Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

HETDEX-LOFAR Spectroscopic Redshift Catalog

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Blind HETDEX spectroscopy gives 9,710 LOFAR radio sources firm redshifts, most of them new.

desk verdict Useful new catalog with a real data release, but the headline sample size and validation numbers are internally inconsistent and need reconciliation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08974 v1 pith:KPV5SOWT submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.GA

Maya H. Debski , Gregory R. Zeimann , Gary J. Hill , Donald P. Schneider , Leah Morabito , Gavin Dalton , Matt J. Jarvis , Erin Mentuch Cooper
show 3 more authors
Robin Ciardullo Eric Gawiser Nika Jurlin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LOFARHETDEXspectroscopicredshiftsradiogalaxiesstarformationratesspectralenergydistributionfittingemission-lineVIRUS
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

By matching radio detections from LOFAR's first data release to the blind optical spectroscopy of HETDEX, this paper builds a catalog of 9,710 extragalactic sources with spectroscopic redshifts, 9,087 of them measured newly here. The paper claims this is the largest set of LOFAR-selected galaxies with spectroscopic redshift information assembled so far, and it adds classifications, stellar masses, and star formation rates for a large subset. From those quantities it fits a new mass-dependent relation between 150 MHz radio luminosity and star formation rate. If the catalog holds up, radio astronomy receives a ready-made sample for studying [O II] and Lyα emission in radio galaxies and a calibration anchor for upcoming wide-area radio surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the redshift and classification pipeline. Diagnose is an automatic spectral classifier that fits principal-component templates for stars, galaxies, and quasars to each VIRUS-resolution spectrum by $\chi^2$ minimization and returns a label plus redshift when the best fit is statistically distinct from the second-best fit. Sources without a confident Diagnose result are matched to HDR4 catalog entries within 2 arcseconds, with an estimated spurious match fraction of about 5 percent, and the two sets of redshifts are combined through the adjudication rules in Appendix A. For the star formation analysis, the paper fits photometry plus synthetic narrowband fluxes with an energy-balance spectral energy distribution model and applies the adopted power-law form to derive the new 150 MHz luminosity, star formation rate, and stellar mass relation.

