Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Radio emission from a massive node of the cosmic web. A discovery powered by machine learning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A machine-learning segmentation algorithm applied to archival LOFAR images uncovered about 5 megaparsecs of diffuse radio emission around the cluster PSZ2 G083.29-31.03, which the authors interpret as substructures merging into a massive…

desk verdict Plausible but not airtight: the 5 Mpc diffuse radio emission rests on two faint, low-resolution 'ears' that the authors themselves treat cautiously; the paper is honest and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04823 v1 pith:VNLYSKSJ submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.CO

C. Stuardi , A. Botteon , M. Sereno , K. Umetsu , R. Gavazzi , A. Bonafede , C. Gheller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclustersdiffuseradioemissionhalosmachinelearningLOFARweaklensingcosmicwebX-ray
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

This paper reports the discovery of large-scale diffuse radio emission around the galaxy cluster PSZ2 G083.29-31.03, with a projected largest linear size of 5 Mpc at 144 MHz, roughly three times the size of the previously known radio halo. The detection was triggered by Radio U-Net, a machine-learning segmentation algorithm applied to LOFAR survey images, which flagged faint emission below the nominal noise level that human visual inspection had missed. Follow-up radio, X-ray, optical, and weak-lensing data align the new emission with two low-mass systems on either side of the central cluster. The authors propose that these are substructures merging into a massive node of the cosmic web, while acknowledging that independent radio halos projected nearby cannot be ruled out. If the interpretation holds, this would be the first diffuse radio emission discovered through machine learning that went unnoticed by human analysis, and it would extend radio-halo-scale emission to about R200 at z=0.412.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is Radio U-Net, a convolutional U-Net trained to segment diffuse radio sources; applied to the 20-arcsecond LoTSS image of the cluster, it outputs a probability map that highlights emission below the nominal 3-sigma detection level, including regions outside R500 that visual inspection missed. The confirming machinery is a multi-wavelength pipeline: subtraction of compact sources from LOFAR visibilities combined with heavy uv-tapering to recover faint extended structure, XMM-Newton imaging in the 0.7–1.2 keV band, photometric cluster catalog data from the DESI Legacy Surveys, and a weak-lensing mass map from archival Subaru and CFHT observations. An injection test, which adds a scaled and rotated copy of the compact-source model, limits contamination by unsubtracted faint sources to about 3% of the measured flux. The alignment of radio contours with X-ray clumps, galaxy distributions, and lensing mass peaks is what carries the physical interpretation of merging substructures.

