Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 48 references

The ASAS-SN Low Surface Brightness Survey I: Proof-of-Concept and Potential Applications

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stacked ASAS-SN images reach a median 3-sigma g-band limit of 26.1 mag arcsec^-2 per pixel and recover 82 percent of ultra-diffuse galaxies with effective radius at least 16 arcseconds in the DES footprint.

desk verdict A genuinely useful proof-of-concept for an all-sky LSB atlas; the per-pixel depth numbers are fine, but the extended-source sensitivity is not yet demonstrated because flat-field gradients are acknowledged but unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14873 v1 pith:OIIY4RMZ submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Evan Jennerjahn , Michael A. Tucker , Benjamin J. Shappee , Christopher S. Kochanek , Subo Dong , Annika H. G. Peter , Jose L. Prieto , K. Z. Stanek
show 1 more author
Todd A. Thompson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords lowsurfacebrightnessASAS-SNimagestackingultra-diffusegalaxiesgalacticcirrustidalfeaturesall-skysurveylimits
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 claims that archival images from the ASAS-SN supernova survey, repurposed and stacked, deliver a deep all-sky view of low-surface-brightness structure. Roughly seven years of g-band data, with a median cumulative exposure of 58.1 hours per field, reach a median 3-$\sigma$ surface brightness limit of 26.1 mag $arcsec^{-2}$ per pixel away from the Galactic plane, several magnitudes deeper than single-night images. The authors demonstrate the result by imaging degree-spanning Milky Way nebulae, tidal tails around NGC 3628, shells around NGC 474, and by recovering 82 percent of catalogued ultra-diffuse galaxies with effective radius of at least 16 arcseconds in the DES footprint. If this holds, it would give astronomers a new all-sky atlas of the faint sky, including dwarf galaxies, Galactic cirrus, and galaxy-halo features, that no dedicated low-surface-brightness telescope has produced.

What carries the argument

The stacker scales each exposure by its median sky value before coadding; because the variance in blank sky is proportional to the sky level, the sum of I_i/S_i is an inverse-variance-weighted mean equivalent to I_i/$sigma_i^{2}$, the optimal way to combine noisy backgrounds. Iterative pixel-by-pixel 3-$\sigma$ outlier rejection cleans cosmic rays and moving objects, and the top 10 percent of images with the highest sky backgrounds are discarded. For the galaxy search, stars are first masked or PSF-subtracted using Gaia proper-motion and parallax cuts plus Gaussian and Moffat profile fits, and sources are then found with SourceExtractor using a 3x3-pixel kernel, supplemented by visual inspection.

