Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Statistical selection of high-redshift, neutral-hydrogen-rich, lensed galaxies with the Square Kilometre Array

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

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

Pith's one-line read One flux cut yields 50% lensed HI galaxy candidates

desk verdict A sound, useful forecast for HI lens selection in SKA-Mid surveys, but the specific equality-point redshifts rest on the local ALFALFA W50–M_HI relation extrapolated to z~3 without propagated scatter or evolution, so treat the numbers as directional, not precise. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07714 v1 pith:6QNZ737W submitted 2025-02-11 astro-ph.GA

Charissa Button , Roger Deane This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords gravitationallensingHI21-cmlineneutralhydrogenSKA-Midmagnificationbiassourcecountshigh-redshiftgalaxiesspectralsurveys
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 argues that strong gravitational lensing distorts the observed neutral-hydrogen (HI) mass function enough to create a clean statistical selection: a peak flux density cut that isolates lensed, HI-rich galaxies in upcoming SKA-Mid spectral line surveys. At the 5σ sensitivity limits of the proposed Medium Wide, Medium Deep, and Deep surveys, the 'source count equality points'—where lensed integrated counts first exceed unlensed counts—fall at redshifts z ≈ 0.83, 1.3, and 2.6, with lensed surface densities around 0.05, 0.6, and 3 sources per square degree. A single flux-density cut at these points should return samples that are about 50% lensed candidates, with no multiwavelength information required. The payoff would be direct 21-cm detections of HI at redshifts and masses that are otherwise inaccessible, plus a new baryonic tracer for selecting foreground dark matter haloes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the lensed HI mass function, Φ'(M_HI, z_S) = ∫_{μ_min}^{μ_max} dμ p(μ, z_S) Φ(M_HI/μ, z_S), where Φ is the local ALFALFA Schechter mass function, p(μ, z_S) is the magnification probability from a Sheth-Tormen halo population with singular isothermal sphere density profiles, μ_min = 2, and μ_max ∈ [10, 30]. The counts are converted to observable units through a HI mass–peak flux density relation built from the ALFALFA W50–M_HI fit log(W50/km/s) = 0.298 log(M_HI/M_sun) − 0.63 and a boxcar line profile. The 'source count equality point'—where the lensed integrated count curve N(>S_peak) first rises above the unlensed curve—is the selection threshold, and the comparison set is the estimated 5σ sensitivity of each proposed SKA-Mid survey.