What would settle it

Take the roughly 220 sources where the two redshift estimators disagreed and observe each with an independent spectrograph covering wavelengths outside the 3470-5540 Å window; if more than about 2.3% of those targets fail to confirm the published redshift, the adjudication rules are biased and the claimed outlier fraction is too optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a spectroscopic redshift catalog built from 28,705 HETDEX spectra extracted at LoTSS DR1 positions. Redshifts are assigned by an automatic classifier, supplemented by the HDR4 value-added catalog and by archival redshifts, and the paper reports that disagreements between the two main classifiers are reduced to a 2.3% outlier fraction by adjudication rules based on a Lyα classification probability, a g-band magnitude cutoff, and an AGN flag. The final sample contains 197 stars, 804 AGN, 6,394 low-redshift galaxies, 1,075 high-redshift Lyα galaxies, and 757 archival objects. For the 6,499 galaxies with $0.01<z<0.47$, the paper derives stellar masses and star formation rates and fits the mass-dependent relation $\log_{10}L_{150\,\mathrm{MHz}} = (22.341\pm0.016)+(0.526\pm0.017)\log_{10}\psi+(0.384\pm0.017)\log_{10}(M/10^{10}M_\odot)$, which has a shallower slope than three earlier relations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rules used to decide between two disagreeing redshift measurements are correct even though those rules were invented by examining the very sources they are used to settle; if the rules misclassify even a few percent of those sources, the catalog's stated 2.3% outlier rate understates the true error and some published redshifts will be badly wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released catalog gives 9,710 LOFAR-selected sources a spectroscopic redshift and one of five optical labels, so the radio sample can be split into stars, AGN, and star-forming galaxies without extra follow-up.
  • For the 6,499 galaxies with $0.01<z<0.47$, the release includes stellar masses and star formation rates from SED fitting, so users can study the radio-SFR connection immediately.
  • The new mass-dependent 150 MHz-SFR relation gives a shallower slope than earlier fits, providing an updated calibration for low-frequency radio luminosity as an SFR tracer.
  • The catalog's redshift distribution, with most sources at $z<0.5$ or $1.9<z<3.5$, directly supports studies of [O II] in low-redshift radio galaxies and Lyα in higher-redshift radio galaxies and quasars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Rerunning the same pipeline on the completed HETDEX survey should grow the sample to roughly 40,000 sources; the larger volume may fill in the radio luminosity extremes that the paper identifies as a possible bias in its slope.
  • The paper's stacked spectra by stellar mass, colored by offset from the comparison 150 MHz-SFR relation, suggest AGN contribution becomes visible above $\log_{10}(M/M_\odot)\approx10.5$; a direct follow-up could test whether that offset is driven by emission-line hardness rather than radio excess.
  • The adjudication rules for discrepant redshifts were tuned on roughly 220 sources, so their transferability to other radio-optical overlap samples is an open question until an independent redshift check is run.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a spectroscopic redshift catalog for LoTSS DR1 sources that have fiber coverage in the HETDEX internal fourth data release. Starting from 28,705 extracted HETDEX spectra, the authors run the Diagnose classifier, supplement it with HDR4/ELiXer classifications, and add archival spectroscopic redshifts from the LoTSS value-added catalog. They report a final sample of 9,710 spectroscopic redshifts divided into five classes, and they derive stellar masses, star formation rates, and 150 MHz luminosities for a subset using MCSED fitting, including a new mass-dependent SFR-L150MHz relation. Validation includes comparisons with HDR4 redshifts, archival spectroscopic redshifts, and photometric redshifts, with quoted outlier fractions of 2.3%, 7.6%, and a photometric sigma_z of 0.0614.

