Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 141 references

The connection between galaxy mergers, star formation and AGN activity in the HSC-SSP

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 Merger candidates in the HSC-SSP survey show essentially no enhancement in star formation or AGN activity relative to mass- and redshift-matched controls, with only visually purified postmergers showing a marginal rise in AGN luminosity.

desk verdict A careful null result whose 'secular processes' interpretation is undercut by likely sample contamination and timescale averaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08469 v1 pith:7WVM6DDN submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Kiyoaki Christopher Omori , Connor Bottrell , Sabine Bellstedt , Aaron Robotham , Hassen M. Yesuf , Andy D. Goulding , Marcin Sawicki , Tohru Nagao
show 1 more author
Tsutomu T. Takeuchi
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymergersstarformationactivegalacticnucleiHSC-SSPsurveySEDfittingdeep-learningmorphologyclassificationAGNtriggeringcontrolmatching
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

The paper asks whether galaxy mergers deliver the gas that lights up star formation and feeds supermassive black holes, a standard ingredient of galaxy-formation theory. Using roughly 7,000 deep-learning-selected merger candidates in the HSC-SSP survey, each matched to 50 control galaxies of the same stellar mass and redshift, it finds essentially no difference in star formation or AGN activity: $\Delta \mathrm{SFR} = -0.009 \pm 0.003$ dex, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{AGN}} = -0.010 \pm 0.033$ dex, and $\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}} = 0.002 \pm 0.025$ dex. After visual purification into 259 pairs and 100 postmergers, star formation remains at or below control levels, and only the postmergers show a modest AGN luminosity excess ($\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}} = 0.329 \pm 0.195$ dex) that is not statistically significant. The authors conclude that secular processes are leading drivers of star formation and black-hole growth at these redshifts, and warn that star-formation rates averaged over roughly 100 Myr can smooth away short-lived merger-triggered starbursts.

What carries the argument

Three components carry the argument. A fine-tuned Zoobot convolutional network, pre-trained on Galaxy Zoo DECaLS and re-trained on roughly 2,400 citizen-science-labeled HSC-SSP images, assigns every galaxy a merger probability, with $P>0.8$ selecting the merger candidates and $P<0.3$ defining the control pool. The SED-fitting code ProSpect simultaneously fits galaxy and AGN components across far-UV to far-infrared photometry, producing the stellar masses, star-formation rates, AGN flux fractions $f_{\mathrm{AGN}}$ (the fraction of 5--20 $\mu$m flux contributed by the AGN), and AGN bolometric luminosities $L_{\mathrm{AGN}}$ that feed both the property comparisons and the sample matching; the simultaneous fit keeps AGN light from being misread as star formation. A 50-control-per-galaxy mass-and-redshift matching scheme with closeness-based statistical weighting isolates the merger effect from stellar mass and redshift, and an iterative main-sequence selection restricts the analysis to star-forming galaxies so that quenched galaxies cannot enter the control pool. A visual-purification stage then splits the candidates into pairs and postmergers, with spectroscopic confirmation isolating a small set of close pairs for a stage-resolved comparison.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 50-control measurement on the same 259 pairs and 100 postmergers using a short-timescale star-formation tracer such as H$\alpha$ emission, which records only the last roughly 10 Myr of star formation: a clearly positive $\Delta \mathrm{SFR}$ would show the ProSpect null is a timescale artifact, while a null would confirm that the absence of enhancement is physical. A companion check would apply the fine-tuned classifier to simulated images of mergers with known stages and known starburst timing, to measure what fraction of $P>0.8$ candidates are already past their peak enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, in the aggregate, merger candidates in HSC-SSP at $z<0.35$ are statistically indistinguishable from mass- and redshift-matched controls in both star formation and AGN activity: $\Delta \mathrm{SFR} = -0.009 \pm 0.003$ dex, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{AGN}} = -0.010 \pm 0.033$ dex, and $\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}} = 0.002 \pm 0.025$ dex. Visually purifying 3,000 of the candidates into 259 pairs (two distinguishable nuclei with tidal features) and 100 postmergers (one nucleus with shells, streams, or asymmetry) sharpens the picture only mildly: pairs show no measurable star formation or AGN enhancement, close pairs show a small SFR uptick, and postmergers show the largest elevation in AGN luminosity and AGN flux fraction ($\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}} = 0.329 \pm 0.195$ dex), which is not statistically significant. The paper interprets these numbers as showing that secular processes drive much of the star formation and black-hole growth in the local universe, and as a caution that SED-based star-formation rates averaged over roughly 100 Myr, combined with a deliberately diverse CNN merger sample, can hide short-lived merger-triggered starbursts and AGN episodes.