What would settle it

Measure the W50–M_HI relation at z ≈ 1–3 using resolved or lensed HI observations; if the mean W50 at fixed HI mass deviates from log(W50/km/s) = 0.298 log(M_HI/M_sun) − 0.63 by more than the local scatter, the predicted equality points will not hold. Alternatively, apply the Deep survey selection at log(S_peak/Jy) ≈ −5.35 and image the candidates: a lensed fraction clearly below 50% would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that gravitational lensing's effect on the observed HI mass function yields a practical, threshold-based way to find lensed HI galaxies in the SKA-Mid era. By computing the integrated counts of lensed and unlensed HI sources as functions of peak flux density, the authors identify 'source count equality points' where the two counts cross. For the proposed surveys these points land at the 5σ sensitivity limits: z ≈ 0.83 for Medium Wide (400 $deg^{2}$), z ≈ 1.3 for Medium Deep (20 $deg^{2}$), and z ≈ 2.6 for Deep (1 $deg^{2}$, with field of view stretching to ~13.6 $deg^{2}$ at that redshift). At those thresholds the lensed surface densities are roughly 0.05, 0.6, and 3 per square degree, corresponding to average sample sizes of about 20, 12, and 3 candidates in each survey. The paper further claims that, at these thresholds, a simple peak flux density cut gives a 50% lensed fraction, with the unlensed half being massive foreground HI galaxies that can be identified and removed with multiwavelength data such as LSST.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume the local ALFALFA relation between HI mass and velocity width, together with a non-evolving HI mass function, remains valid out to z = 3; if high-redshift HI discs are systematically narrower, broader, or rarer than local ones, every threshold and yield estimate shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single peak flux density cut in SKA-Mid surveys should yield candidate lensed HI samples of roughly 20 (Medium Wide), 12 (Medium Deep), and 3 (Deep) sources, each about 50% lensed.
  • The predicted lensed surface densities for the Medium Deep and Deep surveys (0.2–9 per square degree) exceed the 0.13 per square degree achieved by the H-ATLAS sub-millimetre lens search.
  • Adding LSST optical data to identify foreground massive ellipticals should remove the unlensed HI contaminants and push the selection efficiency well above 50%.
  • If the HI mass function evolves with redshift as some recent measurements suggest, the lensed counts and the equality-point flux thresholds would both increase, improving the projected yields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the equality-point technique does not require optical preselection, so it can serve as a low-latency search channel that flags candidate lensed HI systems before any imaging follow-up.
  • Because lensed HI selects foreground haloes via an extended, low-surface-brightness baryonic tracer rather than starlight, it may probe a different part of halo concentration parameter space than optical lens searches; the paper motivates this but does not quantify the gain.
  • The same argument could be pushed beyond z ≈ 3 or applied to other spectral lines, such as CO or OH megamasers, provided the relevant line-width–luminosity relation can be calibrated at the target redshifts.
  • An end-to-end simulation of the Deep survey with a ray-traced mock lightcone would be a direct test of whether the analytically derived equality points survive real noise, RFI, and source confusion in the data cubes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a statistical method for selecting gravitationally lensed neutral-hydrogen (HI) galaxies in future SKA-Mid spectral-line surveys. The authors compute the distortion of the HI mass function produced by strong lensing magnification bias, using a Schechter-function HIMF fitted to ALFALFA, a Sheth-Tormen halo mass function, and singular isothermal sphere lenses. They convert HI mass to peak flux density using an ALFALFA-based W50-M_HI relation, and define 'source count equality points' where the integrated counts of lensed sources exceed those of unlensed sources. For the proposed Medium Wide, Medium Deep, and Deep surveys, they find that these equality points fall at the 5-sigma sensitivity limits at z≈0.83, 1.3, and 2.6, with lensed surface densities of roughly 0.05, 0.6, and 3 sources per square degree, respectively. They argue that a simple peak-flux-density cut should select samples that are about 50% lensed, with yields of order 20, 12, and 3 candidates for the three surveys (before redshift-dependent field-of-view scaling for the Deep survey).

