Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Fast Radio Bursts within their Host Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most fast radio bursts trace the disks of their host galaxies, not globular clusters.

desk verdict First systematic census of FRB locations within host galaxies; the disk-majority claim is solid, but the headline GC fraction depends on an extrapolated scaling relation and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06453 v2 pith:DWZT436R submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.GA

Alexa C. Gordon (Northwestern) , Wen-fai Fong , Adam T. Deller , Lachlan Marnoch , Sungsoon Lim , Eric W. Peng , Keith W. Bannister , Apurba Bera
show 18 more authors
N. D. R. Bhat Tyson Dial Yuxin Dong Tarraneh Eftekhari Marcin Glowacki Kelly Gourdji Vivek Gupta Joscha N. Jahns-Schindler Akhil Jaini Charles D. Kilpatrick Chang Liu J. Xavier Prochaska Stuart D. Ryder Ryan M. Shannon Sunil Simha Nicolas Tejos Yuanming Wang Ziteng Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords fastradioburstsmagnetarsglobularclustershostgalaxyenvironmentsspiralarmsgalactocentricoffsetsASKAPCRAFTsurveystellarpopulations
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 maps where 37 well-localized fast radio bursts sit inside their host galaxies and asks which stellar population they trace. It finds that most bursts are consistent with the smooth stellar light of galactic disks, while only 11±5% statistically favor the spatial distribution of globular clusters, almost all at large projected offsets. This matters because it suggests that most FRB progenitors form alongside massive stars, while a smaller dynamical channel produces magnetars in old star clusters. The result implies multiple magnetar formation pathways and would guide searches for FRB counterparts.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a likelihood framework that places each FRB's localization on four normalized spatial models: the smooth Sérsic surface-brightness profile of the host, its residual substructure (mostly spiral arms), and two synthetic globular-cluster distributions (ellipsoidal and spherical) built from a scaling relation between host stellar mass and globular-cluster effective radius. The framework convolves each model with the FRB position uncertainty and compares likelihoods through ΔBIC. This machinery converts a single FRB position into a statement about which stellar population it most plausibly traces.

What would settle it

Resolve the globular-cluster populations of a handful of nearby (within a few tens of Mpc) late-type FRB host galaxies and measure their radial distribution; if it does not match the early-type-calibrated r_e,GC–M* relation, the synthetic GC models lose their foundation. Alternatively, VLBI localizations of FRBs 20210117A and 20220105A would show whether either coincides with a resolved globular cluster.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the majority of FRBs favor locations within the disks of their host galaxies, while a minority of about 11±5% favor the spatial distribution of globular clusters, primarily FRBs with galactocentric offsets ≳3 r_e. Based on 34 ASKAP/CRAFT FRBs plus three literature events, the authors build surface-brightness and residual substructure models of each host and synthetic globular-cluster distributions, then compare likelihoods. They conclude that, assuming FRBs come from magnetars, most progenitors are associated with massive-star formation and a minority form through dynamical channels in old stellar systems. They also find that at z<0.15, where spiral structure is visible in 86% of hosts, roughly 20–46% of FRBs favor association with spiral arms, a fraction well below the ≳88% seen for core-collapse supernovae, arguing that high star-formation efficiency is not the dominant driver of FRB progenitor production.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred globular-cluster fraction and the identification of FRBs 20210117A and 20220105A as globular-cluster candidates rest on a scaling relation for globular-cluster sizes calibrated on early-type galaxies and extrapolated to a sample that is mostly late-type disks; if that relation does not hold for these galaxies, the globular-cluster model probabilities—and therefore the 11±5% fraction—are unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, most FRB progenitors are young magnetars born from core-collapse supernovae in galactic disks.
  • A minority (~11±5%) of FRBs would arise from dynamical channels in globular clusters, implying at least two distinct magnetar formation paths.
  • The low spiral-arm association fraction relative to core-collapse supernovae implies that the most intense star-forming environments are not required to make FRB progenitors.
  • Host-normalized offsets beyond about 3 r_e become a useful flag for globular-cluster origins, and only a couple more such events would make the disk and GC offset distributions statistically distinct.
  • The seven newly presented hosts extend the redshift and imaging baseline for FRB environment studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 11±5% globular-cluster fraction is likely a lower bound because the framework cannot identify GC origins for bursts that project near the bright galaxy center, where smooth light dominates.
  • If future samples at low redshift with VLBI-class localizations reproduce the ~20–46% spiral-arm fraction, the comparison with core-collapse supernovae would point to a genuine age or environment difference between FRB and CCSN progenitors.
  • Applying the same likelihood machinery to FRB samples from other telescopes, or to Type Ia supernova positions, would test whether FRB progenitors more closely trace star formation or stellar mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents deep optical and near-infrared imaging of the host galaxies of 37 well-localized fast radio bursts (34 from CRAFT and three from the literature) and uses a likelihood framework to compare each FRB's position against four models: the smooth Sérsic light profile of the host, residual substructure (primarily spiral arms), and two synthetic globular cluster distributions (ellipsoidal and spherical) built from the Lim et al. (2024) r_e,GC–M* relation. The authors report a median projected offset of 4.2^{+5.7}_{-2.5} kpc (1.0^{+1.5}_{-0.6} r_e), find that the majority of FRBs favor the smooth-disk light model, identify 11±5% of the sample (four FRBs) as favoring a globular cluster origin at ΔBIC>3, and estimate that 20–46% of low-redshift (z<0.15) FRBs favor spiral-arm association. They conclude that FRB progenitors have multiple formation channels, with most associated with massive-star formation and a minority formed through dynamical channels.