Load-bearing premise

The result holds only if most high-probability merger candidates are genuine mergers observed at stages where triggered star formation or AGN activity would be visible, and if ProSpect's roughly-100-Myr-averaged star-formation rates and AGN indicators are sensitive enough to detect the enhancement if it occurred.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Typical merger-like galaxies at $z<0.35$ contribute little net enhancement to the cosmic star formation budget: the broad merger sample sits within 0.01 dex of its controls.
  • AGN triggering by mergers is at most a post-coalescence phenomenon in this sample: pairs show no AGN excess, while postmergers carry the only, still marginal, luminosity enhancement.
  • Published merger--star formation and merger--AGN boosts measured with long-timescale tracers may be inflated by tracer timing and sample diversity rather than by the merger process itself.
  • Secular processes such as disk instabilities and gradual gas accretion must be treated as leading drivers of star formation and black-hole growth at these redshifts.
  • Binary CNN merger classification alone yields statistically diluted samples; stage-aware purification into pairs and postmergers is needed to expose stage-dependent signals such as the postmerger AGN excess.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's timescale argument implies a direct test: re-running the same 50-control measurement on the visually purified samples with a short-timescale tracer such as H$\alpha$ ($\sim$10 Myr) should show a clear positive $\Delta\mathrm{SFR}$ if merger-triggered starbursts are real, and a null would make the absence physical.
  • In the spectroscopically confirmed pairs, secondary galaxies of minor mergers carry the largest AGN luminosity excess ($\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}} = 0.447 \pm 0.138$ dex) while primaries are suppressed, hinting that merger-induced black-hole growth prefers the lower-mass member; a targeted study of pair secondaries with instantaneous tracers could test this asymmetry.
  • Applying the same classifier and control-matching to mock observations of mergers with known stages and known starburst timing would bound how much of the null result is dilution from genuine mergers observed after their peak enhancement.
  • If the near-unity AGN excess of the broad sample (1.021 $\pm$ 0.061) is upheld, the short AGN duty cycle alone could erase a population-level merger signal, so the null result constrains merger-trigger fractions less stringently than it first appears.
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. This paper tests the merger-SFR-AGN connection using ~144,000 HSC-SSP galaxies cross-matched with GAMA, identifying mergers with a Zoobot CNN fine-tuned on Galaxy Cruise labels and measuring galaxy and AGN properties with the ProSpect SED-fitting code. The authors compare SFR, f_AGN, and L_AGN between merger candidates (P>0.8) and mass- and redshift-matched controls (P<0.3), and repeat the comparison for visually purified pairs and postmergers. The headline result is a near-null difference for the full merger candidate sample (Delta SFR = -0.009 +/- 0.003 dex, Delta f_AGN = -0.010 +/- 0.033 dex, Delta L_AGN = 0.002 +/- 0.025 dex), with mild SFR suppression and a marginally significant AGN luminosity enhancement for visually confirmed postmergers. The authors argue that secular processes may dominate and caution against longer-timescale tracers.