Significance. If the catalog-size arithmetic is corrected and the adjudication procedure is validated, the paper is a useful data release: it combines two major surveys, provides public spectra and derived quantities on Zenodo, and offers a new SFR-L150MHz relation with quantified uncertainties. Strengths include the public Diagnose code, the reproducible pipeline description, and direct comparisons against archival spectroscopic and photometric redshifts. However, the central quantitative claim, namely the size and completeness of the final 9,710-source catalog, is currently not reproducible from the paper's own counts, so the significance of the release cannot be assessed until the inconsistencies are resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.6, Table 1, abstract] The five final class counts in §3.6 and Table 1 sum to 197 + 804 + 6,394 + 1,075 + 757 = 9,227, not the 9,710 stated in the same section, in Table 1, in §5, and in the abstract. Independently, the abstract's 9,087 new redshifts plus 757 ARCHIVE sources would give 9,844 if the two categories are disjoint. The headline catalog-size claim is therefore not reproducible from the text; the released catalog must be audited and either the counts or the class definitions reconciled before the quoted sample size can be accepted.
  2. [§5, §2.2.1, abstract] Section 5 states that the authors 'extracted 18,267 spectra from the HETDEX database,' whereas §2.2.1 and the abstract state 28,705 extracted spectra, and the same 28,705 value is used for the matching statistics in §3.2 through §3.4. This is not a cosmetic discrepancy: the extracted-spectrum total is the denominator for the catalog's completeness and matching fractions, so the paper needs to state which number is correct and correct the others.
  3. [§3.3, Appendix A] The outlier fraction is reduced from 6.7% to 2.3% by adjudication rules (plya cutoff 0.85, g-band cutoff 22, agn flag criteria) that were developed by inspecting the same discrepant sources to which they are then applied, and the 0.85 cutoff is calibrated using HDR4 labels that themselves inherit Diagnose classifications for g < 22 sources. The 2.3% figure is therefore an in-sample estimate rather than an unbiased validation statistic; the paper should either present it explicitly as in-sample, provide an independent validation sample, or quantify the sensitivity of the outlier fraction to the chosen cutoffs.
  4. [§3.4, Figure 3] The text reports 1,701 sources in common between the archival spectroscopic redshifts and the HETDEX-LOFAR catalog, while the Figure 3 caption reports 1,098 LoTSS sources with previous spectroscopic redshift counterparts. These numbers govern the archival validation sample and must be reconciled, since the quoted 7.6% outlier fraction is computed from the overlap sample.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] The counting in this section is internally inconsistent: 6,480 confident Diagnose classifications plus 21,081 sources without a reliable classification plus 998 sources with insufficient spectral coverage sums to 28,559, not the stated 28,705 LoTSS sources, leaving 146 sources unaccounted for.
  2. [Appendix A, Figure 12] The phrase 'plya classifcation' is misspelled consistently in the text and figure; it should be 'plya classification'. The paper also uses 'ELiXer' and 'ElixerWidget' interchangeably with HDR4, and this terminology should be unified.
  3. [§4.2] The sentence saying that all galaxies have SFR and stellar mass estimates derived from 'energy balance spectral energy distribution fitting using redshifts and aperture-matched forced photometry from the LoTSS Deep Fields data release' appears to reference the LoTSS Deep Fields rather than the LoTSS DR1 value-added catalog used elsewhere; please clarify which photometry and catalog is meant.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'the highest substantial fraction of LOFAR galaxies with spectroscopic redshift information' is vague; the authors should specify the comparison sample or quantity used to justify this claim.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Catalog redshifts are genuine measurements, but the internal HDR4-Diagnose agreement is partly built-in by construction (as the paper concedes), and the Appendix A adjudication rules are calibrated in-sample on the very sources they resolve, so the quoted 2.3% outlier fraction is a training-set statistic rather than an independent validation.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (Combining Diagnose and HDR4), paragraph 2]
    "When comparing the sources with both a Diagnose and HDR4 redshift, we find good agreement, with 92.3% of the objects agreeing to within Δz = 0.05. This is not entirely surprising as the HDR4 classification scheme uses Diagnose for sources with continuum g-band magnitudes brighter than 22."

    The 92.3% agreement is presented as mutual validation of two redshift determinations, but for sources with g<22 the HDR4 label IS a Diagnose label, so that subset agrees with itself by construction. The agreement statistic therefore cannot independently confirm Diagnose's reliability; it is partially a self-comparison. The paper openly concedes this, and independent content survives only through the g>22 subset and the separate archival comparison, which shows a notably higher outlier fraction (7.6%).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A (Diagnose and HDR4 Redshift) and Section 3.3, final paragraph]
    "In order to utilize this probability, we determined a cutoff of ‘plya classification’ = 0.85 using the HDR4 classification scheme that uses Diagnose redshifts for g-band magnitudes brighter than 22. ... After applying all of the criteria to the different groups of spurious matches, the outlier fraction reduces from 6.7% to 2.3%."

    The rules that decide between conflicting Diagnose and HDR4 redshifts were calibrated on the same ~220 discrepant sources they are then used to adjudicate, with HDR4 labels (themselves Diagnose-derived for g<22) treated as ground truth. The post-adjudication outlier fraction of 2.3% is therefore an in-sample error estimate on the training set, not an out-of-sample validation; its value is forced by the fitted cutoff and inherits the HDR4-Diagnose dependence. The independent archival comparison grounds the catalog overall but does not validate the 2.3% figure.

