Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 153 references

On the Tully-Fisher Relation for Active Galaxies -- I: Evidence of Larger Scatter

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation than inactive galaxies.

desk verdict AGN hosts show larger TF scatter even after light subtraction on 22 primary-distance galaxies, but the small sample leaves representativeness open. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.22575 v1 pith:NUANSXQG submitted 2026-06-21 astro-ph.GA

Justin H. Robinson , Mitchell Revalski , Misty C. Bentz , D. Michael Crenshaw , Hélène M. Courtois , Veronica Lahue , Julian Falcone , Rachael L. Merritt
show 7 more authors
Ishita Chintala Thomas Kay Mira Menon Naveen Ali Bradley Clemons Atul Gautam Thomas Gregoire
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Tully-FisherrelationactivegalacticnucleigalaxydistancespeculiarvelocitiessurfacebrightnessdecompositionAGNcontamination
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 examines the Tully-Fisher relation solely for galaxies that host an active galactic nucleus. Using 22 galaxies that have independent primary distance measurements, the authors find that these active systems show markedly greater scatter around the standard TF relations than the calibrations derived from mostly inactive galaxies. The excess scatter remains even after the AGN light is removed from the photometry of Type 1 objects through surface-brightness decompositions or spectral-energy-distribution modeling. The results imply that an AGN can affect its host galaxy's surface brightness beyond the nuclear region. TF distances derived for these active galaxies are biased high relative to the primary distances, by 5-10 percent in optical and near-infrared bands and about 15 percent when the baryonic TF relation is inverted, leading to the recommendation that active galaxies be excluded from samples used to map local peculiar velocities.

What carries the argument

Comparison of scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation for AGN hosts versus inactive-galaxy calibrations, after AGN-light removal via surface-brightness decomposition or SED fitting.

What would settle it

A larger sample of active galaxies with independent primary distances that shows scatter matching the inactive-galaxy calibrations after refined AGN-light subtraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present an investigation of the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation solely for galaxies hosting an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Using 22 galaxies with primary, z-independent distances, we find that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter about all TF relations compared to each respective calibration for (largely) inactive galaxies. The larger scatter persists despite removal of the AGN contamination from the photometry of the Type 1 AGNs via careful surface brightness decompositions or employing SEDs to constrain the light contribution of the AGN. These results suggest that the influence of an AGN on its host galaxy's surface brightness may extend beyond the nucleus. We also calcula

Load-bearing premise

The 22 galaxies with primary distances form a representative sample of AGN hosts and the AGN light removal methods fully capture any extended influence of the AGN on host galaxy surface brightness beyond the nucleus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TF distances to active galaxies overestimate primary distances by 5-10 percent in optical and near-infrared bands.
  • Distances from the inverted baryonic TF relation overestimate primary distances by approximately 15 percent.
  • Active galaxies should be removed from future samples used to model the local peculiar velocity field.
  • The AGN's influence on surface brightness appears to extend beyond the nucleus itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Separate TF calibrations may be needed for AGN hosts if the larger scatter cannot be removed by improved photometry.
  • Current TF-based peculiar-velocity maps could contain systematic offsets where active galaxies remain in the sample.
  • Extending the analysis to galaxies with secondary distance indicators could test whether the bias persists at larger distances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation for active galactic nuclei (AGN) hosts using a sample of 22 galaxies with primary, redshift-independent distances. It reports significantly larger scatter about standard TF relations (optical, near-infrared, and baryonic) compared to calibrations based on largely inactive galaxies. This excess scatter remains after AGN contamination is removed from Type 1 hosts via surface-brightness decompositions or SED modeling. The paper additionally quantifies a systematic bias in which TF distances overestimate primary distances by 5–10% (optical/NIR) to ~15% (BTF inversion) and recommends excluding active galaxies from future peculiar-velocity field analyses.