What would settle it

Re-image PSZ2 G083.29-31.03 with deeper LOFAR data, an independent calibration, and a different source-subtraction approach; if the 5-Mpc 'ears' do not reproduce at higher significance, or if they are resolved into compact sources, the claim would collapse. Alternatively, spectroscopic redshifts of galaxies in the eastern and southwestern structures showing that they are not at z≈0.41 would break the physical association and leave the radio features as chance projections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PSZ2 G083.29-31.03 is surrounded by diffuse radio emission reaching a projected largest linear size of 5 Mpc at 144 MHz, well beyond the 1.5 Mpc radio halo previously known. The two newly detected extensions, called the eastern and south-western 'ears', have flux densities of about 20±3 mJy and 18±3 mJy, and they align with X-ray clumps, galaxy overdensities, and a weak-lensing mass excess. The paper interprets this configuration as two low-mass clusters or groups at similar redshifts feeding a massive central system, with the faint radio emission tracing energy released as substructure merges into a cosmic-web node. The authors state that this is, to their knowledge, the first diffuse radio emission discovered through machine learning that had been missed by human analysis, and they explicitly caution that classification of the two ears as independent radio halos or a mixture of diffuse emission types cannot be definitively ruled out with current data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two faint 'ears' seen only in heavily smoothed, uv-subtracted LOFAR images, with per-beam signal-to-noise around 3.5, are genuine extended diffuse emission and not artifacts of incomplete compact-source subtraction or low-resolution deconvolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation is correct, the diffuse radio emission extends to about R200, making PSZ2 G083.29-31.03 one of the few systems with mega-halo-scale emission at z≈0.4 and the first such case tied to merging substructures rather than a single cluster.
  • The multi-wavelength alignment supports the view that the two 'ears' trace physical structures associated with the cluster, not chance projections of background radio galaxies.
  • The work demonstrates that machine learning can find diffuse radio emission below the threshold of visual inspection in wide-area surveys, implying that more such sources likely exist in LoTSS and upcoming surveys such as EMU.
  • Among PSZ2 clusters in the Legacy Survey area, this system is at the 90th percentile in the total mass of surrounding neighbors, suggesting that very massive nodes with many satellites are favorable sites for this kind of emission.
  • The differences among X-ray, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich, optical, and weak-lensing mass estimates hint that the system is dynamically active, possibly with merger-boosted gas temperature, which fits the proposed merging-substructure scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Radio U-Net routinely flags sub-threshold emission, a systematic re-run over the full LoTSS survey could yield a population of similar candidates, turning this first machine-learning discovery into a new class of objects that each require multi-wavelength validation.
  • A decisive follow-up would be deep, high-resolution low-frequency imaging to measure the spectral index of the two ears: a steep spectrum would favor turbulent halo emission, while a flatter, polarized component would point to shock-acceleration in relics.
  • If the merging-substructure interpretation holds, this system becomes a natural laboratory for studying how hierarchical assembly injects energy into the intracluster medium, potentially linking cluster-scale radio emission to cosmic-web filament accretion.
  • A cautionary extension: the faintness of the ears and their reliance on heavy uv-tapering mean that similar detections in other clusters will always need independent imaging verification before being accepted as genuine diffuse emission.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the detection of very extended diffuse radio emission around the massive galaxy cluster PSZ2 G083.29-31.03 at z=0.412, based on re-processed LoTSS 144 MHz observations. After subtracting compact sources and applying uv-tapering, two faint 'ears' are seen east and southwest of the known radio halo, extending the projected largest linear size to about 5 Mpc. The detection was originally flagged by the authors' Radio U-Net machine-learning segmentation applied to the 20 arcsec LoTSS image. The paper combines this radio analysis with XMM-Newton X-ray imaging, DESI Legacy galaxy catalogs, and weak-lensing mass maps to argue that the radio emission is associated with two low-mass structures on either side of the cluster, possibly tracing substructures merging into a massive cosmic-web node. The authors explicitly discuss alternative interpretations (independent halos, relics, AGN contamination) and present an appendix quantifying uncertainties from calibration, residual compact-source subtraction, and an injection test for unsubtracted faint sources.

