Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

The Detection of H$_2$O Maser Emission from mid-IR Red Galaxies

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 A mid-infrared color cut combined with optical Type-2 classification raises the water-maser detection rate from about 5 percent to 13-18 percent.

desk verdict Four credible new megamasers and a useful SED-classification warning, but the 13-18% rate claim is a post-hoc statistic with wide error bars and a nagging SNR inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15524 v1 pith:MV2BAORP submitted 2024-11-23 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

C. Y. Kuo , C. Y. Tai , A. Constantin , J. A. Braatz , H. H. Chung , B. Y. Chen , D. W. Pesce , C. M. V. Impellizzeri
show 2 more authors
F. Gao Y. Y. Chang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords H2OmegamasersWISEmid-infraredcolorsSeyfert2galaxiesAGNclassificationmaserdetectionratespectralenergydistributionfittingGreenBankTelescope22GHzsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a Green Bank Telescope search for 22 GHz water megamasers — the luminous radio line emission from water vapor in galaxy nuclei — in 77 galaxies selected by WISE mid-infrared colors ($W_1 - W_2 > 0.5$, $W_1 - W_4 > 7$) and SED-based Seyfert 2 typing, finding four new detections (5.2%). The central claim is that the low raw rate is an artifact of unreliable SED-based AGN classification: when the sample is restricted to the subset with secure optical Type-2 classification, the detection rate rises to roughly 13-18%, matching the prediction that motivated the survey. If this holds, the two-step recipe — WISE red colors plus optical Type-2 identification — is the most efficient known way to find new water maser galaxies. The paper also reports that all four new masers show single broad lines near the galaxy's systemic velocity rather than the triple-peaked structure of the disk masers used for cosmology, so whether this selection finds disk masers is left open.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing selector is the pair of WISE mid-infrared color cuts $W_1 - W_2 > 0.5$ and $W_1 - W_4 > 7$, magnitudes at 3.4, 4.6, and 22 μm derived from the earlier megamaser survey of Kuo et al. (2018). The argument's second mechanism is the contrast between two classification routes: MAGPHYS spectral energy distribution fitting, which selected the 78 observed galaxies as Seyfert 2s, and optical emission-line classification drawn from SIMBAD and Zaw et al. (2019), which shows that only about a third of the 2MRS subsample are genuine Type 2 AGNs. The detection rate is recomputed on the optically confirmed Type 2 subset, and that recomputation is what reconciles the observed 5.2% with the predicted rate.

What would settle it

Observe the 64 galaxies in the sample that lack optical emission-line classifications: if a uniform spectroscopic campaign classifies them by BPT line ratios and the maser detection rate among the true Type 2s falls outside the 13-18% band, the claimed selector does not reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, it establishes that the apparent failure of a mid-IR-selected maser survey to reach its predicted detection rate is explained by contamination: spectral energy distribution fitting with MAGPHYS cannot reliably separate Seyfert 2 from Seyfert 1 and star-forming galaxies when star formation dominates the infrared luminosity. Counting only the sources with optical classification as Type 2 AGNs from SIMBAD and the Zaw et al. (2019) catalog, three or four of roughly 22 targets harbor masers, a rate of 13.4-17.9% that is consistent with the 18.2±2.5% predicted earlier for red mid-IR galaxies. The paper concludes that mid-IR red selection works, but only after optical Type-2 identification, and projects that applying it to the newly identified local Type 2 AGN population should yield on the order of 65 additional megamasers.