full rationale

The central product of this paper is a measured catalog: spectroscopic redshifts extracted from VIRUS spectra of LoTSS positions, with assignments from the Diagnose code, the HDR4 catalog, and archival sources. Redshifts are read off real spectral features, so the catalog is not a derived quantity equivalent to its inputs. Independent external grounding exists: 1,701 overlaps with archival spectroscopic redshifts give σz = 0.0002 with a 7.6% outlier fraction, and the photometric comparison gives σz = 0.0614, providing support not traceable to the paper's own pipeline. The SFR-L150MHz fit is a genuine empirical fit to MCSED-derived quantities and is benchmarked against Gürkan et al. (2018), Smith et al. (2021), and Das et al. (2024), so it is not circular. Two partial circularities do exist and are flagged above. First, the 92.3% HDR4-Diagnose agreement is partly built-in because HDR4 uses Diagnose for g<22 sources; the paper itself concedes this, and the concession is in-scope evidence weighing against treating 92.3% as independent validation. Second, the Appendix A plya cutoff and magnitude rules were calibrated on the same discrepant sources they resolve, using ground truth that partially derives from Diagnose, so the headline reliability statistic (outlier fraction reduced to 2.3%) is an in-sample number. The affected subset is roughly 220 of 9,710 sources, and archival comparisons provide some external control, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Separately, but not circularity: the paper's own arithmetic does not reproduce the headline total (197+804+6,394+1,075+757 = 9,227, not 9,710; and 9,087 new + 757 archival = 9,844; Section 5 also gives 18,267 extractions versus 28,705 elsewhere). These inconsistencies are reproducibility and correctness concerns that compound the reliability question, but they are not reductions-by-construction and do not by themselves raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The redshift catalog rests on matching assumptions and classification templates inherited from external surveys. The derived masses, SFRs, and the SFR-L150MHz relation add several fitted or hand-chosen parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SFR-L150MHz relation parameters (log10 LC, beta, gamma) = log10 LC = 22.341 +/- 0.016, beta = 0.526 +/- 0.017, gamma = 0.384 +/- 0.017
    Best-fit parameters of Eq. 1 determined with emcee MCMC from the galaxy sample; these are fitted values, not derived from first principles.
  • Stellar mass cut for SFR-L150MHz fit = log10(M/Msun) < 11.0
    Chosen from Figure 9 to exclude galaxies with possible AGN contribution above log10(M/Msun) approximately 10.5; this is a hand-chosen selection that affects the fitted slope.
  • plya classification cutoff = 0.85
    Chosen in Appendix A using false positive and false negative rates computed on the same discrepant sources; used to decide whether to trust HDR4 or Diagnose redshift.
  • g-band magnitude cutoff for redshift adjudication = 22
    Used throughout Appendix A and already part of HDR4 classification; sources fainter than g=22 are treated differently when choosing between Diagnose and HDR4 redshifts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0 = 67.66 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m = 0.30966 (Planck 2020) is used to compute luminosities and distances.
    Invoked at the end of the introduction; all stellar masses, SFRs, and 150 MHz luminosities depend on this cosmology.
  • domain assumption Redrock PCA templates capture the spectral diversity of stars, galaxies, and quasars at VIRUS resolution.
    Diagnose uses these templates in Section 3.1 to classify and redshift every source.
  • domain assumption A Moffat PSF with beta = 3.5 and the differential atmospheric refraction model describe the VIRUS fiber light distribution.
    Used in Section 2.2.1 for optimal spectral extraction at LoTSS positions; wrong PSF assumptions affect extracted fluxes and line strengths.
  • domain assumption The 2D uniform plus Gaussian model in matching offset space gives a reliable spurious match fraction of about 5% at a 2 arcsecond radius.
    Used in Section 3.2 to set the matching radius and to estimate the contamination from false counterparts.
  • domain assumption HDR4 catalog classifications and redshifts are reliable for sources with strong emission lines.
    HDR4 redshifts and labels are a primary input to the final catalog, especially for faint-continuum sources where Diagnose fails.
  • domain assumption The MCSED SED model (FSPS stellar library, Chabrier IMF, Calzetti dust, fixed log U = -2.5, non-parametric SFH) yields unbiased stellar masses and star formation rates.
    Invoked in Section 4.1; systematic changes in these assumptions can shift stellar masses by about 0.3 dex, as the paper notes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HETDEX-LOFAR Spectroscopic Redshift Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPV5SOWT