Significance. The paper combines a comparatively large, homogeneous FRB host-galaxy sample with a new statistical tool (coflash) and carefully constructed synthetic GC distributions. The seven newly presented CRAFT FRBs and the public code are valuable community resources. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide one of the first quantitative population-level constraints on the fraction of FRBs originating in globular clusters, supporting multiple magnetar formation channels. The authors are transparent about several limitations, and the disk-versus-GC offset analysis is a useful diagnostic. However, the headline GC fraction is sensitive to sample selection and to the extrapolation of a scaling relation calibrated on early-type galaxies, so the quantitative result is not yet robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2; Section 6.2; Abstract] The sample is not representative of the FRB population because three non-CRAFT FRBs were added deliberately on account of being spiral or (candidate) globular-cluster events. Two of these additions, FRB 20200120E and FRB 20240209A, are among the four events that drive the 11±5% GC fraction. In the 34-object CRAFT-only subset, only FRBs 20210117A and 20220105A have ΔBIC>3 GC preferences, giving a fraction of 2/34≈6%, not 11±5%. The headline fractions should be reported separately for the unbiased CRAFT sample and for the full sample, with a discussion of how the intentional inclusion of exceptional events biases the population estimate.
  2. [Section 4.2; Section 5.2; Table 3] The exclusion of FRB 20211127I is applied inconsistently. The authors exclude this FRB because its inferred r_e,GC < r_e is attributed to a limitation of the Lim et al. (2024) relation for low-mass, late-type galaxies. However, FRB 20210117A, which is retained as a GC candidate with ΔBIC>3 in the NIR, has exactly the same property in that band: from Table 3, its K-band r_e = 1.96 kpc and r_e,GC = 1.30 kpc, so r_e,GC < r_e. This FRB also has the lowest stellar mass in the sample (log M*/M⊙ = 8.59). The paper needs to justify why the limitation that excluded FRB 20211127I does not also disqualify the NIR preference of FRB 20210117A, or consistently remove both; otherwise the 11±5% GC fraction is not robust.
  3. [Section 5.2, Eq. (2)] The BIC definition is non-standard. The paper defines k as "the number of parameters in the model (representing the pixel intensity values)" and then argues that k and n are identical across models, so ΔBIC reduces to Δ(-2lnL). This is a pure likelihood-ratio comparison with no penalty for model complexity. The Kass & Raftery (1995) thresholds (2<ΔBIC<6 as positive evidence, etc.) are calibrated for genuine BIC differences with meaningful parameter counts, and applying them to this unpenalized statistic is not justified. The claim that 11 FRBs have model preferences with ΔBIC>3 should be re-cast as a likelihood-ratio statement, or a proper information criterion with a defined parameter count should be used.
  4. [Abstract; Section 5.1; Section 5.2] The abstract mixes two different statistical standards in the same sentence. The statement that "the majority of FRBs favor locations within the disks" is based on the raw maximum-likelihood model preference (e.g., 13±3 Profile vs. 12±2 combined GC in the optical), while the "11±5%" GC fraction is based on the stricter ΔBIC>3 subset. Only 11 of 37 FRBs have any model preference reaching ΔBIC>3, and only four of those are GC. The abstract should either apply a consistent statistical threshold to both claims or explicitly state that the disk majority is a preferred-model count rather than a statistically significant association.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "spiral structure is apparent in 86% of our sample of FRB hosts" would be clearer if it noted that this applies to the z<0.15 subsample and that the spiral-arm fraction is explicitly a lower bound.
  2. [Section 4.3] Since coflash is described in a companion paper (Deller et al. in prep.), the present paper should include a brief mathematical description of how the likelihood is computed from the convolved probability maps so that the analysis is self-contained; the GitHub link alone is not sufficient for reproducibility.
  3. [Table 3] The paper would benefit from a compact table listing, for each GC candidate, the stellar mass, r_e, r_e,GC, and the filter(s) in which the GC preference appears, so that the exclusion criterion applied to FRB 20211127I is transparently visible for all events.
  4. [Acknowledgements] There is a typo in the acknowledgments: "Reserach Council" should be "Research Council".
  5. [Table 1] The coordinate entry for FRB 20241027B lists R.A. as "2:24:07.29" with a missing leading zero; this should be "02:24:07.29" for consistency with the other entries.
  6. [Section 6.2] The sentence "we find no support for a majority of observed FRBs arising from GCs" is a reasonable qualitative conclusion, but it would be strengthened by a direct computation of the GC fraction using only the CRAFT-selected sample, as suggested in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GC models are forward-modeled from an external scaling relation, and the FRB positions are independent data not used to fit the models.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. Host light profiles are derived with Galfit from imaging alone (Section 4.1). The synthetic GC distributions are built from the Lim et al. (2024) r_e,GC-M* relation using host stellar masses and the adopted n=2 Sersic index, with no FRB position entering the model construction (Section 4.2). The coflash likelihoods then use the observed FRB positions and localization uncertainties as independent data (Section 4.3), and the reported 11±5% GC fraction is simply the count of FRBs whose positions pass the DeltaBIC>3 threshold for the GC models (Section 6.2). No equation reduces to fitted values relabeled as predictions, and the GC fraction is not statistically forced by the model inputs alone. The Lim et al. relation is co-authored by two present co-authors, but it is an external empirical calibration on 118 early-type galaxies, is parameter-free with respect to this FRB sample, and is not derived from the target result. The paper explicitly probes its limits by excluding FRB 20211127I as an outlier, demonstrating that the relation is falsifiable against the data rather than being imposed to match the conclusion. The extrapolation to late-type hosts is a legitimate robustness/correctness caveat, but it is not circularity under the defined criteria.