Significance. If the larger scatter is confirmed to be a general property of AGN hosts rather than a selection artifact, the result would affect the reliability of TF-based distances in local peculiar-velocity modeling and distance-ladder applications. The persistence of excess scatter after explicit AGN-light removal points to possible extended host-galaxy effects, which is a potentially important systematic for TF studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sample selection / data section] Sample selection (implicit in abstract and § on data): The central claim that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger TF scatter rests on the 22 galaxies with primary distances forming a representative draw from the AGN-host population used in existing TF calibrations. No quantitative comparison of stellar-mass, morphological, or AGN-luminosity distributions against the parent calibration samples is presented; if the primary-distance subsample is biased toward nearby, low-luminosity, or morphologically disturbed systems, the reported excess scatter could be an artifact of selection rather than an AGN effect.
  2. [Results / statistical analysis] Statistical comparison of scatter (results section): The abstract states that active galaxies show 'significantly larger scatter' but provides no description of the metric (standard deviation, rms residual, reduced χ²), whether measurement uncertainties are included, the treatment of outliers, or the statistical test (F-test, Levene’s test, etc.) used to establish significance. Without these details the quantitative claim cannot be evaluated.
  3. [AGN contamination removal methods] AGN-light removal validation (methods): The persistence of excess scatter after decompositions or SED fitting is used to argue that AGN influence extends beyond the nucleus. However, no quantitative assessment is given of residual AGN light at large radii or of how the decompositions were validated against mock data or multi-wavelength constraints; this directly affects the interpretation that the scatter is intrinsic to AGN hosts rather than incomplete subtraction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it reported the actual measured scatter values (with uncertainties) for both the AGN sample and the comparison calibrations.
  2. [Figures / tables] Figure captions and table footnotes should explicitly state whether the plotted TF residuals include measurement errors or are raw observed scatters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening of the manuscript. We address each major comment below with honest responses based on the available data and analysis in the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Sample selection (implicit in abstract and § on data): The central claim that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger TF scatter rests on the 22 galaxies with primary distances forming a representative draw from the AGN-host population used in existing TF calibrations. No quantitative comparison of stellar-mass, morphological, or AGN-luminosity distributions against the parent calibration samples is presented; if the primary-distance subsample is biased toward nearby, low-luminosity, or morphologically disturbed systems, the reported excess scatter could be an artifact of selection rather than an AGN effect.

    Authors: The 22 galaxies represent the complete set of AGN hosts with primary (redshift-independent) distances that meet the TF selection criteria; primary distances are scarce, so this is not a random subsample but the full available population for direct comparison. We agree a quantitative comparison to calibration samples (e.g., SFI++ or similar) would be useful and will add it in revision via a table or cumulative distribution plots for stellar mass, morphology, and AGN luminosity proxies. This will allow assessment of any biases while noting that the observed excess scatter is uniform across the sample. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Statistical comparison of scatter (results section): The abstract states that active galaxies show 'significantly larger scatter' but provides no description of the metric (standard deviation, rms residual, reduced χ²), whether measurement uncertainties are included, the treatment of outliers, or the statistical test (F-test, Levene’s test, etc.) used to establish significance. Without these details the quantitative claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We will expand the results section to specify that scatter is quantified as the rms residual about the TF fit (with measurement uncertainties included in quadrature), that no outliers were removed beyond initial sample cuts, and that significance was assessed via an F-test on the variances relative to the inactive calibration samples. These details were present in our internal analysis but omitted from the submitted text; we apologize for the oversight. revision: yes

  3. Referee: AGN-light removal validation (methods): The persistence of excess scatter after decompositions or SED fitting is used to argue that AGN influence extends beyond the nucleus. However, no quantitative assessment is given of residual AGN light at large radii or of how the decompositions were validated against mock data or multi-wavelength constraints; this directly affects the interpretation that the scatter is intrinsic to AGN hosts rather than incomplete subtraction.

