Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 83 references

The 2MIG isolated AGNs -- 2. X-ray general properties and peculiarities

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 First black hole mass-luminosity link reported in isolated AGNs

desk verdict Useful X-ray catalog and a plausible null environmental result, but the claimed L-M correlation is likely a selection artifact from the Eddington-ratio cut. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14348 v2 pith:BWZRUKFR submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

O. V. Kompaniiets , A. A. Vasylenko , I. B. Vavilova This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords isolatedgalaxiesactivegalacticnucleiX-rayspectroscopysupermassiveblackholesEddingtonratio2MIGcatalogueSeyfertholescalingrelations
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 an active galactic nucleus (AGN) behaves differently when its host galaxy has had no comparable neighbours for at least three billion years. It compiles archival X-ray spectra from Swift, NuSTAR, XMM-Newton, Chandra, and INTEGRAL for nearby isolated AGNs ($z<0.05$), fits spectral models, and derives supermassive black hole masses for 32 of them. Its main conclusion is that isolation does not significantly affect nuclear activity: the sample shows the full diversity of accretion types and spectral models seen in other AGN populations. The paper's new claim is a positive correlation between 2–10 keV X-ray luminosity and black hole mass for the subsample with Eddington ratio above $10^{-3}$ (Kendall coefficient 0.66, $p=0.0089$; weighted Pearson 0.86, $p=0.0014$), which it says has not been observed in other AGN samples. The result matters because isolated galaxies are the cleanest place to separate internal drivers of black-hole growth from environmental triggering.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the Eddington-ratio split applied to the 2MIG isolated AGN sample. The paper defines the Eddington ratio as $\lambda = k_X L_X / L_{\rm Edd}$ (Eq. 4), where $k_X$ is a hard-X-ray bolometric correction from Duras et al. (2020) and $L_{\rm Edd} = 1.26\times 10^{38} (M_{\rm SMBH}/M_\odot)$ erg s$^{-1}$, then divides the sample at $\lambda = 10^{-3}$ and computes Kendall rank and weighted Pearson correlation coefficients with bootstrap $p$-values for each side. The black hole masses themselves are carried by the $M_{\rm BH}$–$\sigma_\star$ relation of McConnell & Ma (2013a). The sample itself, 61 galaxies selected by the 2MIG isolation criteria (no neighbour of comparable angular size within projected distance ratio $\leq 30$ and diameter ratio $1/4$--$4$), is what rules out interactions for roughly 3 Gyr and makes the 'isolated' label meaningful.