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

The central GC fraction rests on the extrapolated Lim et al. relation and an assumed K-band mass-to-light ratio, with no FRB locations used to set those inputs. The disk-majority claim rests on the Sersic fits and the assumption that FRBs trace light. The model comparison itself has no free parameters tuned to the FRB positions.

free parameters (4)
  • Sersic index n = 0.1-4.06, sometimes fixed to 1 or 4 per image
    Fitted by GALFIT for each host light profile; affects the smooth and residual light models used in the likelihood comparison.
  • Effective radius r_e = 0.27-246.73 arcsec (Table 3)
    Fitted by GALFIT; sets the scale for host-normalized offsets and, through the Lim relation, the GC model scale.
  • K-band mass-to-light ratio = 0.6 M_sun/L_sun (assumed constant)
    Used to derive stellar masses for 17 hosts without SED masses; these masses determine r_e,GC and hence the GC spatial models.
  • GC Sersic index n_GC = 2 (fixed)
    Adopted as the median from Lim et al. (2024); not varied, so the GC models are tied to this assumption.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Host galaxy light follows a Sersic profile, possibly with separate disk and bulge components.
    Section 4.1 uses GALFIT with Sersic profiles; the residual image is defined by subtracting the fitted model.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lim et al. (2024) r_e,GC-M* relation calibrated on early-type galaxies applies to late-type galaxies.
    Section 4.2: adopted for all hosts despite the sample being mostly late-type; acknowledged as a reasonable extrapolation but not independently verified for this population.
  • domain assumption The true model is among the four candidate models and FRBs trace light distributions.
    Section 5.2 footnote and Section 7: the BIC framework assumes one of the tested models is correct; the whole interpretation relies on FRB positions following the host light, which is not proven.
  • domain assumption FRB positional uncertainties are Gaussian and the models can be treated as 2D probability maps.
    Section 4.3-4.4: convolving models with a 2D Gaussian localization to compute likelihoods assumes this representation is valid.
  • standard math WMAP9 cosmology is used to convert angular to physical offsets.
    Stated in the Introduction; a standard cosmological model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Fast Radio Bursts within their Host Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWZT436R

@misc{pith2026250606453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Fast Radio Bursts within their Host Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWZT436R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06453}
}
abstract

