pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26001 · v1 · pith:H7P5DRJCnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Cosmology with Tully-Fisher HI Galaxy Surveys

Jo\"el Mayor , Anthony Carr , Khaled Said , Gabriella De Lucia , Anastasia Ponomareva , Philip Bull , Stefano Camera , Ainulnabilah Nasirudin
show 2 more authors
Marta Spinelli Robert Yates
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Tully-Fisher relationHI galaxiespeculiar velocitiesSKA-Midgalaxy surveyscosmologyvelocity field
0
0 comments X

The pith

SKAO Tully-Fisher HI galaxy surveys with AA* and AA4 will extend peculiar velocity measurements and related cosmology cases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how the SKA Observatory's combined spatial and spectral sensitivity will permit Tully-Fisher relation measurements on statistical samples of HI-selected galaxies at greater depths and redshifts than current surveys achieve. This advance targets peculiar velocity datasets in particular, which trace galaxy motions beyond pure Hubble expansion. A reader would care because larger peculiar-velocity samples can tighten constraints on the growth rate of cosmic structure. The authors compare existing observational limits to forecast performance for the AA* and AA4 array configurations of SKA-Mid. They then map the broader set of cosmology applications that become accessible once these deeper samples exist.

Core claim

The paper claims that SKAO Tully-Fisher HI surveys using AA* and AA4 configurations of SKA-Mid will deliver statistical samples of peculiar velocities at unprecedented depths and redshifts, thereby covering an extended range of cosmology science cases beyond what present HI surveys allow.

What carries the argument

The Tully-Fisher relation applied to HI-selected galaxies, whose line widths and luminosities yield distance-independent velocity estimates when combined with SKA-Mid's spatial and spectral sensitivity.

If this is right

  • Peculiar velocity catalogs will reach higher redshifts and larger volumes than existing datasets.
  • The growth rate of structure can be measured over an extended baseline in redshift.
  • Additional cosmology applications become feasible once the velocity-field samples grow by the forecasted factors.
  • Direct comparison of AA* versus AA4 configurations shows how array design choices control the reachable science cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such surveys could provide an independent cross-check on redshift-space distortion measurements from intensity mapping.
  • Combining the new peculiar velocities with supernova or BAO distances would tighten tests of the distance-velocity relation.
  • If the relation holds, the same data could also constrain the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation at higher redshift.
  • Future array upgrades beyond AA4 would further extend the same science cases in a predictable way.

Load-bearing premise

The Tully-Fisher relation remains tight and measurable for HI-selected galaxies out to the redshifts and depths forecast for SKA-Mid.

What would settle it

An observation that the scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation for HI galaxies increases sharply beyond the redshifts reached by current surveys, erasing the predicted growth in usable peculiar-velocity sample size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26001 by Ainulnabilah Nasirudin, Anastasia Ponomareva, Anthony Carr, Gabriella De Lucia, Jo\"el Mayor, Khaled Said, Marta Spinelli, Philip Bull, Robert Yates, Stefano Camera.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RMS spectral sensitivity forecasts, obtained with the SKAO sensitivity calculator API, assuming 1 hour integration time. Light blue curves and blue curves show predictions for AA*, respectively AA4 SKA-Mid configurations. Solid curves distinguish predictions for Band 2 (950 - 1760 MHz) receivers, from those for Band 1 (350 - 1050 MHz) represented with dashed curves. 2018) and FASHI set 𝑛 = 2, we take a mor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: d𝑁/d𝑧 forecasts for Hi 21 cm line width detections, adapted from Mayor et al. (2026), normalized by survey area. The dark histogram shows the redshift distribution of all simulated galaxies in the mock lightcone constructed from outputs of the GAEA semi-analytic model. The light blue and blue histograms show the result obtained by applying survey selection functions described in subsection 3.2, assuming sp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Growth rate of structure measurements from galaxy surveys at different effective redshifts. Black points with error bars represent selected results from the literature: measurements at 𝑧 < 0.05 are derived from peculiar velocity surveys, while those at 𝑧 > 0.05 come from redshift-space distortion analyses. The shaded bands show predicted growth rates for different theories of gravity using the parameteriza… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bulk flow amplitude as a function of scale radius. Black points show measurements from various peculiar velocity surveys in the literature, with the three most recent analyses using CosmicFlows-4 highlighted (Watkins et al., 2023; Courtois et al., 2023a; Whitford et al., 2023). The shaded region represents the prediction from the ΛCDM model. Recent measurements show bulk flows significantly larger than pre… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The SKA Observatory will enable measurements of the Tully-Fisher relation for statistical samples of HI selected galaxies out to unprecedented depths and redshifts thanks to its unique combined spatial and spectral sensitivity. This chapter explores the transformative potential of such surveys for cosmology, in particular in the field of peculiar velocity measurements. We briefly review the present observational landscape for Tully-Fisher HI galaxy surveys and existing peculiar velocity datasets, and compare them with predictions for SKAO Tully-Fisher HI galaxy surveys with AA* and AA4 configurations of the SKA-Mid array. We discuss the extended range of cosmology science cases covered and enabled by such surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews the current observational landscape for Tully-Fisher HI galaxy surveys and existing peculiar velocity datasets. It then compares these with predictions for SKAO Tully-Fisher HI galaxy surveys using the AA* and AA4 configurations of the SKA-Mid array, and discusses the extended range of cosmology science cases (particularly peculiar velocity measurements) that such surveys would enable.

