Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Identification of 4876 Bent-Tail Radio Galaxies in the FIRST Survey Using Deep Learning Combined with Visual Inspection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A deep-learning search of the entire FIRST survey plus visual inspection produces a catalog of 4,876 bent-tail radio galaxies, 3,871 of them newly discovered.

desk verdict A large, genuinely useful BTRG catalog that deserves refereeing, but the headline counts need a completeness audit and a fix to an internal inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09883 v1 pith:RKMT4UAP submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

Baoqiang Lao , Heinz Andernach , Xiaolong Yang , Xiang Zhang , Rushuang Zhao , Zhen Zhao , Yun Yu , Xiaohui Sun
show 1 more author
Sheng-Li Qin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords bent-tailradiogalaxieswide-angle-tailsourcesnarrow-angle-tailFIRSTsurveydeeplearningsourcedetectionmorphologyactivegalacticnucleigalaxyclusters
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

Bent-tail radio galaxies are active galaxies whose radio jets are swept backward by motion through the hot gas of a galaxy cluster, producing C-, V-, or U-shaped radio lobes. This paper reports a systematic search of the entire FIRST radio survey for these objects, running a deep-learning detector over all 946,432 survey images and then visually inspecting every candidate. The result is a catalog of 4,876 bent-tail radio galaxies, of which 3,871 are newly discovered, more than quadrupling the number known from previous work. The catalog also supplies optical host identifications for 4,193 sources, redshifts from 0.0023 to 3.43, and derived radio luminosities, so it turns a rare morphological class into a large enough sample for statistical studies of cluster environments and jet physics.

What carries the argument

The engine of the search is RGCMT, a deep-learning detector built from a convolutional mask-prediction network with a quadtree ambiguity-area detector and a transformer refinement block, trained on 3,172 labeled FIRST images to recognize five radio-morphology classes (compact sources, straight FR-I, straight FR-II, bent tails, and one-sided extended sources). For each detected source it produces a predicted mask, bounding box, and confidence score, and the mask is what allows positions, flux densities, opening angles, and radii of curvature to be computed automatically. The candidate list is then filtered by human visual inspection of FIRST contour overlays, removing false positives such as S/Z-shaped sources, lobes of larger galaxies, and artifacts. The morphological parameter that finalizes membership is the opening angle between the two jets, measured from the predicted mask's skeleton via a Voronoi diagram, with an upper cutoff of 170 degrees.

What would settle it

Have independent inspectors visually scan a random sample of FIRST images with no knowledge of RGCMT's candidates and tally bent-tail sources missing from the 4,876-entry catalog; if the missed fraction is comparable to or larger than the 3,871 new discoveries, the catalog's completeness claim fails. A cheaper proxy is to run a second, independently trained detector over the same survey images and count bent sources found by only one method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a combination of the RGCMT deep-learning source finder and human visual inspection can find bent-tail radio galaxies in the FIRST survey at scale and with high reliability. Applying RGCMT to all 946,432 FIRST catalog components yielded 11,473 candidate detections after removing duplicates and applying flux and confidence cuts; visual inspection of FIRST contour images rejected sources that were not bent in a common direction, lobes of larger galaxies, artifacts, or had opening angles above 170 degrees, leaving 4,876 BTRGs. Of these, 4,424 are wide-angle-tail sources and 652 are narrow-angle-tail sources; 4,193 have optical counterparts in DESI Legacy Surveys DR10, 4,171 have redshift measurements, and 1,825 lie within known galaxy clusters by the nearest-neighbor criterion. The paper presents this as the largest and most comprehensive BTRG catalog to date, with 3,871 newly discovered sources.