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, the paper offers a practical, observationally simple route to assembling samples of lensed HI galaxies, with predictions that are falsifiable by SKA-Mid. The formal machinery is standard and the parameter choices are stated transparently, including the W50-M_HI extrapolation and the non-evolving HIMF assumption; the authors also compare their results with earlier work by Serjeant (2014) and Deane et al. (2015). The main value is in sharpening the proposal that magnification bias can be exploited for HI lens selection, and in giving concrete survey-specific thresholds. However, the central predictions are sensitive to two external relations—the W50-M_HI scaling and the redshift evolution of the HIMF—neither of which is currently tested at the redshifts of interest. The paper would be substantially strengthened by a quantitative sensitivity analysis around those relations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6) and Eq. (9)] The W50-M_HI relation is fitted to ALFALFA galaxies at z<0.06 and then applied over 0<z<3. The paper itself notes this limitation in Section 3.2, but it does not propagate the scatter seen in Figure 3 (roughly ±0.2 dex) into the source counts. Since Eq. (9) is the sole mapping from M_HI to peak flux density, a 0.2 dex change in W50 shifts the inferred S_peak by about 0.2 dex. According to Figure 6, the equality flux changes by roughly 0.5 dex per unit redshift, so a 0.2 dex W50 offset corresponds to a shift of order Δz≈0.3–0.4, comparable to the separation between the three survey equality redshifts (0.83, 1.3, 2.6). The claimed equality redshifts and the 50% efficiency statement are therefore not robust until either the W50-M_HI relation is tested at higher redshift or the sensitivity of the results to plausible W50 evolution and scatter is quantified.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 4.1] The calculation assumes a non-evolving HIMF, yet Section 4.1 cites conflicting evidence: Bera et al. (2022) find a decrease in high-mass galaxies from z=0 to z=0.35, while Chowdhury et al. (2024) find an increase of a factor 4–5 to z≈1. The paper discusses the qualitative direction of the effect but stops short of a quantitative test. Because the equality flux and the lensed surface densities depend directly on the Schechter parameters M*, φ*, and α, a sensitivity calculation varying these parameters within the ranges suggested by the cited literature is needed to support the statement in Section 4.1 that the estimates are 'on the conservative side.' Without such a calculation, the central predictions rest on an untested assumption that the authors themselves identify as potentially important.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 4 (Deep survey)] There is an internal inconsistency between the Deep survey yield in Table 1 and in the text. Table 1 gives N_L(Total)=2–9 for the Deep survey, which follows from multiplying the surface density by the nominal 1 deg^2 area. However, Section 4 states that at z≈2.6 the field of view expands to approximately 13.6 deg^2 and predicts a sample of 27–122 lensed candidates, a factor of about 13.6 larger. Since Table 1 is the summary of predicted yields, the discrepancy must be resolved: either the table should list the field-of-view-scaled totals, or the text should clarify why the scaling is not applied.
  4. [Section 3.2] The peak-flux relation is derived under a boxcar line profile, but the paper does not quantify the effect of more realistic double-horned profiles. While the authors note that the two peaks may merge at coarse velocity resolution, the threshold S_peak in Eq. (9) is used directly to define the survey detection limit. A brief test with a double-Gaussian or double-horn profile would help establish whether the equality-point fluxes shift by more than the survey sensitivity intervals.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] In the paragraph discussing the Medium Deep survey, the text says 'the proposed Medium Wide survey will cover an area of 20 deg^2'; this should read 'Medium Deep survey.'
  2. [Section 4.3] The MeerKAT UHF-band is quoted as '~580–1000GHz'; the unit should be MHz.
  3. [Section 2] There is a typo in the sentence describing the Sheth-Tormen mass function: 'can be be described' should be 'can be described.'
  4. [Figure 3 and Eq. (6)] The fitting procedure uses the mean log W50 in each log M_HI bin, but the paper does not report the bin widths or the number of galaxies per bin, and it does not discuss how selection effects or inclination corrections might bias the fitted relation. A few details here would help readers assess the extrapolation to high redshift.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equality-point redshifts and lensed yields are computed from external, independent inputs; the 50% efficiency claim is a definitional consequence, transparently presented as such.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any predicted quantity to its own inputs. The lensed HIMF is computed from the local ALFALFA Schechter function (Jones et al. 2018), the Sheth-Tormen halo mass function, SIS lens cross-sections, and magnification distributions with μmax set by external ray-tracing work (Deane et al. 2015; Perrotta et al. 2002; Lapi et al. 2012). The HI mass-to-peak-flux conversion uses the ALFALFA W50-MHI relation (Eq. 6), fitted to low-redshift data, and the paper explicitly states the assumption of applying it out to z=3 (Section 3.2, Section 4.1). The survey sensitivity limits come from Braun et al. (2019) via Button & Deane (2024), i.e., an external instrument model and measured MeerKAT performance, not from the paper's target quantities. The equality-point redshifts (z≈0.83, 1.3, 2.6) and lensed surface densities are therefore genuine outputs of the calculation rather than retrofitted parameters. The '50% efficiency' statement is indeed a direct consequence of defining the selection threshold as the flux where lensed and unlensed counts are equal, but the paper is transparent about this definition and does not present it as an empirically derived efficiency. The acknowledged uncertainties in HIMF evolution, the W50-MHI extrapolation, and disc-size scaling are correctness risks, not circularity. No central claim is forced by self-citation or by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. It combines an external empirical HI mass function (ALFALFA fit), an empirical W50-MHI relation fit by the authors, a standard SIS and Sheth-Tormen lensing model, and adopted SKA-Mid survey sensitivities. The main hand-set choices are mu_max, the W50-MHI fit, and the adopted HIMF parameters; the riskiest domain assumption is that both the HIMF and the W50-MHI relation are unchanged out to z = 3.