Significance. If the forecasts prove robust, the work would be useful for highlighting the cosmological potential of SKA-Mid TF surveys in peculiar velocities and for survey planning. The comparison of current versus predicted yields provides a clear benchmark, but the absence of error budgets, explicit modeling assumptions, and validation against existing data reduces the immediate impact of the predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Predictions and comparison section] The section comparing current low-z surveys with predicted SKA yields: the central claim that AA* and AA4 configurations enable an extended range of peculiar-velocity cosmology cases requires that statistical TF samples can be assembled at the forecast depths and redshifts. This in turn depends on the TF relation retaining small intrinsic scatter and no systematic evolution or selection bias, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit modeling of possible redshift evolution in the TF zero-point or scatter and no quantitative propagation of TF uncertainty into the final cosmological constraints.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the abstract states comparisons and predictions but provides no error budgets, explicit modeling assumptions, or validation against existing data, making it difficult to assess whether post-hoc choices affect the central forecasts.
minor comments (1)
  1. The notation for survey configurations (AA* and AA4) could be defined more explicitly on first use for readers unfamiliar with SKA-Mid array details.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions made to strengthen the manuscript while preserving its scope as a review of survey capabilities and science potential.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Predictions and comparison section] The section comparing current low-z surveys with predicted SKA yields: the central claim that AA* and AA4 configurations enable an extended range of peculiar-velocity cosmology cases requires that statistical TF samples can be assembled at the forecast depths and redshifts. This in turn depends on the TF relation retaining small intrinsic scatter and no systematic evolution or selection bias, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit modeling of possible redshift evolution in the TF zero-point or scatter and no quantitative propagation of TF uncertainty into the final cosmological constraints.

    Authors: We agree that robust forecasts ultimately require attention to TF evolution and uncertainty propagation. The manuscript is a review comparing yields and outlining enabled science cases rather than a dedicated forecasting study; the central claims concern the increase in sample size and redshift reach assuming the TF relation remains usable at the level demonstrated by existing low-z surveys. To address the concern we have added a dedicated paragraph in the predictions section that (i) summarizes existing observational constraints on TF zero-point and scatter evolution out to z~0.2, (ii) states the explicit assumption of no strong evolution adopted for the AA* and AA4 extrapolations, and (iii) notes that a full end-to-end propagation of TF systematics into cosmological parameters lies beyond the present scope and is identified as future work. We have also added two relevant references on TF evolution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the abstract states comparisons and predictions but provides no error budgets, explicit modeling assumptions, or validation against existing data, making it difficult to assess whether post-hoc choices affect the central forecasts.

    Authors: We have revised the abstract to include a concise statement of the principal modeling assumptions (extrapolation of the TF relation with scatter comparable to current surveys and no strong redshift evolution) and to clarify that the comparisons are based on number-count forecasts rather than full error-budgeted cosmological forecasts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forecasts rely on external instrument models and established TF relation without reduction to self-fitted inputs