@misc{pith2026241108974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HETDEX-LOFAR Spectroscopic Redshift Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPV5SOWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08974}
}
abstract

We combine the power of blind integral field spectroscopy from the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) Dark Energy Experiment (HETDEX) with sources detected by the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) to construct the HETDEX-LOFAR Spectroscopic Redshift Catalog. Starting from the first data release of the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey (LoTSS), including a value-added catalog with photometric redshifts, we extracted 28,705 HETDEX spectra. Using an automatic classifying algorithm, we assigned each object a star, galaxy, or quasar label along with a velocity/redshift, with supplemental classifications coming from the continuum and emission line catalogs of the internal, fourth data release from HETDEX (HDR4). We measured 9,087 new redshifts; in combination with the value-added catalog, our final spectroscopic redshift sample is 9,710 sources. This new catalog contains the highest substantial fraction of LOFAR galaxies with spectroscopic redshift information; it improves archival spectroscopic redshifts, and facilitates research to determine the [O II] emission properties of radio galaxies from $0.0 < z < 0.5$, and the Ly$\alpha$ emission characteristics of both radio galaxies and quasars from $1.9 < z < 3.5$. Additionally, by combining the unique properties of LOFAR and HETDEX, we are able to measure star formation rates (SFR) and stellar masses. Using the Visible Integral-field Replicable Unit Spectrograph (VIRUS), we measure the emission lines of [O III], [Ne III], and [O II] and evaluate line-ratio diagnostics to determine whether the emission from these galaxies is dominated by AGN or star formation and fit a new SFR-L$_{150MHz}$ relationship.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between ∆α and ∆δ at initial match￾ing radius of 5′′for the 7,409 matches found between the HETDEX HDR4 catalog and the LoTSS sources. The x-axis represent the ∆α and the y-axis represents the ∆δ. Sources within a radius of 2′′have less than 5.43% chance of being false matches when fitted with a uniform + Gaussian distri￾bution model. The power of Diagnose is in identifying strong fea￾tures, usually in th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between sources with both HDR4 redshifts and Diagnose redshifts. There is good agreement between the two redshifts, though there is some scatter. The different colored groups represent areas of interest that were further investigated (see §3.3) to make the correct red￾shift assignments. The normalized median absolute devia￾tion (NMAD) and outlier fraction are calculated as in Mom￾cheva et al. (2016). (DR1… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. We show the distribution of redshifts in the HETDEX-LOFAR spectroscopic catalog. There are 9,710 sources in the catalog, the majority of which are between 0.0 < z < 0.5 and 1.9 < z < 3.5. There is a void of redshifts between those two regions due to a lack of strong features present in the VIRUS wavelength bandpass. The stacked histogram in blue shows the redshifts from Diagnose, which make up the majority of the sa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between LoTSS photometric red￾shifts and Diagnose spectroscopic redshifts for the same sources. In total, there were 4,400 LoTSS sources with photometric redshifts and no previous spectroscopic redshift counterparts. The vertical bound created by the data po…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HETDEX-LOFAR Redshift and Classification Pipeline. The process begins with the LOFAR detection, followed by the extraction of HETDEX spectra. Once we have the HETDEX spectra, we run them through Diagnose and ELiXer to determine whether they have a classification and re…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We show 15 example spectra from the HETDEX extractions of LoTSS sky positions: three each with labels of ‘STAR’, ‘AGN’, ‘LOWZGAL’, ‘HIGHZGAL’, and ‘ARCHIVE.’ We also mark the null flux density with a dashed red line. 4.3. Line Ratio Diagnostics We used PPXF to measure …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MCSED results for the 6,499 galaxy sample with 0.01 < z < 0.47. The left panel demonstrates a tight correlation between SFR and 150 MHz luminosity with expected scatter from the secondary mass dependence show in Smith et al. (2021). The individual points are colored by…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stellar mass vs. N-σ offset from the Best et al. (2023) relation between SFR and 150 MHz luminosity col￾ored by log10(Ne3O2) line ratio. AGN are anticipated to have log10(Ne3O2) > 1, but none of our sources exhibit such ionization hardness. At log10(M/M⊙) > 10.5, there…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The slope of the fit is most influenced by ob￾jects at the extremes of radio luminosity and SFR, so if there is limit-related bias present, the slope will also be biased. Additionally, the applied mass cut could have removed a number of the high luminosity sources, wh…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: False positive (blue), false negative (orange), true positive (green), and true negative (red) rates as a func￾tion of ‘plya classifcation’ cutoff. The grey dashed line rep￾resent a cutoff of 0.85. There were 20 sources with 1.5 < zHDR4 < 2.0 and 0.0 < zDiagnose < 0.5…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: HETDEX-LOFAR Redshift and Classification Pipeline. The process begins with the LOFAR detection, followed by the extraction of HETDEX spectra. Once we have all spectra detected by HETDEX in the LoTSS field, we then run each spectrum through Diagnose and ELiXer to deter…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Three cases of redshift determination for 2.0 < zHDR4 < 3.5 and 0.0 < zDiagnose < 0.5. The top plot shows the case where ‘plya classifcation’ > 0.85 and the g￾band magnitude is greater than 22, resulting in the use of the HDR4 redshift. The middle plot shows the case …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Three cases of redshift determination for 1.5 < zHDR4 < 2.5 and 1.0 < zDiagnose < 2.0. The top plot shows the case where ‘agn flag’ = 1.0, resulting in the use of the HDR4 redshift. The middle plot shows the case where ‘plya classifcation’ > 0.85 and the g-band magnit…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Plots of redshift determination for 0.0 < zHDR4 < 0.5 and 1.0 < zDiagnose < 3.5. Each colored vertical line represents a different emission line location determined by either the Diagnose or HDR4 redshift. To classify each of these objects, we examined the line detect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    1978, A&A, 70, 141

