Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Optical Counterparts of MeerKLASS L-band and UHF-band surveys

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The Stellar-mass Enhanced Density Association method matches MeerKLASS radio sources to optical hosts with 94.7% purity and recovers rare high-redshift quasars.

desk verdict A useful empirical counterpart-matching method with solid catalogs, but the headline purity rests on a control catalog that needs external validation before the P_assoc numbers are used as hard probabilities. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05923 v1 pith:UMI6FOYU submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

M. Klein , S. Mangla , J. Mohr , S. Chatterjee , K. Grainge , S. Paul , M. G. Santos , O. M. Smirnov
show 2 more authors
C. Tasse L. Wolz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords MeerKLASSradiocontinuumsurveyscounterpartidentificationSEDAmethodopticalandinfraredcounterpartsgalaxiesradio-loudquasarsphotometricredshifts
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 aims to establish that a new empirical matching scheme, the Stellar-mass Enhanced Density Association (SEDA) method, can reliably identify optical and infrared host galaxies for wide-area radio surveys whose sources often have extended or multi-component morphologies and whose optical fields are crowded. The authors apply SEDA to the two MeerKLASS DR1 samples, building a UHF-band counterpart catalog from DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys DR10 and an L-band catalog primarily from KiDS DR5. The headline quantitative claim is a calibrated purity of 94.7% for counterparts with $P_{\rm true}>0.5$ (rising to 97% at $P_{\rm true}>0.7$), with completeness of 81% for the UHF sample and 66% for the L-band sample at that threshold. The method also recovers rare radio-loud quasars, including QSO J2318-3113 at $z=6.44$, which KiDS missed because its $r$-band detection becomes inefficient beyond $z\gtrsim5$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical probability estimator $P_{\rm true}(d,M_\star,z)=1-n_{\rm BG}(M_\star,z)/n_S(d,M_\star,z)$ (Eq. 1), with $d$ an elliptical radio-optical offset that accounts for the elongated MeerKLASS beams; galaxies are binned in three redshift slices and 52 stellar-mass bins, and quasar candidates get the offset-only analogue $P_{\rm true}(d)=1-n_{\rm BG}/n_S(d)$ (Eq. 2). The control catalog, created by applying a uniform 6 arcmin shift to all radio positions and rerunning the full two-pass search, is what converts the raw empirical densities into calibrated association probabilities $P_{\rm assoc}$ and sample purity (Eq. 3). The second-pass machinery, midpoints between nearest unmatched neighbors plus low-deblending detection centers, is what lets the method recover multi-component radio galaxies and produce combined fluxes for merged systems.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is to compare SEDA counterparts with an independent spectroscopic campaign: take random samples of low-$P_{\rm true}$ candidates ($P_{\rm true}<0.2$) and high-$P_{\rm true}$ candidates in both fields; if a substantial fraction of low-$P_{\rm true}$ candidates share the radio source redshift, the control rescaling underestimates chance associations at the true positions. A second concrete check is to measure the MeerKLASS radio-source two-point correlation function at separations of 1-10 arcmin, since significant clustering at those scales would break the assumption built into the uniform 6 arcmin displaced control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that empirical density comparison substitutes for the parametric likelihood-ratio assumptions used in earlier cross-identification work. Around each radio position SEDA measures the density of optical/infrared candidates $n_S(d,M_\star,z)$ in radial, stellar-mass, and redshift bins, and estimates the probability that a candidate is the true host as $P_{\rm true}=1-n_{\rm BG}/n_S$, with the background $n_{\rm BG}$ taken from a 45 to 60 arcsec annulus. Quasar candidates are handled separately using offset alone plus WISE color selection ($w1-w2>-0.2$, $w2<21$), split at $w2=19.5$ into bright and faint subsets. A position-displaced control catalog built by shifting all radio positions 6 arcmin provides the chance-association distribution; after rescaling its low-$P_{\rm true}$ tail to the real data, the paper derives $P_{\rm assoc}$ and reports the purity and completeness numbers. A two-pass search that uses midpoints between unmatched neighboring radio sources and low-deblending detection centers merges many multi-component systems onto a single host, with visual inspection of difficult subsets finding correct host assignment in 86% of flagged non-primary components.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calibration assumes that shifting every radio position by six arcminutes gives a fair estimate of chance alignments at the real positions, and that low-probability matches are mostly chance alignments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the $P_{\rm true}>0.5$ thresholds in both released catalogs come with measured approximately 95% purity, so users can trade completeness against contamination simply by choosing thresholds in $P_{\rm true}$ or $P_{\rm assoc}$.
  • The L-band KiDS catalog contains 20,400 counterparts (66% of sources) and the UHF catalog 61,633 counterparts (81% of sources), providing the first statistically usable host samples for MeerKLASS DR1.
  • The catalogs separate host populations by redshift, stellar mass, WISE-based quasar selection, and LS DR10 light-profile morphology, enabling radio luminosity versus stellar mass studies and AGN versus star-formation decomposition.
  • The two-pass merging assigns combined radio fluxes for multi-component systems, so extended radio galaxies that would otherwise be split or lost can enter the analysis.
  • Rare high-redshift radio-loud quasars are recoverable automatically, including QSO J2318-3113 at $z=6.44$ and UHF_DR1 J+111111.8+053626.6 at $z=5.24$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the control-catalog design is transportable to other wide-area radio surveys with different beam shapes; re-running SEDA on LoTSS or EMU footprints would show whether the 94.7% purity calibration holds when optical source density and beam ellipticity change.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own Appendix B shows LS DR10 photo-z estimates are truncated near $z\approx1.5$ for massive passive galaxies, so the 81% UHF completeness almost certainly overstates recovery of passive hosts at $z>1.5$; a near-infrared-based check in the COSMOS overlap would quantify the shortfall.
  • Editorial inference: the 6 arcmin displaced control assumes radio sources do not cluster strongly on arcminute scales; as MeerKLASS grows, measuring the radio two-point correlation function at 1-10 arcmin and building a clustered mock control would test this directly.
  • Editorial inference: the spectroscopic subset (22% of L-band and 44% of UHF counterparts) can serve as an independent validator of the probability calibration; if the observed same-redshift fraction within $P_{\rm true}$ bins does not track $P_{\rm assoc}$, the rescaling procedure would need revision.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents optical and infrared counterpart catalogs for the first MeerKLASS L-band and UHF-band continuum surveys, using KiDS DR5 and DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys DR10, respectively. To identify hosts, the authors introduce the Stellar-mass Enhanced Density Association (SEDA) method, which compares the density of optical candidates around radio positions with a background estimate and, for galaxies, incorporates stellar mass and redshift; quasar candidates are handled separately with WISE-based selection. A position-displaced control catalog (a uniform 6-arcmin shift) is used to estimate the chance-association rate, and a second-pass search merges multi-component radio sources. The paper reports 20,400 L-band counterparts (66% of sources in the KiDS footprint) and 61,633 UHF counterparts (81%) with Ptrue > 0.5, a purity of 94.7% at that threshold, and recovery of rare high-redshift quasars including QSO J2318-3113 at z=6.44. The catalogs are intended to enable studies of radio source populations and host-galaxy demographics.

