Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

MeerKAT discovery of a MIGHTEE Odd Radio Circle

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new Odd Radio Circle discovered in MeerKAT data measures 114 kpc across, three to five times smaller than all previously known examples, arguing that the class's apparent uniformity is a selection effect.

desk verdict A credible and useful ORC discovery whose population-level interpretation is underpowered; the central object is solid, the statistical claim is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17311 v1 pith:JWZ3QRQS submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.GA

Ray P. Norris , Bärbel S. Koribalski , Catherine L. Hale , Matt J. Jarvis , Peter J. Macgregor , A. Russell Taylor This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords OddRadioCirclecontinuum:galaxiesgalaxyevolutionMIGHTEEsurveyMeerKATselectioneffectsextragalacticsourcesmergers
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 presents the discovery of a fourth well-defined single Odd Radio Circle, ORC J0219-0505, in the MIGHTEE survey's 1.2 GHz MeerKAT images. The edge-brightened radio ring has a diameter of 35 arcseconds, which at the host elliptical galaxy's spectroscopic redshift of 0.196 corresponds to about 114 kpc, making it a factor of 3 to 5 smaller than the three previously known single ORCs. The paper argues that this smaller, fainter example is what would be expected if ORCs' flux densities follow the same distribution as the general extragalactic radio source population, rather than being confined to a narrow range of sizes and luminosities. The discovery in a deep but relatively small survey thus implies that fainter and smaller ORCs exist in large numbers and that the earlier apparent uniformity was largely a selection effect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radio ring itself, identified in MIGHTEE 1.2 GHz continuum images through a systematic eye-search that can catch diffuse structures source finders miss. The argument's load-bearing measurements are the ring's 35-arcsecond diameter, its roughly 1 mJy integrated flux density, and the spectroscopic redshift of the host elliptical galaxy, which together convert the angular size to an approximately 114 kpc physical diameter. The statistical claim rests on comparing the ORC surface density in MIGHTEE (one ORC in 20 square degrees) with that expected from scaling the EMU-PS1 ORC count either by survey area alone or by the number of radio components per square degree; the latter predicts about 0.5 ORCs and matches the observation.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift of the ring itself—for example from emission lines detected within the radio ring with a large optical telescope—that disagrees with the host's z=0.196 would falsify the physical association, invalidating the derived 114 kpc diameter and the selection-effect argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that ORC J0219-0505 is a genuine Odd Radio Circle: an edge-brightened ring of radio emission, filled with faint diffuse emission and surrounding a compact radio core, with no counterpart at other wavelengths. The ring's 35-arcsecond diameter corresponds to 114 kpc at the redshift of the central massive elliptical galaxy (z=0.196), making it the smallest and faintest such object found so far, about 3 to 5 times smaller in linear size than the earlier single ORCs. The authors further claim that the discovery of this object in only 20 square degrees of MIGHTEE data, at a rate consistent with the ORC-to-radio-source ratio seen in the EMU-PS1 survey, supports the hypothesis that ORCs have a flux density distribution similar to that of the general extragalactic radio source population, and that the striking similarity of the earlier ORCs' properties is primarily a selection effect caused by the sensitivity and resolution of previous surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The ring is physically associated with the elliptical galaxy at redshift 0.196, so the 35-arcsecond angular diameter really corresponds to a 114 kpc linear size; if the ring lies at a different distance, the size and all conclusions based on it collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ORCs follow the flux density distribution of the general extragalactic radio source population, deeper surveys will find many more ORCs at lower flux densities than the handful currently known.
  • The 114 kpc diameter of ORC J0219-0505 puts strong constraints on shock models: a spherical shock expanding for about a gigayear would be too large, so smaller ORCs favor recently triggered events or off-center origins.
  • The host galaxy's extended optical/IR structure, reaching about 50 kpc, supports the merger-driven shock interpretation for ORC formation.
  • The offset between the ring center and the host galaxy is naturally explained by the relic-lobe re-energisation model and is difficult to reconcile with a central supermassive black-hole origin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence of the source-count scaling is that the all-sky ORC population at 1 GHz could be hundreds of times larger than the current sample, most members lying below the detection thresholds of ASKAP and GMRT; the paper does not quote this number.
  • The companion galaxy C1, located inside the ring at a velocity offset of about 1300 km/s, might be interacting with the host and could be the trigger for the proposed merger shock; spectroscopy of the bridge region could test this.
  • If the selection-effect explanation is correct, applying a matched-filter search to existing MIGHTEE images should uncover additional small ORCs, which would confirm the predicted population without new observations.
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 reports the discovery of a new Odd Radio Circle, ORC J0219-0505, in 1.2 GHz MIGHTEE/MeerKAT data. The object is an edge-brightened radio ring of diameter 35 arcsec surrounding a compact radio source associated with the massive elliptical galaxy WISEA J021912.43-050501.8 at z=0.196, giving a physical diameter of about 114 kpc. The host shows extended optical/IR structures and a companion galaxy at similar redshift, supporting a physical association. The authors argue that this ORC is smaller and fainter than previously known single ORCs, that the apparent uniformity of earlier ORCs is mainly a selection effect, and that the discovery is consistent with ORCs having a flux density distribution similar to the general extragalactic radio source population.