Significance. If the null result is robust, this would challenge the widespread assumption that mergers produce strong enhancements in star formation and AGN activity at low redshift, and it would strengthen the emerging view that tracer timescale and sample purity are critical in this field. The study has notable strengths: careful control matching with statistical weighting, a pseudo-merger placebo sample, visual purification with cross-review, and the self-consistent ProSpect SED fitting that simultaneously constrains stellar and AGN components. The central claim, however, rests on the purity of the CNN-selected merger sample and the absence of contamination in the control pool; these points are not yet demonstrated. The work is well suited to the journal's scope and would be a valuable contribution after the purity question is resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Section 3.1] The headline null is computed on the full P>0.8 merger candidate sample, but the purity of this sample is not established. Visual follow-up of 3000 of ~7000 candidates yielded only 259 pairs and 100 postmergers, i.e., about 12% of the inspected candidates meet the paper's own visual merger criteria. The manuscript does not state how the 3000 were selected, nor does it report the CNN probability distribution for visually confirmed versus unconfirmed candidates. If the inspected 3000 are representative, the P>0.8 sample is dominated by objects that are not visually identifiable as mergers, and the measured null would be expected even if every true merger were strongly enhanced. The pseudo-merger placebo in Section 3 is drawn from the P<0.3 control pool, so it validates the matching and weighting machinery, not the purity of the P>0.8 sample. I request that the authors (a) state how the 3000 inspected candidates were chosen and justify their representativeness, (b) report confirmation fraction as a function of CNN probability, and (c) test the sensitivity of the full-sample null to plausible non-merger fractions, for example by restricting the analysis to visually confirmed objects or by reweighting.
  2. [Section 2.5, Section 3] The control pool (P<0.3) is not visually vetted, and the CNN's false-negative rate on control-like objects is not quantified. If a non-negligible fraction of controls are unrecognized mergers, every Delta SFR, Delta f_AGN, and Delta L_AGN value is biased toward zero, which would produce exactly the same headline null regardless of the true merger enhancement. The pseudo-merger sample does not address this issue because it is drawn from the same control pool and only tests the internal consistency of the weighting scheme. I ask for a visual inspection of a random subset of the control sample (or another quantitative estimate of control contamination, e.g., from Galaxy Cruise labels) and a discussion of how the conclusions would change if those objects were excluded.
  3. [Section 2.1] The merger classifier's reported accuracy (83%), recall (84%), and precision (84%) are computed on the fine-tuning sample itself, not on a held-out validation set. These numbers therefore do not measure generalization to unseen HSC-SSP galaxies and cannot be used to argue that P>0.8 selects a predominantly true-merger population. Please provide validation performance on a held-out set drawn from the Galaxy Cruise labels, and, if possible, a calibration check showing that the CNN probability is a meaningful predictor of the visual merger fraction.
  4. [Abstract, Section 5] The abstract and conclusions state that the results 'suggest secular processes being an important driver for SF and AGN activity.' This interpretation goes beyond what the data alone can establish: the near-null differences are equally consistent with sample impurity, with unrecognized mergers in the control pool, and with the ~100 Myr time-averaging of ProSpect SFRs, which the authors themselves discuss in Section 4.1.1. I recommend reframing the conclusion as a null result that is consistent with, but does not uniquely demonstrate, a dominant secular channel, and adding quantitative upper limits on any merger-driven enhancement based on the measured uncertainties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3] The sentence 'postmergers were required to be fully coalesced...' begins with a lowercase letter; please capitalize the first word.
  2. [Section 3.2] Equation (5) contains a typo: 'The AGN enhancement enhancement of each galaxy' should be 'The AGN enhancement of each galaxy,' and the parentheses in the numerator are unbalanced.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'Figures 8 to shows 10 the results' should read 'Figures 8 to 10 show the results.'
  4. [Section 2.4] The phrase 'Galaxies with SFRs less than below 0.75 dex the final main sequence' should be reworded, e.g., 'Galaxies more than 0.75 dex below the final main sequence are considered quenched.'
  5. [Section 2.5] The phrase 'This search was with replacement' is awkward; consider 'Controls were drawn with replacement.'
  6. [Section 3.1] The word 'meager' is used to describe the SFR suppression; 'modest' would be a more standard scientific descriptor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the merger-SFR/AGN comparison is a direct measurement using an independent SED-fit catalog and label-free controls.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Merger candidate status is assigned by a fine-tuned Zoobot CNN from HSC-SSP gri images; the labels used for fine-tuning come from the external Galaxy Cruise citizen-science project, and the output probability P(merger) is a purely morphological quantity that does not use SFR or AGN information. The SFR, f_AGN, and L_AGN values are taken from the externally published ProSpect/GAMA catalog of Thorne et al. (2022), fitted to panchromatic photometry independent of the merger labels. Controls are matched on stellar mass and redshift with weights defined by Equations (1)-(3); matching on mass and redshift does not force the outcome variables SFR/f_AGN/L_AGN to be equal, since the measured Delta quantities in Equations (4)-(6) are residual offsets relative to the control-weighted mean, not fitted parameters. The pseudo-merger placebo (Section 3) is a matching-machinery check rather than a purity calibration, so any sample-purity weakness it fails to address is a validity caveat, not a circular reduction. The paper itself flags the ~100 Myr time-averaging of ProSpect SFRs (Section 4.1.1) and the diversity of CNN-selected samples (Section 4.2) as reasons the null may be insensitive; these are acknowledged limitations and not inputs disguised as predictions. The self-citations to Omori et al. (2023) for fine-tuning sample size and to ProSpect papers for the property catalog are independent, published, externally testable products and are not used as an unverified premise that is equivalent to the conclusion. No equation in the paper reduces the headline Delta values to the merger probability or to the training labels by construction.