Load-bearing premise

The deep-learning model's detection accuracy, measured on its own labeled test set, transfers to the whole FIRST survey, so the human visual-inspection step removes false positives without missing a large share of true bent-tail galaxies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The known population of bent-tail radio galaxies grows from roughly 1,005 previously cataloged sources to 4,876, giving a sample large enough for statistical studies of the class.
  • The catalog's cluster matches place 1,825 of the sources inside known galaxy clusters, strengthening the picture that bent morphology is produced by motion through dense intra-cluster gas and offering a large sample for environment studies.
  • The derived FR-I and FR-II luminosities show that many FR-I-classified bent sources lie above the classical log L = 25 dividing line and many FR-IIs below it, reinforcing recent evidence that the luminosity break is not a clean morphological divider.
  • The automated masks let physical parameters such as opening angle, radius of curvature, and largest linear size be measured consistently for thousands of sources at once, which previously required labor-intensive individual measurement.
  • The median spectral index of 0.85 between 1.4 and 3 GHz, noted by the authors as likely an upper limit because VLASS misses extended emission, gives a first statistical view of the radio spectra of bent-tail galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the candidate list is nearly complete, the catalog can be used to estimate the space density of bent-tail galaxies in the FIRST footprint; the fact that only 43.5% of hosts match known clusters then suggests either many bent-tail galaxies live in poorer or unidentified environments or the 3-arcmin match radius limits the association rate.
  • The same mask-based measurement pipeline could be applied to other radio surveys with similar resolution, yielding directly comparable opening angles and curvature radii and testing whether the WAT/NAT split changes with resolution.
  • The note added in proof, which removes one source and reclassifies several blue hosts as QSOs or blazars, implies that host-type classification is sensitive to spectroscopic follow-up; a systematic spectroscopic campaign on the 1,814 photometric-redshift hosts would sharpen the luminosity and cluster-association statistics.
  • Because the training and evaluation sets were labeled by human visual inspection, the detector's notion of 'bent' is anchored to human judgment; transferring it to another survey would require re-checking that its bending criterion matches what observers count at other resolutions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a catalog of 4876 bent-tail radio galaxies (BTRGs) from the FIRST survey, built by (i) running the deep-learning detector RGCMT over 946,432 FIRST cutouts, (ii) retaining 11,473 candidates with score >= 0.5 and total flux >= 1.64 mJy, and (iii) visually inspecting each candidate to remove false positives, leaving 4876 sources, of which 3871 are claimed to be new discoveries. The catalog includes host-galaxy identifications from DESI LS (4193 hosts), spectroscopic and photometric redshifts (4171 sources), 1.4-3 GHz spectral indices from NVSS/VLASS, opening angles and radii of curvature derived from the detector's predicted masks, and cluster associations from Wen & Han (2024) and NED (3286 sources, 1825 within r500). The overlap of the catalog with nine published BTRG samples is quantified (1005 sources recovered after de-duplication), and physical statistics (spectral index, luminosity, host colors, black-hole masses, cluster properties) are presented. The paper claims this is the largest and most comprehensive BTRG catalog to date.