Significance. If the large-scale radio emission is real, the paper would establish (i) the first diffuse radio emission discovered through machine learning that had been missed by human inspection, and (ii) a rare example of radio emission extending to R200 at z~0.4, connecting cluster-scale radio halos to accreting substructures. The manuscript is commendably cautious in its interpretation and provides a genuinely multi-wavelength dataset, including re-processed LOFAR images at several resolutions, an explicit calibration uncertainty (10%), a residual-subtraction uncertainty (16% of the discrete-source flux in the ear regions), and a visibility-plane injection test bounding faint unsubtracted sources to about 3% of the measured ear flux. The X-ray, optical, and weak-lensing data provide independent evidence for associated mass, even though the radio detection itself remains the weakest link.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1] The central 5 Mpc claim rests on two 'ears' seen only in heavily tapered, uv-subtracted images at per-beam signal-to-noise of about 3.5 (2.01 +/- 0.58 and 1.79 +/- 0.58 mJy/beam) and traced to the 2 sigma level. Appendix A admits that 'some residuals from subtraction may contribute to shaping the faint extended emission,' and Fig. 2 shows negative residuals near poorly subtracted sources. The injection test in Appendix A only adds scaled, rotated copies of the compact-source model to the visibilities; it does not test systematic errors in the subtraction, cleaning, and tapering process at the ear positions (for example, residual sidelobes or deconvolution artifacts from the bright central source). Because the reality of the ears is load-bearing for the 5 Mpc extent and the substructure association, the authors should either demonstrate robustness with an alternative subtraction/imaging approach (image-plane subtraction, different uv-tapers, or jackknife tests) or explicitly relabel the claim as a candidate detection awaiting confirmation and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.1] The ear flux densities (20 +/- 3 and 18 +/- 3 mJy) are measured in 'two polygonal regions encompassing the 2 sigma contours.' Measuring flux in regions defined by the same noisy image biases the estimate upward, and the quoted signal-to-noise is per beam rather than integrated over the source. A noise-only simulation or a fixed-aperture measurement is needed to establish the detection significance and to justify the quoted flux uncertainty; this is especially important because the 2 sigma contours are used to define the 5 Mpc extent.
  3. [Sections 3.2 and 3.4] The claim that the X-ray clumps, optical candidates, and weak-lensing map independently support the presence of the two substructures is not quantified. The X-ray clumps are described qualitatively, and the weak-lensing map's rms is sigma_kappa ~ 0.03 with contours at 2, 3, and 5 sigma, but the paper does not state the peak significance of the mass peaks at the ear positions or verify that the ears coincide with weak-lensing peaks above a specified threshold. Please provide quantitative significances (for example, signal-to-noise of each X-ray clump and each weak-lensing peak, and aperture-matched checks) to make the multi-wavelength association testable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'asses the mass distribution' should read 'assess the mass distribution.'
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption quotes the restoring beam as 68 arcsec x 81 arcsec, while Table 1 lists 69 arcsec x 81 arcsec for the same image; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  3. [Table 1] The column header 'UV-Sub.' is described in the notes as a flag indicating whether point-like sources were subtracted; please clarify the flag values and make the table self-explanatory.
  4. [Section 2] The claim that this is 'the first radio diffuse emission discovered thanks to machine learning that went unnoticed by human analysis' should be softened or substantiated, since the source was already known to host a radio halo and the discovery followed a human re-analysis triggered by the network.
  5. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'We note that the diffuse radio emission is completely deconvolved with this procedure' is unclear, because the ears are only visible after tapering; please clarify what is meant by 'completely deconvolved.'
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] The dash-dotted yellow contour shown in the bottom-right panel should be explicitly defined in the caption as the 2 sigma level of the low-resolution LOFAR image, alongside the definitions of the other contour levels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Radio U-Net self-citation triggers the search, but the 5 Mpc emission claim rests on a separate uv-subtracted LOFAR image and independent multiwavelength tracers.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The discovery is triggered by Radio U-Net (Stuardi et al. 2024, a self-citation), but the physical claim—large-scale diffuse radio emission at 144 MHz with a 5 Mpc projected extent—is established by an independent re-processing of the LoTSS visibilities (uv-subtraction, tapering, WSClean imaging), not by the machine-learning segmentation. The ear fluxes (20±3 and 18±3 mJy) are measured from the 69"x81" uv-subtracted image in polygonal regions defined by 2-sigma contours, not from the network's probability map; the ML output is used only for candidate selection and morphological comparison. The multiwavelength support (XMM-Newton clumps, Wen & Han 2024 catalog systems, weak-lensing mass map from archival Subaru/CFHT data) comes from independent datasets and does not use the radio measurement as input. The flux-uncertainty procedure follows Botteon et al. (2022a), a self-cited empirical method validated on ~300 clusters; this is method-supporting, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper itself flags the main limitation in Appendix A: 'some residuals from subtraction may contribute to shaping the faint extended emission,' and the injection test is acknowledged to be simplified. That is a data-quality caveat, not circularity. The only self-citation with any prominence in the narrative is Radio U-Net as the discovery trigger; it is not load-bearing for the existence of the emission, which stands on the separate radio image and multiwavelength tracers. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. The hand-chosen thresholds and smoothing scales are analysis choices with negligible impact on the central detection claim. The main load-bearing assumptions are the standard cosmology, the reliability of photometric redshifts for the substructures, standard weak-lensing source selection, and the fidelity of the compact-source subtraction. These are all standard observational assumptions, and the paper explicitly discusses the associated uncertainties.

