pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02053 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

CHANG-ES XXXIX. Magnetic field structure in edge-on galaxies: Stacking Stokes parameters

M. Stein , R. Beck , B. Adebahr , R.-J. Dettmar , C. Mele , S. Taziaux , P. Kamphuis , J. English
show 7 more authors
T. Wiegert J. Stil V. Heesen C. Riseley J. Irwin N. B. Skeggs R. Henriksen
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 19:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic magnetic fieldsedge-on galaxiespolarized emissionStokes Q and Urotation measureRM synthesisgalactic halos
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stacking Stokes Q and U cubes from 27 edge-on galaxies recovers faint polarized halo emission and shows an X-shaped pattern.

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

The paper examines whether averaging aligned radio polarization data across many similar galaxies can bring out weak signals in their halos that would otherwise stay hidden. The authors process C-band observations of 27 star-forming late-type edge-on galaxies by aligning, scaling, convolving, and reprojecting the Stokes Q and U cubes before performing RM synthesis. The resulting maps display a clear X-shaped polarization structure extending to 9 kpc above the disks, stronger polarized intensity on the approaching sides, and a roughly 60 percent drop near the minor axes. Synthetic tests show the stacking procedure remains reliable only when the galaxies share similar distributions of polarized intensity, intrinsic angle, and rotation measure; otherwise systematic offsets appear. The work therefore presents stacking as a practical route to studying faint halo magnetic fields provided the underlying distributions are sufficiently uniform.

Core claim

Stacking aligned, scaled, and convolved Stokes Q and U cubes from 27 star-forming late-type edge-on galaxies, followed by RM synthesis, yields maps with a clear X-shaped pattern in the polarization plane, polarized emission detected up to 9 kpc above the disk, stronger PI on the approaching side, and an approximately 60 percent decrease near the minor axis. Synthetic data tests establish that the method is valid when the underlying distributions of PI, χ0, and RM are tightly constrained, although it introduces a systematic RM uncertainty of 90 rad m^{-2} and underestimates the recovered polarized intensity. No global RM pattern is recovered from the stack.

What carries the argument

Stacking of aligned Stokes Q and U spectra across the sample followed by RM synthesis on the combined cubes.

If this is right

  • Faint polarized emission in galactic halos can be recovered out to at least 9 kpc when data from multiple galaxies are stacked.
  • The X-shaped polarization pattern appears consistently across the sample and matches earlier single-galaxy results.
  • Polarized intensity is stronger on the approaching side of the galaxies in the stack.
  • Polarized intensity drops by about 60 percent near the minor axis in the halo region.
  • No coherent global rotation measure pattern emerges from the stacked data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Broader frequency coverage in future observations could reduce the reported 90 rad m^{-2} systematic RM uncertainty and improve Faraday depth resolution.
  • The stacking technique could be applied to larger or more distant samples if galaxies are pre-selected to ensure comparable underlying PI, χ0, and RM distributions.
  • Combining stacked results with high-resolution maps of individual galaxies would help separate common halo features from galaxy-to-galaxy variations.

Load-bearing premise

The 27 galaxies share sufficiently similar and tightly constrained distributions of polarized intensity, intrinsic polarization angle, and rotation measure that stacking does not introduce major unaccounted biases.