What would settle it

Recompute the $L_{2-10\,{\rm keV}}$ versus $\log M_{\rm SMBH}$ correlation on the full sample without the Eddington-ratio cut, and run Monte Carlo simulations with no intrinsic luminosity–mass relation, applying the same $\lambda > 10^{-3}$ selection, to see how often a Kendall coefficient of 0.66 with $p = 0.0089$ arises by construction; if it arises routinely, the claimed first evidence is a selection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, this paper establishes that an isolated host environment does not significantly alter the X-ray appearance of an active galactic nucleus: the 25 isolated AGNs with X-ray observations in the $z<0.05$ sample display the same spread of accretion types and the same variety of spectral models as AGNs in denser environments, with intrinsic 2–10 keV luminosities mostly below $\sim 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and black hole masses mostly below $10^8\,M_\odot$. It also claims the first evidence for a linear correlation between $L_{2-10\,{\rm keV}}$ and $\log M_{\rm SMBH}$ in isolated AGNs, specifically in the subsample with Eddington ratio $\lambda > 10^{-3}$, where the Kendall coefficient is 0.66 ($p=0.0089$) and the weighted Pearson coefficient is 0.86 ($p=0.0014$). The paper additionally reports a tentative relativistic iron line in ESO 499-041, with data-to-model deviations above 6.4 keV in the Chandra spectrum not present in the Swift spectrum, and it names UGC 10120, NGC 6300, and CGCG 243-024 as Milky Way analogue candidates. The authors caution that the correlation may be affected by the small sample size and requires confirmation with larger datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the split at an Eddington ratio of $10^{-3}$ is physically meaningful; because $\lambda$ is defined as $k_X L_X / L_{\rm Edd}$ and $L_{\rm Edd}$ is proportional to $M_{\rm SMBH}$, selecting the $\lambda > 10^{-3}$ subsample imposes a roughly linear inequality between $L_X$ and $M_{\rm SMBH}$, so the reported correlation could be produced by the selection itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If isolation does not suppress nuclear activity, then internal gas supply, bars, and secular evolution are sufficient to fuel an AGN, and merger-driven triggering is not required over at least the last $\sim 3$ Gyr.
  • The $L_{2-10\,{\rm keV}}$–$M_{\rm SMBH}$ correlation, if confirmed, would give a way to estimate black hole masses from X-ray luminosity alone for isolated galaxies, where mass measurements are observationally expensive.
  • Most isolated AGNs host black holes below $10^8\,M_\odot$ with low Eddington ratios, consistent with a picture in which isolated hosts sustain only modest fuelling rates.
  • The three Milky Way analogue candidates (UGC 10120, NGC 6300, CGCG 243-024) would provide local laboratories for studying the nuclear activity of a galaxy like our own in an environment without recent interactions.
  • A confirmed relativistic iron line in ESO 499-041 would show that a relativistic disk-reflection component can persist in an isolated AGN, placing a constraint on the disk geometry and spin in such systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the selection-artifact concern is possible: take the paper's published $L_X$ and $M_{\rm SMBH}$ values, generate a mock sample with independent scatter in $L_X$ and $M_{\rm SMBH}$, impose the same Eddington-ratio threshold, and compare the resulting Kendall coefficient distribution with 0.66; this would settle whether the 'first evidence' claim survives its own selection rule.
  • If the correlation is genuine and unique to isolated systems, the likely explanation is not that isolation boosts luminosity but that the isolated sample lacks the merger-driven outliers that blur the relation in cluster and field samples; a larger survey of isolated AGNs could test this by looking for the same relation at lower Eddington ratios.
  • The ESO 499-041 iron-line candidate is a single archived Chandra exposure; a dedicated deeper observation, or a joint fit with contemporaneous XMM-Newton and NuSTAR data, would confirm whether the 6.4 keV excess is a real relativistic reflection feature rather than a spectral-flux or cross-calibration artifact.
  • The dependence of the reported correlation on the bolometric correction $k_X$ from Duras et al. (2020) could be checked by recomputing Eddington ratios with a different correction (e.g., a luminosity-dependent or type-dependent prescription); if the correlation disappears, it is partly a product of the assumed correction.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an X-ray study of 2MIG isolated galaxies hosting AGNs at z<0.05. Using archival Swift, XMM-Newton, Chandra, NuSTAR, and INTEGRAL data, the authors fit spectral models for roughly two dozen sources, derive SMBH masses from the M_BH-sigma relation and external catalogs, compute Eddington ratios, and search for correlations among X-ray luminosity, photon index, Eddington ratio, and SMBH mass. They conclude that isolation does not significantly affect nuclear activity and report, for the first time, a correlation between 2-10 keV luminosity and SMBH mass in the subsample with Eddington ratio > 1e-3.

Significance. If the headline correlation were real, it would be an interesting environmental signature because similar correlations are reportedly absent in general AGN samples. The paper also contributes useful spectral fits for faint isolated AGNs, including several sources fitted for the first time, and an interesting candidate relativistic iron line in ESO 499-041. These observational products are valuable. However, the central correlation claim is not statistically supported: the claimed trend appears only after splitting the sample by Eddington ratio, and that split is mathematically capable of producing the correlation from independent variables. The manuscript's archival and spectral work is worth publishing, but the discovery claim needs either a selection-corrected statistical demonstration or removal.

