogen observations, this paper discovers a large, faint gas envelope around the early-type galaxy NGC 2768 that contains roughly an order of magnitude more atomic gas than previous surveys measured. Within the envelope sits Clump B, a high-velocity hydrogen clump with no detectable optical counterpart. The authors argue that Clump B is a newly discovered dwarf satellite galaxy: tilted-ring modeling gives a dynamical mass near $7.9\times10^9$ solar masses, while optical and ultraviolet non-detections and standard mass-to-light ratios put its stellar mass below about $10^6$ solar masses, so dark matter dominates by an order of magnitude. They estimate that Clump B collided with NGC 2768 about 0.38 Gyr ago, and they connect this collision to the galaxy's offset, redshifted-asymmetric gas disk and its ongoing transition from a spiral progenitor to an S0 system.

What carries the argument

The central object is Clump B, a resolved hydrogen clump roughly 32 kpc north of NGC 2768's center, visible in the data cube as a high-velocity plume at 1570-1660 km/s. The argument is carried by three-dimensional tilted-ring modeling, which fits the gas as concentric rotating rings and yields a rotation velocity of $V_{\rm rot}=58.7$ km/s and a velocity dispersion of $\delta_v=7.5$ km/s; combined with an adopted HI radius of $R_{\rm HI}=9.5$ kpc, these enter the formula $M=(V_{\rm rot}^2+3\delta_v^2)R_{\rm HI}/G$ to give about $7.9\times10^9$ solar masses. The dark-matter-dominated conclusion follows by subtracting the hydrogen mass ($7.8\times10^7$ solar masses) and the stellar-mass upper limit of about $10^6$ solar masses, the latter estimated from non-detections in deep optical and ultraviolet images using adopted mass-to-light ratios. A separate kinematic relation between the projected separation of 33 kpc and the line-of-sight velocity difference of 200 km/s places the encounter 0.38 Gyr in the past.

What would settle it

A deep image of Clump B's position that resolves a stellar counterpart with an R-band magnitude brighter than about 20.5, or a higher-resolution HI map showing a chaotic, non-rotating velocity field instead of a coherent rotation gradient, would overturn the dark-matter-dominated satellite interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Clump B is argued to be a genuine satellite galaxy of NGC 2768 rather than a tidal dwarf or a purely gaseous cloud. The evidence is that its dynamical mass is roughly $7.9\times10^9$ solar masses, while its baryonic budget is tiny: about $7.8\times10^7$ solar masses of hydrogen and a stellar mass no larger than about $10^6$ solar masses, so dark matter contributes more than $7.8\times10^9$ solar masses and more than 99 percent of the total. A tidal dwarf origin is rejected because tidal dwarfs are dark-matter-poor and should move at the mean velocity of their parent galaxies, whereas Clump B is velocity-offset from both NGC 2768 and PGC 2599651. The paper dates the collision to roughly 0.38 Gyr ago, consistent with earlier estimates that a recent interaction supplied the cool gas now seen as a polar CO and dust disk, and interprets the redshifted asymmetry and 32-kpc offset of the HI disk as the lasting imprint of this encounter.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes Clump B is a settled, orderly rotating disk of gas rather than a loose stream of debris; if the clump is not an equilibrium rotator, the inferred dynamical mass, the more-than-99-percent dark-matter fraction, and the rejection of a tidal-dwarf origin all collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The previously measured hydrogen mass in this system is only a small fraction of the true reservoir: about 90 percent of the detected atomic gas is diffuse gas below a column density of $10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$.
  • NGC 2768's HI disk has been disturbed recently, with its gas center offset 32 kpc from the optical center and more gas redshifted than blueshifted.
  • Clump B is a dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxy whose dark mass exceeds its baryonic mass by an order of magnitude, making it a candidate probe of how low-mass dark halos accrete gas.
  • The 0.38-Gyr-old collision supplies a plausible gas reservoir for the polar CO and dust disk and supports the interpretation that NGC 2768 is transforming from a spiral progenitor into an S0 galaxy.
  • The deep hydrogen view places NGC 2768 in a small interacting network, with tidal streams linking Clump B to PGC 2599651 and NGC 2768 to UGC 4808, illustrating hierarchical gas accretion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equilibrium-disk assumption holds, a straightforward prediction is that higher-resolution HI synthesis observations should resolve a monotonic velocity gradient across Clump B on sub-kiloparsec scales, which would independently confirm the rotation velocity used in the mass estimate.
  • The same deep 21-cm mapping strategy applied to other isolated S0 galaxies could test whether dark-matter-dominated satellites below $10^9$ solar masses are a common, rather than exceptional, driver of spiral-to-S0 transitions.
  • A numerical simulation of a minor merger with the adopted 0.38-Gyr timescale could check whether the observed one-sided redshifted asymmetry and the gas bridge between Clump A and Clump B arise naturally, without needing to invoke additional mass in the clump.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents deep FAST 21-cm observations of the early-type galaxy NGC 2768, reporting a total H I mass of 8.1e8 M_sun, about an order of magnitude larger than earlier WSRT measurements, and a large diffuse H I envelope. The authors identify two previously known WSRT clumps within this envelope, argue that Clump A is part of the galaxy's disturbed H I disk, and propose that Clump B is a newly discovered, dark-matter-dominated satellite galaxy that collided with NGC 2768 about 0.38 Gyr ago, driving the galaxy's proposed transition from a spiral progenitor to an S0 system. They also claim tidal interactions between Clump B, PGC 2599651, and UGC 4808, and use these to sketch a hierarchical accretion history for NGC 2768.