Significance. If validated, this catalog would roughly triple the number of known BTRGs and provide a statistically powerful sample for studying jet-ICM interactions, cluster environments, and AGN feedback; the luminosity range (10^20-10^28 W Hz^-1) and the cluster association statistics (1825 BTRGs within r500) are genuinely useful products. The paper's strengths are real: the pipeline is documented step by step, the candidate thresholds are explicitly stated, the overlap with nine published samples is quantified (1005 recovered sources), and the catalog is publicly deposited with a DOI (10.5281/zenodo.14271760). The RGCMT model is prior published work (Lao et al. 2023) with a stated mAP of 98.4%, but the catalog paper's added value is the survey-wide application, which is exactly where the recall question arises. The internal count inconsistencies and the unverified survey recall are the main risks to the headline claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.2-2.4] The central completeness assumption is not verified. The catalog pipeline is one-directional: RGCMT proposes 11,473 candidates (Section 2.3) and visual inspection only removes candidates (Section 2.4), so any true BTRG that RGCMT fails to propose is permanently absent from the final 4876-source catalog. The only quantitative evidence for detection quality is the 98.4% mAP (BT AP 98.4%) on the 1946-image evaluation set (Section 2.2), which is not a survey-wide recall measurement at the deployed operating point (score >= 0.5, total flux >= 1.64 mJy), and the evaluation set was labeled by the same team under the same scheme as the training set. The overlap analysis in Section 4.1 confirms that 1005 sources from nine published samples are recovered, but for the largest comparison sample (Sasmal et al. 2022) only 506 of 717 sources are recovered, and the 211 missing sources are explained only by qualitative examples (J0044+1026, J1321-0637, J1521+5104, J1138+2039) rather than a complete audit. Because the headline claims (4876 BTRGs, 3871 new discoveries, and the 'largest and most comprehensive' statement in Section 5) inherit this unverified recall assumption, I request a survey-level recall test (for example, injecting synthetic BTRGs with a range of bending angles, sizes, and fluxes into FIRST images and measuring the recovery rate) and a full quantitative accounting of the non-recovered Sasmal et al. (2022) sources.
  2. [Abstract vs. Section 4.4] The WAT/NAT counts are internally inconsistent. The abstract and Section 5 state 4424 WATs and 652 NATs, which sum to 5076 and conflict with the stated total of 4876; Section 4.4 gives 4224 WATs and 652 NATs, which sum correctly to 4876. The abstract, Section 4.4, Section 5, and the deposited table must be reconciled, since the WAT/NAT split is one of the paper's headline results and any reader using the catalog needs a single authoritative count.
  3. [Note added in proof] The note added in proof contradicts the body text and the catalog as presented. It asserts that the source J125648.57+481749.8, which appears in Table 1 and is included in the 4876 total, 'should be removed from the sample of BTRGs'; it also states that 12 of the 17 'blue' hosts are spectroscopic QSOs and a further three are blazars, which directly contradicts Section 4.5's conclusion that no common properties were found among these hosts. The catalog counts, host statistics, and the g-r analysis of Section 4.5 must be revised in the main text and the deposited table (Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.14271760) re-issued, rather than leaving the correction in a note.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.6] The sentence reporting the mean and median of 'the logarithmic ratio between log10(M500) and log10(r500)' as 2.43 x 10^14 M_sun/Mpc is dimensionally confused; if the intended quantity is the ratio M500/r500, it should be stated without the 'log' terminology.
  2. [Section 4.5] The notation in 'Almost all of them (99.3%) have -21 gm g Mr g g -25' (and the analogous MBH statement) is mathematically equivalent to -25 <= Mr <= -21 but is written in an order that is easy to misread; please reverse the inequalities for clarity.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says the histogram shows the distribution of OA for 'all BTRG candidates', but the text of Section 4.4 describes the final 4876 sources after the OA < 170 deg cut; please make this unambiguous.
  4. [Section 2.2] The reported mAP is evaluated at IoU = 0.5; since the predicted masks are subsequently used to measure OA, Rc, and LAS in Section 4.4, reporting a stricter IoU threshold (0.75) or a boundary-distance metric would better substantiate the geometric measurements.
  5. [Section 2.3] The choice of the 1.64 mJy total-flux threshold is not motivated (for example, relative to the typical FIRST rms of 0.15 mJy); a sentence explaining its basis would help readers assess the faint-end cutoff of the candidate list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the catalog pipeline and physical-property calculations do not reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central product is an observational catalog produced by a trained detector (RGCMT) plus visual inspection, not a derived law or fitted prediction. The confidence threshold (0.5), flux cut (1.64 mJy) and OA cut (170 deg) are selection criteria applied to detector outputs, not parameters fitted to reproduce the final counts. Detection quality is supported by a labeled evaluation set reported in Section 2.2 (mAP 98.4%) and, independently, by overlap with nine previously published BTRG samples (Section 4.1), so the authors' own prior model is not the sole justification for the catalog content. The WAT/NAT split uses the same OA definition as the morphological classification, but that is a definitional taxonomy rather than a self-referential derivation. The internal inconsistencies (4424 vs 4224 WATs between abstract and Section 4.4, and the note added in proof removing one blue host) and the lack of a survey-wide recall measurement for RGCMT are completeness/correctness concerns, not evidence that any result is equivalent to its input by construction. No circular step could be quoted and reduced from the paper's equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities) are introduced. The RGCMT deep learning model is a software tool from prior work, not an invented physical entity. The list above covers hand-chosen thresholds and external calibrations that the derived statistics depend on.

free parameters (4)
  • RGCMT candidate score threshold = 0.5
    Detections with predicted score below 0.5 are discarded before visual inspection (Section 2.3).
  • Total flux density lower limit = 1.64 mJy
    Candidates fainter than 1.64 mJy are excluded (Section 2.3), about 11 times the local rms noise.
  • Opening angle cutoff for BTRG selection = 170 deg
    Sources with opening angle greater than 170 deg are excluded as not sufficiently bent (Sections 2.4 and 4.4).
  • WAT/NAT division angle = 90 deg
    BTRGs with OA greater than 90 deg are classified as WAT, OA less than 90 deg as NAT (Section 4.1). This threshold is conventional rather than physically derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RGCMT evaluation set is representative of the full FIRST survey.
    Section 2.2 reports 98.4% mAP on 1946 labeled images; Section 2.3 applies the model to all 946,432 survey images without measuring recall on an independent survey-wide sample.
  • domain assumption DESI LS DR10 photometric redshifts are accurate enough for luminosity and cluster statistics.
    Section 3.3 uses 1814 photometric redshifts (43% of the 4171 redshifts) as equivalent to spectroscopic redshifts when computing luminosities and cluster membership.
  • domain assumption The nearest-neighbor cluster match within 3 arcmin and redshift difference less than 0.01 is a valid indicator of cluster membership.
    Section 4.6 claims 1825 BTRGs reside in clusters using this match, but no chance-coincidence or false-match rate is estimated.
  • domain assumption The Tremaine et al. (2002) M_BH-sigma relation applies to BTRG hosts.
    Section 4.5 derives black hole masses for 1203 hosts from SDSS velocity dispersions via this relation.
  • domain assumption The Wen and Han (2015) mass-richness relation, log10(M500) = 1.08 log10(RL*,500) - 1.37, is valid for the 186 clusters without literature masses.
    Equation (2) in Section 4.6 is used to estimate M500 for these clusters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of 4876 Bent-Tail Radio Galaxies in the FIRST Survey Using Deep Learning Combined with Visual Inspection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKMT4UAP