major comments (2)
  1. The claimed correlation between log L_2-10 keV and log M_SMBH for the lambda_Edd > 1e-3 subsample is very likely a selection artifact. Equation (4) defines lambda_Edd = k_B L_B / L_Edd, and L_Edd is proportional to M_SMBH (Eq. 3), so the cut lambda_Edd > 1e-3 is equivalent (up to the slowly varying bolometric correction k_B) to log L_X > log M_SMBH + constant. This is a diagonal truncation in the (log M_SMBH, log L_X) plane. Even if log L_X and log M_SMBH are independent in the parent population, conditioning on log L_X - log M_SMBH > c makes the conditional mean of log L_X increase with log M_SMBH, with a slope approaching unity, and can produce positive Kendall and Pearson coefficients of the size reported here. The paper itself states that without the split there is no significant correlation (Kendall 0.23, p=0.15), so the 'first evidence' claim rests entirely on the split. The bootstrap p-values are computed inside the already selected subsample and cannot test the null that the selection itself creates the trend. The physical motivation of the 1e-3 threshold from Yang et al. (2015) does not remove this mathematical effect. Please provide a selection-corrected null: for example, simulate independent log L_X and log M_SMBH with the same marginal distributions and measurement errors, apply the same Eddington-ratio cut, and compare the resulting Kendall/Pearson distributions with the observed 0.66 and 0.86 values. Unless the observed coefficients exceed the truncation-induced null, the 'first evidence' claim should be withdrawn or substantially weakened.
  2. The SMBH mass estimates enter both the plotted variable and the selection variable, and their uncertainties are large and heterogeneous. For example, ESO 499-041 has a central velocity dispersion sigma = 190.6^{+227.8}_{-227.8} km/s, and several masses are adopted from different sources (NANOGrav extension, SDSS, individual papers) without a common treatment of systematic scatter in the M_BH-sigma relation. Because the Eddington-ratio cut is a function of M_SMBH, random errors in M_SMBH are correlated with the selection and can bias the L_X-M_BH correlation even if the truncation effect in the previous comment were absent. The analysis should propagate the full M_BH error distribution through both the Eddington-ratio cut and the correlation bootstrap, or use methods that account for errors-in-variables and truncation.
minor comments (5)
  1. The abstract as printed at the top of the manuscript states that 20 isolated AGNs were investigated, including 9 sources fitted for the first time, while the abstract in the full text states 25 isolated AGNs and 10 sources fitted in this work; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. The caption says 'central panel - lambda >= 1e-3' and 'down panel - lambda > 1e-3'; from the text, the central panel should be the lambda <= 1e-3 subsample and the lower panel the lambda > 1e-3 subsample.
  3. The description of Table 2 skips Columns 10 and 11, jumping from Column 9 to Column 12; the full column list should be provided so the table is self-explanatory.
  4. The model labels are inconsistent in places: ESO 215-014 is described as fitted by 'Model I', but the displayed XSPEC expression is labeled 'Model H', and the same 'Model I' label is used for NGC 1050. Please renumber the models consistently.
  5. The 'weighted Pearson' coefficients are reported without a definition of the weights or a justification for weighting; the number of bootstrap resamples used for the p-values is also not stated. Please specify these details.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed L2-10keV–M_BH correlation is induced by an Eddington-ratio cut that is a deterministic function of the two plotted variables.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Eqs. (3)-(4); Section 5, correlation analysis (Fig. 8)]
    "The Eddington luminosity when considering a pure hydrogen is given by the equation: L_Edd = 1.26 · 10^38 M_BH/M_sun. (3) Thus, the Eddington ratio is as follows: λ = k_B · L_B / L_Edd (4). ... Generally, without the additional separation on the λ > 10^-3 and λ ≤ 10^-3, we did not find evidence of a correlation between the Photon index, Eddington ratio, 2-10 keV luminosity and SMBH masses. ... positive correlation between log L_{2-10 keV} and log M_BH for λ > 10^-3 (Kendall coefficient is 0.66 and p-value is 0.0089)."

    Since Eq. (3) makes L_Edd proportional to M_BH, the condition λ > 10^-3 from Eq. (4) is equivalent to log L_X > log M_BH + log(10^-3/k_B) + const, a diagonal half-plane boundary in the (log M_BH, log L_X) plane. Conditioning on this boundary forces the conditional mean of log L_X to increase with log M_BH even if the parent population is independent, producing positive Kendall/Pearson coefficients. The paper itself reports no significant correlation in the full sample (Kendall 0.23, p=0.15) and obtains the headline 0.66/0.86 only after this split; the bootstrap p-values are computed within the already-selected subsample and cannot test the selection-induced null. Thus the 'first evidence' claim reduces to the definition of the Eddington ratio by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central discovery claim is not self-contained against the selection effect I identified. The Eddington ratio is defined (Eq. 4) as k_B L_B / L_Edd, and L_Edd is proportional to M_BH (Eq. 3). Splitting the sample at λ = 10^-3 therefore imposes a linear inequality between log L_X and log M_BH with slope 1. In the selected subsample, even under parent independence, objects with larger M_BH are admitted only if they have correspondingly larger L_X; this truncation creates a positive correlation of the same order as reported (Kendall 0.66, Pearson 0.86). The paper acknowledges that without the separation there is 'no evidence of a correlation' (Kendall 0.23, p=0.15), so the entire claim rests on the selection. The bootstrap p-values are calculated inside the selected subsample and cannot test the null that the cut itself generates the trend. The threshold is motivated by Yang et al. (2015), but that external motivation does not remove the mathematical conditioning. The spectral fitting and SMBH mass estimates are independent work, and the conclusion about isolation not affecting activity is based on other evidence (accretion type diversity, model diversity), which is not circular. However, the specific 'linear correlation between L2-10 keV and log M_SMBH' headline reduces to the definition of the Eddington ratio. Score 7 reflects that the central claim is partially forced by construction, while the rest of the paper (spectra, masses, model diversity) retains independent content.