What would settle it

A test in which individual galaxies with independently measured differing RM distributions are stacked and the output X-pattern or average RM deviates systematically by more than 90 rad m^{-2} from the expected range would falsify the validity of the stacking approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02053 by B. Adebahr, C. Mele, C. Riseley, J. English, J. Irwin, J. Stil, M. Stein, N. B. Skeggs, P. Kamphuis, R. Beck, R. Henriksen, R.-J. Dettmar, S. Taziaux, T. Wiegert, V. Heesen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sketch of the sectors that were analysed separately. Each view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Heatmap of the index=0 slice, indicating the number of galaxies that contribute to each pixel, for the angular stack (top panel) and physical stack (bottom panel) in the standard align￾ment. Galaxies that were originally observed with two pointings and later mosaiced show an elliptical footprint in these plots. the RM spread function (RMSF) of 2118 rad m-2. In the analysis of the RM distribution (Sect. 3.4… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PI map with overlaid pol. ang. (orientation of the B field) view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maps of PI with overlaid pol. ang. information (orientation of the B field) of the angular scaled (first and second row) and view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LIC image of the polarised emission of the dbl aligned angular scaled and PI nor￾malised median stack of high resolution galax￾ies. The stack consists of 15 galaxies that are covered by at least 19 beams along the galac￾tic disc. Polarised emission close to the disc is coloured in magenta while the halo emission is displayed using blue colours. The visual sym￾metry arises from the dbl alignment strategy, w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PI surface brightness profiles parallel to the galactic disc view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of RM and absolute RM values for individual view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Median stacked RM maps (left panel) and RM uncer 2 view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RM map (left column) and δ comb RM map (right column) for the PI flux normalised median stack of the rotation align￾ment strategy using angular scaling (top row) and physical scal￾ing (bottom row). The beam size is indicated in the bottom left corner of the RM map. The black dashed circles indicate the dis￾tinction between the central and outer regions that were analysed separately. ing RM values of multip… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of polarised flux values measured on the view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The expected Πratio plotted against the opening an￾gle α of X-shaped B field in the halo. Curves for two scenar￾ios are shown: constant CR density (green) and B-field-CR￾equipartition (orange). Further, the detected Πratio for the halo profile (blue horizontal line) and the distribution of X shape opening angles as reported by Stein et al. (2025) (black verti￾cal line) are highlighted. Dashed lines indica… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: RM map derived from weighted mean stacking (left view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Galactic magnetic fields regulate star formation and cosmic-ray (CR) transport, and understanding their three-dimensional structure, particularly in star-forming late-type galaxies, is key to constraining galactic CR transport. We explore the validity of stacking Stokes $Q$ and $U$ spectra, to infer about the intrinsic polarisation characteristics of star-forming galaxies. To prepare the stacking experiment, we align, scale, convolve, and reproject $C$-band (6 GHz) Stokes $Q$ and Stokes $U$ cubes of 27 star-forming late-type edge-on galaxies. On the stacked cubes, we perform RM-synthesis and discuss the derived polarised intensity (PI), polarisation angle ($\chi_0$), and RM maps. Synthetic data tests demonstrate that stacking Stokes $Q$ and $U$ spectra is valid for tightly constrained underlying distributions of PI, $\chi_0$, and RM. For underlying PI, $\chi_0$, and RM distributions that represent star-forming galaxies, stacking introduces a systematic uncertainty of $\delta_\mathrm{RM}^\mathrm{sys}=90 \mathrm{rad m^{-2}}$ and significantly underestimates the recovered PI. Stacking results reveal a clear X-shaped pattern in the polarisation plane, consistent with prior findings, detecting polarised emission up to 9 kpc above the galactic disc. We find stronger PI on the approaching side of galaxies. Furthermore, we find a decrease in PI in the galactic halo of $\sim 60$% near the galaxy's minor axis. A global RM pattern, as reported in a previous study, cannot be confirmed. Based on our analysis, we present stacking of Stokes $Q$ and Stokes $U$ cubes as an effective tool to recover faint polarised emission in the halo of nearby galaxies, if the underlying distributions of PI, $\chi_0$, and RM are tightly constrained. Our findings motivate future studies using broader-band data to increase the resolution in Faraday depth.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates stacking of aligned, scaled, convolved, and reprojected Stokes Q and U cubes from 27 star-forming late-type edge-on galaxies at C-band (6 GHz). RM-synthesis is applied to the stacked cubes to derive maps of polarised intensity (PI), intrinsic polarisation angle (χ₀), and rotation measure (RM). Synthetic tests are used to assess stacking validity, showing that the method recovers faint halo emission only for tightly constrained underlying distributions of PI, χ₀, and RM; for representative star-forming galaxy distributions, it underestimates PI and introduces δ_RM^sys = 90 rad m^{-2}. Observational results include an X-shaped polarisation pattern extending to 9 kpc above the disc, stronger PI on the approaching side, a ~60% PI decrease near the minor axis in the halo, and no confirmed global RM pattern. The authors conclude that Stokes Q/U stacking is an effective tool for faint halo emission if the distributions are tightly constrained.