free parameters (3)
  • W50-MHI linear fit slope and intercept = 0.298 +/- 0.005 and -0.63 +/- 0.03 in log10
    Fit to mean ALFALFA W50 in HI mass bins (Figure 3) and extrapolated to z <= 3 in Equation 9.
  • Maximum magnification mu_max = 10 and 30
    Hand-picked from ray-tracing literature for extended sources; the paper quotes results for both bounding values.
  • HIMF Schechter parameters alpha, log M*, phi* = -1.25, 9.96, 4.24e-3 Mpc^-3 dex^-1
    Adopted from Jones et al. 2018 ALFALFA fits with Planck 2018 normalization; controls both lensed and unlensed counts.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Singular isothermal sphere density profile for all dark matter haloes, with no substructure
    Invoked in Section 2 to compute the lens cross-section; simplifies lensing probability but ignores halo ellipticity and substructure.
  • standard math Sheth-Tormen halo mass function describes the comoving number density of lenses
    Adopted in Section 2 from Sheth et al. 2001 as a standard dark matter halo population model.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic HI mass function does not evolve with redshift over 0 <= z <= 3
    Stated in Section 2 and discussed in Section 4.1; recent measurements show mixed evidence for evolution, so this assumption directly changes predicted yields.
  • domain assumption The local ALFALFA W50-MHI relation and a boxcar line profile hold at all redshifts up to 3
    Section 3.2 extrapolates the fit from z < 0.06 to z <= 3; the flux threshold calibration depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Maximum magnification mu_max is in the range 10 to 30
    Section 3.1, based on ray-tracing for extended sources with effective radii of 1 to 10 kpc; results are quoted for both limits.
  • standard math Planck 2018 cosmology
    Assumed throughout for luminosity distances, angular diameter distances, and comoving volume elements.
  • domain assumption SKA-Mid survey 5-sigma sensitivities from the model in Button and Deane 2024
    Sensitivities are adopted from a prior paper built on Braun et al. 2019 with 133 SKA 15-m dishes and 64 MeerKAT dishes; they set where the equality points are compared.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical selection of high-redshift, neutral-hydrogen-rich, lensed galaxies with the Square Kilometre Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QNZ737W

@misc{pith2026250207714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical selection of high-redshift, neutral-hydrogen-rich, lensed galaxies with the Square Kilometre Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QNZ737W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07714}
}
abstract

Deep wide spectral line surveys with the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) will expand the cosmic frontiers of neutral atomic hydrogen (HI) in galaxies. However, at cosmologically significant redshifts ($z \gtrsim 0.5$), detections will typically be spatially unresolved and limited to the highest mass systems. Gravitational lensing could potentially alleviate these limitations, enabling lower mass systems to be studied at higher redshift and spatially resolved dynamical studies of some HI discs. Additionally, lensed HI systems would select foreground dark matter haloes using a different, more extended baryonic tracer compared to other lens surveys. This may result in a wider selected range of foreground dark matter halo properties, such as the concentration parameter. This paper uses the distortion of the observed HI mass function (HIMF) produced by strong gravitational lensing to find a flux density criterion for selecting lensed HI sources in future SKA-Mid spectral line surveys. This selection approach could yield lensed HI source densities in the range of $\sim 0.1$--$10$ galaxies per square degree out to a redshift of $z \simeq 3$ covered by SKA-MID Band 1. Although the sample sizes are modest, even with the proposed SKA-Mid surveys, the selection approach is straightforward and should have a 50% efficiency without any additional information, such as low-impact-factor or lower-redshift massive galaxies. The efficiency of selecting high-redshift, neutral-hydrogen-rich, lensed galaxies should then be greatly enhanced by using SKA-MID data in concert with the Vera C. Rubin Large Survey of Space and Time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07714 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The effect of the magnification bias on the HiMF. The green curve shows the unlensed HiMF based on the parameters derived from the ALFALFA sample (Jones et al. 2018). The blue curves show the lensed HiMF for two values of the maximum magnification (both assume that 𝜇min = 2). The blue curves are calculated for sources at 𝑧S = 1.5 an assume a Sheth and Tormen dark matter halo mass function (Sheth et al. 2001). of 𝛼 a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fraction of strongly lensed galaxies (assuming 𝜇min = 2 and 𝜇max = 30) as a function of log H i mass and source redshift. The fraction of galaxies is shown on a log colour scale. 3 INTEGRATED COUNTS OF HI SOURCES The integrated source counts of a population can be found by inte￾grating over the volume number density within the relevant limits. Specifically for H i galaxies the integrated source counts are given … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 2D distribution of velocity width and H i mass from the AL￾FALFA sample for sources with log 𝑀Hi > 6.4. The black triangles indicate the mean log 𝑊50 value in each log 𝑀Hi bin, while the error bars indicate the standard deviation from the mean in each bin. The grey line indicates a linear fit to the mean values, given by log 𝑊50 = 0.298 log 𝑀Hi − 0.63, with the 1𝜎 uncertainty on the parameter values indicated by… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Integrated source counts for the lensed (shown in blue) and unlensed (shown in green) populations integrated over different redshift intervals. The lensed source counts are calculated for two values of the maximum magnification, 𝜇max = 10 and 𝜇max = 30. The grey shadin…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Source count equality points for all the redshift intervals considered. The points plotted here are the points in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Blake C., Rawlings S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15704.x , 401, 743