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

The central correlation analysis depends on the Eddington ratio threshold and on the adopted M-sigma relation; both are external calibrations, and the threshold choice creates a selection that can induce the claimed correlation.

free parameters (2)
  • Eddington ratio split threshold = 1e-3
    Chosen from Yang et al. (2015) to divide the sample; the split is post hoc and drives the reported L-M correlation (Section 5, Figure 8).
  • Per-source spectral parameters (photon index, absorption, etc.) = varies (Table 2)
    Fitted to Swift, XMM-Newton, Chandra, and NuSTAR spectra; the resulting L_2-10 values enter the correlation analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption M_BH-sigma relation (McConnell & Ma 2013) with normalization 2.089e2 and slope 5.64 is valid for all sample galaxies.
    Used in Eq. (1) to derive SMBH masses for 24/32 sources; scatter and morphological dependence are not propagated.
  • domain assumption Bolometric correction k_B from Duras et al. (2020) is applicable to isolated AGNs.
    Used in Eq. (2) to compute L_bol and hence Eddington ratios, which define the subsample split for the headline correlation.
  • domain assumption Isolation criteria of 2MIG guarantee no significant interaction for at least 3 Gyr.
    Basis of the 'isolated' classification and the null environmental conclusion; the criteria are taken from prior work without re-verification here.
  • domain assumption X-ray spectral models used (power law, reflection, torus) adequately describe AGN emission.
    Standard models from the literature applied individually to each source; no unified physical model is tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The 2MIG isolated AGNs -- 2. X-ray general properties and peculiarities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWZRUKFR

@misc{pith2026250614348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The 2MIG isolated AGNs -- 2. X-ray general properties and peculiarities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWZRUKFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14348}
}
abstract

We have analysed a sample of 2MIG isolated galaxies hosting AGNs (isolated AGNs) to assess whether their nuclear activity differs from that in denser environments. The isolation criteria rule out interactions with other galaxies of similar evolutionary stage at least $\sim 3$~Gyr. We systematised the available \textit{Swift}, \textit{NuSTAR}, \textit{XMM-Newton}, \textit{Chandra}, and \textit{INTEGRAL} X-ray data for isolated AGNs at $z<0.05$, determining their general X-ray properties and peculiarities, spectral models, and supermassive black hole (SMBH) masses. We investigated the best spectral models for 20 isolated AGNs, including 9 sources fitted for the first time in this work. Our results indicate that an isolation of galaxies in the nearby Universe does not significantly affect nuclear activity. This conclusion is supported by the diversity of accretion types and the absence of any preference for a particular basic or composite spectral model. We note an interesting case for ESO~499$-$041, where the data-to-model ratio shows significant changes above 5~keV. These deviations from the continuum may tentatively indicate the presence of a relativistic iron line in the \textit{Chandra} spectrum of ESO~499$-$041 compared to the \textit{Swift} spectrum. We derived SMBH masses for 24/32 isolated AGNs applying the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_\star$ relation and used available estimates for 8/32. A general distribution is that 27/32 isolated AGNs host SMBHs with $M_{\mathrm{SMBH}} \lesssim 10^{8}\,M_\odot$. For the first time, we found evidence of the linear correlation between L$_{2-10, keV}$ and $\log M_{\mathrm{SMBH}}$ that is not observed in other AGNs samples. This trend may be affected by the limited sample size and requires further confirmation with larger datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sy2: ESO 317-038, the best-fit Model B for SWIFT/XRT (green points) and NuSTAR (black and red points) joint spectrum between 0.8-35 keV; NGC 1050, the best-fit model I for XMM/PN spectral data between 2-10 keV. In each figure, the upper panel presents the best-fit model with unfolded spectrum; the residuals from the fit are shown in the bottom panel. Response matrices and auxiliary response files were created with a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sy1: NGC 5231, the best-fit for the XMM-Newton (black points) and the SWIFT/XRT (red points) joint spectrum between 0.5-10 keV; BL Sy1: CGCG 179-005, the best-fit Model G for the XMM-Newton data between 0.5-10 keV. In each figure, the upper panel presents the best-fit model with unfolded spectrum; the residuals from the fit are shown in the bottom panel. The best-fit values ( 2 /d.o.f.= 192/198) of photon index is Γ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sy1: ESO 499-041, the best-fit Model J for SWIFT/XRT spectrum. The upper panel presents the best-fit model with unfolded spectrum; the residuals from the fit are shown in the bottom panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ESO 499-041, Sy1: The Chandra spectrum and data to model ratio in 2.0-8.0 keV energy range inspection as proposed by the Chandra manual3 to exclude the pos￾sibility of influence of the solar flares on the shape of the source spectrum. We did not find evidence of flares…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Kendall correlation matrix for relationships between X-ray properties of the 2MIG isolated AGNs significant at typical significance levels (e.g., 0.05). So, further study will confirm any definitive trends. Yang et al. (2015) investigated the observed correlation b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relation between the Photon Index and X-ray luminosity in 2-10 keV for 2MIG isolated AGN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relation between the Photon index and Log L2−10/Ledd for 2MIG isolated AGN, where bolometric luminosity was calculated with corrections. ≤ 10−3 , indicating the presence of statistically significant anticor￾relation. In contrast, in the other region for > 10−3 , the co…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relation between the X-ray luminosity in 2-10 keV and SMBH masses for 2MIG isolated AGNs. Upper panel - all sample, central panel - ≥ 10−3 , and down panel - > 10−3 . small galaxies, close interaction with matter exchange or with the sequential formation of a central b…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akylas A., Georgantopoulos I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...500..999A 500, 999