Load-bearing premise

The 13-18% rate rests on assuming that the optical Type 2 labels drawn from SIMBAD and the Zaw et al. (2019) catalog are correct, and that the roughly 22 galaxies carrying those labels fairly represent the full 77-galaxy sample, even though this subset was carved out after the low overall rate was already known.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys that combine optical Type-2 AGN classification with the WISE color criteria should detect water megamasers at roughly 13-18%, three to six times the historical rate of about 3%.
  • Applied to the roughly 6,000 newly identified local Type 2 AGNs, the selection is projected to yield on the order of 65 new megamasers.
  • MAGPHYS SED fitting is not a sufficient stand-in for optical classification when building maser survey targets, because star formation can dominate the infrared and dilute the Type-2 fraction.
  • The four new masers have single broad lines near the systemic velocity and resemble the gigamaser TXS 2226-184, so they may trace torus or continuum-amplified emission rather than Keplerian disks; whether this selection finds disk masers remains untested.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the claimed rate would be a pre-registered survey of optically classified Seyfert 2 galaxies with $W_1 - W_2 > 0.5$ and $W_1 - W_4 > 7$, avoiding the post-hoc restriction that produced the 13-18% figure.
  • The gap between 5.2% and 13-18% implies that roughly two-thirds of the SED-selected sample are not Type 2 AGNs; verifying this fraction spectroscopically would either confirm or refute the contamination story.
  • The near-systemic single-peaked profiles suggest that mid-IR red selection may be preferentially picking out a torus or continuum-amplified maser class, which would matter for the goal of finding disk masers for Hubble constant measurements.
  • Because only three of four detections fall in the optically confirmed Type 2 subset, the upper end of the rate range hinges on a single galaxy (TGN 229Z166); a few more detections would tighten that endpoint considerably.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 22 GHz Green Bank Telescope survey for H2O megamasers in 77 galaxies selected from a parent sample of 47,133 local galaxies by the WISE color criteria W1-W2 > 0.5 and W1-W4 > 7 and by MAGPHYS spectral energy distribution (SED) fits indicating Seyfert 2 nuclear activity. Four new megamasers are detected (CGCG 147-020, IRAS 02438+2122, TGN 229Z166, and 2MASX J04250311-2521201), with isotropic luminosities well above 10 Lsun. The overall detection rate is 4/77 = 5.2%. The authors argue that SED-based AGN classification is unreliable, and that when the sample is restricted to optically classified Type 2 AGNs the detection rate becomes 13-18%, consistent with the 18.2 +/- 2.5% prediction of Kuo et al. (2018).

Significance. If the detections and the revised rate are robust, the paper would provide useful evidence that WISE mid-IR color selection combined with optical Type 2 classification is an efficient route to finding H2O megamasers, with implications for future surveys aimed at black-hole mass and Hubble-constant measurements. The four new detections are individually valuable: spectra are shown, luminosities are given, and the detection statistics are clearly tied to a defined survey. The overall 5.2% survey yield is a well-posed observational result that modestly exceeds the ~3% historical MCP rate. The paper is also honest about the limitations of SED-only classification. However, the headline 13-18% rate is a post-hoc conditional statistic based on a small and heterogeneously classified subsample, and the current presentation does not quantify its uncertainty; as written, the central claim is therefore not yet established at the precision claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 vs. Table 2] The text states that 'all new maser detections from our GBT observations, each with a peak SNR > 7, have maser line centroids or peaks lying very close to the systemic velocity,' but Table 2 lists 2MASXJ04250311-2521201 with a peak SNR of 5.3. If 5.3 is the correct post-smoothing SNR, then one of the four detections is marginal and should be explicitly discussed as such; if the >7 statement refers to a different smoothing or measurement convention, the text and table need to be reconciled. This matters because J0425-2521 is one of the three secure Type 2 detections used to compute the revised 13-18% rate.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Abstract] The revised detection rate of 13.4-17.9% is computed after the survey from a subsample of optically classified Type 2 AGNs, but the denominator is never stated explicitly; counting from Table 1 gives roughly 22 sources. With 3 or 4 detections, the binomial 95% confidence interval is approximately 3-35%, which overlaps both the 5.2% whole-sample rate and the 18.2% Kuo et al. (2018) prediction. The abstract's '~13-18%' should therefore be presented as an exploratory, large-uncertainty estimate rather than as a confirmed survey yield, and the paper should provide the exact subsample definition and confidence interval.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] The revised rate relies on heterogeneous literature classifications. Table 3 shows that for the 14 2MRS galaxies with Zaw et al. (2019) optical classifications, SIMBAD disagrees in several cases: NGC 5610 is Sy2 in SIMBAD but Type 1 in Zaw et al., ESO 509-IG066NED01 is Sy2 in SIMBAD but Type 1 in Zaw et al., and IC 883 is a starburst in SIMBAD but Type-2 composite in Zaw et al. None of the four maser detections appears in this 14-object subsample, so the quoted Type-2 rate is based on non-uniform SIMBAD labels rather than a single uniform spectroscopic classification. The paper needs either to provide uniform optical classifications for the full sample or to quantify how classification errors propagate into the 13-18% rate.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Section 5] The claim that SED-based Type 2 identification is unreliable is based on a comparison with only 14 galaxies with Zaw et al. (2019) classifications, and the extrapolation in Section 5 assumes that ~6% of new 2MRS Type 2 AGNs will satisfy the WISE color criteria, although the 6% figure is measured in the MCP sample and may not transfer to the 2MRS population. The paper should either justify these assumptions quantitatively or soften the corresponding statements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract says the galaxies are 'classified as Type-2 AGNs based on optical, near-IR, and mid-IR spectral energy distribution fitting,' but Section 2.1 describes MAGPHYS SED fitting only; the phrase 'optical classification' should not be used for this photometric SED classification.
  2. [Figure 2] The axis labels in Figure 2 contain typographical errors: 'Ve ocit', 'F ux Densit', and 'LSR Ve ocit' should be 'Velocity' and 'Flux Density', and the object name should be '2MASS J04250311-2521201'.
  3. [Section 5] The phrase 'most effective to date' in the abstract and conclusion is a strong comparative claim that is not directly tested against other recent selection methods; consider softening it to reflect that the comparison is made with the MCP sample only.
  4. [Table 1] Column (8) of Table 1 is described as the 1-sigma rms noise for the unsmoothed spectrum, but the value for 2MASXJ04023209+6020377 is missing without an explanation; a placeholder or note would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Claimed 13–18% 'alignment' is a post-hoc conditional rate from the same survey, not an independent prediction; the 5.2% pre-defined rate is the only pre-specified statistic.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 4.2 (The Estimation of Detection Rate for Type 2 AGNs)]
    "By restricting our sample to optically classified Type 2 AGNs that satisfy the mid-IR color criteria, we achieve a maser detection rate of ~13-18%, aligning with previous predictions for mid-IR red sources."