free parameters (2)
  • Radio U-Net segmentation threshold = 0.2 (probability map)
    Hand-chosen probability threshold used to visualize the network segmentation mask in Fig. 1; it does not enter the flux measurement and does not affect the central claim.
  • Weak-lensing smoothing kernel FWHM = 1.9 arcmin and 3.3 arcmin
    Two Gaussian smoothing scales chosen by hand to match the size of the structures; the results are shown for both, so the conclusion does not rest on a single tuned scale.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard flat LCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
    Used to convert angular scales to physical sizes and to define the 5 Mpc projected linear size. This is a standard assumption in cluster cosmology, not specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and richness-based masses from Wen & Han (2024) are accurate enough to identify the two substructures as cluster candidates at z~0.41
    Used in Sec. 3.3 to associate the two low-mass systems with the main cluster. The paper explicitly notes the large uncertainties (0.01(1+z) in redshift, 0.2 dex in mass) and states that physical connection cannot be definitively established.
  • domain assumption Weak-lensing mass reconstruction assumes the background galaxy population is cleanly separated by color-color selection and that shape noise dominates, with B-mode consistent reconstruction errors
    Invoked in Sec. 3.4 for the WL mass map; the rms reconstruction error sigma_kappa ~ 0.03 is stated to be consistent with random shape noise.
  • domain assumption The point-source model derived from the lambda>2865 image adequately captures all compact sources, so that subtracting it leaves only diffuse emission
    This is the basis of the uv-subtraction procedure in Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A. The injection test is designed to check this assumption and suggests contamination at the few percent level.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio emission from a massive node of the cosmic web. A discovery powered by machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNLYSKSJ

@misc{pith2026250204823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio emission from a massive node of the cosmic web. A discovery powered by machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNLYSKSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04823}
}
read the original abstract

Aims. We aim to understand the nature of the diffuse radio emission surrounding the massive galaxy cluster PSZ2 G083.29-31.03, at z=0.412, already known to host a radio halo. Our investigation was triggered by Radio U-Net, a novel machine learning algorithm for detecting diffuse radio emission, which was previously applied to the LOFAR Two Meter Sky Survey (LoTSS). Methods. We re-processed LoTSS (120-168 MHz) data and analyzed archival XMM-Newton (0.7-1.2 keV) observations. We also analyzed optical and near-infrared data from the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys and asses the mass distribution with weak-lensing analysis based on archival Subaru Suprime-Cam and CFHT MegaPrime/MegaCam observations. Results. We report the discovery of large-scale diffuse radio emission around PSZ2 G083.29-31.03, with a projected largest linear size of 5 Mpc at 144 MHz. The radio emission is aligned with the thermal X-ray emission and the distribution of galaxies, unveiling the presence of two low-mass systems, at similar redshifts on either side of the central cluster. The weak lensing analysis supports this scenario, demonstrating the presence of an extended and complex mass distribution. Conclusions. We propose to interpret the two faint radio sources as connected to the central cluster, thus illuminating the presence of two substructures merging into a massive node of the cosmic web. However, because of uncertainties in redshift and mass estimates, combined with the low resolution required to detect these sources, the classification of the two sources as independent radio halos associated with nearby low-mass clusters or even as a mixture of different types of diffuse radio emission cannot be definitively ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04823 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. UV-subtracted LoTSS image (144 MHz) with restoring beam of 97′′ × 100′′. Orange solid contours are [2,3,6,12,24]×σ with σ = 0.59 mJy/beam. The dashed contour marks the -3σ level. Strong nega￾tive values are reached at the position of two sources which remained poorly subtracted. The shape of the restoring beam is shown in white at the bottom left corner. images to lower resolutions. Additionally, in some cases, the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-wavelength view of the PSZ2 G083.29-31.03 galaxy cluster. Top left panel: WL mass map created with a 3′ .3 FWHM Gaussian kernel. Silver contours show the 2σ, 3σ, and 5σ levels. Black circles mark the systems listed in Tab. 2 and have a radius equal to their estimated R500. The dashed red square marks the region of the image shown in the bottom panels. Top right panel: XMM-Newton image (0.7-1.2 keV) with a smoo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Identification of multi-component LOFAR sources with multi-modal deep learning

    Alegre, L., Best, P ., Sabater, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-print s, arXiv:2405.18584

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Amodeo, S., Mei, S., Stanford, S. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 36

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    E., von der Linden, A., Kelly, P

    Applegate, D. E., von der Linden, A., Kelly, P . L., et al. 2014 , MNRAS, 439, 48

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    1998, A&AS, 127, 145

    Bade, N., Engels, D., V oges, W., et al. 1998, A&AS, 127, 145

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    2023, A&A, 678, L 8

    Beduzzi, L., V azza, F., Brunetti, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, L 8

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Botteon, A., Cassano, R., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, L29

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    J., Brunetti, G., et al

    Botteon, A., van Weeren, R. J., Brunetti, G., et al. 2020, MNR AS, 499, L11

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2023, A&A, 678, A 133 CHEX-MA TE Collaboration, Arnaud, M., Ettori, S., et al

