Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

WALLABY Pilot Survey & ASymba: Comparing HI Detection Asymmetries to the SIMBA Simulation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After matching mass and noise, WALLABY and SIMBA H I asymmetries agree, and the most asymmetric WALLABY systems are interactions or tidal tails.

desk verdict A careful pilot null result with a genuinely useful new mock method, but the size/resolution matching confound means the null is not yet robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09547 v1 pith:7SLZORQU submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Mathieu Perron-Cormier , Nathan Deg , Kristine Spekkens , Mark L. A. Richardson , Marcin Glowacki , Kyle A. Oman , Marc A. W. Verheijen , Nadine A. N. Hank
show 10 more authors
Sarah Blyth Helga Dénes Jonghwan Rhee Ahmed Elagali Austin Xiaofan Shen Wasim Raja Karen Lee-Waddell Luca Cortese Barbara Catinella Tobias Westmeier
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyasymmetriesHImorphologymockdatacubescosmologicalsimulationsWALLABYsurveySIMBAsimulation3Dasymmetryspectral
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

Observed and simulated galaxies should show the same kinds of lopsided neutral gas if a cosmological simulation captures the processes shaping H I. This paper makes that comparison quantitative with matched samples: 116 spatially resolved WALLABY Pilot Survey detections and 20 realizations of WALLABY-like mocks drawn from the SIMBA 50 Mpc simulation. After matching H I mass, distance, inclination and noise, the $A_{\rm 1D}$--$A_{\rm 3D}$ asymmetry distributions are not statistically distinguishable, with a PQMass probability of $p = 5.4 \pm 0.2\%$. The paper also reports that detections with $A_{\rm 3D} > 0.5$ are almost all interacting systems or objects with strong bridges and tidal tails, making this 3D asymmetry a usable interaction finder in survey data.

What carries the argument

Two objects carry the argument. The first is the 3D asymmetry $A_{\rm 3D}$, the ratio of squared odd to squared even parts of the H I datacube about a center, with a background correction $B = 2N\sigma^2$ that removes the Gaussian-noise contribution; the 1D asymmetry $A_{\rm 1D}$ is the same ratio on the flux summed over the spectral axis, equivalent to the channel-by-channel asymmetry. The second is the Scanline Tracing mock generator: it interpolates the smoothed density, line-of-sight velocity and velocity-dispersion fields of the simulation on a grid, evaluates a locally Gaussian spectrum at each scanline step, and then convolves with the 30 arcsecond beam. By enforcing locally Gaussian spectra, it avoids the velocity-space shot noise of the particle-based approach and changes $A_{\rm 3D}$ by up to roughly 0.3 for low-mass SIMBA galaxies.