@misc{pith2026250109883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of 4876 Bent-Tail Radio Galaxies in the FIRST Survey Using Deep Learning Combined with Visual Inspection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKMT4UAP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09883}
}
abstract

Bent-tail radio galaxies (BTRGs) are characterized by bent radio lobes. This unique shape is mainly caused by the movement of the galaxy within a cluster, during which the radio jets are deflected by the intra-cluster medium. A combined method, which involves a deep learning-based radio source finder along with visual inspection, has been utilized to search for BTRGs from the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-centimeters survey images. Consequently, a catalog of 4876 BTRGs has been constructed, among which 3871 are newly discovered. Based on the classification scheme of the opening angle between the two jets of the galaxy, BTRGs are typically classified as either wide-angle-tail (WAT) sources or narrow-angle-tail (NAT) sources. Our catalog comprises 4424 WATs and 652 NATs. Among these, optical counterparts are identified for 4193 BTRGs. This catalog covers luminosities in the range of $1.91\times10^{20} \leq L_{\rm 1.4\,GHz} \leq 1.45\times10^{28}$ ${\rm W\,Hz^{-1}}$ and redshifts from $z = 0.0023$ to $z = 3.43$. Various physical properties of these BTRGs and their statistics are presented. Particularly, by the nearest neighbor method, we found that 1825 BTRGs in this catalog belong to galaxy clusters reported in literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A simple schematic of the RGCMT network for BTRG detection, modified from Ke et al. (2022). For a given image, Mask R-CNN first generates an initial coarse mask prediction. Then, the ambiguity areas detector identifies ambiguity areas using three levels of Region of Interest (RoI) Align features. Finally, the transformer block is used to correct the ambiguity areas and produce the final refined mask prediction. dete… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of five classes (CS, sFR-I, sFR-II, BT, and OSE) in this work. The BT class is a combination of WAT and NAT. The red dotted line represents the straight or bent jets of a radio source. metrics2 . The average precision (AP) at the same IoU value for the CS, sFR-I, sFR-II, BT, and OSE classes is 97.3%, 97.4%, 99.9%, 98.4%, and 98.9% respectively. This indicates that the RGCMT model exhibits high ac￾curacy in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example demonstrating the identification of a host galaxy through visual inspection of a FIRST image (magenta contours) overlaid on a DESI LS r-band image (background image). Contour levels begin at 3 times the local rms noise (1σ =0.14 mJy/beam) and increase by a factor of √ 2. The peak flux density and centroid coordinates are marked with a yellow ‘+’. Potential host candidates are indicated with an ‘×’, where … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIRST image (contours) overlaid on the DESI LS r-band image (gray scale) for a sample of 12 BTRGs. Contour levels begin at 3 times the local rms noise and increase by a factor of √ 2. The green ‘×’ represents the host galaxy. the OA of the BTRG in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A histogram depicting the distribution of the spectral index (α 3 GHz 1.4 GHz) for all BTRGs is presented. The black dotted curve represents a Gaussian fit to the histogram, characterized by a mean of 0.83±0.01 and a standard devia￾tion of 0.32. The red dashed line ind…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: the distribution of logarithmic 1.4 GHz luminosity (log10(L1.4GHz)) for all BTRGs with redshift (z) is depicted, where the color of each circle corresponds to the BTRG number, reflecting their respective redshift and 1.4 GHz luminosity values. Right: the distribu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Definition example of opening angle (OA) for a BTRG. The magenta dotted line represents the predicted polygon points of the BTRG, derived from the transformation of its prediction mask. The green dotted line indicates the center line of the predicted polygon points. Th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of OA for all BTRG candidates. 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 Mr 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number 7 8 9 10 log(MBH) (M ) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of the absolute r-band magnitude (Mr) (left panel), and mass of the black hole (MBH) (right panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: g − r color versus absolute r-band magnitude (Mr) for the BTRGs hosts. The blue dashed line represents the relation from Weinmann et al. (2006) that separates the galaxies into red and blue ones. of member galaxy candidates within r500. A total of 3100 associated clus…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass vs. redshift distribution of associated clusters. The red and blue lines correspond to the values of M500 = 0.32 × 1014M⊙ and M500 = 1014.5M⊙, respectively. Only the values of M500 provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. EMUSE: Evolutionary Map of the Universe Search Engine