    Alloin, D., Bergeron, J., & Pelat, D. 1978, A&A, 70, 141

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  5. [5]

    1994, A&AS, 106, 275

    Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Fagotto, F., & Nasi, E. 1994, A&AS, 106, 275

    1994

  6. [6]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 955, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1776

    Sabater, J. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 955, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1776

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1776 2014

  7. [7]

    N., Kondapally, R., Williams, W

    Best, P. N., Kondapally, R., Williams, W. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1308

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1308 2023

  8. [8]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, ´E., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144 2012

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1879

    Bonzini, M., Padovani, P., Mainieri, V., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1879

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Brunetti, G., et al

    Botteon, A., van Weeren, R. J., Brunetti, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa142

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Zeimann, G

    Bowman, W. P., Zeimann, G. R., Nagaraj, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f3c

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Broderick, J. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 675, doi: 10.1086/341650

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, FSPS: Flexible Stellar Population Synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.043

    2010

  11. [19]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Timmerman, R., Miley, G

    Cordun, C. M., Timmerman, R., Miley, G. K., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346320

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Abrams, D

    Dalton, G., Trager, S. C., Abrams, D. C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  14. [22]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460P, doi: 10.1117/12.925950 15

    doi

  15. [23]

    C., et al

    Dalton, G., Trager, S., Abrams, D. C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K

    2014

  16. [24]

    Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91470L, doi: 10.1117/12.2055132

    doi

  17. [25]

    Das, S., Smith, D. J. B., Haskell, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1204

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Lund, M

    Davies, G. R., Lund, M. N., Miglio, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630066

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    M., et al

    Davis, D., Gebhardt, K., Cooper, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0ca De Zotti, G., Bonato, M., & Cai, Z.-Y. 2019, in 3rd Cosmology School, Introduction to Cosmology, ed. K. Bajan, M. Biernacka, & A. Pollo, Vol. 9, 125–150, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1802.06561