Significance. If the validity condition is met by the sample, the work offers a practical method to enhance detection of faint polarised emission in galactic halos, revealing magnetic field structures relevant to cosmic-ray transport models. The synthetic tests provide a clear framework for quantifying biases (PI underestimation and systematic RM uncertainty), which is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and synthetic tests section] Abstract and synthetic tests section: The validity of the stacking method is explicitly conditional on 'tightly constrained' distributions of PI, χ₀, and RM. However, the manuscript does not report the measured standard deviations or variances of PI, χ₀, and RM from the 27 individual aligned cubes, nor does it quantitatively compare these to the parameter ranges of the 'tightly constrained' versus 'representative' synthetic cases that produce the noted PI underestimation and δ_RM^sys = 90 rad m^{-2}. This comparison is required to determine whether the real ensemble satisfies the condition under which the method is declared valid.
  2. [Results and discussion] Results and discussion: The non-confirmation of a global RM pattern (as reported in a prior study) must account for the impact of the 90 rad m^{-2} systematic uncertainty; without this, the comparison to previous work is incomplete and the interpretation of the stacked RM map is weakened.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: Provide more detail on the precise alignment parameters, scaling factors, and selection criteria for the 27 galaxies to allow reproducibility and assessment of potential selection biases.
  2. [Figures] Figures: Label the vertical scale heights explicitly on the stacked maps and indicate the noise levels or detection thresholds used to claim emission out to 9 kpc.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important points regarding the justification of the stacking method and the interpretation of the RM results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The validity of the stacking method is explicitly conditional on 'tightly constrained' distributions of PI, χ₀, and RM. However, the manuscript does not report the measured standard deviations or variances of PI, χ₀, and RM from the 27 individual aligned cubes, nor does it quantitatively compare these to the parameter ranges of the 'tightly constrained' versus 'representative' synthetic cases that produce the noted PI underestimation and δ_RM^sys = 90 rad m^{-2}. This comparison is required to determine whether the real ensemble satisfies the condition under which the method is declared valid.

    Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of the observed dispersions is necessary to substantiate the applicability of the stacking results. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection (or table) in the synthetic tests section that tabulates the standard deviations of PI, χ₀, and RM measured directly from the 27 aligned individual cubes. These values will be compared quantitatively to the input ranges of both the 'tightly constrained' and 'representative' synthetic ensembles, allowing readers to assess whether the real data satisfy the validity criterion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The non-confirmation of a global RM pattern (as reported in a prior study) must account for the impact of the 90 rad m^{-2} systematic uncertainty; without this, the comparison to previous work is incomplete and the interpretation of the stacked RM map is weakened.

    Authors: We concur that the systematic RM uncertainty must be folded into the comparison with earlier studies. In the revised discussion section, we will explicitly state that the 90 rad m^{-2} uncertainty could mask or dilute a global RM pattern of the amplitude reported previously. We will add a quantitative statement on the minimum detectable RM gradient given this uncertainty and will qualify the non-confirmation accordingly, while retaining the observational result that no coherent large-scale pattern is detected above the noise and uncertainty floor. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; validity claim rests on synthetic tests and data application rather than self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's core procedure—aligning, stacking Stokes Q/U cubes, performing RM-synthesis, and interpreting results—relies on observational processing and separate synthetic validation tests rather than any equation or parameter that reduces to its own fitted inputs by construction. Self-citations to prior CHANG-ES work appear only for context on X-shaped patterns and are not load-bearing for the stacking validity argument. The conditional nature of the conclusion (effective only if distributions are tightly constrained) is stated explicitly but does not create a definitional loop; the paper does not derive the constraint from the stacked data itself. No fitted-input-called-prediction, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results occurs in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the 27 galaxies share tightly constrained PI, χ0, and RM distributions; this is tested synthetically but not independently verified on the real sample. Standard radio astronomy techniques for RM-synthesis are invoked without new entities or free parameters beyond the reported systematic uncertainty.