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe a forward-looking comparison of current TF HI surveys against predicted SKAO yields for peculiar velocity cosmology, without any quoted equations, self-citations, or ansatzes that reduce the central predictions to fitted parameters by construction. The TF relation is treated as an input observational tool whose scatter and applicability at higher z is an assumption (not derived within the paper), and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or renaming of known results appears. This is the standard structure of a survey forecast paper whose claims remain falsifiable by future data rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the central forecasts rest on the assumption that the Tully-Fisher relation can be applied at higher redshifts without significant evolution or selection bias, plus standard assumptions about SKA sensitivity and galaxy number densities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Tully-Fisher relation remains valid and tight for HI-selected galaxies at the redshifts targeted by SKAO surveys
    Required for the predicted sample sizes and science reach stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5658 in / 1209 out tokens · 24751 ms · 2026-06-25T19:48:02.377335+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6. M. Baes et al.A&A, 696:A52, Apr

    doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453417. C. J. Ball et al.ApJ, 950(2):87, June

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453417

  3. [3]

    D.G.Barnesetal.MNRAS,322(3):486–498, Apr.2001

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb53. D.G.Barnesetal.MNRAS,322(3):486–498, Apr.2001. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04102.x. E. F. Bell and R. S. de Jong.ApJ, 550(1):212–229, Mar

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb53 2001

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1086/319728. D. Bertacca et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    doi:10.1086/319728

  5. [5]

    doi: 10.1086/185348. S. Blyth et al. InMeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, page 4, Jan

    doi:10.1086/185348

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.22323/1.277.0004. P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said, and L. Staveley-Smith.MNRAS, 531(1):84–109, June

    doi:10.22323/1.277.0004

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1122. P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said, and L. Staveley-Smith.JCAP, 2025(3):066, Mar

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1122 2025

  8. [8]

    R.Braunetal

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/066. R.Braunetal. Anticipatedperformanceofthesquarekilometrearray–phase1(ska1),2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.12699. S. Camera et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/066 2025

  9. [9]

    J.Carrick,S.J.Turnbull,G.Lavaux,andM.J.Hudson.MNRAS,450(1):317–332,June2015

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346173. J.Carrick,S.J.Turnbull,G.Lavaux,andM.J.Hudson.MNRAS,450(1):317–332,June2015. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv547. H. M. Courtois et al.A&A, 670:L15, Feb. 2023a. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245331. H. M. Courtois et al.MNRAS, 519(3):4589–4607, Mar. 2023b. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3246. R. Davé et al.MNRAS, 486(2):2827–2849, June

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346173

  10. [10]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937. G. De Lucia et al.MNRAS, 445(1):970–987, Nov

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937

  11. [11]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1752. G. De Lucia, F. Fontanot, L. Xie, and M. Hirschmann.A&A, 687:A68, July

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1752

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f. S. Djorgovski and M. Davis.ApJ, 313:59, Feb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2041

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.1086/164948. K. Douglass et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2507.11765, July

    doi:10.1086/164948

  14. [14]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507. 11765. A. Dressler et al.ApJ, 313:42, Feb

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507

  15. [15]

    A.R.Duffyetal.MNRAS,426(4):3385–3402,Nov.2012

    doi: 10.1086/164947. A.R.Duffyetal.MNRAS,426(4):3385–3402,Nov.2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21987.x. A. A. Dutton.MNRAS, 424(4):3123–3128, Aug

    doi:10.1086/164947 2012

  16. [16]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21469.x. G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati.Physics Letters B, 485(1-3):208–214, July

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21469.x 2012

  17. [17]

    EuclidCollaboration: Mellieretal.A&A,697:A1,May2025.doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00669-9. EuclidCollaboration: Mellieretal.A&A,697:A1,May2025.doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810. X. Fernández et al.ApJL, 770(2):L29, June

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)00669-9

  18. [18]

    doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L29. X. Fernández et al.ApJL, 824(1):L1, June

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/l29 2041

  19. [19]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L1. F. Fontanot et al.MNRAS, 496(3):3943–3960, Aug

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/l1 2041

  20. [20]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1716. F. Fontanot et al.A&A, 699:A108, July

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1716

  21. [21]

    26 Cosmology with Tully-FisherHiGalaxy Surveys J

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452029. 26 Cosmology with Tully-FisherHiGalaxy Surveys J. Mayor et al. B. S. Frank et al.AJ, 151(4):94, Apr

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452029

  22. [22]

    doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/94. W. L. Freedman et al.ApJ, 882(1):34, Sept

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/94

  23. [23]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73. W. L. Freedman et al.ApJ, 985(2):203, June

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73

  24. [24]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce78. K. C. Freeman.ApJ, 160:811, June

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce78

  25. [25]

    doi: 10.1086/150474. R. Giovanelli et al.AJ, 130(6):2598–2612, Dec

    doi:10.1086/150474

  26. [26]

