Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

VEXAS: the VISTA EXtension to Auxiliary Surveys -- Data Release 1: the Southern Galactic Hemisphere

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VEXAS assembles nine surveys into the widest, deepest public optical-to-infrared database of the Southern Hemisphere.

desk verdict VEXAS DR1 is a genuinely useful southern-sky multi-wavelength cross-match, but the 'widest and deepest' superlative and the 'completely eliminates spurious detections' claim are both asserted without the quantitative support they need. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11392 v1 pith:MITZRHQD submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.GA

C. Spiniello , A. Agnello This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords astronomicaldatabasescatalogssurveysvirtualobservatorytoolsmulti-wavelengthphotometrycross-matchingextremelyredobjectsgravitationallensing
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 presents VEXAS-DR1, the first public release of a set of nine multi-wavelength catalogues covering the southern Galactic hemisphere, built by cross-matching the near-infrared VISTA Hemisphere Survey and VIKING catalogues with the AllWISE mid-infrared survey and then with optical, X-ray, radio, and spectroscopic data. The paper's central claim is that VEXAS is currently the widest and deepest public optical-to-infrared photometric and spectroscopic database in the Southern Hemisphere, with 198,608,360 objects each detected in at least two surveys. If that holds, VEXAS becomes a reference multi-wavelength base for classifying stars, galaxies, and quasars, computing photometric redshifts, and hunting rare objects such as strongly lensed quasars and extremely red galaxies. As demonstrations, the authors use the released tables to assemble 1,010,205 extremely red object candidates (59 with secure spectra) and to find new strong gravitational lens candidates from astrometric offsets between surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-wavelength cross-matched catalogue itself, assembled by positional matching: each VISTA source is required to have an AllWISE match within 10 arcseconds (later 3 arcseconds), and the resulting table is matched to optical, X-ray, radio, and spectroscopic catalogues at fixed radii (3 arcseconds for optical, 10 arcseconds for X-ray and radio). The requirement of a match in at least two surveys, and in particular an AllWISE match, is the mechanism the paper relies on to suppress spurious detections. For the lens search, the load-bearing tool is the field-corrected astrometric offset: the centroid shift between, say, DES and VISTA is compared to the local average offset in a 0.5-degree patch, so that large residual offsets flag close blends of a quasar and a galaxy. For the extragalactic table, the WISE colour cut $W1-W2>0.2+\sqrt{\delta W1^2+\delta W2^2}$ selects objects with mid-infrared excess, isolating AGN and high-redshift galaxy candidates.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of a few thousand objects from VEXAS-AllWISE3 and compare each 3-arcsecond VISTA–AllWISE pair with high-resolution imaging (Gaia or Hubble); if more than a few percent of pairs turn out to be two unrelated sources superimposed along the line of sight, the catalogue is not as clean as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a data product rather than a new astrophysical result: VEXAS-DR1 provides, for every entry, photometry from at least one VISTA near-infrared band plus a match in at least one other survey, with native-system magnitudes, errors, coordinates, separations, stellarity indicators, and Galactic extinction. The core table contains 198,608,360 objects; restricting the AllWISE match to 3 arcseconds yields VEXAS-AllWISE3 with 126,372,293 objects, which is the starting point for the optical matches: 37,615,619 with DES, 24,693,386 with Pan-STARRS1, 20,331,041 with SkyMapper, 5,742,300 with extragalactic WISE colours, 347,076 with SDSS/6dFGS spectroscopy, 77,338 with SUMSS 21 cm radio, and 3,049 with X-ray detections from ROSAT/XMM. The authors claim this combination is the widest and deepest public optical-to-IR photometric and spectroscopic database in the Southern Hemisphere, and they support the claim with two applications: a statistically large sample of extremely red objects and the discovery of strong gravitational lens candidates beyond the reach of earlier searches.