free parameters (1)
  • δ_RM^sys = 90 rad m^{-2}
    Systematic uncertainty of 90 rad m^{-2} introduced by stacking, derived from synthetic tests.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The 27 galaxies have sufficiently similar distributions of PI, χ0, and RM for stacking to be valid.
    Explicitly stated as the condition under which stacking recovers intrinsic properties without major bias.
  • standard math Standard assumptions of Faraday rotation measure synthesis apply to the stacked Stokes Q and U data.
    Invoked when performing RM-synthesis on the stacked cubes to derive PI, χ0, and RM maps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5731 in / 1671 out tokens · 146841 ms · 2026-05-08T19:04:12.616801+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arshakian, T. G. & Beck, R. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2336 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    & Roy, S

    Basu, A. & Roy, S. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1675

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    2005, A&A, 444, 739

    Beck, R., Fletcher, A., Shukurov, A., et al. 2005, A&A, 444, 739

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    & Krause, M

    Beck, R. & Krause, M. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    2010, A&A, 514, A42

    Braun, R., Heald, G., & Beck, R. 2010, A&A, 514, A42

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Brentjens, M. A. & de Bruyn, A. G. 2005, A&A, 441, 1217

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    & Leedom, L

    Cabral, B. & Leedom, L. C. 1993, in Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 263–270 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Chiu, H. H. S., Ruszkowski, M., Thomas, T., Werhahn, M., & Pfrommer, C. 2024, ApJ, 976, 136

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy de Bruyn, A

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy de Bruyn, A. G. 1977, A&A, 58, 221

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Dettmar, R. J. 1990, A&A, 232, L15

    work page 1990

  11. [11]

    English, J., Richardson, M. L. A., Ferrand, G., & Deg, N. 2024, CosmosCanvas: Useful color maps for different astrophysical properties, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2401.005 Ferrière, K. & Terral, P. 2014, A&A, 561, A100

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    M., & Horellou, C

    Fletcher, A., Beck, R., Shukurov, A., Berkhuijsen, E. M., & Horellou, C. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2396

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    2016, A&A, 585, A21

    Frick, P., Stepanov, R., Beck, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A21

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Heald, G. 2009, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 259, Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From Planets, to Stars and Galaxies, ed. K. G. Strassmeier, A. G. Kosovichev, & J. E. Beckman, 591–602

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    H., Heesen, V ., Sridhar, S

    Heald, G. H., Heesen, V ., Sridhar, S. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 658

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    2021, Ap&SS, 366, 117

    Heesen, V . 2021, Ap&SS, 366, 117

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    P., Brüggen, M., et al

    Heesen, V ., O’Sullivan, S. P., Brüggen, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L23

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    2025, A&A, 699, A243

    Heesen, V ., Stein, M., Pourjafari, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A243

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    2024, A&A, 691, A273

    Heesen, V ., Wiegert, T., Irwin, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A273

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Henriksen, R. N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4806

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Henriksen, R. N. 2022, A&A, 658, A101

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    M., Krause, M., & Klein, U

    Horellou, C., Beck, R., Berkhuijsen, E. M., Krause, M., & Klein, U. 1992, A&A, 265, 417

    work page 1992

  23. [23]

    1991, A&A, 248, 23

    Hummel, E., Beck, R., & Dahlem, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 23

    work page 1991

  24. [24]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A43

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    A., et al

    Irwin, J., Beck, R., Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 43

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    2024, AJ, 168, 138

    Irwin, J., Cook, T., Stein, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 138

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    A., Schmidt, P., Damas-Segovia, A., et al

    Irwin, J. A., Schmidt, P., Damas-Segovia, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1333

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    & Farrar, G

    Jansson, R. & Farrar, G. R. 2012, ApJ, 761, L11

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    W., Allen, R

    Kamphuis, P., Holwerda, B. W., Allen, R. J., Peletier, R. F., & van der Kruit, P. C. 2007, A&A, 471, L1

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 76

    Kleimann, J., Schorlepp, T., Merten, L., & Becker Tjus, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 76

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    2020, A&A, 639, A112

    Krause, M., Irwin, J., Schmidt, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A112

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    2018, A&A, 611, A72

    Krause, M., Irwin, J., Wiegert, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A72

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    P., Reinhardt, M., & Simard-Normandin, M

    Kronberg, P. P., Reinhardt, M., & Simard-Normandin, M. 1977, A&A, 61, 771

    work page 1977

  34. [34]