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

The measurement relies on hard selection thresholds (merger probability, control probability, AGN luminosity floor, main-sequence offset) that are chosen by hand and affect the results. The physical interpretation relies on assumptions about SED decomposition, tracer timescales, morphological signature lifetimes, and classifier generalization, all of which are domain assumptions rather than ad hoc inventions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • merger_probability_threshold = 0.8
    Galaxies with P(merger) >= 0.8 are classified as merger candidates. Chosen to resemble the Galaxy Cruise training cutoff; affects sample composition and all enhancement measurements (Section 2.1, Section 3).
  • control_probability_threshold = 0.3
    Controls are galaxies with P(merger) < 0.3. Galaxies with P between 0.3 and 0.8 are excluded; this choice affects the control population and the measured enhancement (Section 2.5).
  • L_AGN_minimum = 10^36 L_sun
    Galaxies with AGN luminosity below this value are removed as poorly constrained, which changes the AGN sample and the computed f_AGN and L_AGN distributions (Section 2.2, Section 2.4).
  • SFG_selection_offset = 0.75 dex below main sequence
    Galaxies below 0.75 dex of the iterative main sequence are removed as quenched. This cut determines which galaxies enter the star-forming sample and influences the SFR enhancement results (Section 2.4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Fritz et al. (2006) AGN torus model in ProSpect correctly separates AGN and galaxy SED components.
    The AGN luminosity and f_AGN measurements depend on this decomposition; if AGN light contaminates the stellar fit, SFRs would be biased. Invoked in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption ProSpect SFRs are time-averaged over roughly 100 Myr and are reliable tracers of merger-induced star formation on that timescale.
    The null SFR result is interpreted as a possibly timescale-averaged signal; the validity of this interpretation rests on the tracer timescale. Stated in Section 4.1.1.
  • domain assumption Visual merger signatures persist for approximately 0.2 to 2 Gyr, so the postmerger sample is representative of late-stage mergers.
    Used when interpreting the postmerger AGN enhancement and the timescale mismatch. Invoked in Section 4.1.1.
  • domain assumption The fine-tuned Zoobot generalizes from the Galaxy Cruise fine-tuning sample to the full HSC-GAMA sample.
    The merger probabilities used for sample selection depend on this generalization; reported accuracy is 83% on the fine-tuning set only. Section 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The connection between galaxy mergers, star formation and AGN activity in the HSC-SSP." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WVM6DDN

@misc{pith2026250608469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The connection between galaxy mergers, star formation and AGN activity in the HSC-SSP},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WVM6DDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08469}
}
abstract