Significance. If the reliability estimates are correct, SEDA offers a practical, data-driven alternative to likelihood-ratio methods for wide-area radio surveys with complex morphologies, and the catalogs themselves are a valuable community resource. The paper is honest about its limitations, discloses the self-referential nature of the purity calibration, and includes visual audits of challenging cases. The recovery of known high-redshift quasars is a concrete demonstration of sensitivity. However, the headline purity and completeness rest on assumptions about the control catalog that are not independently validated, and the paper's own visual inspections show higher contamination in the complex-source populations that motivate the method. The cross-catalog comparison also reveals a non-negligible rate of conflicting assignments. These issues bear directly on the central claims and require additional work before the reliability numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (3)] The purity estimate of 94.7% for Ptrue>0.5 depends entirely on the assumption that the position-displaced control catalog (uniform 6-arcmin shift) reproduces the chance-association distribution at the true radio positions. The rescaling to the real catalog at Ptrue<0.2 in the top panel of Fig. 9 only matches the overall normalization; it cannot correct for a shape mismatch in the high-Ptrue tail. If MeerKLASS radio sources preferentially reside in large-scale galaxy overdensities on scales comparable to or larger than the search radius, the chance-association rate at true positions could differ from that at the shifted positions. I recommend validating the control with several displacement amplitudes (e.g., 3, 6, and 10 arcmin) or a random-position control, and reporting how the resulting purity changes. Without such a test, the 94.7% figure is an assumption rather than a measured reliability.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The visual inspections of the three most challenging subsets find that 10–15% of sources with Ptrue>0.5 are assigned an incorrect counterpart, and the flagged non-primary sample shows 12% incorrect source merging. These rates are inconsistent with a global purity of 94.7% (5.3% contamination) if the challenging subsets make up a non-negligible fraction of the catalog. The abstract emphasizes 'complex source morphologies' as a key motivation, so the paper should quantify what fraction of the catalog falls into these challenging regimes (e.g., by size, signal-to-noise ratio, number of PyBDSF components) and present purity as a function of that complexity. Without this, the headline purity and the abstract's claim about complex morphologies are in tension.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] In the overlapping high-quality footprint, 7.4% of L-band counterparts with Ptrue>0.5 and 1.9% with Ptrue>0.9 have different optical hosts depending on whether KiDS or LS DR10 is used; visual inspection leaves 53% of the high-confidence differing cases ambiguous. Since the claimed contamination is only 5.3% at Ptrue>0.5, the cross-catalog disagreement alone is comparable to the claimed purity. The paper should discuss how the global purity estimate can be consistent with this catalog-dependent disagreement, or provide a joint classification that explicitly quantifies the probability that either assignment is correct.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5] In the sentence before Appendix A, 'column desciption' should be 'column description'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.2, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) uses n_BG without the dependencies shown in Eq. (1); please define n_BG consistently and clarify whether it is averaged over magnitude and redshift for quasar candidates.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] In the visual-audit paragraph, 'the associated and the best counterpart had Ptrue<0.5' is grammatically unclear; consider rewording to 'the assigned best counterpart had Ptrue<0.5'.
  4. [References] Several references are incomplete: Bilicki et al. 2021, Hardcastle et al. 2023, Nakoneczny et al. 2021, and Smith et al. 2011 lack volume and page/article numbers; please complete them before publication.
  5. [Sec. 3.1.1] The paper states that elliptical distances are used to account for beam ellipticity, but the formula for the elliptical distance (axis-ratio scaling) is not given; please provide it so the offset definition is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