What would settle it

Compute the distribution of on-sky sizes ($\mathrm{ell}_{\rm maj}$ or $R_{\rm HI}$) for the matched SIMBA mocks and compare it to the WALLABY detections: if SIMBA galaxies are systematically smaller at fixed H I mass, then the matched comparison is biased and the $p = 5.4\%$ cannot be read as evidence that the simulation reproduces observed asymmetry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, at current sample sizes, the WALLABY Pilot Survey and the SIMBA 50 Mpc simulation produce the same population of H I asymmetries once observing parameters are controlled. To reach this claim it introduces Scanline Tracing, a mock-observation method that samples simulated gas fields along lines of sight rather than adding a per-particle Gaussian spectrum; this removes shot noise that artificially raises asymmetry in low-particle-number mocks. Each WALLABY detection is matched to a SIMBA galaxy within 0.2 dex in H I mass, placed at the same distance and inclination, given Gaussian noise at the observed RMS, and then passed through the same source finder before $A_{\rm 1D}$ and $A_{\rm 3D}$ are measured. The resulting PQMass test gives $p = 5.4 \pm 0.2\%$ that the two point clouds in the $A_{\rm 1D}$--$A_{\rm 3D}$ plane come from the same distribution, so the paper concludes the distributions are consistent while noting an excess of high-$A_{\rm 3D}$ detections in WALLABY and an excess of moderate-$A_{\rm 1D}$, low-$A_{\rm 3D}$ mocks in SIMBA.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a SIMBA galaxy selected only by H I mass (within 0.2 dex) and then projected at the WALLABY distance and inclination ends up with the same spatial resolution and disk sizes as real WALLABY detections; the paper itself flags in Section 4.2 that SIMBA disks may be smaller at fixed $M_{\rm HI}$, which would lower $A_{\rm 3D}$ in the mocks and make the agreement look better than it is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $A_{\rm 3D} > 0.5$ can be used as a selection cut in untargeted H I surveys to find interacting galaxies and tidal features without multi-wavelength data.
  • The Scanline Tracing recipe can produce WALLABY-like mocks from any SPH or MFM cosmological simulation, making asymmetry comparisons a standard morphometric test.
  • Full WALLABY data will decide whether the apparent excess of extreme 3D asymmetries over SIMBA is real; if it is, it may indicate missing merger or tidal physics or environmental selection in the pilot fields.
  • Kinematic modelling success is not strongly anti-correlated with asymmetry, so asymmetry adds independent information beyond rotation-curve fitting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the high-$A_{\rm 3D}$ excess survives the full survey, the likely culprits are the hot SIMBA IGM suppressing cold bridges and tails, or the pilot fields' group and cluster environments preferentially selecting interactions; the paper names both candidates, and an environment-stratified comparison would separate them.
  • The SIMBA overpopulation at moderate $A_{\rm 1D}$ and low $A_{\rm 3D}$ can be tested directly by measuring the H I size--mass relation in the matched mocks; if SIMBA disks are smaller than WALLABY's at fixed $M_{\rm HI}$, the low $A_{\rm 3D}$ is a resolution artifact and the agreement is partly built into the matching scheme.
  • The same matched-mock protocol could be applied to the other SIMBA 50 Mpc feedback variants to see which subgrid physics moves the $A_{\rm 1D}$--$A_{\rm 3D}$ plane, turning the p-value into a physics discriminator rather than a pass/fail test.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the second ASymba study, comparing H I asymmetries in WALLABY Pilot Survey detections with mock observations constructed from the SIMBA 50 Mpc cosmological simulation. The authors introduce a Scanline Tracing method for building mock H I datacubes that reduces spectral shot noise compared to particle-based MARTINI mocks. Using the 3DACS code, they measure 1D and 3D asymmetries for 116 WALLABY detections with log10(M_HI/M_sun) >= 9.2 and for 20 WALLABY-like mock realizations matched in H I mass, distance, inclination, and noise RMS. They find that high-A3D WALLABY detections are predominantly interacting systems or systems with strong tidal features. A PQMass test yields p ~ 5.4 +/- 0.2%, which the authors interpret as no statistically significant difference between the WALLABY and SIMBA asymmetry distributions, while noting hints of excess at high A3D and a possible under-resolution of SIMBA mocks in the moderate-A1D, low-A3D region.