Significance. The discovery itself is valuable: ORC J0219-0505 substantially expands the parameter space of confirmed single ORCs, and the multiwavelength host analysis (central radio core, companion galaxies C1/C2 with consistent redshifts, extended stellar bridge, and sharp optical edge) makes the radio-host association credible. The radial brightness profile and the resolved ring width provide a solid observational basis for the object's classification. The data are made available through the MIGHTEE DR1 DOI. However, the paper's broader population conclusion rests on a statistical comparison in Section 3.5 that, as presented, cannot distinguish between the two hypotheses considered; this needs quantitative selection-function modelling before the abstract and conclusion claims are supportable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Table 1] The two expected counts, ~0.1 and ~0.5 ORCs, are point estimates with no uncertainties. From Poisson statistics, P(N>=1 | lambda=0.1) ~ 9.5% and P(N>=1 | lambda=0.5) ~ 39%, so the single detected ORC is consistent with both the narrow-range hypothesis and the population-mirroring hypothesis. The statements in the Abstract and Section 3.6 that 'the apparent uniformity of previously known ORCs is primarily due to selection effects' and that the result is 'consistent with ORCs having a flux density distribution similar to that of the general population' therefore go beyond what the current statistics support. A quantitative treatment is needed, such as a forward model that assigns an intrinsic ORC size/flux distribution and a selection function for each survey, and then evaluates the likelihood of the observed counts in MIGHTEE and EMU-PS1.
  2. [§3.5] Scaling the expected ORC count by the ratio of Gaussian components in MIGHTEE and EMU-PS1 assumes that the ORC-to-source ratio is independent of flux density, angular size, and redshift. The EMU-PS1 sample contains only three ORC candidates (one of which is the AGN-pair system, not a single ORC), so the ratio is itself highly uncertain; the Poisson uncertainty on the numerator alone is at least a factor of about 1.7, and the number of components per square degree is not a clean proxy for the volume probed. This should be acknowledged, or the comparison should be replaced by a proper two-dimensional (flux-size) selection model.
  3. [§3.6, Conclusion] The statement that 'more ORCs will be found in deeper surveys' is presented as an implication of this single detection, but the detection does not by itself constrain the faint-end abundance beyond the two-point comparison in Section 3.5. The claim is a plausible prediction of the population-mirroring hypothesis, but it should be framed as a testable prediction with an expected detection rate, rather than as a supported inference from the discovery.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section 1] The full text has a typo in the Abstract: 'taken with the MeerKAT The radio-bright host' is missing 'telescope' (or a period) before 'The'.
  2. [Abstract vs. Conclusion] The Abstract says the new ORC is 'a factor 3-5 smaller' than previous ORCs with elliptical hosts, while the Conclusion says 'a factor 2-3 smaller'; these statements should be reconciled.
  3. [§3.5] The phrase 'ORCs having a similar flux density distribution similar to that of' contains a duplicated 'similar'; please reword.
  4. [References] The entries Omar 2022a and Omar 2022b are identical in the reference list (both Research Notes of the AAS, 6, 100); please verify and distinguish the two citations.
  5. [Figure 3] The caption states that the solid and dashed lines are shown as blue lines in the left-hand panel of Figure 4, but the lines are not clearly identified in the figure itself; consider adding arrows or labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MIGHTEE ORC detection and its physical-size estimate are independent of the population-scaling consistency check.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained observationally. ORC J0219-0505 is found by visual inspection of MIGHTEE DR1 images (Section 2.1), and the ring diameter, host flux density, and spectroscopic redshift are measured from independent radio, optical, and infrared data (Sections 3.2-3.4). The physical size of 114 kpc follows directly from the 35" angular diameter and z_spec = 0.196; the host association is supported by the central radio core, companions C1/C2 at similar redshifts, and extended optical/IR structure, not assumed from the ORC definition. The Section 3.5 population comparison takes prior EMU-PS1 ORC counts and MIGHTEE Gaussian counts as inputs to derive expected counts of ~0.1 and ~0.5, then compares them with the single detected ORC; no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. Self-citations to Norris et al. 2021a/b, 2022, and Koribalski et al. 2021 document prior independent discoveries and do not supply load-bearing circular support. The paper's own caveat that 'the small numbers currently available are insufficient to estimate the flux density distribution' (Abstract; Section 3.5) correctly identifies the main weakness: with one ORC, expected counts of 0.1 and 0.5 are statistically underpowered to distinguish the hypotheses (Poisson probability of at least one detection is ~9.5% and ~39%, respectively). That is a quantitative-evidence limitation, not a circularity, because the observed ORC is not an input to the expected counts and the conclusion is explicitly hedged. No circular step is present.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on published spectroscopic redshifts, the MIGHTEE DR1 calibration, and a completeness assumption for the visual search. The population inference depends on a proxy for source density rather than a fitted model.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The spectroscopic redshift of the host galaxy (z=0.196) applies to the radio ring.
    Used in Section 3.2 to convert the 35 arcsec ring diameter to 114 kpc. If the ring is not at the host redshift, the physical size is unknown.
  • domain assumption The MIGHTEE DR1 images are astrometrically and photometrically calibrated as described by Hale et al. (2024).
    All flux densities, sizes, and positions come from these images; any calibration error propagates to the reported properties.
  • domain assumption The number of Gaussian components per square degree is a fair proxy for the extragalactic source population density.
    Used in Section 3.5 to predict 0.5 ORCs in MIGHTEE from EMU-PS1 counts, ignoring resolution and selection differences between surveys.
  • domain assumption The by-eye search is complete enough to find all ORC-like rings above the survey sensitivity.
    The search procedure is described in Section 2.1, but completeness is not quantified; missed ORCs would affect the population inference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MeerKAT discovery of a MIGHTEE Odd Radio Circle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWZ3QRQS