We present deep optical and near-infrared observations of the host galaxies of 34 fast radio bursts (FRBs) detected by the Commensal Real-time ASKAP Fast Transient (CRAFT) survey on the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) to compare the locations of FRBs relative to their host light distributions. Incorporating three additional FRBs from the literature, for a total of four repeating and 33 apparently non-repeating FRBs, we determine their projected galactocentric offsets and find a median of $ 4.2^{+5.7}_{-2.5}$ kpc ($1.0^{+1.5}_{-0.6}r_e$). We model their host surface brightness profiles and develop synthetic spatial distributions of their globular clusters based on host properties. We calculate the likelihood the observed location of each FRB is consistent with the smooth light of its host galaxy, residual (primarily spiral) substructure, or globular cluster distributions. The majority of FRBs favor locations within the disks of their galaxies, while only 11$\pm$5\% favor a globular cluster origin, primarily those with galactocentric offsets $\gtrsim3r_e$. At $z<0.15$, where spiral structure is apparent in 86\% of our sample of FRB hosts, we find $\approx 20-46\%$ of FRBs favor an association with spiral arms. Assuming FRBs derive from magnetars, our results support multiple formation channels with the majority of progenitors associated with massive stars and a minority formed through dynamical channels. However, the moderate fraction of FRBs associated with spiral structure indicates that high star formation efficiency of the youngest and most massive stars is not a predominant driver in the production of FRB progenitors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The redshift distribution of the FRB host galaxies in our sample which extends to z ≈ 0.64. We denote the sub-sample of 20 hosts with clear spiral arms as solid light blue bars. There is a clear drop-off in the detection of spiral structure at z ≳ 0.15 which is likely an effect of the limit of our survey, as opposed to an intrinsic effect. detailed morphological properties of the sample in Sec￾tion 4.1. In [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Imaging and light profiles considered for two example events: FRBs 20240312D (top panels) and 20220725A (lower panels), along with the FRB positions (1σ total uncertainty; magenta ellipses). The smaller panels represent the Galfit surface brightness profile model (“Profile”), residual image (“Residual”), and 2D synthetic globular cluster distribution models (“GC Ellipsoidal”; “GC Spherical”); the production of these… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compilation of residual images for our sample of FRB hosts, derived via Galfit surface brightness profile modeling (Section 4.1), along with the FRB localizations (1σ total uncertainty; magenta ellipses). For clarity, FRBs with milliarcsecond￾scale localizations are denoted by magenta stars as the localization is much smaller than the size of the symbol. The images have been scaled to highlight features of interest … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary visualization of L values from the four spatial distributions tested for each FRB image: Profile, Residual, GC Ellipsoidal, and GC Spherical. Each row corresponds to an FRB, which we sort in order of increasing redshift. Darker shades of blue represent stronger…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the ∆BIC between the four models for FRBs 20240312D (left) and 20220725A (right). The three leftmost bars show how the preferred model compares against the other models. We denote the threshold for statistical interpretation, ∆BIC > 3, with a black dashed…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative distributions of physical (left column) and host-normalized (right column) offsets for our sample. For each wavelength regime (optical = top row, NIR = bottom row), we split the FRBs by their preferred model, grouping the FRBs that prefer the Profile and Res…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The host-normalized offsets of FRBs from their hosts in units of host effective radius. We group the FRBs by their model preferences into Disk (pink) and GC (blue) populations, and denote the model preferences with ∆BIC > 3 with stars. For size comparison, we show conc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Boxplots of R, the ratio of total localization ellipse semi-major axis (aTotal) to galaxy size (re), split by model preference and model category (rightmost column). We include all FRB images in the distributions, specifying the sample sizes in the x-axis labels. The w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of ∆BIC for the preferred model against the other models as a function of R, the ratio of total localization ellipse semi-major axis (aTotal) to galaxy size (re). Each panel corresponds to a representative model preference (from left to right: Profile, Resid…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Measurement of angular cross-correlation between the cosmological dispersion measure and the thermal Sunyaev--Zeldovich effect

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First detection of an angular cross-correlation between FRB dispersion measure and the thermal SZ y-map: amplitude A≈2 relative to the fiducial halo-model prediction (4.0σ for Planck, 1.5σ for ACT).

  2. The Low-mass Dwarf Host Galaxy of Nonrepeating FRB 20230708A

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The host of non-repeating FRB 20230708A is a dwarf galaxy with luminosity about 1.6x10^8 L_sun, stellar mass about 10^8 M_sun, and subsolar metallicity, the faintest non-repeating FRB host known.

  3. The role of the galaxy stellar mass function in determining the cosmological distribution of astrophysical transients with applications to fast radio bursts and merging binary black holes

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the galaxy stellar mass function weighted by observed FRB host masses lowers the relevant stellar-mass density by ~3x, boosting the implied FRB formation efficiency and biasing standard population-inference results.

  4. Stellar Mass-Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 20 low-redshift fast radio burst hosts, the authors find host dispersion measure decreases with stellar mass, a trend that conflicts with the weak-feedback CAMELS-Astrid simulation.

  5. Discovery and Localization of the Swift-Observed FRB 20241228A in a Star-forming Host Galaxy

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

    FRB 20241228A is localized to a star-forming galaxy at z=0.1614, with a stringent X-ray limit from Swift follow-up 112 seconds after the burst.