    The 13-18% is not a pre-specified prediction: it is computed from the same 77-source GBT survey after partitioning the sample by literature optical Type 2 labels, a partition chosen after the pre-defined rate of 5.2% (4/77) was found low. Section 4.2 shows the exact dependence: 'the maser detection rate would be either 17.9% or 13.4%, depending on whether the maser detection TGN229Z166 is classified as a Type 2 AGN.' Thus the numerator (3-4 detections) and the denominator (~22 optical Type 2 AGNs) both come from the same survey, so the agreement with the 18.2±2.5% Kuo et al. (2018) rate is a conditional restatement of the observed counts rather than an independent confirmation. The Kuo et al.

full rationale

The paper's only pre-defined survey statistic is 4 detections out of 77 SED-classified Seyfert 2 galaxies (5.2%), which is a falsifiable, externally meaningful result. The headline '~13-18%' rate is a post-hoc subgroup analysis: the authors first observe a low rate, then restrict to optically classified Type 2 AGNs and count 3-4 of the same detections in a subset of roughly 22 sources. This is a conditional statistic, not a prediction, and its uncertainty is large enough that it is also statistically compatible with the original 5.2% rate. The circularity is partial rather than algebraic: no equation reduces to a fitted value, and Kuo et al. (2018) is an independent prior dataset, so the self-citation is not by itself load-bearing. However, the central claim that the mid-IR selection criteria are 'the most effective to date' depends on treating this post-hoc rate as confirmation of the earlier 18.2% prediction, which overstates the evidential weight of a data-defined subsample. The manuscript is transparent about the post-hoc nature, which lowers the severity, but the abstract's phrasing still presents the conditional rate as an alignment with previous predictions.

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

The paper makes no first-principles derivation; all quantitative claims are empirical rates. The key hidden inputs are the previously published color thresholds and detection-rate benchmarks from Kuo et al. 2018, and the external optical classifications used to redefine the sample post hoc.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The WISE color criteria W1-W2>0.5 and W1-W4>7 select galaxies with an H2O maser detection rate of 18.2±2.5%, as derived from the MCP sample in Kuo et al. 2018.
    The paper uses these thresholds as the core selection and benchmarks the observed rate against the 18.2% value from prior work; if the prior estimate is biased, the comparison weakens.
  • domain assumption Optical classifications from SIMBAD and Zaw et al. (2019) are accurate and complete for identifying Type 2 AGNs in this sample.
    The post-hoc revised detection rate (13-18%) is computed using these classifications; any misclassification or incompleteness directly changes the denominator and the resulting rate.
  • domain assumption MAGPHYS SED fitting with optical, near-IR, and mid-IR photometry can meaningfully classify AGN types, but the paper argues it fails to separate Seyfert 1 and 2; this assumption is the one under test.
    The low 5.2% detection rate is attributed to SED misclassification, but the validation comparison is limited to 14 sources from the 2MRS subsample with Zaw et al. classifications.
  • domain assumption The detected single-peaked maser lines are real H2O megamasers at the systemic velocity of their host galaxies.
    The detection claim rests on the spectra in Figure 2 and the line centroids being within about 10 km/s of systemic velocity; no VLBI confirmation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Detection of H$_2$O Maser Emission from mid-IR Red Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MV2BAORP