    Abdalla F. B., Blake C., Rawlings S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15704.x , 401, 743

    work page arXiv 2010

  2. [3]

    J., Sethi S., Dwarakanath K

    Bera A., Kanekar N., Weiner B. J., Sethi S., Dwarakanath K. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad698 , 865, 39

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad698 2018

  3. [4]

    N., Bagla J

    Bera A., Kanekar N., Chengalur J. N., Bagla J. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9d32 , 940, L10

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9d32 2022

  4. [5]

    M., Tacconi L

    Berta S., Lutz D., Genzel R., F \"o rster-Schreiber N. M., Tacconi L. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527746 , 587, A73

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527746 2016

  5. [6]

    Blecher T., Deane R., Heywood I., Obreschkow D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz224 , 484, 3681

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz224 2019

  6. [7]

    Blecher T., Deane R., Obreschkow D., Heywood I., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1706 , 532, 3236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1706 2024

  7. [8]

    Blyth S., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 004

    work page 2016

  8. [9]

    S., Burles S., Koopmans L

    Bolton A. S., Burles S., Koopmans L. V. E., Treu T., Gavazzi R., Moustakas L. A., Wayth R., Schlegel D. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589327 , 682, 964

    doi:10.1086/589327 2008

Show all 59 references
  1. [10]

    Bouch \'e N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1001 , 718, 1001

    2010 doi

  2. [11]

    J., Illingworth G

    Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Blakeslee J. P., Broadhurst T. J., Franx M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423786 , 611, L1

    2004 doi

  3. [12]

    Braun R., Walterbos R. A. M., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170998 , 386, 120

    1992 doi

  4. [13]

    arXiv:1912.12699

    Braun R., Bonaldi A., Bourke T., Keane E., Wagg J., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699 , p. arXiv:1912.12699

    2019 doi arXiv

  5. [14]

    H., Rhee M

    Broeils A. H., Rhee M. H., 1997, , 324, 877

    1997

  6. [15]

    B., Deane R

    Button C. B., Deane R. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae228 , 528, 3486

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    N., Sethi S., Dwarakanath K

    Chowdhury A., Kanekar N., Chengalur J. N., Sethi S., Dwarakanath K. S., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2794-7 , 586, 369

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    S., Sethi S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfcc7 , 913, L24

    Chowdhury A., Kanekar N., Das B., Dwarakanath K. S., Sethi S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfcc7 , 913, L24

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3dfe , 966, L39

    Chowdhury A., Kanekar N., Chengalur J. N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3dfe , 966, L39

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    P., Obreschkow D., Heywood I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv086 , 452, L49

    Deane R. P., Obreschkow D., Heywood I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv086 , 452, L49

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    Decarli R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30fe , 882, 138

    2019 doi

  12. [21]

    Decarli R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa3b , 902, 110

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    C., Baker A

    Elson E. C., Baker A. J., Blyth S. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1178 , 486, 4894