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, Diagnose

    Debski, M., & Zeimann, G. 2024, Diagnose. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13755510

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Sabater, J., R¨ ottgering, H

    Duncan, K. J., Sabater, J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833562

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, A&A Rv, 20, 54, doi: 10.1007/s00159-012-0054-z

    Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Govoni, F., & Murgia, M. 2012, A&A Rv, 20, 54, doi: 10.1007/s00159-012-0054-z

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761, doi: 10.1086/316190

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    2013 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Farr, W., Sinha, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03

    Gebhardt, K., Mentuch Cooper, E., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Low-mass stars evolutionary tracks & isochrones (Girardi+, 2000), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+AS/141/371

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Low-mass stars evolutionary tracks & isochrones (Girardi+, 2000), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+AS/141/371. Originally published in: 2000A&AS..141..371G

    2000

  30. [38]

    J., Duncan, K

    Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141722

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 288, doi: 10.1134/S1063772917040059 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M

    Grainge, K., Alachkar, B., Amy, S., et al. 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 288, doi: 10.1134/S1063772917040059 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Smith, D. J. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3010, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty016

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    K., et al

    Heesen, V., Brinks, E., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/103

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, A&A, 674, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245691

    Kukreti, P., Morganti, R., Tadhunter, C., & Santoro, F. 2023, A&A, 674, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245691

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    M., & Richardson, M

    Levesque, E. M., & Richardson, M. L. A. 2014, ApJ, 780, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/100

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca962

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1901

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    H., Best, P

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Best, P. N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac140

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Moffat, A. F. J. 1969, A&A, 3, 455

    1969

  41. [49]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2006, A&A, 459, 85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065216

    Nagao, T., Maiolino, R., & Marconi, A. 2006, A&A, 459, 85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065216

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    I., et al

    Padovani, P., Bonzini, M., Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1375

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    I., et al

    Padovani, P., Miller, N., Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/20

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    L., Daddi, E., et al

    Pannella, M., Carilli, C. L., Daddi, E., et al. 2009, ApJL, 698, L116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L116 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42, doi: 10.1117/12.319287

    1998 doi

  47. [55]

    N., & LOF AR Collaboration

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., & LOF AR Collaboration. 2019, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics X, ed. B. Montesinos, A. Asensio Ramos, F. Buitrago, R. Sch¨ odel, E. Villaver, S. P´ erez-Hoyos, & I. Ord´ o˜ nez-Etxeberria, 231–231

    2019

  48. [56]

    W., R¨ ottgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833559

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2001, AJ, 122, 1172, doi: 10.1086/322105 16

    Ehle, M. 2001, AJ, 122, 1172, doi: 10.1086/322105 16

    2001 doi

  51. [59]

    Smith, D. J. B., Best, P. N., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reyl´ e, J. Richard, L. Cambr´ esy, M. Deleuil, E. P´ econtal, L. Tresse, & I. Vauglin, 271–280. https://arxiv....

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Smith, D. J. B., Haskell, P., G¨ urkan, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039343

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Botteon, A., et al

    Timmerman, R., van Weeren, R. J., Botteon, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243936 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03242

    2022 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    P., R¨ ottgering, H

    Venemans, B. P., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053941

    2007 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Clarke, T

    Whyley, A., Randall, S. W., Clarke, T. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.04876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04876

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    L., Hardcastle, M

    Williams, W. L., Hardcastle, M. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833564

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/79

    Wylezalek, D., Galametz, A., Stern, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/79

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    A., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf20

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Reddy, N

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

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    R., Debski, M

    Zeimann, G. R., Debski, M. H., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35b8 17 APPENDIX A. DIAGNOSE AND HDR4 REDSHIFT There were 149 sources with 2 .0 < zHDR 4 < 3.5 and 0.0 < zDiagnose < 0.5, which demonstrate the common issue of Diagnose identif...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.