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning OpenCLIP on radio galaxy images and text descriptions enables a working image-and-text search engine over 170,000 EMU radio sources, though retrieval evaluation is qualitative.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    Abell, G. O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211, doi: 10.1086/190036

    doi:10.1086/190036 1958

  3. [3]

    O., Corwin, Harold G., J., & Olowin, R

    Abell, G. O., Corwin, Harold G., J., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 1, doi: 10.1086/191333

    doi:10.1086/191333 1989

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    N., et al

    Aguena, M., Benoist, C., da Costa, L. N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab264

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab264 2021

  6. [6]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  7. [7]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1888

    Alegre, L., Sabater, J., Best, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1888

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1888 2022

Show all 156 references
  1. [9]

    J., Banfield, J

    Alger, M. J., Banfield, J. K., Ong, C. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1308

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    R., & Vaccari, M

    Alhassan, W., Taylor, A. R., & Vaccari, M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2038

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2290

    An, F., Vaccari, M., Smail, I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2290

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, A&A, 587, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526852

    Andreon, S. 2016, A&A, 587, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526852

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    K., & Thorat, K

    Aniyan, A. K., & Thorat, K. 2017, ApJS, 230, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7333 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 15...

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    1991, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 23, 345

    Aurenhammer, F. 1991, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 23, 345

    1991

  8. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab325

    Becker, B., Vaccari, M., Prescott, M., & Grobler, T. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab325

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    1995 doi

  10. [18]

    K., & Pal, S

    Bhukta, N., Mondal, S. K., & Pal, S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2001

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Blanton, E. L. 2000, PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York

    2000

  12. [20]

    2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Boch, T., Pineau, F., & Derriere, S. 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 461, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI, ed. P. Ballester, D. Egret, & N. P. F. Lorente, 291 Böhringer, H., Chon, G., & Collins, C. A. 2020, A&A, 633, A19...

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Bastien, D. J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3946

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    H., & Perley, R

    Bridle, A. H., & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.001535

    1984

  15. [23]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    O., O’Dea, C

    Burns, J. O., O’Dea, C. P., Gregory, S. A., & Balonek, T. J. 1986, ApJ, 307, 73, doi: 10.1086/164394

    1986 doi

  17. [25]

    Capetti, A., Massaro, F., & Baldi, R. D. 2017, A&A, 601, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630247

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, in European conference on computer vision, Springer, 213–229

    Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., et al. 2020, in European conference on computer vision, Springer, 213–229

    2020

  19. [27]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1868 22

    Chen, H., Sun, M., Yagi, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1868 22

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Yun, M

    Chung, E. J., Yun, M. S., Verheijen, M. A. W., & Chung, A. 2017, ApJ, 843, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa756b

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

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

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

    2001

  22. [31]

    P., & Miller, N

    Norris, R. P., & Miller, N. A. 2014, AJ, 148, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/75

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    A., Mack, J., et al

    Donahue, M., Scharf, C. A., Mack, J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 689, doi: 10.1086/339401

    2002 doi

  25. [34]

    N., & Kauffmann, G

    Donoso, E., Best, P. N., & Kauffmann, G. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 617, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14068.x

    2009

  26. [35]

    J., Byrne, Z

    Drinkwater, M. J., Byrne, Z. J., Blake, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2963

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    T., et al

    Estrada, J., Annis, J., Diehl, H. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1176, doi: 10.1086/512599

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    L., & Riley, J

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P

    1974 doi

  30. [39]

    1998, A&A, 331, 475, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712041

    Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Klein, U., et al. 1998, A&A, 331, 475, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712041

    1998 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    J., Olsen, K., Economou, F., et al

    Fitzpatrick, M. J., Olsen, K., Economou, F., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9149, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V, ed. A. B. Peck, C. R. Benn, & R. L. Seaman, 91491T, doi: 10.1117/1...

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    F., & Wilcots, E

    Freeland, E., Cardoso, R. F., & Wilcots, E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 858, doi: 10.1086/591443

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    R., de Carvalho, R

    Gal, R. R., de Carvalho, R. R., Lopes, P. A. A., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 2064, doi: 10.1086/368240

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Lopes, P

    Gal, R. R., Lopes, P. A. A., de Carvalho, R. R., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 2981, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/2981

    2009 doi

  36. [45]

    F., Rudnick, L., Wong, O

    Garon, A. F., Rudnick, L., Wong, O. I., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaff62

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    J., et al

    Weeren, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2003

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    2009, A&A, 505, 55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912609

    Giacintucci, S., & Venturi, T. 2009, A&A, 505, 55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912609

    2009 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sipőcz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    H., Gettings, D