Load-bearing premise

That a positional match within 3 arcseconds (or 10 arcseconds for X-ray and radio) between two surveys identifies the same physical object, and that requiring an AllWISE match completely eliminates spurious detections; the paper asserts this but reports no false-match or contamination rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released tables give Southern-hemisphere astronomers a ready-made reference for object classification over roughly 198 million sources, with optical, near-infrared, and mid-infrared colours in a single query.
  • Photometric-redshift work can use the many-band overlap (up to nine bands for a few million objects) and the 347,076 spectroscopic matches as calibration sets.
  • Rare-object searches—lensed quasars, extremely red objects, AGN—can be run directly on the public tables; the paper demonstrates 1,010,205 extremely red object candidates and new lens candidates found via astrometric offsets.
  • The extragalactic colour table isolates about 5.7 million objects with AGN-like or galaxy-like WISE colours, a large sample for studying AGN demographics.
  • Future data releases extending the same procedures to the northern Galactic hemisphere and to Gaia/HST matches would produce an all-sky version of the same resource.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative false-match rate is not given; if one were measured by matching VEXAS entries to high-resolution imaging, users would learn how much of the 198-million-object sample is truly clean rather than merely presumed clean.
  • The lens-candidate search via astrometric offsets could be combined with machine-learning morphology scores on the same VEXAS images to produce a much larger candidate list; the paper's examples suggest but do not quantify the completeness of the offset-only method.
  • Because the extremely red object selection uses only $K_s$, $i$, and $r$ cuts, the 1,010,205 candidates are a pre-selection; matching to the spectroscopic table yields only 59 confirmations, so most candidates await spectroscopic follow-up, and the true ERO fraction of the sample is an open testable question.
  • If the catalogue is indeed as clean as claimed, it becomes a natural training set for machine-learning classifiers separating stars, galaxies, and quasars using colours alone, since every object carries native-system magnitudes from independent surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents VEXAS DR1, a set of nine cross-matched multi-wavelength catalogs built from VISTA (VHS DR6 and VIKING DR3) with AllWISE, DES, PanSTARRS, SkyMapper, ROSAT/XMM, SUMSS, and SDSS/6dFGS, covering the Southern Galactic Hemisphere (b < -20 deg). The authors describe the matching radii and object counts, and demonstrate two applications: selection of roughly 10^6 extremely red objects and a search for strong lens candidates using astrometric offsets. The paper claims that VEXAS is currently the widest and deepest public optical-to-IR photometric and spectroscopic database in the Southern Hemisphere.

Significance. If the catalog is released as described and its purity is validated, VEXAS DR1 would be a valuable community resource for Southern-sky multi-wavelength studies, enabling object classification and rare-object searches over approximately 2x10^8 objects. The paper's strengths include the public release via ESO Phase-3, the detailed specification of ADQL queries and matching radii, the use of known lenses for characterizing the lens-search technique, and the demonstration of two science applications. However, the headline superlative and the purity claims are not yet quantitatively supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 8] The claim that VEXAS is the 'widest and deepest public optical-to-IR photometric and spectroscopic database in the Southern Hemisphere' lacks a defined comparison baseline. Please add a table comparing area, source density, depth limits, and wavelength coverage with existing merged catalogs (e.g., AllWISE+2MASS, DES+WISE, SkyMapper+WISE, or other public multi-wavelength products). Without such a baseline, this superlative claim cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Sections 1, 3, and 6] The assertion that requiring an AllWISE match 'minimizes, if not completely eliminates, spurious detections' is not quantified. Please estimate the false-match rate for the 3"/10" matching radii, for example via angular-separation distributions, random radial-shift tests, or visual inspection of subsamples, and discuss how systematic astrometric offsets (proper motion, PSF-size effects, source confusion) affect the matches. This is load-bearing because catalog purity is a central claim of the paper.
  3. [Section 6 vs Table 2] There is an inconsistency in the number of 21cm matches: Section 6 states '34192 have a 21cm match', while Section 6.2 reports 'This yielded 77'338 radio sources' and Table 2 lists VEXAS-21cm = 77,338. Please reconcile these counts and ensure all numbers agree between text and tables.
  4. [Section 2.3] The use of VHS-DR6, which the authors note does not match the latest ESO archive release, could affect the completeness and uniformity claims. Please quantify the missing area or depth relative to the latest release, or justify explicitly why DR6 is sufficient for the stated aims of uniform coverage and depth.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'The H-band from VISTA and the u-band from SM are the two least covered bands with≈ 3.2 and≈ 3.8 of objects respectively' should read 'with approximately 3.2% and approximately 3.8% of objects respectively'.
  2. [Section 6.1 vs Section 6] Section 6.1 states 'thereby yielding 3044 unique sources with an X-Ray', while Section 6 reports '3049 have a match in X-Ray'; please reconcile this 5-source discrepancy.
  3. [Various] Typographical errors: 'Karl-Schwarschild-Str.' should be 'Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.'; 'ESO Progam' should be 'ESO Program'; 'Sky Matter' should be 'SkyMapper' in Section 4.3; 'the the 6dF Galaxy Survey' has a duplicated 'the' in the Acknowledgements.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'comprising of 9 cross-matched' should be 'comprising 9 cross-matched'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VEXAS is assembled from independent public survey catalogues, and the self-cited BaROQuES tool is applied to new data without reducing the paper's claims to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central deliverable is a cross-matched catalogue built from public surveys (VHS, VIKING, AllWISE, DES, PS1, SkyMapper, ROSAT/XMM, SUMSS, SDSS, 6dFGS), with selection criteria (Eq. 1 and matching radii) stated as construction choices rather than as predictions derived from the catalogue itself. The ERO selection thresholds (Ks>=17, Ks-i>4, Ks-r>5) are adopted from earlier literature, and the extragalactic WISE cut generalizes Assef et al. (2013) with an explicit formula; neither is calibrated on VEXAS and then re-used as a validation target. The lens demonstration cites the authors' own BaROQuES scripts (Spiniello et al. 2018; Agnello & Spiniello 2019), but those scripts are applied here to previously unused data, the code is publicly available, and the main catalogue claim does not depend on this application; this is normal methodological self-citation, not circularity. The assertions that the catalogue is the 'widest and deepest' and that cross-matching 'minimizes, if not completely eliminates' spurious detections lack quantitative baselines and false-match estimates, but an unsupported or overreaching claim is a correctness and validation concern rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs. No equation or fitted parameter could be identified that makes a predicted result equal to an input by construction, so no specific circular step is found.