    Bruno, L., Botteon, A., Shimwell, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A 133 CHEX-MA TE Collaboration, Arnaud, M., Ettori, S., et al. 202 1, A&A, 650, A104

    work page 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    2023, A&A, 680, A3 0

    Cuciti, V ., Cassano, R., Sereno, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A3 0

    2023

  2. [10]

    2022, Nature, 609, 911

    Cuciti, V ., de Gasperin, F., Brüggen, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 911

    2022

  3. [11]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  4. [12]

    2015, Nature, 528, 10 5 Foëx, G., Soucail, G., Pointecouteau, E., et al

    Eckert, D., Jauzac, M., Shan, H., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 10 5 Foëx, G., Soucail, G., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2012, A&A, 5 46, A106

    2015

  5. [13]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3749

    Gheller, C., V azza, F., & Bonafede, A. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3749

    2018

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 640, A108

    Giovannini, G., Cau, M., Bonafede, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A108

    2020

  7. [15]

    2019, Science, 364 , 981

    Govoni, F., Orrù, E., Bonafede, A., et al. 2019, Science, 364 , 981

    2019

  8. [16]

    P ., Hayder, Z., et al

    Gupta, N., Norris, R. P ., Hayder, Z., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e0 27

    2024

  9. [17]

    M., Böhringer, H., Pointecouteau, E., Chen, Y ., & Zha ng, Y

    Jia, S. M., Böhringer, H., Pointecouteau, E., Chen, Y ., & Zha ng, Y . Y . 2008, A&A, 489, 1

    2008

  10. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-print s, arXiv:2408.06147

    Lastufka, E., Bait, O., Taran, O., et al. 2024, arXiv e-print s, arXiv:2408.06147

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2963

    Mandelbaum, R., Rowe, B., Armstrong, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2963

    2015

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 15

    Nishiwaki, K., Brunetti, G., V azza, F., & Gheller, C. 2024, ApJ, 961, 15

    2024

  13. [21]

    P ., Hopkins, A

    Norris, R. P ., Hopkins, A. M., Afonso, J., et al. 2011, PASA, 2 8, 215 Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al. 2014, MNRA S, 444, 606 Offringa, A. R. & Smirnov, O. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 301

    2011

  14. [22]

    V ., Bonafede, A., Bernardi, G., et al

    Pignataro, G. V ., Bonafede, A., Bernardi, G., et al. 2024, ar Xiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.15412 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P . A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016 , A&A, 594, A27

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2002, A& A, 387, 56

    Pointecouteau, E., Hattori, M., Neumann, D., et al. 2002, A& A, 387, 56

    2002

  16. [24]

    J., et al

    Rajpurohit, K., V azza, F., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A41

    2021

  17. [25]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 3665

    Sereno, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3665

    2015

  18. [26]

    2025, A&A, 69 3, A2

    Sereno, M., Maurogordato, S., Cappi, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 69 3, A2

    2025

  19. [27]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A& A, 659, A1

    2022

  20. [28]

    W., Röttgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., Röttgering, H. J. A., Best, P . N., et al. 2017 , A&A, 598, A104

    2017

  21. [29]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A& A, 622, A1

    2019

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 115

    Shweta, A., Athreya, R., & Sekhar, S. 2020, ApJ, 897, 115

    2020

  23. [31]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 3194

    Stuardi, C., Gheller, C., V azza, F., & Botteon, A. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3194

    2024

  24. [32]

    2020, A&A Rev., 28, 7

    Umetsu, K. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 7

    2020

  25. [33]

    2009, ApJ, 694 , 1643 van Haarlem, M

    Umetsu, K., Birkinshaw, M., Liu, G.-C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694 , 1643 van Haarlem, M. P ., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2 van Weeren, R. J., Shimwell, T. W., Botteon, A., et al. 2021, A &A, 651, A115 V ernstrom, T., Heald, G., V azza, F., et al. 2021, MNRA...

    2009

  26. [34]

    ears” was intentionally incre ased. For the E “ear

    Wen, Z. L. & Han, J. L. 2024, ApJS, 272, 39 Article number, page 6 of 7 C. Stuardi et al.: Radio emission from a massive node of the co smic web Appendix A: Subtraction of compact sources and related uncertainty on the flux density In this Appendix, we report additional informa...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.