Internal gas inflows driven by galaxy mergers are considered to enhance star formation rates (SFR), fuel supermassive black hole growth and stimulate active galactic nuclei (AGN). However, quantifying these phenomena remains a challenge, due to difficulties both in classifying mergers and in quantifying galaxy and AGN properties. We quantitatively examine the merger-SFR-AGN connection using Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC-SSP) galaxies using novel methods for both galaxy classification and property measurements.} {Mergers in HSC-SSP observational images are identified through fine-tuning Zoobot, a pretrained deep representation learning model, using images and labels based on the Galaxy Cruise project. We use galaxy and AGN properties that were produced by fitting Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA) spectra using the SED fitting code ProSpect, which fits panchromatically across the far-UV through far-infrared wavelengths and obtains galaxy and AGN properties simultaneously.} \textbf{{Little differences are seen in SFR and AGN activity between mergers and controls, with $\Delta \mathrm{SFR}=-0.009\pm 0.003$ dex, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{AGN}}=-0.010\pm0.033$ dex and $\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}}=0.002\pm0.025$ dex. After further visual purification of the merger sample, we find $\Delta \mathrm{SFR}=-0.033\pm0.014$ dex, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{AGN}}=-0.024\pm0.170$ dex, and $\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}}=0.019\pm0.129$ dex for pairs, and $\Delta \mathrm{SFR}=-0.057\pm0.024$ dex, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{AGN}}=0.286\pm0.270$ dex, and $\Delta L_{\mathrm{AGN}}=0.329\pm0.195$ dex for postmergers. These numbers suggest secular processes being an important driver for SF and AGN activity, and present a cautionary tale when using longer timescale tracers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar mass (upper panel) and redshift (lower panel) distributions for the Galaxy Cruise-based merger and non-merger galaxies used for fine-tuning Zoobot. There are ∼1200 each of mergers and non-mergers. Each merger galaxy used in the fine￾tuning process has a corresponding non-merger galaxy with a simi￾lar stellar mass. KS-test results for stellar mass: KS-statistic=0.004, P-value=1.0, for redshift: KS-statistic=0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Merger probability distributions for HSC-GAMA cross￾matched galaxies predicted using the Zoobot model fine-tuned using Galaxy Cruise images and labels. We find that the most galaxies have very low merger probabilities, and the number of galaxies in each probability bin decreases as probability increases. et al. (2022). The properties are derived using the SED fitting code ProSpect (Robotham et al. 2020). ProSpect fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the stellar mass - SFR relation of all of our galaxies. As this part of this work investigates the quantita￾tive connection between merger activity and star formation, we limit both our merger and control samples to starform￾ing galaxies (SFGs). To select SFGs, we follow an iterative approach laid out in Donnari et al. (2019, 2021). In each iteration, the median star formation rates (SFRs) of galax￾ies as a fu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average star formation enhancements for each merger sample. From left to right, the datapoints indicates the mean ∆SFR, or mean star formation enhancement, for a) the ‘fake’ merger con￾trol sample (black points with grey background), b) all galaxies with merger probabi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the mean fAGN enhancement for each sam￾ple. fAGN is enhanced in the pair and postmerger samples, with the enhancement greater in the postmerger sample. The entire merger candidate sample shows a suppression rela￾tive to controls, ∆fAGN = −0.010 ± 0.033 dex. The p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The AGN excess, defined as the fraction of mergers that host AGNs over the fraction of controls that host AGNs, for each sample. The horizontal dashed line indicates a ratio of 1, which means no difference between AGN host fraction between mergers and controls. We find…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 20 randomly drawn examples of GAMA galaxies with a merger probability > 0.8, with merger probabilities in descending order. The merger probabilities are indicated in the image and the GAMA ID below the image. The angular scales for the images are also available in the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average star formation enhancements for each merger sample, with 5 controls. Enhancements for a) controls: ∆SFR = 0.002±0.007 dex b) merger probability >0.3 sample: ∆SFR = −0.004 ± 0.013 dex c) all merger candidates: ∆SFR = −0.012 ± 0.003 dex d) pairs: ∆SFR = −0.032 ±…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    Aihara, H., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  2. [2]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y ., Ando, M., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  3. [3]

    S., Lambas, D

    Alonso, M. S., Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P., & Coldwell, G. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1017, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11367.x

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  5. [5]

    J., Geller, M

    Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 660, doi: 10.1086/308392

    doi:10.1086/308392 2000

  6. [6]

    2008, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 8, 77

    Beckman, J., Carretero, C., & Vazdekis, A. 2008, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 8, 77

    2008

  7. [7]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.56.255 1984

  8. [8]

    P., Robotham, A

    Bellstedt, S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1466

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1466 2020

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1500

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Wilkinson, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad088

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M

    Bickley, R. W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab806

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Salvato, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1951

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, in SciOps 2022: Artificial Intelligence for Science and Operations in Astronomy (SCIOPS), 2, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6551859

    Bottrell, C. 2022, in SciOps 2022: Artificial Intelligence for Science and Operations in Astronomy (SCIOPS), 2, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6551859

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    H., Teimoorinia, H., Patton, D

    Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., Teimoorinia, H., Patton, D. R., & Ellison, S. L. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3717

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    H., Teimoorinia, H., et al

    Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., Teimoorinia, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2934

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Popping, G., et al

    Bottrell, C., Yesuf, H. M., Popping, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2971

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  11. [19]

    J., Shen, Y ., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y ., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789, doi: 10.1126/science.abg9933