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811371 2009

  2. [2]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...25A 233, 25

    Albareti F. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...25A 233, 25

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 2017

  3. [3]

    Originally published in: 2025A&A...695A.256A

    Argudo-Fernandez M., Duarte Puertas S., Verley S., 2025, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Isolated galaxies, pairs, and triplets (Argudo-Fernandez+, 2025) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/695/A256. Originally published in: 2025A&A...695A.256A

    2025

  4. [4]

    Arzoumanian Z., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcd3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914..121A 914, 121

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcd3 2021

  5. [5]

    Beckmann V., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..417B 505, 417

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912111 2009

  6. [6]

    Bianchi S., Guainazzi M., Matt G., Fonseca Bonilla N., Ponti G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...495..421B 495, 421

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810620 2009

  7. [7]

    K., Shaw R

    Blackburn J. K., Shaw R. A., Payne H. E., Hayes J. J. E., Heasarc 1999, FTOOLS: A general package of software to manipulate FITS files , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9912.002

    1999

  8. [8]

    E., Cluver M

    Bok J., Skelton R. E., Cluver M. E., Jarrett T. H., Jones M. G., Verdes-Montenegro L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.3193B 499, 3193

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3034 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    C., Wilkins D

    Bonson K., Gallo L. C., Wilkins D. R., Fabian A. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3247B 477, 3247

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Originally published in: 2019MNRAS.488.2175B

    Buta R., et al., 2019, VizieR Online Data Catalog: CVRHS classifications for 719 AMIGA galaxies (Buta+ 2019) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/MNRAS/488/2175. Originally published in: 2019MNRAS.488.2175B

    2019

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.1231C 443, 1231

    Campbell L. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.1231C 443, 1231

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    G., 2010, @doi [Kosmichna Nauka i Tekhnologiya] 10.15407/knit2010.05.077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010KosNT..16e..77C 16, 77

    Chesnok N. G., 2010, @doi [Kosmichna Nauka i Tekhnologiya] 10.15407/knit2010.05.077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010KosNT..16e..77C 16, 77

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Cusumano G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...524A..64C 524, A64

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Duras F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..73D 636, A73

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    E., et al., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316343 , 111, 438

    Falco E. E., et al., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316343 , 111, 438

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    Originally published in: 2013MNRAS.434..325F

    Fernandez Lorenzo M., Sulentic J., Verdes-Montenegro L., Argudo-Fernandez M., 2013a, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 452 AMIGA galaxies physical parameters (Fernandez Lorenzo+ 2013) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/MNRAS/434/325. Originally published in: 2013MNRAS.434..325F