What would settle it

Compute the residual background rms of the final stacked images after applying a 2D polynomial flat-field correction (as described in Section 4) on fields away from the Galactic plane; if the residual rms is larger than the nominal 3-$\sigma$ surface brightness limit of 26.1 mag $arcsec^{-2}$, the effective depth for extended sources is below the quoted value. Also cross-check detected ultra-diffuse galaxies against higher-resolution DES or Legacy images to confirm that sources near ASAS-SN field edges are real and not flat-field artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that stacking about seven years of g-band ASAS-SN images, taken with 7.8-arcsecond pixels and median exposure times near 58 hours per field, reaches a median 3-$\sigma$ surface brightness limit of 26.1 mag $arcsec^{-2}$ per pixel for fields more than 20 degrees from the Galactic plane. It recovers 37 of 92 SMUDGes ultra-diffuse galaxies automatically and 38 more by visual inspection, for an 82 percent recovery rate among UDGs with effective radius at least 16 arcseconds in the DES footprint. The same stacks reveal Milky Way nebulae spanning several degrees, Galactic cirrus, and tidal features around NGC 3628 and NGC 474, which the authors present as proof that a time-domain survey can double as a wide-area low-surface-brightness survey.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stacked images can be trusted at low surface brightness across each field even though the calibration frames used to correct the camera's uneven response are only accurate to about one percent and create wide, smooth gradients across the image; if those gradients add correlated background structure at the level of the quoted limits, the true sensitivity for extended objects is lower and the recovery rate is optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Seventy-five percent of all ASAS-SN fields, and 97 percent of fields more than 20 degrees from the Galactic plane, reach surface brightness limits of 24 mag arcsec^-2 or deeper, the formal threshold of the low-surface-brightness regime.
  • An LMC-like dwarf galaxy could be detected out to roughly 45 Mpc and an SMC-like dwarf to roughly 20 Mpc, so an all-sky search with these stacks can find nearby dwarf galaxies that previous surveys missed.
  • The atlas resolves tidal tails and shells around nearby galaxies, enabling surface brightness profiles of galaxy halos to be measured over the whole sky.
  • The same data can be used to produce an all-sky Galactic cirrus map, helping to mask regions of diffuse dust contamination for deeper surveys.
  • A public, full-sky g-band low-surface-brightness mosaic is the planned end product, giving the community access to these images.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that, because the flat-field gradients limit reliability near field edges, the 82 percent recovery rate may be a conservative estimate for large galaxies away from edges; applying the 2D polynomial correction described in Section 4 before the next search should push the usable area deeper.
  • Combining all cameras per field, rather than only the best single camera, would recover the full cumulative exposure time and could deepen the stacks by roughly the 0.4 mag implied by the exposure-time comparison, opening up slightly fainter and more distant dwarfs.
  • An all-sky cirrus map built from these stacks could serve as a foreground mask for upcoming deep surveys, separating Galactic dust emission from genuine extragalactic low-surface-brightness features.
  • Because the ASAS-SN point-spread function is well matched to ultraviolet and infrared all-sky surveys, cross-correlating the same stacks at other wavelengths could help separate stellar streams from cirrus, a testable extension the paper identifies as a natural next step.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proof-of-concept paper describes the construction of stacked g-band images from roughly seven years of ASAS-SN data, covering the full sky with a median cumulative exposure time of 58.1 hours per field. The authors report a median 3-sigma surface brightness limit of 26.1 mag arcsec^-2 per 7.8-arcsecond pixel off the Galactic plane, illustrate the survey's ability to reveal Galactic nebulae, cirrus, and tidal features, and benchmark its performance by recovering 82% of ultra-diffuse galaxies from the SMUDGes catalog with effective radii of at least 16 arcseconds in the DES footprint. The paper concludes with a plan to release a public all-sky low-surface-brightness mosaic and to search for dwarf galaxies and cirrus.

Significance. If the claimed depth and recovery rate hold up, this dataset would be a unique community resource: no other survey currently combines all-sky coverage, roughly 26 mag arcsec^-2 surface brightness depth, and degree-scale angular reach. The paper has real strengths: calibration is tied to an external catalog (Refcat), the recovery benchmark uses the independent SMUDGes catalog, and the science figures convincingly show known low-surface-brightness structures. The main weaknesses are that the quoted depth is a per-pixel photon-noise number rather than a demonstrated extended-source sensitivity, and the UDG recovery test is not blind and reports no false-positive rate. The project is promising and within the scope of an astronomical instrumentation/methods journal, but the headline claims need additional support before they can be taken at face value.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.3, final paragraph] The statement in Section 3.3 that an LMC-like object could be detected out to roughly 45 Mpc uses the nominal surface brightness limit without accounting for the correlated flat-field systematics discussed in Section 4. This distance estimate should be revisited once the background residual amplitude is measured, and the assumptions about angular size and aperture should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract reports a median cumulative exposure time of 58.1 hours per field, but the surface brightness limits shown in Figure 1 are for the deepest single-camera stack, which contains on average only about 35% of the total exposure. Please clarify this distinction in the abstract and in the discussion of Figure 1 so that readers do not connect the 58.1-hour exposure to the 26.1 mag arcsec^-2 limit.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 5 caption] The caption states a surface brightness limit of 26.67 without giving units; please add mag arcsec^-2.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 7] The horizontal axis label uses 'g (mag/arcsec2)' while the text refers to central surface brightness; please use a consistent notation such as mu_g and define it in the caption.
  4. [References] The entries for Liu et al. 2023a and Liu et al. 2023b appear to refer to the same paper and DOI; if so, the duplicate citation should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the depth limit is derived from stacked-image noise and external Refcat calibration, and the 82% recovery is benchmarked against the independent SMUDGes catalog.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are the median 3-sigma surface brightness limit of 26.1 mag arcsec^-2 and the 82% recovery of SMUDGes UDGs with effective radius at least 16 arcseconds. The surface brightness limit is computed per pixel from the stacked-image sky noise after scaling images by their median sky level, with the scaling described as equivalent to an optimal average, and the photometric calibration uses the external Refcat catalog. It is not fitted to any target catalog and does not depend on the recovery benchmark. The recovery rate is measured against the independent SMUDGes catalog, with detections crossmatched using Source Extractor and visual inspection; the benchmark is external to this paper, so the test is not circular. The paper's self-citations, such as Shappee et al. 2014 and Kochanek et al. 2017, describe the ASAS-SN instrument and data collection and are not load-bearing for the reported depth or recovery rate. The acknowledged approximately 1% flat-field inaccuracy producing degree-scale gradients is a limitation on extended-source sensitivity near field borders; this is a robustness and correctness concern rather than a circularity, because the quoted limit is explicitly per pixel and the recovery test does not assume the stacks are photon-noise-limited. No equation defines a target quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness argument is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey is empirical; no new physical entities are postulated. The central claims depend on data-processing thresholds such as the 10 percent cut and the 3x3 kernel, standard noise and calibration assumptions, and the external SMUDGes catalog. These are reasonable for a proof-of-concept, but the 10 percent cut and kernel size are chosen by hand and affect the reported depth and recovery rate.