    B., Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E

    Linzer, N. B., Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Quataert, E. 2025, ApJ, 988, 214

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    2014, A&A, 570, A13

    Makarov, D., Prugniel, P., Terekhova, N., Courtois, H., & Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    & Rafferty, D

    Mohan, N. & Rafferty, D. 2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    C., Krause, M., Basu, A., et al

    Mora-Partiarroyo, S. C., Krause, M., Basu, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A11

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    & Sokoloff, D

    Moss, D. & Sokoloff, D. 2008, A&A, 487, 197

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    & Contopoulos, I

    Myserlis, I. & Contopoulos, I. 2021, A&A, 649, A94 O’Sullivan, S. P., Brüggen, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2607

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3125

    Pakmor, R., van de V oort, F., Bieri, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3125

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    M., Pleunis, Z., et al

    Pandhi, A., Gaensler, B. M., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 146

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    R., Van Eck, C

    Purcell, C. R., Van Eck, C. L., West, J., Sun, X. H., & Gaensler, B. M. 2020, RM- Tools: Rotation measure (RM) synthesis and Stokes QU-fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2005.003

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    A., & Bendre, A

    Qazi, Y ., Shukurov, A., Tharakkal, D., Gent, F. A., & Bendre, A. B. 2024, MN- RAS, 527, 7994

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Rand, R. J., Kulkarni, S. R., & Hester, J. J. 1990, ApJ, 352, L1

    work page 1990

  45. [45]

    & Bressert, E

    Robitaille, T. & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    A., Sokolov, D

    Ruzmaikin, A. A., Sokolov, D. D., & Shukurov, A. M. 1988, Magnetic Fields of

    work page 1988

  47. [47]

    Shukurov, A., Rodrigues, L. F. S., Bushby, P. J., Hollins, J., & Rachen, J. P. 2019, A&A, 623, A113

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 204

    Sike, B., Thomas, T., Ruszkowski, M., Pfrommer, C., & Weber, M. 2025, ApJ, 987, 204

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    2025, Master’s thesis, Queen’s University

    Skeggs, N. 2025, Master’s thesis, Queen’s University

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    D., Bykov, A

    Sokoloff, D. D., Bykov, A. A., Shukurov, A., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 189

    work page 1998

  51. [51]

    J., et al

    Stein, M., Heesen, V ., Dettmar, R. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A158

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    2025, A&A, 696, A112

    Stein, M., Kleimann, J., Adebahr, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A112

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    J., Beck, R., et al

    Stein, Y ., Dettmar, R. J., Beck, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A111

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    M., Keller, B

    Stil, J. M., Keller, B. W., George, S. J., & Taylor, A. R. 2014, ApJ, 787, 99

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    Sun, X. H. & Reich, W. 2009, A&A, 507, 1087

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    S., Minguez, P., Prieto, M

    Tabatabaei, F. S., Minguez, P., Prieto, M. A., & Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 83

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    & Farrar, G

    Unger, M. & Farrar, G. R. 2024, ApJ, 970, 95 Van Eck, C. L., Purcell, C. R., Baidoo, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.20092

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eade7233

    Vernstrom, T., West, J., Vazza, F., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eade7233

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4072

    Werhahn, M., Pfrommer, C., & Girichidis, P. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4072

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    C., Lucas, R

    Whitmore, B. C., Lucas, R. A., McElroy, D. B., et al. 1990, AJ, 100, 1489

    work page 1990

  62. [62]

    2015, AJ, 150, 81

    Wiegert, T., Irwin, J., Miskolczi, A., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 81

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 5

    Xu, J., Yang, Y ., Li, J.-T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 5

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    2014, AJ, 148, 127 Article number, page 15 of 29 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Yim, K., Wong, T., Xue, R., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 127 Article number, page 15 of 29 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa58397-25 Appendix A: Properties of the galaxy sample Table A.1: Fundamental information about the initial galaxy sample. Galaxy RA Dec PA Q AS D d ang dphy Bmaj Bmaj Nd Beam RMMW [H:M:S] [D:M:S] [deg] [Mpc] [ ′] [kpc] [ ′′] [kpc] [rad m −2] NGC ...

    work page 2014