    M.Glowacki,E.Elson,andR.Davé.MNRAS,498(3):3687–3702,Nov.2020

    doi: 10.1086/497431. M.Glowacki,E.Elson,andR.Davé.MNRAS,498(3):3687–3702,Nov.2020. doi: 10.1093/mnras/ staa2616. L. Guzzo et al.Nature, 451(7178):541–544, Jan

    doi:10.1086/497431 2020

  27. [27]

    doi: 10.1038/nature06555. I. Harrison et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII). 2026a. arXiv search: Report number AASKAII/Harrison01. I. Harrison et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII). 2026b. arXiv search: Report number AASKAII/Harrison02. M. P. Haynes et al.ApJ, 861(1):49, July

    doi:10.1038/nature06555

  28. [28]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956. W. A. Hellwing et al.Phys. Rev. Let., 112(22):221102, June

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac956

  29. [29]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112. 221102. K. M. Hess et al.MNRAS, 484(2):2234–2256, Apr

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112

  30. [30]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3421. M. Hirschmann, G. De Lucia, and F. Fontanot.MNRAS, 461(2):1760–1785, Sept

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3421

  31. [31]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1318. C. Howlett.MNRAS, 487(4):5209–5234, Aug

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1318

  32. [32]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1403. C. Howlett et al.MNRAS, 471(3):3135–3151, Nov

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1403

  33. [33]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1521. C. Howlett et al.MNRAS, 515(1):953–976, Sept

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1521

  34. [34]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1681. Y.-H. Huang et al.Phys. Rev. D, 110(4):043509, Aug

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1681

  35. [35]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043509. E. M. Huff et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1311.1489, Nov

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043509

  36. [36]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1311.1489. L. Hui and P. B. Greene.Phys. Rev. D, 73(12):123526, June

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1311.1489

  37. [37]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73. 123526. D. Huterer, D. L. Shafer, D. M. Scolnic, and F. Schmidt.JCAP, 2017(5):015, May

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73 2017

  38. [38]

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/015. M. F. Ivarsen, P. Bull, C. Llinares, and D. Mota.A&A, 595:A40, Oct

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/015 2017

  39. [39]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c. M. Jarvis et al. InMeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, page 6, Jan

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

  40. [40]

    doi: 10.22323/1.277.0006. M. J. Jarvis et al.MNRAS, Oct

    doi:10.22323/1.277.0006

  41. [41]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1702. J. Koda et al.MNRAS, 445(4):4267–4286, Dec

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1702

  42. [42]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1610. B. S. Koribalski et al.Astro. & Space Sci., 365(7):118, July

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1610

  43. [43]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac303. R. Laureijs et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1110.3193, Oct

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stac303

  44. [44]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193. F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, and J. M. Schombert.AJ, 152(6):157, Dec. 2016a. doi: 10.3847/ 0004-6256/152/6/157. F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, and J. M. Schombert.ApJL, 816(1):L14, Jan. 2016b. doi: 10.3847/ 2041-8205/816/1/L14. F. Lelli et al.MNRAS, 484(3):3267–3278, Apr

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2041

  45. [45]

    27 Cosmology with Tully-FisherHiGalaxy Surveys J

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz205. 27 Cosmology with Tully-FisherHiGalaxy Surveys J. Mayor et al. D. Li et al.IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19(3):112–119, Apr

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz205

  46. [46]

    doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018. 2802178. R. Lilow and A. Nusser.MNRAS, 507(2):1557–1581, Oct

    doi:10.1109/mmm.2018 2018

  47. [47]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2009. E. V. Linder.Phys. Rev. D, 72(4):043529, Aug

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2009

  48. [48]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043529. E. V. Linder and R. N. Cahn.Astroparticle Physics, 28(4-5):481–488, Dec

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.043529

  49. [49]

    astropartphys.2007.09.003

    doi: 10.1016/j. astropartphys.2007.09.003. N. Maddox et al.A&A, 646:A35, Feb

    doi:10.1016/j 2007

  50. [50]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039655. D. S. Mathewson, V. L. Ford, and M. Buchhorn.ApJSS, 81:413, Aug