    2013

  9. [17]

    Fern \'a ndez Lorenzo M., Sulentic J., Verdes-Montenegro L., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez M., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434..325F 434, 325

    doi

  10. [18]

    Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L...9F 539, L9

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Doxsey R

    Fruscione A., et al., 2006, in Silva D. R., Doxsey R. E., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems. p. 62701V, @doi 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Asari N

    Garcia-Rissmann A., Vega L. R., Asari N. V., Cid Fernandes R., Schmitt H., Gonz \'a lez Delgado R. M., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08957.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359..765G 359, 765

    2005

  13. [21]

    E., Ho L

    Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..117G 641, 117

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.116H 594, A116

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Greene J

    Habouzit M., Pisani A., Goulding A., Dubois Y., Somerville R. S., Greene J. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..899H 493, 899

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Hogg D

    Haynes M. P., Hogg D. E., Maddalena R. J., Roberts M. S., van Zee L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115...62H 115, 62

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    G., Riffel R

    Hennig M. G., Riffel R. A., Dors O. L., Riffel R., Storchi-Bergmann T., Colina L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1086H 477, 1086

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Iovino A., Cucciati O., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1479H 433, 1479

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Greene J

    Ho L. C., Greene J. E., Filippenko A. V., Sargent W. L. W., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..183....1H 183, 1

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...26H 199, 26

    Huchra J. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...26H 199, 26

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Jana A., Chatterjee A., Kumari N., Nandi P., Naik S., Patra D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5396J 499, 5396

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A..17J 609, A17

    Jones M. G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A..17J 609, A17

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    E., 1973, Astrofizicheskie Issledovaniia Izvestiya Spetsial'noj Astrofizicheskoj Observatorii, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973AISAO...8....3K 8, 3

    Karachentseva V. E., 1973, Astrofizicheskie Issledovaniia Izvestiya Spetsial'noj Astrofizicheskoj Observatorii, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973AISAO...8....3K 8, 3

    1973

  24. [32]

    E., Mitronova S

    Karachentseva V. E., Mitronova S. N., Melnyk O. V., Karachentsev I. D., 2010, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S1990341310010013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AstBu..65....1K 65, 1

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Kimani N., Nyenge R., Obonyo W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1368K 527, 1368

    Kinyumu M. K., Kimani N., Nyenge R., Obonyo W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1368K 527, 1368

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Kompaniiets O., 2023, Space Science and Technology, 29

    2023

  27. [35]

    V., Babyk I

    Kompaniiets O. V., Babyk I. V., Vasylenko A. A., Izviekova I. O., Vavilova I. B., 2023, @doi [IAU Symposium] 10.1017/S1743921322001624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023IAUS..362..100K 362, 100

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...85K 825, 85

    Koss M. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...85K 825, 85

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    J., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261....2K 261, 2

    Koss M. J., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261....2K 261, 2

    doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac650b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261....6K 261, 6

    Koss M. J., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac650b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261....6K 261, 6

    doi

  31. [39]

    Liu H.-Y., Liu W.-J., Dong X.-B., Zhou H., Wang T., Lu H., Yuan W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...21L 243, 21

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Lu K.-X., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877...23L 877, 23

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..250....8L 250, 8

    Lyke B. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..250....8L 250, 8

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Makarov D., Prugniel P., Terekhova N., Courtois H., Vauglin I., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Gorjian V., Tam R., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/313110 , 117, 25

    Malkan M. A., Gorjian V., Tam R., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/313110 , 117, 25

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    Marchesi S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafbeb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872....8M 872, 8

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Ma C.-P., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    doi

  38. [47]

    Miraghaei H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abafb1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..227M 160, 227

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Paturel G., Theureau G., Bottinelli L., Gouguenheim L., Coudreau-Durand N., Hallet N., Petit C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...412...57P 412, 57

    2003 doi

  40. [49]

    P \'e rez I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.213P 689, A213

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    M., Horne K., 2004, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200310207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AN....325..248P 325, 248

    Peterson B. M., Horne K., 2004, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200310207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AN....325..248P 325, 248

    2004 doi

  42. [51]

    C ., 2020, @doi [Open Astronomy] 10.1515/astro-2020-0003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020OAst...29....1P 29, 1