    Authors: The methods describe the surface-brightness decompositions and SED modeling used to subtract AGN light, but we agree quantitative validation is needed. We will add estimates of residual AGN flux at large radii (beyond ~2 Re) from the fits and any available multi-wavelength cross-checks. Full mock-data validation was not performed in the original analysis; if feasible with existing data we will include a brief assessment, otherwise we will explicitly note this limitation in the revised text. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct observational comparison of measured scatter

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical measurement of TF scatter in 22 AGN hosts with primary distances, compared against published calibrations for inactive galaxies. No derivation, equation, or prediction is constructed that reduces to a fitted parameter or self-citation by definition. The central result (larger scatter) is a direct statistical comparison of observed residuals; the sample selection and AGN subtraction methods are described as independent inputs rather than outputs of the analysis itself. External TF calibrations are treated as fixed benchmarks, not re-derived within the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The comparison relies on the validity of prior TF calibrations for inactive galaxies and on the assumption that primary distances are independent and accurate. No free parameters are introduced in the abstract; the work is purely comparative.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Prior TF calibrations for inactive galaxies provide an accurate baseline against which AGN-host scatter can be compared.
    The abstract states the larger scatter is measured relative to each respective calibration for inactive galaxies.
  • domain assumption Primary, z-independent distances for the 22 galaxies are accurate reference standards.
    The percentage difference calculation treats these distances as the ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Tully-Fisher Relation for Active Galaxies -- I: Evidence of Larger Scatter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUANSXQG

@misc{pith2026260622575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Tully-Fisher Relation for Active Galaxies -- I: Evidence of Larger Scatter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUANSXQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.22575}
}
read the original abstract

We present an investigation of the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation solely for galaxies hosting an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Using 22 galaxies with primary, z-independent distances, we find that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter about all TF relations compared to each respective calibration for (largely) inactive galaxies. The larger scatter persists despite removal of the AGN contamination from the photometry of the Type 1 AGNs via 1) careful surface brightness decompositions or 2) employing SEDs to constrain the light contribution of the AGN. These results suggest that the influence of an AGN on its host galaxy's surface brightness may extend beyond the nucleus. We also calculate the percentage difference between TF and primary distances, and find that TF-based distances are biased towards overestimation of the primary distances to active galaxies by anywhere from 5-10 percent for the optical/near-infrared and approximately 15 percent for distances predicted from inverting the Baryonic TF (BTF) relation. As TF-based distances (especially the I-band) are relied on heavily for analysis and modeling of the local peculiar velocity (Vpec) field, we suggest that active galaxies be removed from future Vpec modeling samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top column: Histograms of the percentage differences of active galaxies in the B, V, R, and I passbands. Vertical dashed lines in each panel denote perfect agreement with predictions from TF in that bandpass. Galaxies that populate the area left of each vertical dashed line have TF distances larger than a primary distance for the same galaxy, and those that populate the right of the line have distances smaller than … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: the BTF relation for active galaxies. MBARY is calculated as 1.33MHI +M⋆ (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Hubble diagram for the sample of active galaxies with z−independent distances (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Smail, I., Bauer, F

    Alexander, D. M., Smail, I., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 738

    2005

  2. [2]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 712

    Amanullah, R., Lidman, C., Rubin, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 712

    2010

  3. [3]

    S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 80

    2021

  4. [4]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    1993

  5. [5]

    N., Mundell, C., Bitsakis, T., et al

    Appleton, P. N., Mundell, C., Bitsakis, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 117

    2014

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Azadi, M., Aird, J., Coil, A. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 187

    2015

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  8. [8]

    1979, A&A, 72, 287

    Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1979, A&A, 72, 287

    1979

Show all 153 references
  1. [9]

    1992, A&A, 256, 375

    Baribaud, T., Alloin, D., Glass, I., & Pelat, D. 1992, A&A, 256, 375

    1992

  2. [10]

    J., Geller, M

    Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., Bromley, B. C., van Zee, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 121, 625