@misc{pith2026241115524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Detection of H$_2$O Maser Emission from mid-IR Red Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MV2BAORP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15524}
}
abstract

We report the detection of H$_2$O maser emission in 4 out of 77 (5.2%) mid-IR red galaxies that meet the color criteria of $W1-W2 > 0.5$ and $W1-W4 > 7$ and are classified as Type-2 AGNs based on optical, near-IR, and mid-IR spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting. Here, $W1$, $W2$, and $W4$ represent the IR magnitudes at 3.4, 4.6, and 22 micron, respectively, as measured by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer. Three of the four newly identified maser galaxies are classified as either Seyfert 2 or LINER systems, but none are disk maser systems. Our analysis indicates that AGN identifications based solely on SED fitting are unreliable, resulting in an unexpectedly low detection rate. By restricting our sample to optically classified Type 2 AGNs that satisfy the mid-IR color criteria, we achieve a maser detection rate of ~13-18%, aligning with previous predictions for mid-IR red sources. These selection criteria are the most effective to date for facilitating new maser detections, particularly in light of the recent identification of additional Type 2 AGNs identified from ongoing galaxy and AGN surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the SED fitting for our sample galaxies. The red dots are photometric data at the optical, near-IR, and mid-IR wavelengths (see details in Kuo et al. 2020) for the source TGN278Z058. The green lines represent emission from the host galaxy and the blue lines show the SED of the unattenuated stellar continuum. The contribution from the Seyfert 2 nucleus in the host galaxy is shown by the orange line and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectra of the four new megamaser detections. The x-axis displays the LSR velocities based on the optical definition. An arrow in each panel indicates the recession velocity of the corresponding host galaxy. The galaxy name J0425−2521 in the bottom right panel refers to the galaxy 2MASXJ04250311−2521201 listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Probability distribution of the total IR luminosity of the AGN component in the parent sample of red galaxies, as obtained from SED-fitting. Right panel: Probability distribution of the ratio of the total IR luminosity from star formation to that from the AGN. This plot illustrates that, for the majority of sources, infrared emissions from star formation dominates over those from the AGN component, i.e.,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    oeK!r;HWnrs (r;Q`rqZ Tn p &N

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    F., Aboubrahim , A., et al

    Abdalla , E., Abell \'a n , G. F., Aboubrahim , A., et al. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  5. [5]

    Antonucci , R. R. J., & Miller , J. S. 1985, , 297, 621, 10.1086/163559

    doi:10.1086/163559 1985

  6. [6]

    L., Greenhill , L

    Argon , A. L., Greenhill , L. J., Reid , M. J., Moran , J. M., & Humphreys , E. M. L. 2007, , 659, 1040, 10.1086/512718

    work page doi:10.1086/512718 2007

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips , M

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

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  8. [8]

    A., Reid , M

    Braatz , J. A., Reid , M. J., Humphreys , E. M. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 657, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/657

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/2/657 2010

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A., Wilson , A

    Braatz , J. A., Wilson , A. S., & Henkel , C. 1997, , 110, 321, 10.1086/312999

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, , 233, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97da

    Chang , Y.-Y., Le Floc'h , E., Juneau , S., et al. 2017, , 233, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97da

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Diamond , P

    Claussen , M. J., Diamond , P. J., Braatz , J. A., Wilson , A. S., & Henkel , C. 1998, , 500, L129, 10.1086/311405

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    2001, , 328, 1039, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x

    Colless , M., Dalton , G., Maddox , S., et al. 2001, , 328, 1039, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x

    2001

  5. [13]

    2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Constantin , A. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 372, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012047, 10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012047

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    de Vaucouleurs , G., de Vaucouleurs , A., Corwin , Herold G., J., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  7. [15]

    F., Baum , S

    Gallimore , J. F., Baum , S. A., O'Dea , C. P., Brinks , E., & Pedlar , A. 1996, , 462, 740, 10.1086/177187