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    H., Ellison, S

    Byrne-Mamahit, S., Hani, M. H., Ellison, S. L., Quai, S., & Patton, D. R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3674

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Ellison, S

    Byrne-Mamahit, S., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae419

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    R., V olonteri, M., Dotti, M., et al

    Capelo, P. R., V olonteri, M., Dotti, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2500

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Cardoso, L. S. M., Gomes, J. M., & Papaderos, P. 2017, A&A, 604, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630378

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Inskip, K. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/57

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    2006, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol

    Combes, F. 2006, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 26, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 131–134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602300

    2006 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1, doi: 10.1086/375001

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Rodriguez-Pascual, P

    Crenshaw, D. M., Rodriguez-Pascual, P. M., Penton, S. V ., et al. 1996, ApJ, 470, 322, doi: 10.1086/177869

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & et al

    Cutri, R. M., & et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: WISE All-Sky Data Release (Cutri+2012), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/311. Originally published in: 2012wise.rept....1C

    2012

  22. [30]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095026, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/aceccb

    Das, A., Pandey, B., & Sarkar, S. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095026, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/aceccb

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Pontzen, A., & Crain, R. A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1742

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Davies, L. J. M., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1241

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Davies, L. J. M., Thorne, J. E., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1601

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Desai, V ., et al

    Dey, A., Soifer, B. T., Desai, V ., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 943, doi: 10.1086/529516

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d Di Matteo, P., Combes, F., Melchior, A. L., & Semelin, B. 2007, A&A, 468, 61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi:...

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Ashby, M

    Dietrich, J., Weiner, A. S., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2056 Dom´ınguez S´anchez, H., Martin, G., Damjanov, I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad750

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Koekemoer, A

    Donley, J. L., Koekemoer, A. M., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/142

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950 —

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1950 —. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Ballantyne, D

    Draper, A. R., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2012, ApJ, 751, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/72

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472 D’Silva, J. C. J., Driver, S. P., Lagos, C. D. P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad103e

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 7411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae481

    Eisert, L., Bottrell, C., Pillepich, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae481

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Wild, V ., et al. 2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 121, doi: 10.33232/001c.127779

    doi

  35. [43]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 12, doi: 10.33232/001c.129235 14

    Ellison, S., Ferreira, L., Bickley, R., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 12, doi: 10.33232/001c.129235 14

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Ferreira, L., Wild, V ., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Ferreira, L., Wild, V ., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06357, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06357

    doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    L., Mendel, J

    Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1562

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2043, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x

    2011

  39. [47]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1431

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad343e

    Feng, S., Shen, S.-Y ., Yuan, F.-T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad343e

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Patton, D

    Ferreira, L., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06356, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06356

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 767, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x

    Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 767, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09866.x

    2006

  44. [52]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S3, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx079

    Furusawa, H., Koike, M., Takata, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S3, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx079

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Impey, C

    Gabor, J. M., Impey, C. D., Jahnke, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 705, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/705

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Gao, F., Wang, L., Pearson, W. J., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937178

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/218

    Glikman, E., Simmons, B., Mailly, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/218

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2016, Deep learning, MIT press

    Goodfellow, I. 2016, Deep learning, MIT press

    2016

  49. [57]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S37, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx135

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Conselice, C

    Grogin, N. A., Conselice, C. J., Chatzichristou, E., et al. 2005, ApJL, 627, L97, doi: 10.1086/432256

    2005 doi

  51. [59]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  52. [60]

    H., Gosain, H., Ellison, S

    Hani, M. H., Gosain, H., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Torrey, P. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa459

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx997

    Hewlett, T., Villforth, C., Wild, V ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx997

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    Hong, J., Im, M., Kim, M., & Ho, L. C. 2015, ApJ, 804, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/34

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt017

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereˇs, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Soifer, B

    Houck, J. R., Soifer, B. T., Weedman, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 622, L105, doi: 10.1086/429405

    2005 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 950, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae061

    Inoue, S., Ohta, K., Asada, Y ., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 950, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae061

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, The Messenger, 183, 25, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5232

    Iodice, E., Spavone, M., Capaccioli, M., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 183, 25, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5232

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    Ji, I., Peirani, S., & Yi, S. K. 2014, A&A, 566, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423530