    2001

  3. [11]

    H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C

    Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 19

    2013

  4. [12]

    F., & de Jong, R

    Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

    2001

  5. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 161

    Valluri, M. 2019, ApJ, 885, 161

    2019

  6. [14]

    C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

    Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146

    2018

  7. [15]

    C., Williams, P

    Bentz, M. C., Williams, P. R., Street, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 112

    2021

  8. [16]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149

    2013

  9. [17]

    P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al

    Blakeslee, J. P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 657

    2010

  10. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1550

    Boubel, P., Colless, M., Said, K., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1550

    2024

  11. [19]

    G., Casertano, S., et al

    Breuval, L., Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 30

    2024

  12. [20]

    D., Terlevich, R

    Brinks, E., Skillman, E. D., Terlevich, R. J., & Terlevich, E. 1997, Ap&SS, 248, 23

    1997

  13. [21]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 43

    Buchalter, A., Jimenez, R., & Kamionkowski, M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 43

    2001

  14. [22]

    R., Parent, E., Phillips, M

    Burns, C. R., Parent, E., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 56

    2018

  15. [23]

    P., Ferrarese, L., et al

    Cantiello, M., Blakeslee, J. P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 126

    2018

  16. [24]

    J., DePree, C

    Cecil, G., Greenhill, L. J., DePree, C. G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, 675

    2000

  17. [25]

    V ., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Chilingarian, I. V ., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I. Y . 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 1409

    2010

  18. [26]

    M., & Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 174

    2012

  19. [27]

    M., & Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1531

    2015

  20. [28]

    M., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., Fisher, J. R., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 1938

    2009

  21. [29]

    M., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., Makarov, D. I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2005 de Jaeger, T., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 835, 166 de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2017b, MNRAS, 472, 4233 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin...

    2011

  22. [30]

    R., & Rood, H

    Dickel, J. R., & Rood, H. J. 1978, ApJ, 223, 391

    1978

  23. [31]

    B., & Branch, D

    Doggett, J. B., & Branch, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 2303

    1985

  24. [32]

    A., Obreja, A., Wang, L., et al

    Dutton, A. A., Obreja, A., Wang, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4937

    2017

  25. [33]

    Epstein, E. E. 1964, AJ, 69, 490

    1964

  26. [34]

    M., Fischer, T

    Falcone, J., Crenshaw, D. M., Fischer, T. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20162

    2024

  27. [35]

    R., & Tully, R

    Fisher, J. R., & Tully, R. B. 1981, ApJS, 47, 139

    1981

  28. [36]

    M., Burns, C

    Folatelli, G., Phillips, M. M., Burns, C. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 120

    2010

  29. [37]

    Hulst, J. M. 1985, ApJ, 293, 132

    1985

  30. [38]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47

    2001

  31. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 3510

    Frosst, M., Courteau, S., Arora, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3510

    2022

  32. [40]

    S., Faber, S

    Gallagher, J. S., Faber, S. M., & Balick, B. 1975, ApJ, 202, 7

    1975

  33. [41]

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V . 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2240 ON THETF RELATION FORAGN HOSTS19

    2013

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 650, A75 GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bauböck, M., et al

    Gkini, A., Plionis, M., Chira, M., & Koulouridis, E. 2021, A&A, 650, A75 GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bauböck, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A85

    2021

  35. [43]

    M., Lavaux, G., et al

    Graziani, R., Courtois, H. M., Lavaux, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5438

    2019

  36. [44]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 6

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Nagai, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 6

    2013

  37. [45]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 2391

    1996

  38. [46]

    M., Blondin, S., et al

    Hicken, M., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Blondin, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1097

    2009

  39. [47]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V ., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315

    1997

  40. [48]

    C., & Peng, C

    Ho, L. C., & Peng, C. Y . 2001, ApJ, 555, 650

    2001

  41. [49]