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Reid , M

    Gao , F., Braatz , J. A., Reid , M. J., et al. 2017, , 834, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/52

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Moran , J

    Herrnstein , J. R., Moran , J. M., Greenhill , L. J., & Trotter , A. S. 2005, ApJ, 629, 719, 10.1086/431421

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Moran , J

    Herrnstein , J. R., Moran , J. M., Greenhill , L. J., et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539, 10.1038/22972

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Macri , L

    Huchra , J. P., Macri , L. M., Masters , K. L., et al. 2012, , 199, 26, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Humphreys , E. M. L., Reid , M. J., Greenhill , L. J., Moran , J. M., & Argon , A. L. 2008, ApJ, 672, 800, 10.1086/523637

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Read , M

    Jones , D. H., Read , M. A., Saunders , W., et al. 2009, , 399, 683, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x

    2009

  14. [22]

    M., et al

    Juneau , S., Canning , R., Alexander , D. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03621, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03621

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Y., Constantin , A., Braatz , J

    Kuo , C. Y., Constantin , A., Braatz , J. A., & et al. 2018, , 860, 169. 1712.04204

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y., Braatz , J

    Kuo , C. Y., Braatz , J. A., Condon , J. J., et al. 2011, , 727, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/20

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Y., Hsiang , J

    Kuo , C. Y., Hsiang , J. Y., Chung , H. H., et al. 2020, , 892, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab781d

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Y., Gao , F., Braatz , J

    Kuo , C. Y., Gao , F., Braatz , J. A., et al. 2024, , 532, 3020, 10.1093/mnras/stae1558

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Zhang , J

    Liu , Z. W., Zhang , J. S., Henkel , C., et al. 2017, , 466, 1608, 10.1093/mnras/stw3158

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Lo , K. Y. 2005, , 43, 625, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094927

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    1995, , 373, 127, 10.1038/373127a0

    Miyoshi , M., Moran , J., Herrnstein , J., et al. 1995, , 373, 127, 10.1038/373127a0

    1995 doi

  22. [30]

    A., & Maloney , P

    Neufeld , D. A., & Maloney , P. R. 1995, ApJ, 447, 10.1086/309553

    1995 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Maloney , P

    Neufeld , D. A., Maloney , P. R., & Conger , S. 1994, ApJ, 628, L127, 10.1086/187649

    1994 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Henkel , C., Ulvestad , J

    Peck , A. B., Henkel , C., Ulvestad , J. S., et al. 2003, , 590, 149, 10.1086/374924

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Braatz , J

    Pesce , D. W., Braatz , J. A., Condon , J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/65

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Braatz , J

    Pesce , D. W., Braatz , J. A., Reid , M. J., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6bcd

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Braatz , J

    Reid , M. J., Braatz , J. A., Condon , J. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 287, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/287

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Jackson , C

    Sadler , E. M., Jackson , C. A., Cannon , R. D., et al. 2002, , 329, 227, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04998.x

    2002

  29. [37]

    L., McAlpine , W., et al

    Satyapal , S., Ellison , S. L., McAlpine , W., et al. 2014, , 441, 1297, 10.1093/mnras/stu650

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    M., & Vanden Bout , P

    Solomon , P. M., & Vanden Bout , P. A. 2005, , 43, 677, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2006, , 642, 81, 10.1086/500828

    Sturm , E., Hasinger , G., Lehmann , I., et al. 2006, , 642, 81, 10.1086/500828

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, , 637, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937380

    Surcis , G., Tarchi , A., & Castangia , P. 2020, , 637, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937380

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, , 688, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451245

    Tarchi , A., Castangia , P., Surcis , G., et al. 2024, , 688, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451245

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Verde , L., Treu , T., & Riess , A. G. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 891, 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Lintott , C

    Willett , K. W., Lintott , C. J., Bamford , S. P., et al. 2013, , 435, 2835, 10.1093/mnras/stt1458

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Wright , E. L. 2006, , 118, 1711, 10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    Zaw , I., Chen , Y.-P., & Farrar , G. R. 2019, , 872, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaffaf

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Henkel , C., Guo , Q., & Wang , J

    Zhang , J. S., Henkel , C., Guo , Q., & Wang , J. 2012, , 538, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117946

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    R., & Greenhill , L

    Zhu , G., Zaw , I., Blanton , M. R., & Greenhill , L. J. 2011, , 742, 73, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/73

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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