    Gonzalez, A. H., Gettings, D. P., Brodwin, M., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafad2

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Rudnick, L., Andernach, H., et al

    Gordon, Y. A., Rudnick, L., Andernach, H., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda30

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    2023, Data in Brief, 47, 108974, doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.108974

    Rustige, L. 2023, Data in Brief, 47, 108974, doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.108974

    2023

  44. [53]

    E., Hoessel, J

    Gunn, J. E., Hoessel, J. G., & Oke, J. B. 1986, ApJ, 306, 30, doi: 10.1086/164317

    1986 doi

  45. [54]

    2024a, PASA, 41, e001, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.64

    Petersson, L. 2024a, PASA, 41, e001, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.64

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    P., Hayder, Z., et al

    Gupta, N., Norris, R. P., Hayder, Z., et al. 2024b, PASA, 41, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.25

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    L., Robotham, A

    Hale, C. L., Robotham, A. S. G., Davies, L. J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1462

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    A., Koester, B

    Hao, J., McKay, T. A., Koester, B. P., et al. 2010, ApJS, 191, 254, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/191/2/254

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    2017, in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2980–2988, doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2017.322

    He, K., Gkioxari, G., Dollár, P., & Girshick, R. 2017, in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2980–2988, doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2017.322

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26

    2015 doi

  53. [62]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd023

    Hilton, M., Sifón, C., Naess, S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd023

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    P., Macri, L

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

    2012 doi

  55. [64]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  56. [65]

    H., Read, M

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

    2009

  57. [66]

    A., & McAdam, W

    Jones, P. A., & McAdam, W. B. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.1.137

    1996 doi

  58. [67]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  59. [68]

    2012, A&A, 538, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118212

    Kadler, M., Eisenacher, D., Ros, E., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118212

    2012 doi

  60. [69]

    2022, in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 4402–4411, doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00437 23

    Ke, L., Danelljan, M., Li, X., et al. 2022, in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 4402–4411, doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00437 23

    2022

  61. [70]

    C., Clerc, N., Finoguenov, A., et al

    Kirkpatrick, C. C., Clerc, N., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab127

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    P., McKay, T

    Koester, B. P., McKay, T. A., Annis, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 239, doi: 10.1086/509599

    2007 doi

  63. [72]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  64. [73]

    2021, Science Bulletin, 66, 2145, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.07.015

    Lao, B., An, T., Wang, A., et al. 2021, Science Bulletin, 66, 2145, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.07.015

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100728, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2023.100728

    Lao, B., Jaiswal, S., Zhao, Z., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100728, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2023.100728

    2023

  66. [75]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 035021, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad204f

    Lao, B.-Q., Yang, X.-L., Jaiswal, S., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 035021, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad204f

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    S., Sohn, J., & Lee, M

    Lee, G.-H., Hwang, H. S., Sohn, J., & Lee, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 835, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/280

    2017 doi

  68. [77]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc8

    Lee, W., ZuHone, J., James Jee, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc8

    2023 doi

  69. [78]

    H., Yee, H

    Li, I. H., Yee, H. K. C., Hsieh, B. C., & Gladders, M. 2012, ApJ, 749, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/150

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    2017, in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 936–944, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.106

    Lin, T.-Y., Dollár, P., Girshick, R., et al. 2017, in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 936–944, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.106

    2017 doi

  71. [80]

    Lopes, P. A. A., de Carvalho, R. R., Gal, R. R., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1017, doi: 10.1086/423038

    2004 doi

  72. [81]

    K., et al

    Lukic, V., Brüggen, M., Banfield, J. K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty163

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, Galaxies, 8, 3, doi: 10.3390/galaxies8010003

    Lukic, V., de Gasperin, F., & Brüggen, M. 2019, Galaxies, 8, 3, doi: 10.3390/galaxies8010003

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    Y., Sharp, R., Saikia, D

    Mao, M. Y., Sharp, R., Saikia, D. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2578, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16853.x

    2010

  75. [85]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu945

    McBride, J., & McCourt, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu945

    2014 doi

  76. [86]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  77. [87]

    Mguda, Z., Faltenbacher, A., Heyden, K. v. d., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3310, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2307

    2015 doi

  78. [88]

    2017, A&A, 602, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730443

    Miettinen, O., Novak, M., Smolčić, V., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730443

    2017 doi

  79. [89]

    J., Nichol, R

    Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., Reichart, D., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 968, doi: 10.1086/431357

    2005 doi

  80. [90]

    H., Hardcastle, M

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

    2019 doi

  81. [91]

    Miraghaei, H., & Best, P. N. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx007

    2017 doi

  82. [92]

    J., et al

    Mirkazemi, M., Finoguenov, A., Pereira, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/60