Significance. If the null result is robust, the paper provides one of the first quantitative comparisons of 3D H I asymmetries between an untargeted survey and a cosmological simulation, and it offers a mock-generation method that is valuable for low-particle-number regimes. The authors give explicit sample definitions, validate the Scanline Tracing method on noiseless cubes, and apply a formal two-sample statistical test (PQMass). The main limitation is that the central claim is a null result whose robustness depends on the matched mocks being comparable in angular resolution; this is not yet demonstrated. The work is a useful methodological contribution and a step toward larger survey-simulation comparisons, but the current evidence for the null result is not fully conclusive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Figure 11] The mock matching controls for H I mass (within 0.2 dex), distance, inclination, and noise RMS, but not for angular size or number of resolution elements. Because A3D is resolution-dependent, a systematic offset in H I disk size at fixed mass between SIMBA and WALLABY would suppress A3D in the mocks, biasing the PQMass p-value toward agreement. The authors acknowledge this possibility for the moderate-A1D, low-A3D region, but the same mechanism can also suppress the high-A3D, low-A1D tail where WALLABY shows an excess. In addition, the WALLABY sample is defined by the kinematic-modelling criteria (ell_maj > 2 beams or log10(S/N) > 1.25), yet these criteria are not applied to the SIMBA mocks. Please add a quantitative comparison of angular sizes (e.g., the ell_maj distribution) for the matched WALLABY and SIMBA samples, and/or perform a sensitivity test on a size-matched subsample, so that the null result is not an artifact of systematically smaller simulated disks.
  2. [Section 4.2, PQMass test] The 20 mock realizations repeatedly reuse the same 789 SIMBA galaxies, so the mock points are not independent draws from the simulation population. The quoted p-value uncertainty (+/- 0.2%) reflects only the variation over different Voronoi binnings, not the correlation induced by repeated galaxies viewed from different orientations. Because the same galaxy can appear many times with correlated intrinsic morphology, the effective sample size for the mock distribution may be substantially lower than 20 times the number of WALLABY detections. Please report the number of unique SIMBA galaxies that contribute to the mock sample and assess the sensitivity of the p-value to this correlation, for example by resampling over unique galaxies rather than over individual mock cubes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract states "p-value = 0.05" while the text reports "p ~ 5.4 +/- 0.2%"; please use a consistent value and clearly state the uncertainty in the abstract.
  2. [Section 3.2, near Figure 7] The sentence "We note that in Figure 6, the high and low mass mock cubes split along the 1:1 line..." refers to A3D versus A1D+A2D, which is shown in Figure 7, not Figure 6; please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Table 1] The table uses "A3D >= 0" in some rows and "A3D > 0" in others; unify the notation to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Figures 9 and 11] Individual error bars on A1D and A3D would aid the interpretation of the distribution comparison, or the authors should at least state the typical uncertainty in the measured asymmetries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the WALLABY–SIMBA asymmetry comparison is not fitted to agree, and the self-cited ASymba/3DACS machinery is independently validated in this paper.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the central comparison measures A1D and A3D on WALLABY detections and on SIMBA mocks generated with the new Scanline Tracing method, then tests whether the two (A1D, A3D) distributions are consistent with PQMass. Nothing in this chain is fitted to the asymmetry values being compared. The mock-galaxy matching variables are H I mass (within 0.2 dex), distance, inclination, and noise RMS; asymmetry is the measured outcome, not an input, and the PQMass p ≈ 5.4 ± 0.2% is a result rather than a tuned target. The Scanline Tracing method is introduced and validated against the shot-noise artifacts of MARTINI in noiseless SIMBA cubes (Figures 1–5), so it is an independent methodological development rather than an ansatz whose conclusion is presupposed. Self-citations to Deg et al. (2023) and Glowacki et al. (2022) supply the asymmetry metric and the ASymba framework, but the paper independently demonstrates the metric's behavior on SIMBA mocks (Figures 6–7) and on WALLABY examples (Figure 10), and the load-bearing statistical comparison uses an external test (PQMass). The acknowledged resolution/size limitation in Section 4.2 is a possible systematic bias in the mock construction, not a circular reduction: matching by mass, distance, and noise does not by construction enforce agreement in A3D, and the paper reports a borderline p-value rather than forcing a predetermined conclusion.

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

The quantitative comparison rests on mock-generation approximations and matching choices rather than on any new physical entity. The free parameters are selection and analysis hyperparameters, not physics fit to the asymmetry result. No invented particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • WALLABY H I mass threshold = log10(M_HI/Msun) >= 9.2
    Hand-set sample selection in Section 4.1; it defines the 116-detection comparison sample and therefore shapes the asymmetry distributions tested.
  • PQMass number of bins = 10
    Section 4.2; the reported p ~5.4 percent depends on this binning choice, although p is averaged over different Voronoi binnings.
  • Number of mock realizations = 20
    Section 4.2; chosen to increase mock sample size; affects the statistical power and p-value uncertainty.
  • H I mass matching tolerance = 10^-0.2 to 10^+0.2 times WALLABY M_HI
    Section 4.2; random SIMBA matching within this mass range determines which simulated galaxy represents each WALLABY detection.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each scanline sample emits a locally Gaussian spectrum with thermal velocity dispersion (Eq. 5).
    Core approximation of the Scanline Tracing mocks; not independently validated, but consistent with SPH/MFM field interpolation.
  • domain assumption Lines of sight are parallel and the small-angle approximation holds (Section 3.1.2).
    Valid for small WALLABY fields, but an approximation that affects the mock cube geometry.
  • domain assumption SIMBA H I fractions and galaxy population are adequate representations of real H I galaxies for this comparison.
    The whole WALLABY-SIMBA comparison presupposes the simulation's gas physics is realistic enough for a meaningful morphometric test.
  • domain assumption SoFiA-2 source-finding centers are unbiased proxies for the asymmetry center in both data and mocks.
    Used in Sections 4.1 and 4.2; if the center is pulled by tidal features, A3D is inflated, though the same procedure is applied symmetrically.
  • domain assumption Random matching on H I mass alone gives comparable size/resolution distributions.
    Section 4.2 matches mass, distance, inclination and noise but not galaxy size or environment; the paper discusses possible SIMBA size mismatch.
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise model for the background correction B = 2N sigma^2 (Eq. 14).
    Used to correct asymmetry for noise; the authors note it can fail at low S/N, setting A=-1 for P<B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WALLABY Pilot Survey & ASymba: Comparing HI Detection Asymmetries to the SIMBA Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SLZORQU