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/176

    Juneau, S., Dickinson, M., Bournaud, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/176

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 66, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy056

    Kawanomoto, S., Uraguchi, F., Komiyama, Y ., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 66, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy056

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    H., & Abel, T

    Kim, J.-h., Wise, J. H., & Abel, T. 2009, ApJL, 694, L123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L123

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/9

    Kirkpatrick, A., Pope, A., Sajina, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/9

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Faber, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., Mozena, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/148

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    D., Brightman, M., Nandra, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Brightman, M., Nandra, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/104

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx069

    Komiyama, Y ., Obuchi, Y ., Nakaya, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx069

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    1995

  70. [78]

    N., Silverman, J

    Lackner, C. N., Silverman, J. D., Salvato, M., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/137

    2014 doi

  71. [79]

    2023a, ApJ, 944, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13d

    Li, W., Nair, P., Irwin, J., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 944, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13d

    doi

  72. [80]

    A., Ho, L

    Li, Y . A., Ho, L. C., & Shangguan, J. 2023b, ApJ, 953, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdddb

    doi

  73. [81]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x —. 2010a, MNRAS, 404, 575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16268.x —. 2010b, MNRAS, 404, 590, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16269.x

    2008

  74. [82]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849

    2004 doi

  75. [83]

    2011, A&A, 532, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117107

    Lutz, D., Poglitsch, A., Altieri, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117107

    2011 doi

  76. [84]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/34

    Marchesi, S., Civano, F., Elvis, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/34

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    2004

  78. [86]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab385b

    Marian, V ., Jahnke, K., Mechtley, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab385b

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    M., Rosario, D

    McAlpine, S., Harrison, C. M., Rosario, D. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1123

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    A., et al

    Mechtley, M., Jahnke, K., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 156, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/156

    2016 doi

  82. [90]

    2014, A&A, 569, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424217

    Menci, N., Gatti, M., Fiore, F., & Lamastra, A. 2014, A&A, 569, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424217

    2014 doi

  83. [91]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063 15

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y ., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063 15

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    L., et al

    Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv094

    2015 doi

  85. [93]

    2006, ApJL, 636, L81, doi: 10.1086/500205

    Naab, T., Khochfar, S., & Burkert, A. 2006, ApJL, 636, L81, doi: 10.1086/500205

    2006 doi

  86. [94]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  87. [95]

    J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al

    Oliver, S. J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20912.x

    2012

  88. [96]

    C., Bottrell, C., Walmsley, M., et al

    Omori, K. C., Bottrell, C., Walmsley, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346743

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    Mendel, J. T. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 591, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17932.x

    2011

  90. [98]

    R., Qamar, F

    Patton, D. R., Qamar, F. D., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1494

    2016 doi

  91. [99]

    R., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Patton, D. R., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., Mendel, J. T., & Scudder, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L59, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058

    2013 doi

  92. [100]

    J., Wang, L., Alpaslan, M., et al

    Pearson, W. J., Wang, L., Alpaslan, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936337

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    L., Patton, D

    Quai, S., Byrne-Mamahit, S., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Hani, M. H. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3713

    2023 doi

  95. [103]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 2038, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2208

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., & Duc, P.-A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2038, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2208

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Kraljic, K., & Duc, P. A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu050

    2014 doi

  97. [105]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Bellstedt, S., & Driver, S. P. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1032

    2022 doi

  98. [106]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Bellstedt, S., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1116

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Davies, L. J. M., Driver, S. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty440

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Liske, J., Driver, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt156 Rodr´ıguez Montero, F., Dav´e, R., Wild, V ., Angl´es-Alc´azar, D., &

    2013 doi

  101. [109]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2580

    Narayanan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2580

    2019 doi

  102. [110]

    R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al

    Saitoh, T. R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 481, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.3.481

    2009 doi

  103. [111]

    B., & Mirabel, I

    Sanders, D. B., & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.749

    1996 doi

  104. [112]

    B., Soifer, B

    Sanders, D. B., Soifer, B. T., Elias, J. H., et al. 1988, ApJ, 325, 74, doi: 10.1086/165983

    1988 doi

  105. [113]

    J., Shao, L., et al

    Santini, P., Rosario, D. J., Shao, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118266

    2012 doi

  106. [114]