    2015 doi

  83. [93]

    2019, A&A, 626, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935058

    Missaglia, V., Massaro, F., Capetti, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935058

    2019 doi

  84. [94]

    Nikutta, R., Fitzpatrick, M., Scott, A., & Weaver, B. A. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 33, 100411, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100411

    2020

  85. [95]

    Nolting, C., Ball, J., & Nguyen, T. M. 2023, ApJ, 948, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc652 O’Brien, A. N., Norris, R. P., Tothill, N. F. H., & Filipović, M. D. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2642

    2023 doi

  86. [96]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169 O’Dea, C

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169 O’Dea, C. P. 1985, ApJ, 295, 80, doi: 10.1086/163351 O’Donoghue, A. A., Owen, F. N., & Eilek, J. A. 1990, ApJS, 72, 75, doi: 10.1086/191410

    2000 doi

  87. [97]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1446

    Oguri, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1446

    2014 doi

  88. [98]

    N., & Rudnick, L

    Owen, F. N., & Rudnick, L. 1976, ApJL, 205, L1, doi: 10.1086/182077

    1976 doi

  89. [99]

    2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 17, doi: 10.1007/s12036-022-09892-x

    Pal, S., & Kumari, S. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 17, doi: 10.1007/s12036-022-09892-x

    2023 doi

  90. [100]

    J., et al

    Pan, T., Yu, H., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf8bf pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.2.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13819579

    2021 doi

  91. [101]

    Pascut, A., & Ponman, T. J. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2688

    2015 doi

  92. [102]

    L., Brodwin, M., et al

    Paterno-Mahler, R., Blanton, E. L., Brodwin, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b89

    2017 doi

  93. [103]

    W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J

    Piffaretti, R., Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J. B. 2011, A&A, 534, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015377

    2011 doi

  94. [104]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pineau, F.-X., Boch, T., Derrière, S., & Schaaff, A. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 522, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. Ballester, J. Ibsen, M. Solar, & K. Shortridge, 125 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R.,...

    2020 doi

  95. [105]

    R., Oegerle, W., & Donahue, M

    Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Oegerle, W., & Donahue, M. 2002, ApJ, 579, 93, doi: 10.1086/342725

    2002 doi

  96. [106]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt448

    Pratley, L., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Dehghan, S., & Sun, M. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt448

    2013 doi

  97. [107]

    Proctor, D. D. 2011, ApJS, 194, 31, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/31

    2011 doi

  98. [108]

    2017, A&A, 598, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629353 24

    Radovich, M., Puddu, E., Bellagamba, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629353 24

    2017 doi

  99. [109]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 237, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07775.x

    Rasia, E., Tormen, G., & Moscardini, L. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 237, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07775.x

    2004

  100. [110]

    2017, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39, 1137, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031

    Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., & Sun, J. 2017, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39, 1137, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031

    2017

  101. [111]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 1486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw982

    Riggi, S., Ingallinera, A., Leto, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw982

    2016 doi

  102. [112]

    2023, Astronomy and Computing, 42, 100682, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100682

    Riggi, S., Magro, D., Sortino, R., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 42, 100682, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100682

    2023

  103. [113]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.017

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.017

    2012

  104. [114]

    S., Bartlett, J

    Rozo, E., Rykoff, E. S., Bartlett, J. G., & Melin, J.-B. 2015a, MNRAS, 450, 592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv605

    doi

  105. [115]

    Wechsler, R. H. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 38, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1560

    doi

  106. [116]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 85, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040085

    Rudnick, L. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 85, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040085

    2021 doi

  107. [117]

    Rudnick, L., & Owen, F. N. 1976, ApJL, 203, L107, doi: 10.1086/182030 —. 1977, AJ, 82, 1, doi: 10.1086/112001

    1976 doi

  108. [118]

    C., Torralba, A., Murphy, K

    Russell, B. C., Torralba, A., Murphy, K. P., & Freeman, W. T. 2008, Int. J. Comput. Vis., 77, 157

    2008

  109. [119]

    Ryle, M., & Windram, M. D. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/138.1.1

    1968 doi

  110. [120]

    2018, A&A, 613, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731981

    Sarron, F., Martinet, N., Durret, F., & Adami, C. 2018, A&A, 613, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731981

    2018 doi

  111. [121]

    K., Bera, S., Pal, S., & Mondal, S

    Sasmal, T. K., Bera, S., Pal, S., & Mondal, S. 2022, ApJS, 259, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4473

    2022 doi

  112. [122]

    2024, A&A, 686, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348843

    Seppi, R., Comparat, J., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348843