SEDA's Ptrue and purity estimates are empirical calibrations with disclosed assumptions; no load-bearing reduction to the method's own inputs is present.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Equation (1) defines Ptrue as 1 - nBG/nS, where nS and nBG are measured densities around radio positions and in an outer annulus; this is an empirical density-enhancement estimate, not a quantity defined in terms of the final purity. The control catalog of Sec. 3.4 applies a uniform 6-arcmin shift and reruns the same search; its Ptrue distribution is an independent null measurement. The rescaling of the control to match the real Ptrue distribution at low Ptrue is a standard mixture-model normalization, and the paper explicitly states that Passoc approaches zero at low Ptrue "by construction." The headline purity of 94.7% at Ptrue>0.5 is an output of Eq. (3), not an input: it is the complement of the ratio of rescaled-control to real associations at that threshold, and it is not equal to any fitted parameter. Concerns about whether the 6-arcmin control reproduces the true background (e.g., if radio sources cluster in galaxy overdensities) are validity assumptions, not circular reductions; the paper discloses the assumption. External anchors—recovery of known quasars QSO J2318-3113 (z=6.44) and UHF_DR1 J+111111.8+053626.6 (z=5.24), the KiDS versus LS DR10 consistency check, and the visual inspection subsets with their disclosed 10–15% failure rates—provide independent checks of sensitivity and limitations. Companion-paper citations (Paul et al. 2025; Mangla et al. 2025; Chatterjee et al. 2025) are data-provenance references to externally produced catalogs and imaging, not self-supporting theoretical claims. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

SEDA is a purely empirical, bin-based method: the probability estimate Ptrue is a density ratio measured in the survey data itself, and the calibrated Passoc is derived by matching a control distribution to the real catalog at low Ptrue. The method depends on hand-chosen binning, thresholds, control offsets, and a fitted stellar-mass model for LS DR10, and its purity is largely self-calibrated. No new physical entities are introduced. External anchors are limited to previously known high-redshift quasars and cross-survey comparisons.