Significance. The observational material is genuinely valuable: the FAST data increase the measured H I mass by an order of magnitude, reveal a low-column-density envelope, and identify a high-velocity H I component (Clump B) with no apparent optical counterpart. If Clump B were confirmed as a dark-matter-dominated satellite, it would be a striking example of a gas-rich, optically dark dwarf galaxy participating in a minor merger, with implications for hierarchical assembly in early-type galaxies. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, but it presents a plausible observational case. The main caveat is that the quantitative claims—the dynamical mass, dark-matter fraction, and interaction timescale—currently rest on assumptions and parameter choices that are not yet validated, so the interpretation overreaches the data in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 3] The tilted-ring model is fitted to a source that is barely resolved by FAST: the beam is 2.9 arcmin (18.4 kpc at D=21.8 Mpc), while the WSRT clump has an apparent size of about 0.4x0.6 arcmin (2.5-3.8 kpc), and the adopted R_HI=9.5 kpc is close to the beam half-power radius. For such a source, TiRiFiC cannot uniquely separate a rotating disk from a beam-smoothed velocity gradient, noise, or a stream-like geometry. The residual map in Fig. 3 is only shown qualitatively, and no uncertainties are reported for V_rot, delta_v, inclination, PA, or R_HI. No alternative non-rotating model is compared. Because M_dyn and the dark-matter fraction are derived from these fitted values, this is the load-bearing step for the claim that Clump B is a dark-matter-dominated satellite; it needs to be redone with WSRT-resolution constraints and a model comparison.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (3)] The interaction timescale of 0.38 Gyr is obtained from Eq. (3), but delta_group is never defined or quantified, and the units are not stated. Using delta_R=33 kpc and delta_Vsys=200 km/s, the quoted timescale requires delta_group ~ 218 km/s, an ad hoc choice; no uncertainty or source for this value is given. The formula also assumes that the projected separation and the line-of-sight velocity difference are good proxies for the orbital state, which is not shown. The agreement with Crocker et al. (2008) is not an independent check, because that paper's 0.2-0.7 Gyr estimate referred to UGC 4808, not to Clump B.
  3. [§3.2, dark matter estimate] The dynamical mass M_dyn=7.9e9 M_sun and the conclusion that Clump B contains more than 7.8e9 M_sun of dark matter rest on R_HI=9.5 kpc ('chosen' from Fig. 3) and V_rot=58.7 km/s. Because R_HI is essentially the FAST beam radius and no uncertainty is propagated, the specific values M_dyn and the '>99% dark matter' statement are not secure; even reducing R_HI to the WSRT scale (~2 kpc) would lower M_dyn to ~1.7e9 M_sun and the dark-matter fraction to ~95%. If the source is pressure-supported or an unrelaxed gas stream, the formula M=(V_rot^2+3 delta_v^2) R_HI / G is not applicable, and the dark-matter-dominated interpretation would collapse. An error budget and alternative mass models are needed before this claim can be accepted.
  4. [§3.2, TDG exclusion] The argument that Clump B is not a tidal dwarf galaxy because its velocity is redshifted relative to both NGC 2768 and PGC 2599651 is not rigorous. Tidal debris can have line-of-sight velocities outside the simple mean of the two progenitors depending on projection, orbital phase, and the formation details of the tidal tail. Without a dynamical model of the interaction, this argument cannot exclude a tidal origin. This matters because the exclusion of a TDG is one of the pillars for the 'primordial dwarf' interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text uses 'Hi' instead of the standard 'H I' notation in several places, including the abstract and Section 3.1.
  2. [§3.1] 'If we smooth the beam to spacial resolution' contains a typo; it should read 'spatial resolution.'
  3. [§4] The heading 'CONCLUTIONS' should be 'CONCLUSIONS.'
  4. [§3.2] 'C3 shows like a tail striped by Clump B' should read 'stripped by Clump B' (i.e., the past participle of 'strip').
  5. [Eq. (1)] The factor 2.35 is described as the mean atomic weight, but the standard H I mass conversion (2.36e5 D^2 S) does not include a helium correction; please clarify the formula and explicitly state the units of each term.
  6. [§3.1] The total H I mass of 8.1e8 M_sun is quoted without an uncertainty; please provide an error estimate that includes flux calibration and baseline systematic uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the satellite/dark-matter conclusion is a model-dependent observational inference, not a definitional reduction; self-citations are technical rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing chain is: FAST H I detection (Sec. 2-3.1) -> PV decomposition identifying Clump B (Fig. 1c) -> TiRiFiC tilted-ring fitting yielding V_rot=58.7 km/s and delta_v=7.5 km/s (Sec. 3.2) -> adopted R_HI=9.5 kpc -> dynamical mass M=7.9e9 Msun -> optical non-detection with SDSS/DESI/MATLAS/GALEX -> stellar mass upper limit <1e6 Msun -> dark matter >7.8e9 Msun. Each step uses measured or fitted quantities; the dark matter fraction is arithmetic from these, not defined into them. The TiRiFiC model does assume a rotating disk, and R_HI is chosen from the model rather than independently measured, but that is a modeling/beam-resolution caveat, not a case where the conclusion equals an input by construction. The paper's self-citations (Jiang et al. 2019/2020; Zhang et al. 2024; Jing et al. 2024; Zhu et al. 2021) are to instrumentation, pipeline, survey, and a luminosity-limit method; they do not smuggle in the target 'dark-matter-dominated satellite' result. The Zhu et al. (2021) method supplies an upper-limit luminosity transformation, not the dynamical mass or dark matter fraction, so the central claim retains independent content. Score 2 reflects one self-cited method in the stellar-mass step, but no circular reduction is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The core HI detection relies on standard HI mass assumptions and a literature distance. The satellite and interaction claims add several unverified assumptions: axisymmetric rotation, an adopted HI radius, optical non-detection limits, and an unstated velocity dispersion for the timescale equation. These parameters and assumptions carry most of the paper's physical interpretation.