@misc{pith2026241117311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MeerKAT discovery of a MIGHTEE Odd Radio Circle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWZ3QRQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17311}
}
abstract

We present the discovery of a new Odd Radio Circle (ORC J0219--0505) in 1.2~GHz radio continuum data from the MIGHTEE survey taken with the MeerKAT telescope. The radio-bright host is a massive elliptical galaxy, which shows extended stellar structure, possibly tidal tails or shells, suggesting recent interactions or mergers. The radio ring has a diameter of 35", corresponding to 114~kpc at the host galaxy redshift of $z_{\rm spec} = 0.196$. This MIGHTEE ORC is a factor 3--5 smaller than previous ORCs with central elliptical galaxies. The discovery of this MIGHTEE ORC in a deep but relatively small-area radio survey implies that more ORCs will be found in deeper surveys. While the small numbers currently available are insufficient to estimate the flux density distribution, this is consistent with the simplest hypothesis that ORCs have a flux density distribution similar to that of the general population of extragalactic radio sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite image of ORC J0219-0505 consisting of the MeerKAT Stokes I image (green) superimposed on an RGB optical image from the Legacy Survey Interactive Sky Viewer. The transfer function for the radio data of the field of view was adjusted for contrast, and assigned to green. The colour scheme for the optical data uses the default colour scheme for Legacy Survey DR9 data assigned by the Legacy Survey Interactive S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MIGHTEE 1.2 GHz radio continuum images of sources with rings or ring-like structures, which might be mistaken for ORCs. Each pair of images show the radio image (left) and the corresponding SDSS 𝑟-band (Abdurro’uf et al. 2022) optical image (right). Axis labelling has been omitted in this figure for clarity, but fully labelled images are available in the Supplementary Information. field, presumably because of the sm… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Left: MIGHTEE 1.2 GHz radio continuum image of ORC J0219–0505 (resolution 5′′). The central radio source is associated with the host elliptical galaxy at 𝑧 = 0.196. Diffuse radio emission surrounds the host forming a 35′′ diameter ring. Two compact radio sources, marked as C1 and C2 in the centre panel, are associated with companion galaxies, while C3 is an unassociated background galaxy. Contours at 8 and 24 𝜇Jy/be… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Subaru HSC 𝑅-band amplitude profile across ORC J0219– 0505 along the line on the centre panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    Ahumada R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249....3A 249, 3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  3. [3]

    Aihara H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psab122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74..247A 74, 247