    2024 doi

  113. [123]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2118

    Shi, K., Huang, Y., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2118

    2019 doi

  114. [124]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  115. [126]

    J., Rines, K

    Sohn, J., Geller, M. J., Rines, K. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab20b

    2018 doi

  116. [127]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413

    Sutherland, W., & Saunders, W. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413

    1992 doi

  117. [128]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/21

    Szabo, T., Pierpaoli, E., Dong, F., Pipino, A., & Gunn, J. 2011, ApJ, 736, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/21

    2011 doi

  118. [129]

    Tang, H., Scaife, A. M. M., & Leahy, J. P. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1883

    2019 doi

  119. [130]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  120. [131]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 740, doi: 10.1086/341002

    Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740, doi: 10.1086/341002

    2002 doi

  121. [132]

    P., & Wilson, A

    Vallee, J. P., & Wilson, A. S. 1976, Nature, 259, 451, doi: 10.1038/259451a0 Van der Walt, S., Schönberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453

    1976 doi

  122. [133]

    V., et al

    Vernstrom, T., Scott, D., Wall, J. V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1836

    2016 doi

  123. [134]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261 Von Der Linden, A., Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 867, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11940.x

    2020

  124. [135]

    M., van den Bosch, F

    Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09865.x

    2006

  125. [136]

    L., & Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., & Han, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 807, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/178 —. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3308 —. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1149 —. 2024, ApJS, 272, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad409d

    2015 doi

  126. [137]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Liu, F. S. 2009, ApJS, 183, 197, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/197 —. 2012, ApJS, 199, 34, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/34

    2009 doi

  127. [138]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Yang, F. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3189

    2018 doi

  128. [139]

    A., Zhuravleva, I., et al

    Werner, N., ZuHone, J. A., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2358

    2016 doi

  129. [140]

    D., Seymour, N., Gulyaev, S., et al

    Weston, S. D., Seymour, N., Gulyaev, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2562

    2018 doi

  130. [141]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21188.x

    2012

  131. [142]

    L., Becker, R

    White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & Gregg, M. D. 1997, ApJ, 475, 479, doi: 10.1086/303564

    1997 doi

  132. [143]

    D., & Blanton, E

    Wing, J. D., & Blanton, E. L. 2011, AJ, 141, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/88

    2011 doi

  133. [144]

    I., Rudnick, L., et al

    Wu, C., Wong, O. I., Rudnick, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2646

    2019 doi

  134. [145]

    2019, Detectron2, https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2

    Wu, Y., Kirillov, A., Massa, F., Lo, W.-Y., & Girshick, R. 2019, Detectron2, https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2

    2019

  135. [146]

    2022, A&A, 658, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140908

    Erben, T. 2022, A&A, 658, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140908

    2022 doi

  136. [147]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2 25

    Yang, X., Xu, H., He, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2 25

    2021 doi

  137. [148]

    J., Newman, J

    Yantovski-Barth, M. J., Newman, J. A., Dey, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae956

    2024 doi

  138. [149]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  139. [150]

    2016, ApJ, 816, 98, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/98

    Zhang, Y., Miller, C., McKay, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 98, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/98

    2016 doi

  140. [151]

    2022, PASP, 134, 064503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac67b1

    Zhang, Z., Jiang, B., & Zhang, Y. 2022, PASP, 134, 064503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac67b1

    2022 doi

  141. [152]

    C., Middelberg, E., Norris, R

    Zinn, P. C., Middelberg, E., Norris, R. P., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219349

    2012 doi

  142. [153]

    2017, PASP, 129, 064101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    Zou, H., Zhou, X., Fan, X., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    2017 doi

  143. [154]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe5b0

    Zou, H., Gao, J., Xu, X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe5b0

    2021 doi

  144. [155]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac6416

    Zou, H., Sui, J., Xue, S., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac6416

    2022 doi

  145. [156]

    1963, Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies, Vol

    Zwicky, F., Herzog, E., & Wild, P. 1963, Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies, Vol. 2 (Pasadena: California Institute of Technology) —. 1966, Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies, Vol. 3 (Pasadena: California Institute of Technology)

    1963

  146. [157]

    Zwicky, F., Herzog, E., Wild, P., Karpowicz, M., & Kowal, C. T. 1961, Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies, Vol. I (Pasadena: California Institute of Technology)

    1961

  147. [158]

    Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies

    Zwicky, F., Karpowicz, M., & Kowal, C. T. 1965, “Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies”, Vol. V (Pasadena: California Institute of Technology)

    1965

  148. [159]

    Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies

    Zwicky, F., & Kowal, C. T. 1968, “Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies”, Volume VI (Pasadena: California Institute of Technology)

    1968

Pith tools

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