@misc{pith2026250109547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WALLABY Pilot Survey & ASymba: Comparing HI Detection Asymmetries to the SIMBA Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SLZORQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09547}
}
read the original abstract

An avenue for understanding cosmological galaxy formation is to compare morphometric parameters in observations and simulations of galaxy assembly. In this second paper of the ASymba: Asymmetries of HI in SIMBA Galaxies series, we measure atomic gas HI asymmetries in spatially-resolved detections from the untargetted WALLABY survey, and compare them to realizations of WALLABY-like mock samples from the SIMBA cosmological simulations. We develop a Scanline Tracing method to create mock galaxy HI datacubes which minimizes shot noise along the spectral dimension compared to particle-based methods, and therefore spurious asymmetry contributions. We compute 1D and 3D asymmetries for spatially-resolved WALLABY Pilot Survey detections, and find that the highest 3D asymmetries A3D>0.5 stem from interacting systems or detections with strong bridges or tails. We then construct a series of WALLABY-like mock realizations drawn from the SIMBA 50 Mpc simulation volume, and compare their asymmetry distributions. We find that the incidence of high A3D detections is higher in WALLABY than in the SIMBA mocks, but that difference is not statistically significant (p-value = 0.05). The statistical power of quantitative comparisons of asymmetries such as the one presented here will improve as the WALLABY survey progresses, and as simulation volumes and resolutions increase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Moment 0 maps (top), moment 1 maps (middle) and spectra (bottom) for the Particle SPH (left) and Scanline Tracing SPH (middle) and MFM (right) constructed from noiseless mock H i cubes of Galaxy 467 of the SIMBA 50 Mpc simulation taken at a distance of 20 Mpc with WALLABY observation parameters. The ring in the bottom left corner of the first moment 0 map shows the beam FWHM. For the moment 1 maps, the cube is maske… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SlicerAstro view of noiseless mocks of the H i cube of Galaxy 467 presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the difference of 3D asymmetry between the Particle SPH and MFM Scanline Tracing realisations of SIMBA mock cubes described in Section 2.2 as a function of the cube H i mass. Before turning to WALLABY comparisons in Sec￾tion 4, it is worth exploring the relatio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of the properties of WALLABY de￾tections. The dashed black lines show the full set of detec￾tions where kinematic modelling was attempted. The blue shaded regions show those detections where the kinematic modelling was successful and have measured asymmetrie…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the 1D and 3D asymmetries of WALLABY detections with log10(MH i/M⊙) ≥ 9. The size of the points correlates to their size on the sky, and the color￾bar identifies their S/N. The stars show galaxies where kine￾matic modelling is successful, while the circle…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Moment maps and spectra for a set of detec￾tions with extreme asymmetries, labeled A–E in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Map of the asymmetry distributions for the WALLABY sample and the WALLABY-like SIMBA mocks. The cyan contours draw the SIMBA distribution for the count-wise 68th, 95th and 99th percentile, the orange dots are the individual WALLABY measures. The underlying map shows t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MARTINI: Mock Array Radio Telescope Interferometry of the Neutral ISM

    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...

    arXiv 1989

  2. [2]

    W., Narayanan , D., Dav \'e , R., & Thompson , R

    Abruzzo , M. W., Narayanan , D., Dav \'e , R., & Thompson , R. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.02374, 10.48550/arXiv.1803.02374

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.02374 2018

  3. [3]

    V., Oman, K

    Bilimogga, P. V., Oman, K. A., Verheijen, M. A. W., & van der Hulst, T. 2022, , 513, 5310, 10.1093/mnras/stac1213