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  4. [4]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3875B 474, 3875

    Baldry I. K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3875B 474, 3875

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3042 2018

  5. [5]

    Blyth S., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 4, @doi 10.22323/1.277.0004

    doi:10.22323/1.277.0004 2016

  6. [6]

    CASA Team et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASP..134k4501C 134, 114501

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 2022

  7. [7]

    N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..189..270C 189, 270

    Cardamone C. N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..189..270C 189, 270

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270 2010

  8. [8]

    Cheng C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17ef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..256....4C 256, 4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac17ef 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..273C 472, 273

    Childress M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..273C 472, 273

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06752-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..459C 625, 459

    Coil A. L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06752-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..459C 625, 459

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Comrie A., et al., 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4905459

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Koribalski B

    Dolag K., B \"o ss L. M., Koribalski B. S., Steinwandel U. P., Valentini M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945...74D 945, 74

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Ferragamo A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...655A.115F 655, A115

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L...3G 518, L3

    Griffin M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L...3G 518, L3

    2010 doi

  7. [16]

    P., Wang X

    Gupta N., Huynh M., Norris R. P., Wang X. R., Hopkins A. M., Andernach H., Koribalski B. S., Galvin T. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2022.44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASA...39...51G 39, e051

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A...4H 622, A4

    Hale C. L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A...4H 622, A4

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    L., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241104958H p

    Hale C. L., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241104958H p. arXiv:2411.04958

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Heywood I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2150H 509, 2150

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38....9H 38, e009

    Hotan A. W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38....9H 38, e009

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    J., H \"a u ler B., McAlpine K., 2013, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Msngr.154...26J 154, 26

    Jarvis M. J., H \"a u ler B., McAlpine K., 2013, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Msngr.154...26J 154, 26

    2013

  13. [22]

    Jarvis M., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 6 ( @eprint arXiv 1709.01901 ), @doi 10.22323/1.277.0006

    2016 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Jonas J., MeerKAT Team 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 1

    2016

  15. [24]

    S., Smirnov O

    Kenyon J. S., Smirnov O. M., Grobler T. L., Perkins S. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.2399K 478, 2399

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    S., Norris R

    Koribalski B. S., Norris R. P., Andernach H., Rudnick L., Shabala S., Filipovi \'c M., Lenc E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505L..11K 505, L11

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    S., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3357K 531, 3357

    Koribalski B. S., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3357K 531, 3357

    doi

  18. [27]

    S., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3682K 532, 3682

    Koribalski B. S., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3682K 532, 3682

    doi

  19. [28]

    Kumari S., Pal S., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52711233K 527, 11233

    doi

  20. [29]

    Kumari S., Pal S., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.175K 683, A175

    doi

  21. [30]

    S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1439L 520, 1439

    Lochner M., Rudnick L., Heywood I., Knowles K., Shabala S. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1439L 520, 1439

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    P., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2020.52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38....3N 38, e003

    Norris R. P., et al., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2020.52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38....3N 38, e003

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    P., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38...46N 38, e046

    Norris R. P., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38...46N 38, e046

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1300N 513, 1300

    Norris R. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1300N 513, 1300

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    R., de Bruyn A

    Offringa A. R., de Bruyn A. G., Biehl M., Zaroubi S., Bernardi G., Pandey V. N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16471.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405..155O 405, 155

    2010

  26. [36]

    Omar A., 2022b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ac7044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022RNAAS...6..100O 6, 100

    doi

  27. [37]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.142O 679, A142

    Omori K. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.142O 679, A142

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    Pierre M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/09/011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JCAP...09..011P 2004, 011

    2004 doi

  29. [39]

    Rowan-Robinson M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07868.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351.1290R 351, 1290

    2004

  30. [40]

    Rupke D. S. N., Coil A. L., Whalen K. E., Moustakas J., Tremonti C. A., Perrotta S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...51R 967, 51

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    Scoville N., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172....1S 172, 1

    2007 doi

  32. [42]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...24S 41, e024

    Shabala S. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...24S 41, e024

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    Simpson C., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10907.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372..741S 372, 741

    2006

  34. [44]

    Singh V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569A..52S 569, A52

    2014 doi

  35. [45]

    Tasse C., et al., 2023, DDFacet: Facet-based radio imaging package , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2305.008

    2023

  36. [46]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  37. [47]

    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...

  38. [48]

    N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    Author A. N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    2013

  39. [49]

    D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    Jones C. D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    2015

  40. [50]

    B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    Smith A. B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.