free parameters (3)
  • Sky background image cut = 10%
    Images with the highest sky backgrounds are removed; the fraction was chosen after trial and error to minimize surface brightness limits.
  • SourceExtractor convolution kernel = 3x3 pixels
    Detection kernel used for LSBG finding; the authors note a larger kernel would detect more large LSBGs.
  • Star grouping radius = 11 pixels
    Stars within 11 pixels are grouped before PSF subtraction; the threshold is chosen to balance blending and computational cost.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Noise in blank sky regions scales as sigma_i^2 proportional to S_i
    Used to justify optimal averaging by scaling each image by 1/S_i in Section 2; assumes no significant flat-field or systematic residuals in the weighting.
  • domain assumption Median pixel value is a robust estimator of sky brightness
    Used to normalize images before stacking in Section 2; assumes source contamination is small relative to sky.
  • domain assumption Refcat provides accurate photometric calibration
    Stacked images are calibrated with Refcat in Section 2; calibration errors propagate to the reported surface brightness limits.
  • domain assumption SMUDGes is a suitable external benchmark for LSBG recovery
    Recovery rate is measured against SMUDGes positions in Section 3.3; if that catalog is incomplete or biased, the measured completeness is not representative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ASAS-SN Low Surface Brightness Survey I: Proof-of-Concept and Potential Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIIY4RMZ

@misc{pith2026250614873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ASAS-SN Low Surface Brightness Survey I: Proof-of-Concept and Potential Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIIY4RMZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14873}
}
abstract