free parameters (4)
  • TiRiFiC fitted rotation velocity V_rot of Clump B = 58.7 km/s
    Used to derive the dynamical mass and dark matter fraction of Clump B in Section 3.2; no uncertainty or model comparison is provided.
  • TiRiFiC fitted velocity dispersion delta_v of Clump B = 7.5 km/s
    Included in M = (V_rot^2 + 3 delta_v^2) R_HI / G; without error bars the dynamical mass is not bracketed.
  • HI radius R_HI of Clump B = 9.5 kpc
    Chosen by eye from Figure 3; the dynamical mass scales linearly with this radius, so an unconstrained choice strongly affects the dark matter claim.
  • Group velocity dispersion delta_group in Eq. (3) = Not stated in the paper; a value near 217 km/s would be needed to yield 0.38 Gyr with the quoted Delta_R and Delta_Vsys
    The collision timescale of 0.38 Gyr cannot be reproduced without this quantity, making it an undisclosed free parameter in the central interaction claim.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The 21 cm HI emission is optically thin, so the column density and mass conversions in Eqs. (1) and (2) are valid.
    This is a standard assumption for extragalactic HI observations and is not defended in the paper, but it is conventional practice.
  • domain assumption Clump B lies at the same distance as NGC 2768, D = 21.8 Mpc.
    All HI masses, sizes, and dynamical masses scale with distance squared or linearly; the distance is adopted from the literature in Section 3.1 without discussion.
  • domain assumption Clump B is a relaxed, rotating disk well described by a tilted-ring model, so the fitted V_rot is the circular velocity.
    This is the load-bearing modeling choice in Section 3.2; if the gas is tidal debris or unsettled, the dynamical mass and dark matter fraction are invalid.
  • domain assumption Optical and UV non-detections, together with assumed mass-to-light ratios, place the stellar mass of Clump B below about 1e6 solar masses.
    Section 3.2 uses magnitude limits from Zhu et al. (2021) and typical M/L values; no quantified detection limits for the specific images are given, so the stellar mass bound is uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (3) relates the projected separation and line-of-sight velocity difference to the time since collision, with an unstated group velocity dispersion.
    The formula is dimensionally plausible but delta_group is never defined or valued, so the 0.38 Gyr result is not reproducible from the manuscript.
invented entities (2)
  • Clump B as a dark-matter-dominated satellite galaxy of NGC 2768
    purpose: Explains the disturbed, redshifted HI disk, the misaligned gas center, and the proposed spiral-to-S0 transition of NGC 2768.
    Clump B is detected in HI but has no detected optical, UV, or catalogued counterpart; the dark-matter-dominated interpretation rests entirely on an unvalidated rotation model and assumed stellar mass limits, so there is no independent handle outside the paper's own data and assumptions.
  • C3, a new HI cloud described as a tidal tail stripped from PGC 2599651 by Clump B
    purpose: Used as evidence that Clump B is a galaxy tidally interacting with PGC 2599651.
    C3 is identified only in the FAST HI data and has no multi-wavelength confirmation or measured kinematics beyond the presented maps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep neutral hydrogen observations of the early-type galaxy NGC 2768: collided by a newly discovered satellite galaxy?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DY22B3I