free parameters (6)
  • LS DR10 stellar-mass estimator = Not quoted; calibrated with COSMOS and GAMA reference samples
    Sec 4.1: masses are derived from z-band magnitude plus g-r, r-z, z-W1 colors; these mass estimates define the stellar-mass bins in Ptrue.
  • Redshift bin boundaries for Ptrue = z<0.2, 0.2<=z<0.4, z>=0.4
    Sec 3.1.1: chosen by hand; Ptrue is averaged within three broad bins and the paper says finer bins await larger samples.
  • Control-catalog displacement = 6 arcmin
    Sec 3.4: uniform offset applied to radio positions to estimate background; the choice determines whether the control preserves clustering.
  • Quasar selection cuts = w1-w2 > -0.2, w2 < 21, bright/faint split at w2 = 19.5
    Sec 3.1.2: hand-chosen WISE color and magnitude cuts to suppress stars and passive galaxies in the local search.
  • Second-pass acceptance threshold = Ptrue,2nd - Ptrue,1st > 0.2 and Ptrue,2nd > 0.5
    Sec 3.3: threshold chosen to limit noise biases from multiple search attempts.
  • SEDA density-grid binning = 30 radial bins out to 45 arcsec, 52 stellar-mass bins from log M* = 7.3 to 12.5, 3 redshift bins
    Sec 3.1.1: the empirical Ptrue estimate is a binned histogram; all bin numbers and ranges are chosen, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The background catalog measured at positions displaced by 6 arcmin has the same density as the background at the true radio positions.
    Sec 3.4: the control catalog is the basis for both Ptrue (through nBG) and Passoc; if radio sources cluster on arcminute scales or if displaced positions probe different large-scale structure, the background is misestimated.
  • domain assumption The low-Ptrue end of the real catalog (Ptrue<0.2) is dominated by chance associations, allowing the control distribution to be rescaled to match it.
    Sec 3.4, Eq. (3): the rescaling fixes the normalization of the chance component; true counterparts with genuinely low Ptrue would bias Passoc and the purity curves upward.
  • domain assumption The excess optical source density around radio positions relative to background consists entirely of genuine hosts.
    Sec 3.1.1, Eq. (1): Ptrue = 1 - nBG/nS assumes nS-nBG counts only real counterparts, with no contribution from clustering or density fluctuations.
  • domain assumption All MeerKLASS detections are real radio sources, so the unassociated fraction estimates completeness directly.
    Sec 5.2 (Fig. 10): the paper notes the completeness estimate is conservative if there are false radio detections.
  • domain assumption The photometric redshifts and stellar masses used to populate the bins are sufficiently accurate, aside from the documented biases.
    Appendix B: KiDS photo-z have a bias at 0.5<z<0.9, and LS DR10 photo-z truncate at z~1.5 for passive galaxies, which shifts sources between Ptrue bins.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Counterparts of MeerKLASS L-band and UHF-band surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UMI6FOYU

@misc{pith2026260805923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Counterparts of MeerKLASS L-band and UHF-band surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UMI6FOYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05923}
}
abstract

Context: Wide-area radio continuum surveys require reliable optical and infrared counterpart identification, but high optical source densities and extended or multi-component radio morphologies make this challenging. Aims: We present optical and infrared counterpart catalogs for MeerKLASS L-band and UHF-band on-the-fly continuum sources using KiDS DR5 and DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys DR10 (LS DR10), including counterpart probabilities, redshifts, and host-galaxy properties. Methods: We developed the Stellar-mass Enhanced Density Association (SEDA) method, an empirical framework that compares candidate densities around radio positions with those in a position-displaced control catalog. For galaxies we use positional offset, stellar mass, and redshift; quasar candidates are treated separately using offset and mid-infrared selection. A second-pass search associates multi-component radio sources with common hosts. Results: In the L-band survey, we identify 20,400 KiDS-based counterparts with $P_{\rm true}>0.5$, corresponding to 66% of L-band sources within the KiDS footprint. In the UHF-band survey, we identify 61,633 LS DR10 counterparts, corresponding to 81% of the radio sources. Spectroscopic redshifts are available for 22% and 44% of the L-band and UHF-band counterparts, respectively. The redshift distributions show low-redshift star-forming galaxies, intermediate-redshift radio galaxies, and a high-redshift tail dominated by quasars. SEDA also recovers rare radio-loud quasars, including QSO J2318-3113 at $z=6.44$ and UHF_DR1 J+111111.8+053626.6 at $z=5.24$. Conclusions: SEDA provides a data-driven route to counterpart identification for wide-area radio surveys with complex source morphologies. The catalogs enable future MeerKLASS studies of radio source populations, host-galaxy demographics, and rare high-redshift radio quasars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical coverage of the MeerKLASS surveys. Top: MeerKLASS UHF-band radio image (grey) overlaid on the LS DR10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar mass distribution of sources with small ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Empirical probability estimate Ptrue as a function of offset for bright and faint quasar candidates (black and red lines), the full dataset (cyan dashed line), and the expectation from posi￾tional uncertainties and source density (magenta). galaxies. While quasars and radio galaxies both belong to the class of active galactic nuclei (AGN), they differ significantly in their appearance in optical and infrared data. S… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Counterpart search and source merging. Left: MeerK [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Counterpart association and source merging in complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of a failure mode in counterpart association [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measurement of association probability Passoc and sam￾ple purity. Top: Histogram of SEDA measurements of Ptrue for UHF-band catalog and on displaced positions as control sample. Bottom: Passoc given Ptrue for L-band and UHF-band catalogs and sample purity for samples s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Completeness versus purity for UHF and L-band sur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of KiDS and LS DR10 results on L-band survey. Left: Comparison of L-band counterpart probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of photometric redshifts of LS DR10 iden [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Redshift distribution of confirmed counterparts in the L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sources in the Radio luminosity-stellar mass plane from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between photometric and spectroscopic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: High-redshift quasars identified in the L-band and UHF-band surveys. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44