  6. Calibrating $\rm{DM_{IGM}}-z$ relation using host galaxies of FRBs

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A claimed tight sSFR-DM_exc correlation is used to calibrate the DM_IGM-z relation, but the improvement is evaluated on the same data used to fit the model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    "" Zjjذrcǎiǎ p TP!URE͛7WPPPNO֮]te]vM>>>*\ʗ/ƍ + ĥjΝڿ \

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    T., et al

    Aggarwal , K., Budav \'a ri , T., Deller , A. T., et al. 2021, , 911, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2 2021

  5. [5]

    D., Allende Prieto , C., et al

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

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

  6. [6]

    P., & James , P

    Anderson , J. P., & James , P. A. 2009, , 399, 559, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15324.x

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    1998, The Messenger, 94, 1

    Appenzeller , I., Fricke , K., F \"u rtig , W., et al. 1998, The Messenger, 94, 1

    1998

  8. [8]

    S., Hakobyan , A

    Aramyan , L. S., Hakobyan , A. A., Petrosian , A. R., et al. 2016, , 459, 3130, 10.1093/mnras/stw873

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw873 2016

Show all 152 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Meurer , G

    Audcent-Ross , F. M., Meurer , G. R., Audcent , J. R., et al. 2020, , 492, 848, 10.1093/mnras/stz3282

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Deller , A

    Bannister , K. W., Deller , A. T., Phillips , C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565, 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, 10.21105/joss.00058

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Tendulkar , S

    Bassa , C. G., Tendulkar , S. P., Adams , E. A. K., et al. 2017, , 843, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Beasley , M. A. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, ed. P. Kab \'a th , D. Jones , & M. Skarka , 245--277, 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5_9

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E., Mellier , Y., Radovich , M., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender , D. Durand , & T. H. Handley , 228

    2002

  9. [17]

    M., Prochaska , J

    Bhandari , S., Sadler , E. M., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2020, , 895, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Aggarwal , K., et al

    Bhandari , S., Heintz , K. E., Aggarwal , K., et al. 2022, , 163, 69, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Scott , D

    Bhandari , S., Gordon , A. C., Scott , D. R., et al. 2023, , 948, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc178

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Kaspi , V

    Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B. M., Kaspi , V. M., et al. 2021, , 910, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj , M., Michilli , D., Kirichenko , A. Y., et al. 2024, , 971, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., Belov , K. V., et al. 2020, , 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Ravi , V., & Dong , D

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., & Dong , D. 2021, , 907, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd634

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, astropy/photutils: 1.3.0 , 1.3.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    Bradley , L., Sip o cz , B., Robitaille , T., et al. 2021, astropy/photutils: 1.3.0 , 1.3.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5796924

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, astropy/regions: v0.10, v0.10, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13852178

    Bradley, L., Deil, C., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2024, astropy/regions: v0.10, v0.10, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13852178

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Wharton , R

    Chatterjee , S., Law , C. J., Wharton , R. S., et al. 2017, , 541, 58, 10.1038/nature20797

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Bandura , K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K. M., et al. 2020, , 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    2021 b , , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    ---. 2021 b , , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    S., Simha , S., Mannings , A., et al

    Chittidi , J. S., Simha , S., Mannings , A., et al. 2021, , 922, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2818

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    C., Crain , J

    Clemens , J. C., Crain , J. A., & Anderson , R. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 331--340, 10.1117/12.550069

    2004 doi

  24. [33]

    2025, A Catalog of Local Universe Fast Radio Bursts from CHIME/FRB and the KKO Outrigger

    Collaboration, F., Amiri, M., Amouyal, D., et al. 2025, A Catalog of Local Universe Fast Radio Bursts from CHIME/FRB and the KKO Outrigger. 2502.11217

    2025 arXiv

  25. [34]

    2013, , 51, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy , C. 2013, , 51, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    Conroy , C., & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 712, 833, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  27. [36]

    E., & White , M

    Conroy , C., Gunn , J. E., & White , M. 2009, , 699, 486, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  28. [37]

    M., & Lazio , T

    Cordes , J. M., & Lazio , T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    2002 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    K., Bhandari , S., Deller , A

    Day , C. K., Bhandari , S., Deller , A. T., Shannon , R. M., & Moss , V. A. 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14515, 1

    2021

  30. [39]

    K., Deller , A

    Day , C. K., Deller , A. T., Shannon , R. M., et al. 2020, , 497, 3335, 10.1093/mnras/staa2138

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    T., Goss , W

    Deller , A. T., Goss , W. M., Brisken , W. F., et al. 2019, , 875, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    L., Bonnell , I

    Dobbs , C. L., Bonnell , I. A., & Pringle , J. E. 2006, , 371, 1663, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10794.x

    2006

  33. [42]

    2024, , 961, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cbd

    Dong , Y., Eftekhari , T., Fong , W.-f., et al. 2024, , 961, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cbd