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039655

  51. [51]

    doi: 10.1086/191700. J. Mayor et al. Simulations of the 21cm emission line for upcoming large-scale hi galaxy surveys,

    doi:10.1086/191700

  52. [52]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21058. S. S. McGaugh.ApJ, 632(2):859–871, Oct

    arXiv

  53. [53]

    doi: 10.1086/432968. S. S. McGaugh, J. M. Schombert, G. D. Bothun, and W. J. G. de Blok.ApJL, 533(2):L99–L102, Apr

    doi:10.1086/432968

  54. [54]

    doi: 10.1086/312628. M. Meyer. InPanoramic Radio Astronomy: Wide-field 1-2 GHz Research on Galaxy Evolution, page 15, Jan

    doi:10.1086/312628

  55. [55]

    M.J.Meyeretal.MNRAS,350(4):1195–1209,June2004.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x

    doi: 10.22323/1.089.0015. M.J.Meyeretal.MNRAS,350(4):1195–1209,June2004.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x. H. J. Mo, S. Mao, and S. D. M. White.MNRAS, 295(2):319–336, Apr

    doi:10.22323/1.089.0015 2004

  56. [56]

    1365-8711.1998.01227.x

    doi: 10.1046/j. 1365-8711.1998.01227.x. R. Nan et al.International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20(6):989–1024, Jan

    doi:10.1046/j 1998

  57. [57]

    doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335. A. Nasirudin et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    doi:10.1142/s0218271811019335

  58. [58]

    arXiv search: Report number AASKAII/Nasirudin01. D. Obreschkow et al.ApJ, 703(2):1890–1903, Oct

    1903

  59. [59]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1890. C. Park.MNRAS, 319(2):573–582, Dec

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1890

  60. [60]

    Planck Collaboration et al.A&A, 641:A6, Sept

    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03886.x. Planck Collaboration et al.A&A, 641:A6, Sept

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03886.x 2000

  61. [61]

    A.A.Ponomareva,M.A.W.Verheijen,R.F.Peletier,andA.Bosma.MNRAS,469(2):2387–2400, Aug

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. A.A.Ponomareva,M.A.W.Verheijen,R.F.Peletier,andA.Bosma.MNRAS,469(2):2387–2400, Aug

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

  62. [62]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1018. A. A. Ponomareva et al.MNRAS, 474(4):4366–4384, Mar

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1018

  63. [63]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3066. A. A. Ponomareva et al.MNRAS, 508(1):1195–1205, Nov

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3066

  64. [64]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2654. F. Qin, C. Howlett, and L. Staveley-Smith.MNRAS, 487(4):5235–5247, Aug

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2654

  65. [65]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9391. A. G. Riess et al.ApJ, 826(1):56, July

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9391

  66. [66]

    doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56. A. G. Riess et al.ApJL, 934(1):L7, July

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/56

  67. [67]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b. T. Ronconi et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2041

  68. [68]

    doi: 10.1086/162866. C. Saulder et al.MNRAS, 525(1):1106–1125, Oct

    doi:10.1086/162866

  69. [69]

    SKA Cosmology SWG et al.PASA, 37:e007, Mar

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2200. SKA Cosmology SWG et al.PASA, 37:e007, Mar

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2200

  70. [70]

    doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.51. Y.-S. Song et al.Phys. Rev. D, 84(8):083523, Oct

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.51 2019

  71. [71]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083523. C. M. Springob et al.MNRAS, 445(3):2677–2697, Dec

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.083523

  72. [72]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1743. E. N. Taylor et al.The Messenger, 190:46–48, Mar

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1743

  73. [73]

    28 Cosmology with Tully-FisherHiGalaxy Surveys J

    doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5312. 28 Cosmology with Tully-FisherHiGalaxy Surveys J. Mayor et al. A. L. Tiley et al.MNRAS, 482(2):2166–2188, Jan

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5312

  74. [74]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2794. S. Topal et al.MNRAS, 479(3):3319–3334, Sept

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2794

  75. [75]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1617. P. Tripathi et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1617

  76. [76]

    doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/ 152/2/50. R. B. Tully et al.ApJ, 944(1):94, Feb

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/

  77. [77]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8. M. A. W. Verheijen.ApJ, 563(2):694–715, Dec

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8

  78. [78]

    doi: 10.1086/323887. N. P. Vogt et al.ApJL, 479(2):L121–L124, Apr

    doi:10.1086/323887

  79. [79]

    doi: 10.1086/310591. L. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt.ApJ, 508(2):483–490, Dec

    doi:10.1086/310591

  80. [80]

    doi: 10.1086/306436. R. Watkins et al.MNRAS, 524(2):1885–1892, Sept

    doi:10.1086/306436

Showing first 80 references.