The ASAS-SN Low Surface Brightness Survey utilizes the $\sim7$ years of g-band CCD data from ASAS-SN (The All-Sky Automated Survey for Supernovae) to create stacked images of the entire sky. It is significantly deeper than previous photographic surveys. Our median/95th percentile cumulative exposure time per field is 58.1/86.8 hours, and our median $3{\sigma}$ g-band surface brightness limit off the Galactic plane ($|b| > 20{\deg}$) is 26.1 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. We image large-scale diffuse structures within the Milky Way, such as multiple degree-spanning supernova remnants and star-forming nebulae, and tidal features of nearby galaxies. To quantify how effective our deep images are, we compare with a catalog of known ultra-diffuse galaxies and find a recovery rate of 82$\%$. In the future, we intend to use this data set to perform an all-sky search for new nearby dwarf galaxies, create an all-sky Galactic cirrus map, create an all-sky low surface brightness mosaic for public use, and more.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The cumulative g-band exposure time combining all cameras of each ASAS-SN field in equatorial coordinates. The Northern hemisphere has 2 telescope mounts while the Southern hemisphere has 3, resulting in the North/South difference. Right: The limiting surface brightness for the best camera for each ASAS-SN field in equatorial coordinates. The structure is due to the high source density in the Galactic Disk and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Veil Nebula, the optical counterpart of the Cygnus Loop supernova remnant in a mosaic made from two stacked ASAS-SN fields. Here, we see both Hβ and [OIII] line emission from the supernova remnant. The radius of the blast wave edge is 1.4 degrees (Levenson et al. 1998). Several notable features are labeled. Andromeda are targeted at a higher cadence. Images are vetted to remove those with known issues, including… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Orion Nebula (left) and the Carina Nebula (right). The structures are a combination of dust absorption and line emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Galactic cirrus around NGC 918 (Martinez￾Delgado et al. 2025). In order to mitigate stellar contamination and crowd￾ing, we produced a modified image of each field in the DES footprint designed to mask or model and subtract stars. We first mask all stars brighter than …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The tidal features around NGC 3628 (Haynes et al. 1979). The stacked image has a cumulative exposure time of 16.4 hours and a 3σ surface brightness limit of 26.67. The Leo tidal dwarf galaxy (TDG) can be seen at the tip of the tidal tail (Nikiel-Wroczy´nski et al. 2014…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Shell galaxy NGC 474 (Turnbull et al. 1999) and its neighbor NGC 470 in ASAS-SN. The shells likely formed due to a merger. matically detected LSBGs (top row), LSBGs that were only detected with visual inspection (middle row), and LSBGs that were not detected (bottom ro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Recovery of SMUDGes LSBGs in the space of Reff and µg (central surface brightness). We detect 37/92 automatically (filled blue circles), and find an additional 38 through visual inspection (filled orange squares). 17 are undetected (unfilled green diamonds). Many of th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of LSBGs in the stacked ASAS-SN images. The top row displays the LSBGs that were automatically detected by our algorithm. The middle row shows LSBGs that were missed by our algorithm, but were found by visual inspection. The bottom row shows LSBGs that were mi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., & van Dokkum, P

    Abraham, R. G., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2014, PASP, 126, 55, doi: 10.1086/674875

    doi:10.1086/674875 2014

  2. [2]

    B., Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., Forbes, D

    Alabi, A. B., Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J., & Brodie, J. P. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 626, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1992

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1992 2020

  3. [3]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 117, 393–404, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 117, 393–404, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  4. [4]

    1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 745, doi: 10.1086/133941

    Bothun, G., Impey, C., & McGaugh, S. 1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 745, doi: 10.1086/133941

    doi:10.1086/133941 1997

  5. [5]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  6. [6]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2331, doi: 10.1086/300369

    McDermott, J. 1998, AJ, 115, 2331, doi: 10.1086/300369

    work page doi:10.1086/300369 1998

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Herold G., J., et al

    Danieli, S., Lokhorst, D., Zhang, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Herold G., J., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8 2020

  8. [8]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    G., Gal, R

    Djorgovski, S. G., Gal, R. R., Odewahn, S. C., et al. 1998, in Wide Field Surveys in Cosmology, ed. S. Colombi, Y. Mellier, & B. Raban, Vol. 14, 89, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9809187 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051...

    1998 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6750

    Gilhuly, C., Merritt, A., Abraham, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6750

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Lique, F., & Santa-Maria, M

    Goicoechea, J. R., Lique, F., & Santa-Maria, M. G. 2022, A&A, 658, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142210

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    C., & Blair, A

    Hambly, N. C., & Blair, A. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 73, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzae004

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Giovanelli, R., & Roberts, M

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Roberts, M. S. 1979, ApJ, 229, 83, doi: 10.1086/156932

    1979 doi

  6. [14]

    E., & van Gorkom, J

    Hibbard, J. E., & van Gorkom, J. H. 1996, AJ, 111, 655, doi: 10.1086/117815

    1996 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Hartmann, L

    Hillenbrand, L. A., & Hartmann, L. W. 1998, ApJ, 492, 540, doi: 10.1086/305076 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Hendel, D., et al