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    2017, , 849, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa90b9

    Eftekhari , T., & Berger , E. 2017, , 849, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa90b9

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2025, , 979, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    Eftekhari , T., Dong , Y., Fong , W., et al. 2025, , 979, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    G., & Elmegreen , D

    Elmegreen , B. G., & Elmegreen , D. M. 1986, , 311, 554, 10.1086/164795

    1986 doi

  37. [46]

    M., & Elmegreen , B

    Elmegreen , D. M., & Elmegreen , B. G. 1984, , 54, 127, 10.1086/190922

    1984 doi

  38. [47]

    2022, , 659, A191, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    Emsellem , E., Schinnerer , E., Santoro , F., et al. 2022, , 659, A191, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    B., Frogel , J

    Eskridge , P. B., Frogel , J. A., Pogge , R. W., et al. 2002, , 143, 73, 10.1086/342340

    2002 doi

  40. [49]

    2019, , 131, 075004, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    Fabricant , D., Fata , R., Epps , H., et al. 2019, , 131, 075004, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, , 919, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac242b

    Fong , W.-f., Dong , Y., Leja , J., et al. 2021, , 919, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac242b

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    W., Walter , F., & Leroy , A

    Foyle , K., Rix , H. W., Walter , F., & Leroy , A. K. 2010, , 725, 534, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/534

    2010 doi

  43. [52]

    M., et al

    Freudling , W., Romaniello , M., Bramich , D. M., et al. 2013, , 559, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322494

    2013 doi

  44. [53]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211. 2208.00211

    2022 arXiv

  45. [54]

    M., et al

    Galbany , L., Stanishev , V., Mour \ a o , A. M., et al. 2014, , 572, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424717

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C

    Gordon , A. C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2023, , 954, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    Harris , W. E. 1991, , 29, 543, 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.002551

    1991

  50. [59]

    H., et al

    Hashimoto , T., Goto , T., Chen , B. H., et al. 2022, , 511, 1961, 10.1093/mnras/stac065

    2022 doi

  51. [60]

    E., Prochaska , J

    Heintz , K. E., Prochaska , J. X., Simha , S., et al. 2020, , 903, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    M., Bhardwaj , M., Gordon , A

    Hewitt , D. M., Bhardwaj , M., Gordon , A. C., et al. 2024, , 977, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce1

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    2013, , 208, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw , G., Larson , D., Komatsu , E., et al. 2013, , 208, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    2012, , 756, 187, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187

    Hjorth , J., Malesani , D., Jakobsson , P., et al. 2012, , 756, 187, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187

    2012 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Lyne , A

    Hobbs , G., Lorimer , D. R., Lyne , A. G., & Kramer , M. 2005, , 360, 974, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  56. [65]

    M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J

    Hook , I. M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J. R., et al. 2004, , 116, 425, 10.1086/383624

    2004 doi

  57. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    Horowicz , A., & Margalit , B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    2025 doi

  58. [67]

    W., Bunton , J

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

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

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

    2007 doi

  60. [69]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    Jiang , P., Yue , Y., Gan , H., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    Johnson , B. D. 2021, bd-j/sedpy: sedpy v0.2.0 , v0.2.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4582723

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    D., Leja , J., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J

    Johnson , B. D., Leja , J., Conroy , C., & Speagle , J. S. 2021, , 254, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    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. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

    2003

  64. [73]

    M., & Beloborodov , A

    Kaspi , V. M., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 55, 261, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  65. [74]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  66. [75]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1998, , 36, 189, 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  67. [76]

    2022, , 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten , F., Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., et al. 2022, , 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    2017, , 844, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b2d

    Kokubo , M., Mitsuda , K., Sugai , H., et al. 2017, , 844, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b2d

    2017 doi

  69. [78]

    A., Schinnerer , E., et al

    Kreckel , K., Blanc , G. A., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2016, , 827, 103, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/103

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    L., & Li , D

    Kremer , K., Piro , A. L., & Li , D. 2021, , 917, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac13a0

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    J., Sharma , K., Ravi , V., et al

    Law , C. J., Sharma , K., Ravi , V., et al. 2024, , 967, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    C., Whitmore , B

    Lee , J. C., Whitmore , B. C., Thilker , D. A., et al. 2022, , 258, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1fe5

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    W., Ryder , S

    Lee-Waddell , K., James , C. W., Ryder , S. D., et al. 2023, , 40, e029, 10.1017/pasa.2023.27

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    2020, , 899, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    Li , Y., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 899, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    W., C \^o t \'e , P., et al

    Lim , S., Peng , E. W., C \^o t \'e , P., et al. 2024, , 966, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3444

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    A., & Leja , J

    Loudas , N., Li , D., Strauss , M. A., & Leja , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15566, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15566