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    Fern \'a ndez X., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L29 , 770, L29

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    Giovanelli R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497431 , 130, 2598

    2005 doi

  16. [25]

    R., Verheijen M

    Gogate A. R., Verheijen M. A. W., Deshev B. Z., van Gorkom J. H., Montero-Casta \ n o M., van der Hulst J. M., Jaff \'e Y. L., Poggianti B. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1680 , 496, 3531

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    E., Gott III J

    Gunn J. E., Gott III J. R., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151605 , 176, 1

    1972 doi

  18. [27]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956 , 861, 49

    Haynes M. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956 , 861, 49

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , 873, 111

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    Jarvis M., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 6

    2016

  21. [30]

    G., Haynes M

    Jones M. G., Haynes M. P., Giovanelli R., Moorman C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty521 , 477, 2

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    A., Wolfe A

    Jorgenson R. A., Wolfe A. M., Prochaska J. X., Lu L., Howk J. C., Cooke J., Gawiser E., Gelino D. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505130 , 646, 730

    2006 doi

  23. [32]

    Krogager J.-K., Fynbo J. P. U., M ller P., Noterdaeme P., Heintz K. E., Pettini M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1120 , 486, 4377

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    Lapi A., Negrello M., Gonz \'a lez-Nuevo J., Cai Z.-Y., De Zotti G., Danese L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/46 , 755, 46

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Carollo C

    Lilly S. J., Carollo C. M., Pipino A., Renzini A., Peng Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119 , 772, 119

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    Magnelli B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7897 , 892, 66

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x , 350, 1195

    Meyer M. J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x , 350, 1195

    2004

  28. [37]

    R., Staveley-Smith L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.31 , 34

    Meyer M., Robotham A., Obreschkow D., Westmeier T., Duffy A. R., Staveley-Smith L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.31 , 34

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    G.-N., Silva L., De Zotti G., Granato G

    Negrello M., Perrotta F., Gonzalez J. G.-N., Silva L., De Zotti G., Granato G. L., Baccigalupi C., Danese L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11708.x , 377, 1557

    2007

  30. [39]

    Negrello M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2911 , 465, 3558

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , 58, 363

    Peroux C., Howk J. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , 58, 363

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    Perrotta F., Baccigalupi C., Bartelmann M., de Zotti G., Granato G., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05009.x , 329, 445

    2002

  33. [42]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1249 , 522, 5308

    Ponomareva A. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1249 , 522, 5308

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    Rajohnson S. H. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac693 , 512, 2697

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    Saintonge A., Catinella B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545 , 60, 319

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    Saintonge A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97e0 , 233, 22

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    Serjeant S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L10 , 793, L10

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    K., Mo H

    Sheth R. K., Mo H. J., Tormen G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04006.x , 323, 1

    2001

  40. [49]

    M., Vanden Bout P

    Solomon P. M., Vanden Bout P. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221 , 43, 677

    2005 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Staveley-Smith L., Oosterloo T., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14)

    2015

  42. [51]

    Storfer C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad527e , 274, 16

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4 , 853, 179

    Tacconi L. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4 , 853, 179

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    H., Szomoru A., Dwarakanath K

    Verheijen M., van Gorkom J. H., Szomoru A., Dwarakanath K. S., Poggianti B. M., Schiminovich D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522621 , 668, L9

    2007 doi

  45. [54]

    D., et al., 2013, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature12001 , 495, 344

    Vieira J. D., et al., 2013, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature12001 , 495, 344

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    Walter F., Brinks E., de Blok W. J. G., Bigiel F., Kennicutt Jr. R. C., Thornley M. D., Leroy A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2563 , 136, 2563

    2008 doi

  47. [56]

    Walter F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/67 , 833, 67

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    Walter F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb82e , 902, 111

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    S., Serra P., van der Hulst T., Roychowdhury S., Kamphuis P., N

    Wang J., Koribalski B. S., Serra P., van der Hulst T., Roychowdhury S., Kamphuis P., N. Chengalur J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1099 , 460, 2143

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/59 , 762

    Wardlow J. L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/59 , 762

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    Xi H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4357 , 966, L36

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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