    S., Ashby, M

    Huang, J. S., Ashby, M. L. N., Barmby, P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 840

    2007

  42. [50]

    K., & Richter, O.-G

    Huchtmeier, W. K., & Richter, O.-G. 1989, A General Catalog of HI Observations of Galaxies. The Reference Catalog., 350

    1989

  43. [51]

    Argon, A. L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 13

    2013

  44. [52]

    1983, ARA&A, 21, 271

    Iben, I., J., & Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271

    1983

  45. [53]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4159

    Iorio, G., Fraternali, F., Nipoti, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4159

    2017

  46. [54]

    Ishibashi, W., & Fabian, A. C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 93

    2015

  47. [55]

    G., & Kirshner, R

    Jha, S., Riess, A. G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, 122

    2007

  48. [56]

    J., Fabricant, D

    Kannappan, S. J., Fabricant, D. G., & Franx, M. 2002, AJ, 123, 2358

    2002

  49. [57]

    Y ., & Weedman, D

    Khachikian, E. Y ., & Weedman, D. W. 1974, ApJ, 192, 581

    1974

  50. [58]

    S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V

    Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V . A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 16

    2004

  51. [59]

    2017, ApJL, 842, L13

    Koshida, S., Yoshii, Y ., Kobayashi, Y ., et al. 2017, ApJL, 842, L13

    2017

  52. [60]

    J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Koss, M. J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 2

    2022

  53. [61]

    B., Neill, J

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Neill, J. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 82

    2019

  54. [62]

    S., & Pickering, E

    Leavitt, H. S., & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1

    1912

  55. [63]

    S., & Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, ApJL, 816, L14

    2016

  56. [64]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Desmond, H., & Katz, H. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 3267

    2019

  57. [65]

    2022, Universe, 8, 304

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. 2022, Universe, 8, 304

    2022

  58. [66]

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. H. 2017, ApJ, 841, 76

    2017

  59. [67]

    Maiolino, R., & Rieke, G. H. 1995, ApJ, 454, 95

    1995

  60. [68]

    M., & Canalizo, G

    Manzano-King, C. M., & Canalizo, G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4562

    2020

  61. [69]

    M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L

    Manzano-King, C. M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L. V . 2019, ApJ, 884, 54

    2019

  62. [70]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 78

    Vestergaard, M. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 78

    2026

  63. [71]

    L., Springob, C

    Masters, K. L., Springob, C. M., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2006, ApJ, 653, 861

    2006

  64. [72]

    McGaugh, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 859 —. 2012, AJ, 143, 40

    2005

  65. [73]

    S., Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Bothun, G. D., & de Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJL, 533, L99

    2000

  66. [74]

    K., & Rieke, G

    McLeod, K. K., & Rieke, G. H. 1995, ApJ, 441, 96

    1995

  67. [75]

    G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

    McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    2013

  68. [76]

    2016, AJ, 152, 144 —

    Kennicutt, R. 2016, AJ, 152, 144 —. 2017, AJ, 154, 51

    2016

  69. [77]

    2022, PhD thesis, Georgia State Univ, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/items/c394424b-0413-4715-a703- 81921e6c66bb

    Merritt, R. 2022, PhD thesis, Georgia State Univ, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/items/c394424b-0413-4715-a703- 81921e6c66bb

    2022

  70. [78]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 296

    Mocz, P., Green, A., Malacari, M., & Glazebrook, K. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 296

    2012

  71. [79]

    2023, A&A, 672, A98

    Mountrichas, G. 2023, A&A, 672, A98

    2023

  72. [80]

    1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 277, 641

    Mundell, C., Pedlar, A., G., et al. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 277, 641

    1995

  73. [81]

    G., Pedlar, A., Shone, D

    Mundell, C. G., Pedlar, A., Shone, D. L., & Robinson, A. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 481

    1999

  74. [82]

    S., Riess, A

    Murakami, Y . S., Riess, A. G., Stahl, B. E., et al. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 046