    2025 doi arXiv

  77. [86]

    2022, , 510, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    Lu , W., Beniamini , P., & Kumar , P. 2022, , 510, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    Macquart , J.-P., Bailes , M., Bhat , N. D. R., et al. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 27, 272, 10.1071/AS09082

    2010 doi

  79. [88]

    P., Prochaska , J

    Macquart , J. P., Prochaska , J. X., McQuinn , M., et al. 2020, , 581, 391, 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    2020 doi

  80. [89]

    G., Fong , W.-f., Simha , S., et al

    Mannings , A. G., Fong , W.-f., Simha , S., et al. 2021, , 917, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff56

    2021 doi

  81. [90]

    Marcote , B., Paragi , Z., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2017, , 834, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2020, , 577, 190, 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    Margalit , B., Berger , E., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, , 886, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    D., James, C

    Marnoch, L., Ryder, S. D., James, C. W., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10.1093/MNRAS/STAD2353

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    S., & Schombert , J

    McGaugh , S. S., & Schombert , J. M. 2014, , 148, 77, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/77

    2014 doi

  86. [95]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    McGregor , P., Hart , J., Stevanovic , D., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 1033--1044, 10.1117/12.550288

    2004 doi

  87. [96]

    2012, , 124, 1318, 10.1086/669044

    McLeod , B., Fabricant , D., Nystrom , G., et al. 2012, , 124, 1318, 10.1086/669044

    2012 doi

  88. [97]

    2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    Mereghetti , S., Savchenko , V., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    Moriya , T. J. 2016, , 830, L38, 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L38

    2016 doi

  90. [99]

    R., Gordon , A

    Muller , A. R., Gordon , A. C., Ryder , S. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20774, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20774

    2025 doi arXiv

  91. [100]

    Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., Kirsten , F., et al. 2022 a , Nature Astronomy, 6, 393, 10.1038/s41550-021-01569-9

    2022 doi

  92. [101]

    M., Hessels , J

    Nimmo , K., Hewitt , D. M., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2022 b , , 927, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac540f

    2022 doi

  93. [102]

    2025, , 637, 48, 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    Nimmo , K., Pleunis , Z., Beniamini , P., et al. 2025, , 637, 48, 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    2025 doi

  94. [103]

    H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al

    Niu , C. H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al. 2022, , 606, 873, 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  95. [104]

    B., Cohen , J

    Oke , J. B., Cohen , J. G., Carr , M., et al. 1995, , 107, 375, 10.1086/133562

    1995 doi

  96. [105]

    2024, , 968, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40aa

    Pandhi , A., Pleunis , Z., Mckinven , R., et al. 2024, , 968, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40aa

    2024 doi

  97. [106]

    H., Anderson , G

    Panther , F. H., Anderson , G. E., Bhandari , S., et al. 2023, , 519, 2235, 10.1093/mnras/stac3597

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Paufique , J., Bruton , A., Glindemann , A., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7736, Adaptive Optics Systems II, ed. B. L. Ellerbroek , M. Hart , N. Hubin , & P. L. Wizinowich , 77361P, 10.1117/12.858261

    2010 doi

  99. [108]

    Y., Ho , L

    Peng , C. Y., Ho , L. C., Impey , C. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266, 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  100. [109]

    2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    ---. 2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  101. [110]

    Petroff , E., Hessels , J. W. T., & Lorimer , D. R. 2022, , 30, 2, 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    2022 doi

  102. [111]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Pirard , J.-F., Kissler-Patig , M., Moorwood , A., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 1763--1772, 10.1117/12.578293

    2004 doi

  103. [112]

    2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts , E., Weltman , A., Walters , A., et al. 2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    2019 doi

  104. [113]

    X., Tejos , N., Crighton , N., et al

    Prochaska , J. X., Tejos , N., Crighton , N., et al. 2017, Linetools/Linetools: Third Minor Release , v0.3, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1036773

    2017 doi

  105. [114]

    X., Macquart , J.-P., McQuinn , M., et al

    Prochaska , J. X., Macquart , J.-P., McQuinn , M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231, 10.1126/science.aay0073

    2019 doi

  106. [115]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  107. [116]

    X., Hennawi , J., Cooke , R., et al

    Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J., Cooke , R., et al. 2020, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0 , v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    2020 doi

  108. [117]

    X., Simha, S., almannin, et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., almannin, et al. 2023, FRBs/FRB: Release to sync with Gordon et al. 2023, v2.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8125230

    2023 doi

  109. [118]

    2021, , 656, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140695

    Querejeta , M., Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S., et al. 2021, , 656, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140695

    2021 doi

  110. [119]

    M., Bezuidenhout , M

    Rajwade , K. M., Bezuidenhout , M. C., Caleb , M., et al. 2022, , 514, 1961, 10.1093/mnras/stac1450