    L., McAlpine, W., et al

    Satyapal, S., Ellison, S. L., McAlpine, W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu650

    2014 doi

  107. [115]

    Schawinski, K., Koss, M., Berney, S., & Sartori, L. F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1136

    2015 doi

  108. [116]

    2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Schweizer, F. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 329, Starbursts: From 30 Doradus to Lyman Break Galaxies, ed. R. de Grijs & R. M. Gonz´alez Delgado, 143, doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3539-X 25

    2005 doi

  109. [117]

    D., et al

    Silva, A., Marchesini, D., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdbb1

    2021 doi

  110. [118]

    D., Kampczyk, P., Jahnke, K., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Kampczyk, P., Jahnke, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/2

    2011 doi

  111. [119]

    J., Simmons, B

    Smethurst, R. J., Simmons, B. D., Lintott, C. J., & Shanahan, J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2443

    2019 doi

  112. [120]

    Smith, A. G. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 110, Blazar Continuum Variability, ed. H. R. Miller, J. R. Webb, & J. C. Noble, 3

    1996

  113. [121]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 2418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1793

    Sparre, M., & Springel, V . 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1793

    2016 doi

  114. [122]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac818

    Tacchella, S., Smith, A., Kannan, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac818

    2022 doi

  115. [123]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 986, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad055

    Tanaka, M., Koike, M., Naito, S., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 986, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad055

    2023 doi

  116. [124]

    D., Yesuf, H

    Tang, S., Silverman, J. D., Yesuf, H. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad877

    2023 doi

  117. [125]

    E., Robotham, A

    Thorne, J. E., Robotham, A. S. G., Davies, L. J. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1294 —. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3208

    2021 doi

  118. [126]

    D., Ellison, S

    Thorp, M. D., Ellison, S. L., Simard, L., S´anchez, S. F., & Antonio, B. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L55, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly185

    2019 doi

  119. [127]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/36

    Toba, Y ., Nagao, T., Kajisawa, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/36

    2017 doi

  120. [128]

    M., & Simmons, B

    Treister, E., Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., & Simmons, B. D. 2012, ApJL, 758, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L39

    2012 doi

  121. [129]

    R., Sun, M., Zeimann, G

    Trump, J. R., Sun, M., Zeimann, G. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/26

    2015 doi

  122. [130]

    Urrutia, T., Lacy, M., & Becker, R. H. 2008, ApJ, 674, 80, doi: 10.1086/523959

    2008 doi

  123. [131]

    J., et al

    Villforth, C., Hamann, F., Rosario, D. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu173

    2014 doi

  124. [132]

    M., et al

    Villforth, C., Hamilton, T., Pawlik, M. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3037

    2017 doi

  125. [133]

    2022a, MNRAS, 509, 3966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2093

    Walmsley, M., Lintott, C., G´eron, T., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 3966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2093

    doi

  126. [134]

    Walmsley, M., Scaife, A. M. M., Lintott, C., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 513, 1581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac525

    doi

  127. [135]

    2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5312, doi: 10.21105/joss.05312

    Walmsley, M., Allen, C., Aussel, B., et al. 2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5312, doi: 10.21105/joss.05312

    2023 doi

  128. [136]

    Sanders, D. B. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty383

    2018 doi

  129. [137]

    E., McIntosh, D

    Weston, M. E., McIntosh, D. H., Brodwin, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2620 16

    2017 doi

  130. [138]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae287 —. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1962

    2024 doi

  131. [139]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 604, doi: 10.1086/431205

    Yan, L., Chary, R., Armus, L., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 604, doi: 10.1086/431205

    2005 doi

  132. [140]

    M., Ho, L

    Yesuf, H. M., Ho, L. C., & Faber, S. M. 2021, ApJ, 923, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27a7

    2021 doi

  133. [141]

    A., Schiminovich, D., Rich, R

    Zamojski, M. A., Schiminovich, D., Rich, R. M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 468, doi: 10.1086/516593 17 Prediction: 1.00 23 arcsec 228136 Prediction: 1.00 31 arcsec 64269 Prediction: 0.99 22 arcsec 210285 Prediction: 0.98 29 arcsec 261382 Prediction: 0.98 31 arcsec 197672 Predicti...

    2007 doi

Pith tools

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