    2023

  2. [2]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

    1995

  3. [3]

    N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., & Ivezi´c, Ž. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 9

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 33

    Bonnarel, F., Fernique, P., Bienaymé, O., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 33

    2000

  5. [5]

    G., Rozgonyi, K., et al

    Chatterjee, S., Santos, M. G., Rozgonyi, K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, submitted [arXiv:2512.11978]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  8. [8]

    K., Lupton, R

    Fan, X., Narayanan, V . K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833

    work page 2001

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Hale, C. L. et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058

    2021

  2. [10]

    Hardcastle, M. J. et al. 2023, A&A

    2023

  3. [11]

    Heywood, I. et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2150

    2022

  4. [12]

    2025, PASA, 42, e071

    Hopkins, A., Kapinska, A., Marvil, J., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e071

    2025

  5. [13]

    2021, A&A, 647, L11

    Ighina, L., Belladitta, S., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, L11

    2021

  6. [14]

    Lacy, M. et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

    2020

  7. [15]

    Laigle, C. et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24

    2016

  8. [16]

    W., & Mykytyn, D

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Mykytyn, D. 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astro- nomical source detection and measurement, Astrophysics Source Code Li- brary, record ascl:1604.008

    2016

  9. [17]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8

    2020

  10. [18]

    J., Rozgonyi, K., et al

    Mangla, S., Mohr, J. J., Rozgonyi, K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, submitted [arXiv:2512.17685]

    2025

  11. [19]

    McAlpine, K., Smith, D. J. B., Jarvis, M. J., Bonfield, D. G., & Fleuren, S. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 132

    2012

  12. [20]

    & Rafferty, D

    Mohan, N. & Rafferty, D. 2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source

    2015

  13. [21]

    Nakoneczny, S. et al. 2021, A&A

    2021

  14. [22]

    G., et al

    Paul, S., Grainge, K., Santos, M. G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, submitted [arXiv:2512.11964]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Santos, M. G. et al. 2017, MeerKAT Large Survey Project proposal

    2017

  16. [24]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., & Green, G. M. 2019, ApJS, 240, 30

    2019

  17. [25]

    Shimwell, T. W. et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A1

    2019

  18. [26]

    Smith, D. J. B. et al. 2011, MNRAS Smolˇci´c, V . et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A1

    2011

  19. [27]

    & Saunders, W

    Sutherland, W. & Saunders, W. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 413

    1992

  20. [28]

    N., Hopkins, A

    Taylor, E. N., Hopkins, A. M., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1587

    2011

  21. [29]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  22. [30]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11

    2022

  23. [31]

    Williams, W. L. et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A2

    2019

  24. [32]

    H., Kuijken, K., Hildebrandt, H., et al

    Wright, A. H., Kuijken, K., Hildebrandt, H., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A170

    2024

  25. [33]

    Wright, E. L. et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  26. [34]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 27

    Yang, J., Fan, X., Gupta, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 27

    2023

  27. [35]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

    2000

  28. [36]

    2023a, J

    Zhou, R., Ferraro, S., White, M., et al. 2023a, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2023, 097

    2023

  29. [37]

    2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.06443

    Zhou, R., Ferraro, S., White, M., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.06443

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    A., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al

    Zhou, R., Newman, J. A., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3309 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa_MeerKLASS_Optfollowup_v4 Table A.1: SEDA-based columns added to the original MeerK- LASS columns for the main UHF-band counterpart catalog. Name Descriptio...

    2021

Pith tools

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