    2022 doi

  111. [120]

    M., Driessen , L

    Rajwade , K. M., Driessen , L. N., Barr , E. D., et al. 2024, , 532, 3881, 10.1093/mnras/stae1652

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    S., & Fishbach , M

    Rao , A., Ye , C. S., & Fishbach , M. 2025, , 979, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9f2e

    2025 doi

  113. [122]

    2019, , 482, 1966, 10.1093/mnras/sty1551

    Ravi , V. 2019, , 482, 1966, 10.1093/mnras/sty1551

    2019 doi

  114. [123]

    2019, , 572, 352, 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    Ravi , V., Catha , M., D'Addario , L., et al. 2019, , 572, 352, 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    2019 doi

  115. [124]

    2023, , 949, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    Ravi , V., Catha , M., Chen , G., et al. 2023, , 949, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    2023 doi

  116. [125]

    2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.2 , v1.4.2, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6408044

    Reback , J., jbrockmendel , McKinney , W., et al. 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.2 , v1.4.2, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6408044

    2022 doi

  117. [126]

    C., et al

    Rest , A., Stubbs , C., Becker , A. C., et al. 2005, , 634, 1103, 10.1086/497060

    2005 doi

  118. [127]

    2014, , 437, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stt2054

    Rigaut , F., Neichel , B., Boccas , M., et al. 2014, , 437, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stt2054

    2014 doi

  119. [128]

    D., Bannister , K

    Ryder , S. D., Bannister , K. W., Bhandari , S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 294, 10.1126/science.adf2678

    2023 doi

  120. [129]

    C., Jones , D

    S \'a nchez-Gil , M. C., Jones , D. H., P \'e rez , E., et al. 2011, , 415, 753, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18759.x

    2011

  121. [130]

    L., Mateo , M., & Saha , A

    Schechter , P. L., Mateo , M., & Saha , A. 1993, , 105, 1342, 10.1086/133316

    1993 doi

  122. [131]

    W., & Stephens, M

    Scholz, F. W., & Stephens, M. A. 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 918. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2288805

    1987

  123. [132]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz , G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  124. [133]

    A., & Masters , K

    Sellwood , J. A., & Masters , K. L. 2022, , 60, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-104505

    2022 doi

  125. [134]

    Sersic , J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Observatoris Astronomico)

    1968

  126. [135]

    2025, , 979, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    Shah , V., Shin , K., Leung , C., et al. 2025, , 979, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    2025 doi

  127. [136]

    M., Macquart , J

    Shannon , R. M., Macquart , J. P., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2018, , 562, 386, 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    2018 doi

  128. [137]

    M., Bannister , K

    Shannon , R. M., Bannister , K. W., Bera , A., et al. 2025, , 42, e036, 10.1017/pasa.2025.8

    2025 doi

  129. [138]

    2023, , 950, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf1d

    Sharma , K., Somalwar , J., Law , C., et al. 2023, , 950, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf1d

    2023 doi

  130. [139]

    2024, , 635, 61, 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    Sharma , K., Ravi , V., Connor , L., et al. 2024, , 635, 61, 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    2024 doi

  131. [140]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  132. [141]

    H., Reich , P., Reich , W., et al

    Sun , X. H., Reich , P., Reich , W., et al. 2011, , 536, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117693

    2011 doi

  133. [142]

    P., Gil de Paz , A., Kirichenko , A

    Tendulkar , S. P., Gil de Paz , A., Kirichenko , A. Y., et al. 2021, , 908, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdb38

    2021 doi

  134. [143]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody , D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford , 733, 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  135. [144]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, 10.21105/joss.02004

    van der Velden , E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, 10.21105/joss.02004

    2020 doi

  136. [145]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2014 doi

  137. [146]

    2018, , 555, 629, 10.1038/nature25767

    van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Cohen , Y., et al. 2018, , 555, 629, 10.1038/nature25767

    2018 doi

  138. [147]

    2011, , 536, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    Vernet , J., Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., et al. 2011, , 536, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    2011 doi

  139. [148]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  140. [149]

    W., Gupta , V., et al

    Wang , Z., Bannister , K. W., Gupta , V., et al. 2025, , 42, e005, 10.1017/pasa.2024.107

    2025 doi

  141. [150]

    N., Mannings , A

    Woodland , M. N., Mannings , A. G., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2024, , 973, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad643c

    2024 doi

  142. [151]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    Zhang , B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  143. [152]

    C., & Zhang , B

    Zhang , R. C., & Zhang , B. 2022, , 924, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad

    2022 doi

  144. [153]

    2020, , 905, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    Zhou , P., Zhou , X., Chen , Y., et al. 2020, , 905, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.