    2023

  75. [83]

    D., Seibert, M., Tully, R

    Neill, J. D., Seibert, M., Tully, R. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 129

    2014

  76. [84]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

    2015

  77. [85]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 806

    Netzer, H., Lutz, D., Schweitzer, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 806

    2007

  78. [86]

    B., & Sandage, A

    Oke, J. B., & Sandage, A. 1968, ApJ, 154, 21

    1968

  79. [87]

    L., Metlova, N

    Oknyanskij, V . L., Metlova, N. V ., Artamonov, B. P., Lyuty, A. V ., & Lyuty, V . M. 2013, Odessa Astronomical Publications, 26, 212

    2013

  80. [88]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)

    2006

  81. [89]

    E., & Martel, A

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Martel, A. 1993, ApJ, 414, 552

    1993

  82. [90]

    Ouellette, N. N. Q., Courteau, S., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 74

    2017

  83. [91]

    M., Assef, R

    Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rv, 25, 2

    2017

  84. [92]

    J., Stevens, J

    Page, M. J., Stevens, J. A., Mittaz, J. P. D., & Carrera, F. J. 2001, Science, 294, 2516

    2001

  85. [93]

    2002, A&A, 394, 435

    Panessa, F., & Bassani, L. 2002, A&A, 394, 435

    2002

  86. [94]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266 —. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097 Pérez, E., Márquez, I., Marrero, I., et al. 2000, A&A, 353, 893 20 ROBINSON ET AL

    2002

  87. [95]

    1997, ApJ, 483, 565

    Perlmutter, S., Gabi, S., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1997, ApJ, 483, 565

    1997

  88. [96]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJL, 413, L105

    1993

  89. [97]

    J., & Tully, R

    Pierce, M. J., & Tully, R. B. 1988, ApJ, 330, 579

    1988

  90. [98]

    H., et al

    Pizagno, J., Prada, F., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 945 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2007

  91. [99]

    L., Rest, A., & Suntzeff, N

    Prieto, J. L., Rest, A., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2006, ApJ, 647, 501

    2006

  92. [100]

    J., de Jong, R

    Radburn-Smith, D. J., de Jong, R. S., Seth, A. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 18

    2011

  93. [101]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 139

    Revalski, M., Meena, B., Martinez, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 139

    2021

  94. [102]

    M., Rafelski, M., et al

    Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D. M., Rafelski, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 14

    2022

  95. [103]

    M., Polack, G

    Revalski, M., Crenshaw, D. M., Polack, G. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 32

    2025

  96. [104]

    E., Pizagno, J., & Lackner, C

    Reyes, R., Mandelbaum, R., Gunn, J. E., Pizagno, J., & Lackner, C. N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2347

    2011

  97. [105]

    G., Press, W

    Riess, A. G., Press, W. H., & Kirshner, R. P. 1996, ApJ, 473, 88

    1996

  98. [106]

    G., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Macri, L. M., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 56

    2016

  99. [107]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7438

    Ristea, A., Cortese, L., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7438

    2024

  100. [108]

    Roberts, M. S. 1962, AJ, 67, 437 —. 1969, AJ, 74, 859

    1962

  101. [109]

    H., Bentz, M

    Robinson, J. H., Bentz, M. C., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 160

    2021

  102. [110]

    C., & Ford, Jr., W

    Rubin, V . C., & Ford, Jr., W. K. 1968, ApJ, 154, 431

    1968

  103. [111]

    1996, ApJL, 465, L83

    Ruiz-Lapuente, P. 1996, ApJL, 465, L83

    1996

  104. [112]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 23

    Sabbi, E., Calzetti, D., Ubeda, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 23

    2018

  105. [113]

    R., Hughes, S

    Sakai, S., Mould, J. R., Hughes, S. M. G., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 529, 698

    2000

  106. [114]

    1997, MNRAS, 289, 406

    Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 406

    1997

  107. [115]