    Kado-Fong, E., Greene, J. E., Hendel, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f0

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Kaisin, S. S. 2019, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 344, Dwarf Galaxies: From the Deep Universe to the Present, ed. K. B. W. McQuinn & S. Stierwalt, 377–380, doi: 10.1017/S1743921318005987

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Karachentseva, V

    Karachentsev, I. D., Karachentseva, V. E., Huchtmeier, W. K., & Makarov, D. I. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 2031–2068, doi: 10.1086/382905

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    E., & Karachentsev, I

    Karachentseva, V. E., & Karachentsev, I. D. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 127, 409–419, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998109

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu338

    Kaviraj, S. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu338

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Puget, J

    Lamarre, J. M., Puget, J. L., Bouchet, F., et al. 2003, NewAR, 47, 1017, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2003.09.006

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Gromoll, S., Shara, M

    Lanzetta, K. M., Gromoll, S., Shara, M. M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 015002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acaee6

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    1982, ESO/Uppsala survey of the ESO(B) atlas

    Lauberts, A. 1982, ESO/Uppsala survey of the ESO(B) atlas

    1982

  17. [25]

    A., Graham, J

    Levenson, N. A., Graham, J. R., Keller, L. D., & Richter, M. J. 1998, ApJS, 118, 541, doi: 10.1086/313136

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    G., et al

    Liu, Q., Abraham, R., Martin, P. G., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 953, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdee3 —. 2023b, ApJ, 953, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdee3

    doi

  19. [27]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    D., et al

    Martinez-Delgado, D., Stein, M., Sakowska, J. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02071, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02071

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Nesci, R., Rossi, C., et al

    Mickaelian, A. M., Nesci, R., Rossi, C., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 1177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066241

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Miller, J. S. 1974, ApJ, 189, 239, doi: 10.1086/152794 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., & Lagache, G. 2005, ApJS, 157, 302, doi: 10.1086/427938

    1974 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Tucker, M

    Neumann, K. D., Tucker, M. A., Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., & Stanek, K. Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14584, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14584 10 Nikiel-Wroczy´ nski, B., Soida, M., Bomans, D. J., &

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/144

    Urbanik, M. 2014, ApJ, 786, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/144

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    1973, Uppsala general catalogue of galaxies

    Nilson, P. 1973, Uppsala general catalogue of galaxies

    1973

  27. [35]

    1996, Principal Galaxy Catalogue

    Paturel, G., Bottinelli, L., di Nella, H., et al. 1996, Principal Galaxy Catalogue. Second edition: PGC CD-ROM

    1996

  28. [36]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbfa7

    Paudel, S., Yoon, S.-J., Yoo, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbfa7

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Quinn, P. J. 1984, ApJ, 279, 596, doi: 10.1086/161924

    1984 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Jones, M

    Sand, D. J., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Jones, M. G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ee

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    D., & Mathis, J

    Savage, B. D., & Mathis, J. S. 1979, ARA&A, 17, 73, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.17.090179.000445

    1979

  32. [40]

    1980, ApJ, 237, 303, doi: 10.1086/157870

    Schweizer, F. 1980, ApJ, 237, 303, doi: 10.1086/157870

    1980 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Carey, S., et al

    Smith, N., Egan, M. P., Carey, S., et al. 2000, ApJL, 532, L145, doi: 10.1086/312578

    2000 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Longbottom, F

    Spitler, L. R., Longbottom, F. D., Alvarado-Montes, J. A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.11579, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1911.11579

    2019 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abca89 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration

    Tanoglidis, D., Drlica-Wagner, A., Wei, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abca89 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0510346

    2021 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    L., Denneau, L., Flewelling, H., et al

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Flewelling, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Bridges, T

    Turnbull, A. J., Bridges, T. J., & Carter, D. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 967, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02724.x van den Bergh, S. 1966, AJ, 71, 922, doi: 10.1086/109987 van Maanen, A. 1916, ApJ, 44, 210, doi: 10.1086/142287

    1999

  39. [47]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Dey, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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