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1213 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Holwerda , B., et al

    Blyth , S., Baker , A. J., Holwerda , B., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 4, 10.22323/1.277.0004

    doi:10.22323/1.277.0004 2016

  5. [5]

    L., Gilbank , D

    Bok , J., Blyth , S. L., Gilbank , D. G., & Elson , E. C. 2019, , 484, 582, 10.1093/mnras/sty3448

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3448 2019

  6. [6]

    2000, Dr

    Bradski, G. 2000, Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Conselice , C. J. 2003, , 147, 1, 10.1086/375001

    doi:10.1086/375001 2003

  8. [8]

    2019, , 486, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    H., Thompson, R

    Davé, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thompson, R. J., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, , 467, 115, 10.1093/mnras/stx108

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, , 495, 1984, 10.1093/mnras/staa1368

    Deg, N., Blyth, S.-L., Hank, N., Kruger, S., & Carignan, C. 2020, , 495, 1984, 10.1093/mnras/staa1368

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, , 523, 4340, 10.1093/mnras/stad1693

    Deg, N., Perron-Cormier, M., Spekkens, K., et al. 2023, , 523, 4340, 10.1093/mnras/stad1693

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, Mock Cube Generator Suite

    Deg, N., & Spekkens, K. 2019, Mock Cube Generator Suite. https://github.com/CIRADA-Tools/MCGSuite

    2019

  5. [13]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 39, e059, 10.1017/pasa.2022.43

    Deg, N., Spekkens, K., Westmeier, T., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 39, e059, 10.1017/pasa.2022.43

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06993

    Deg , N., Arora , N., Spekkens , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06993. 2411.06993

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    2024

  8. [16]

    K., et al

    Espada , D., Verdes-Montenegro , L., Huchtmeier , W. K., et al. 2011, , 532, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016117

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, , 531, 1158, 10.1093/mnras/stae1217

    Gensior, J., Feldmann, R., Reina-Campos, M., et al. 2024, , 531, 1158, 10.1093/mnras/stae1217

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, , 461, 1656, 10.1093/mnras/stw1426

    Giese, N., van der Hulst, T., Serra, P., & Oosterloo, T. 2016, , 461, 1656, 10.1093/mnras/stw1426

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    A., & Monaghan, J

    Gingold, R. A., & Monaghan, J. J. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 181, 375, 10.1093/mnras/181.3.375

    1977 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1282, 10.1093/mnras/stac2684

    Glowacki, M., Deg, N., Blyth, S.-L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1282, 10.1093/mnras/stac2684

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, , 498, 3687, 10.1093/mnras/staa2616

    Glowacki, M., Elson, E., & Davé, R. 2020, , 498, 3687, 10.1093/mnras/staa2616

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    P., Hogg, D

    Haynes, M. P., Hogg, D. E., Maddalena, R. J., Roberts, M. S., & van Zee, L. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 62, 10.1086/300166

    1998 doi

  15. [24]

    W., Pirzkal, N., de Blok, W

    Holwerda, B. W., Pirzkal, N., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2011, , 416, 2401, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18938.x

    2011

  16. [25]

    W., Bigiel , F., Bosma , A., et al

    Holwerda , B. W., Bigiel , F., Bosma , A., et al. 2023, , 521, 1502, 10.1093/mnras/stad602

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, , 450, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    W., Bunton , J

    Hotan , A. W., Bunton , J. D., Chippendale , A. P., et al. 2021, , 38, e009, 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    S., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al

    Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al. 2020, Astrophysics and Space Science, 365, 118, 10.1007/s10509-020-03831-4

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    2014, , 445, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/stu1804

    Lelli, F., Verheijen, M., & Fraternali, F. 2014, , 445, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/stu1804

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    2024, PQMass: Probabilistic Assessment of the Quality of Generative Models using Probability Mass Estimation

    Lemos, P., Sharief, S., Malkin, N., Perreault-Levasseur, L., & Hezaveh, Y. 2024, PQMass: Probabilistic Assessment of the Quality of Generative Models using Probability Mass Estimation. 2402.04355

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    M., Jonsson , P., Cox , T

    Lotz , J. M., Jonsson , P., Cox , T. J., & Primack , J. R. 2008, , 391, 1137, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x

    2008

  23. [32]