    J., Shao, L., et al

    Santini, P., Rosario, D. J., Shao, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A109

    2012

  108. [116]

    2009, MNRAS, 393, 759

    Schartmann, M., Meisenheimer, K., Klahr, H., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 759

    2009

  109. [117]

    Schinnerer, E., Eckart, A., & Tacconi, L. J. 2000, ApJ, 533, 826

    2000

  110. [118]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  111. [119]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  112. [120]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    1990

  113. [121]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 1496

    Schombert, J., McGaugh, S., & Lelli, F. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 1496

    2018

  114. [122]

    G., & Anand, G

    Scolnic, D., Boubel, P., Byrne, J., Riess, A. G., & Anand, G. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08449

    2024

  115. [123]

    Seyfert, C. K. 1943, ApJ, 97, 28

    1943

  116. [124]

    J., Tully, R

    Shaya, E. J., Tully, R. B., Hoffman, Y ., & Pomarède, D. 2017, ApJ, 850, 207

    2017

  117. [125]

    Shostak, G. S. 1978, A&A, 68, 321

    1978

  118. [126]

    D., Lamareille, F., Maier, C., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Lamareille, F., Maier, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 396

    2009

  119. [127]

    K., Schachter, J., & Elvis, M

    Simcoe, R., McLeod, K. K., Schachter, J., & Elvis, M. 1997, ApJ, 489, 615

    1997

  120. [128]

    G., Courtois, H

    Sorce, J. G., Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 94

    2013

  121. [129]

    M., Haynes, M

    Springob, C. M., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Kent, B. R. 2005, ApJS, 160, 149

    2005

  122. [130]

    G., Saha, A., et al

    Thim, F., Hoessel, J. G., Saha, A., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2322

    2004

  123. [131]

    L., Bureau, M., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tiley, A. L., Bureau, M., Saintonge, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3494

    2016

  124. [132]

    L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J

    Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 681

    2001

  125. [133]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 3085

    Epinat, B. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3085

    2013

  126. [134]

    B., & Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., & Courtois, H. M. 2012, ApJ, 749, 78

    2012

  127. [135]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50

    2016

  128. [136]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661

    1977

  129. [137]

    B., & Fouque, P

    Tully, R. B., & Fouque, P. 1985, ApJS, 58, 67

    1985

  130. [138]

    B., Mould, J

    Tully, R. B., Mould, J. R., & Aaronson, M. 1982, ApJ, 257, 527

    1982

  131. [139]

    B., & Pierce, M

    Tully, R. B., & Pierce, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 533, 744

    2000

  132. [140]

    B., Pierce, M

    Tully, R. B., Pierce, M. J., Huang, J.-S., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2264

    1998

  133. [141]

    B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 323

    2009

  134. [142]

    B., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Shaya, E. J., Karachentsev, I. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 184

    2008

  135. [143]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 86

    2013

  136. [144]

    B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 94

    2023

  137. [145]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803 Véron-Cetty, M. P., & Véron, P. 2006, A&A, 455, 773

    1995

  138. [146]

    Walter, F., Brinks, E., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2563

    2008

  139. [147]

    D., Vestergaard, M., & Davis, T

    Watson, D., Denney, K. D., Vestergaard, M., & Davis, T. M. 2011, ApJL, 740, L49

    2011

  140. [148]

    M., Allen, L., et al

    Weyant, A., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Allen, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 105

    2014

  141. [149]

    Woo, J.-H., & Urry, C. M. 2002, ApJ, 579, 530

    2002

  142. [150]

    E., Pinto, P

    Woosley, S. E., Pinto, P. A., Martin, P. G., & Weaver, T. A. 1987, ApJ, 318, 664

    1987

  143. [151]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  144. [152]

    Riffel, R. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4680

    2020

  145. [153]

    M., Peterson, B

    Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., Peterson, B. M., et al. 2020b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.05931. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05931

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.