@misc{pith2026250704703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep neutral hydrogen observations of the early-type galaxy NGC 2768: collided by a newly discovered satellite galaxy?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DY22B3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04703}
}
read the original abstract

We present the results of a deep neutral hydrogen (Hi) observation of the early-type galaxy NGC 2768 using the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST). Leveraging the high sensitivity of FAST, we discover an extended gas envelope around NGC 2768. The total Hi mass is measured to be 8.1 x 10^8 M_sun , representing a magnitude increase compared to previous Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) studies. Position-velocity (PV) diagram indicates the envelope mainly involves two components: an Hi disk of NGC 2768 and a newly discovered satellite galaxy without detectable counterparts in currently deep optical surveys. The center of the gas disk is mis-aligned with the optical disk of NGC 2768, with more gas redshifted, indicating it has been disturbed. Our study indicates NGC 2768 is currently undergoing a transition from a spiral galaxy to an S0. Previous deep WSRT observations reveal two dense clumps (named as Clumps A and Clump B throughout this paper) in the center of the envelope. We find Clump A corresponds to the densest part of the disk, while Clump B might be a newly discovered satellite galaxy which probably collided NGC 2768 about 0.38 Gyr ago. We also find tidal interactions between Clump B and PGC 2599651, NGC 2768 and UGC 4808. Based on these new findings, we finally analyze hierarchical accretion history of NGC 2768.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a: The Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) R-band optical image of the NGC 2768, which is the most luminous galaxy in the image. The white contours are Hi column density obtained by FAST, and levels are 1.1 × 1018, 2.2 × 1018, 4.4 × 1018, 8.8 × 1018 and 1.8 × 1019 cm−2 . The dashed white arrow show the position and direction of the PV diagram shown in the bottom panel. The black circle indicates the FAST beam size of 2.9′ . … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cool ISM in NGC 2768 in different scales. a: Hi column densities of Clump B integrated over 1570-1660 km s−1 . The white contour levels are 5.5 × 1017, 1.1 × 1018, 2.2 × 1018, 4.4 × 1018 and 8.8 × 1018 cm−2 for FAST data, and the red contour levels are 3.0 × 1019, 6.0 × 1019 and 1.2 × 1020 cm−2 for WSRT data. The black circle indicates the FAST beam size of 2.9′ . The white arrows show the positions and directio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: the PV diagram extracted from the FAST data cube in the direction of the Hi major axies which is derived from our simulation. Middle: the PV diagram extracted from the model data cube in the same direction as the left panel. Right: the difference between observed and model data which evaluates the performance of our simulation. Contour levels are 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mJy/beam for the left and middle panels. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: FAST Hi column density of UGC 4808 integrated over 1340-1400 km s−1 . Contour levels are 6.6 × 1017, 1.3 × 1018, 2.6 × 1018 and 5.3 × 1018 cm−2 . The white arrow indicates the position and direction of the PV diagram shown in the right panel. Right: PV diagram of…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., & Rhee M