    2010, , 404, 590, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16269.x

    ---. 2010, , 404, 590, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16269.x

    2010

  24. [33]

    Lucy , L. B. 1977, , 82, 1013, 10.1086/112164

    1977 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, WALLABY Pilot Survey: Public data release of 1800 HI sources and high-resolution cut-outs from Pilot Survey Phase 2

    Murugeshan, C., Deg, N., Westmeier, T., et al. 2024, WALLABY Pilot Survey: Public data release of 1800 HI sources and high-resolution cut-outs from Pilot Survey Phase 2. 2409.13130

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    I., et al

    O'Beirne , T., Staveley-Smith , L., Wong , O. I., et al. 2024, , 528, 4010, 10.1093/mnras/stae215

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Oman , K. A. 2019, MARTINI: Mock spatially resolved spectral line observations of simulated galaxies , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1911.005. 1911.005

    2019

  29. [38]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6860, 10.21105/joss.06860

    ---. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6860, 10.21105/joss.06860

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    A., Marasco , A., Navarro , J

    Oman , K. A., Marasco , A., Navarro , J. F., et al. 2019, , 482, 821, 10.1093/mnras/sty2687

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Ploeckinger, S., Nobels, F. S. J., Schaller, M., & Schaye, J. 2023, , 528, 2930, 10.1093/mnras/stad3935

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2017, Astronomy and Computing, 19, 45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2017.03.004

    Punzo, D., van der Hulst, J., Roerdink, J., Fillion-Robin, J., & Yu, L. 2017, Astronomy and Computing, 19, 45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2017.03.004

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    N., Westmeier, T., Staveley-Smith, L., Chauhan, G., & Lagos, C

    Reynolds, T. N., Westmeier, T., Staveley-Smith, L., Chauhan, G., & Lagos, C. D. P. 2020, , 493, 5089, 10.1093/mnras/staa597

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    2023, , 518, 4646, 10.1093/mnras/stac3065

    Rhee , J., Meyer , M., Popping , A., et al. 2023, , 518, 4646, 10.1093/mnras/stac3065

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    1995, , 447, 82, 10.1086/175858

    Rix , H.-W., & Zaritsky , D. 1995, , 447, 82, 10.1086/175858

    1995 doi

  36. [45]

    2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 189, 10.1007/s00159-008-0010-0

    Sancisi, R., Fraternali, F., Oosterloo, T., & van der Hulst, T. 2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 189, 10.1007/s00159-008-0010-0

    2008 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, RMS asymmetry: a robust metric of galaxy shapes in images with varied depth and resolution

    Sazonova, E., Morgan, C., Balogh, M., et al. 2024, RMS asymmetry: a robust metric of galaxy shapes in images with varied depth and resolution. 2404.05792

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    2015, , 448, 1922, 10.1093/mnras/stv079

    Serra , P., Westmeier , T., Giese , N., et al. 2015, , 448, 1922, 10.1093/mnras/stv079

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2016, , 466, 2217, 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    D., Bluck, A

    Thorp, M. D., Bluck, A. F. L., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2021, , 507, 886, 10.1093/mnras/stab2201

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    S., Serra, P., et al

    Wang, J., Koribalski, B. S., Serra, P., et al. 2016, , 460, 2143, 10.1093/mnras/stw1099

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    B., Power, C., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., & Stevens, A

    Watts, A. B., Power, C., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., & Stevens, A. R. H. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 5205, 10.1093/mnras/staa3200

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    B., Cortese , L., Catinella , B., et al

    Watts , A. B., Cortese , L., Catinella , B., et al. 2023, , 519, 1452, 10.1093/mnras/stac3643

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    2021, , 506, 3962, 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

    Westmeier , T., Kitaeff , S., Pallot , D., et al. 2021, , 506, 3962, 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 39, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2022.50

    Westmeier, T., Deg, N., Spekkens, K., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 39, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2022.50

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2024, , 528, 5558, 10.1093/mnras/stae287

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    J., Somerville , R

    Wright , R. J., Somerville , R. S., Lagos , C. d. P., et al. 2024, , 532, 3417, 10.1093/mnras/stae1688

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    1997, , 477, 118, 10.1086/303692

    Zaritsky , D., & Rix , H.-W. 1997, , 477, 118, 10.1086/303692

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.