    Popovi \'c L. C ., 2020, @doi [Open Astronomy] 10.1515/astro-2020-0003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020OAst...29....1P 29, 1

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    G., Vavilova I

    Pulatova N. G., Vavilova I. B., Sawangwit U., Babyk I., Klimanov S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2209P 447, 2209

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    G., Vavilova I

    Pulatova N. G., Vavilova I. B., Vasylenko A. A., Ulyanov O. M., 2023, @doi [Kinematika i Fizika Nebesnykh Tel] 10.15407/kfnt2023.02.047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023KFNT...39b..47P 39, 47

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    Ram \' rez-Moreta P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A.163R 619, A163

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    Ransom S., et al., 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. p. 195 ( @eprint arXiv 1908.05356 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1908.05356

    2019 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    Ricci C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...17R 233, 17

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    Sako M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aab4e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4002S 130, 064002

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    C ., Shablovinskaya E., Afanasiev V

    Savi \'c ., Popovi \'c L. C ., Shablovinskaya E., Afanasiev V. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.3047S 497, 3047

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    O., Ferreiro D., Vega Neme L., Oio G

    Schmidt E. O., Ferreiro D., Vega Neme L., Oio G. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..95S 596, A95

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  52. [61]

    Shaqiri M., Iljazi T., Kamberi L., Halili R., 2023

    2023

  53. [62]

    Silver R., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bf8 , 940, 148

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    Sivasankaran A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537..817S 537, 817

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    M., Jones M

    Sorgho A., Verdes-Montenegro L., Hess K. M., Jones M. G., Jarrett T. H., Sanchez-Exp \'o sito S., Garrido J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1630S 528, 1630

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    Spector O., Brosch N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..885S 456, 885

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    Spector O., Brosch N., 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Extremely Isolated Galaxies. II. (Spector+, 2017) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/MNRAS/469/347. Originally published in: 2017MNRAS.469..347S

    2020

  58. [67]

    I., Terlevich R., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/242.3.271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.242..271T 242, 271

    Terlevich E., Diaz A. I., Terlevich R., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/242.3.271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.242..271T 242, 271

    1990 doi

  59. [68]

    Theureau G., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20047152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...430..373T 430, 373

    2005 doi

  60. [69]

    Traina A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1fee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..159T 922, 159

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    Tremaine S., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..740T 574, 740

    2002 doi

  62. [71]

    Uematsu R., Ueda Y., Tanimoto A., Kawamuro T., Setoguchi K., Ogawa S., Yamada S., Odaka H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...17U 913, 17

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    A., Vavilova I

    Vasylenko A. A., Vavilova I. B., Pulatova N. G., 2020, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.202013783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AN....341..801V 341, 801

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    B., Vasylenko A

    Vavilova I. B., Vasylenko A. A., Babyk I. V., Pulatova N. G., 2015, Odessa Astronomical Publications, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015OAP....28..150V 28, 150

    2015

  65. [74]

    B., Fedorov P

    Vavilova I. B., Fedorov P. M., Dobrycheva D. V., Sergijenko O., Vasylenko A. A., Dmytrenko A. M., Khramtsov V. P., Kompaniiets O. V., 2024, @doi [Kosmichna Nauka i Tekhnologiya] 10.15407/knit2024.04.081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024KosNT..30d..81V 30, 81

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    Verley S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...472..121V 472, 121

    2007 doi

  67. [76]

    P., V \'e ron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..773V 455, 773

    V \'e ron-Cetty M. P., V \'e ron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..773V 455, 773

    2006 doi

  68. [77]

    P., V \'e ron P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518A..10V 518, A10

    V \'e ron-Cetty M. P., V \'e ron P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518A..10V 518, A10

    2010 doi

  69. [78]

    L., Wei J

    Wang J., Zhou X. L., Wei J. Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..176W 768, 176

    2013 doi

  70. [79]

    Wang S., Liu J., Qiu Y., Bai Y., Yang H., Guo J., Zhang P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..224...40W 224, 40

    2016 doi

  71. [80]

    Wegner G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2268W 126, 2268

    2003 doi

  72. [81]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  73. [82]

    A., Gierli \'n ski M., Ho L

    Yang Q.-X., Xie F.-G., Yuan F., Zdziarski A. A., Gierli \'n ski M., Ho L. C., Yu Z., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.1692Y 447, 1692

    2015 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Buta R

    de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin Herold G. J., Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  75. [84]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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