    Broeils A. H., & Rhee M. H. 1997, A & A, 324, 877

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    L., Forbes D

    Buzzo M. L., Forbes D. A., Jarrett T. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3210

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2011 MNRAS, 413, 813

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

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    S., Baxter K

    Clemens M. S., Baxter K. M., Alexander P., Green D. A., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 364

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    F., Bureau M., Young L

    Crocker A. F., Bureau M., Young L. M., and Combes F., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1811

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    G., Buta R

    de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin H. G., Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (RC3)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 863

    Duc P.A., Cuillandre J.C., Serra P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 863

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    et al., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    Emsellem E. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    work page 2011

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Faber, M., & Gallagher, J. S. 1979, ARA & A, 17, 135

    1979

  2. [10]

    V., Chornock R., 2000, Int

    Filippenko A. V., Chornock R., 2000, Int. Astron. Union Circ., 7511, 2

    2000

  3. [11]

    Fobes D.A., Cortesi A., Pota V., Foster C., Romanowsky A.J. et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 975

    2012

  4. [12]

    Garcia A., 1993, A & AS, 100, 47

    1993

  5. [13]

    A., Petrosian A

    Hakobyan A. A., Petrosian A. R., McLean B., Kunth D., Allen R. J., Turatto M., Barbon R., 2008, A & A, 488, 523

    2008

  6. [14]

    P., 1926, ApJ, 64, 321

    Hubble E. P., 1926, ApJ, 64, 321

    1926

  7. [15]

    Huchtmeier W.K., Sage L.J., and Henkel C., 1995, A & A, 300, 675

    1995

  8. [16]

    Y., Hou L

    Jiang P., Tang N. Y., Hou L. G., et al. 2020, RAA, 20, 064

    2020

  9. [17]

    L., Gan H

    Jiang P., Yue Y. L., Gan H. Q., et al. 2019, SCPMA, 62, 959502

    2019

  10. [18]

    et al., 2024, SCPMA, 67, 259514

    Jing Y. et al., 2024, SCPMA, 67, 259514

    2024

  11. [19]

    Koch-Hansen A., Pasquali A., Rich R.M., Gerhard O., and M u ller O., 2024, A & A, 682, A95

    2024

  12. [20]

    et al., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 97

    Kuntschner H. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 97

    2010

  13. [21]

    R., Habas R., Poulain M., et al

    Marleau F. R., Habas R., Poulain M., et al. 2021, A & A, 654, A105

    2021

  14. [22]

    Martel A.R., Ford H.C., Bradley L.D. et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2758

    2004

  15. [23]

    et al., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 157

    Morganti R. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 157

    2006

  16. [24]

    2004, PASA, 21, 144

    Portinari, L., Sommer-Larsen, J., & Tantalo, R. 2004, PASA, 21, 144

    2004

  17. [25]

    Carnegie Institution of Washington with the Flintridge Foundation, Washington, DC

    Sandage A., Bedke J., 1994, The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies. Carnegie Institution of Washington with the Flintridge Foundation, Washington, DC

    1994

  18. [26]

    A., van den Bergh S., 1981, J

    Sandage A., Tammann G. A., van den Bergh S., 1981, J. R. Astron. Soc. Canada, 75, 267

    1981

  19. [27]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1835

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

    2012

  20. [28]

    C., Solanes J

    Toribio M. C., Solanes J. M., Giovanelli R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 93

    2011

  21. [29]

    Zanatta E. J. B., Cortesi A., Chies-Santos A. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5124

    2018

  22. [30]

    P., Zhu M., Jiang, P

    Zhang C. P., Zhu M., Jiang, P. et al. 2024, SCPMA, 67, 219511

    2024

  23. [31]

    2021, ApJL, 922, L21

    Zhu M., Yu H., Wang J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L21

    2021

  24. [32]

    Zwicky, F., 1956, Ergeb. Exact. Nat., 26, 344

    1956

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.