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

The catalog's content is determined by hand-chosen matching radii, quality cuts, and literature thresholds rather than fitted physical constants. The main unquantified risk is the purity of the positional cross-matches, which underpins the claim that spurious detections are eliminated.

free parameters (5)
  • Optical cross-match radius = 3 arcsec
    Chosen as a compromise between WISE resolution (about 6 arcsec) and spurious matches; controls the size and purity of VEXAS-AllWISE3 and all optical tables (Sections 3-4).
  • Wide-separation match radius = 10 arcsec
    Used for the VISTA-AllWISE JOIN and for X-ray and radio matches, given the poorer resolution of those surveys (Sections 2 and 6).
  • VISTA photometric quality cuts = DeltaK<0.3, DeltaH<0.3, DeltaJ<0.3 with 8< K/H/J (Eq. 1)
    Hand-chosen reliability thresholds that set the depth and completeness of the input VISTA table (Section 2.3).
  • ERO selection cuts = Ks>=17, Ks-i>4, Ks-r>5 (Eq. 3)
    Adopted from prior literature to define the ERO candidate sample; not fitted in this paper (Section 7.1).
  • Field-corrected offset thresholds = 0.26 arcsec (DES), 0.4 arcsec (SkyMapper)
    Hand-chosen cuts used to select gravitational lens candidates via astrometric offsets (Section 7.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Positional matches within 3 to 10 arcsec across surveys identify the same physical object
    The entire catalog is built on this; no false-match rate is quantified (Sections 2-4).
  • domain assumption Requiring an AllWISE match eliminates or strongly suppresses spurious detections
    Asserted in Sections 1, 3 and 5, not demonstrated with a contamination estimate.
  • domain assumption The VHS-DR6 and VIKING-DR3 source tables with the quality cuts of Eq. 1 provide reliable photometry
    The deep end of the catalog depends on these cuts; the paper notes VHS-DR6 is not the latest ESO release (Section 2.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The W1-W2 extragalactic colour cut of Eq. 2 selects AGN and galaxy candidates
    Introduced as a generalization of Assef et al. (2013); its purity and completeness are not characterized (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption The 5% SDSS/6dFGS redshift disagreements are pipeline failures, not catalog errors
    The paper attributes the mismatch to blends, telluric correction, and pipeline issues without applying corrections (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VEXAS: the VISTA EXtension to Auxiliary Surveys -- Data Release 1: the Southern Galactic Hemisphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MITZRHQD

@misc{pith2026190811392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VEXAS: the VISTA EXtension to Auxiliary Surveys -- Data Release 1: the Southern Galactic Hemisphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MITZRHQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11392}
}
abstract

We present the first public data release of the VISTA EXtension to Auxiliary Surveys (VEXAS), comprising of 9 cross-matched multi-wavelength photometric catalogs where each object has a match in at least two surveys. We aim at a spatial coverage as uniform as possible in the multi-wavelength sky, with the purpose of providing the astronomical community with reference magnitudes and colours for various scientific uses, including: object classification (e.g. quasars, galaxies, and stars; high-z galaxies, white dwarfs, etc.); photometric redshifts of large galaxy samples; searches of exotic objects such as, for example, extremely red objects and lensed quasars. We have cross-matched the wide-field VISTA catalogs (the VISTA Hemisphere Survey and the VISTA Kilo Degree Infrared Galaxy Survey) with the AllWISE mid-infrared Survey, requiring that a match exists within 10 arcsec. We have further matched this table with X-Ray and radio data (ROSAT, XMM, SUMSS). We also performed a second cross-match between VISTA and AllWISE, with a smaller matching radius (3"), including WISE magnitudes. We have then cross-matched this resulting table ($\approx138\times10^6$ objects) with three photometric wide-sky optical deep surveys (DES, SkyMapper, PanSTARRS). We finally include matches to objects with spectroscopic follow-up by the SDSS and 6dFGS. To demonstrate the power of all-sky multi-wavelength cross-match tables, we show two examples of scientific applications of VEXAS, in particular using the publicly released tables to discover strong gravitational lenses (beyond the reach of previous searches), and to build a statistically large sample of extremely red objects. The VEXAS catalog is currently the widest and deepest, public, optical-to-IR photometric and spectroscopic database in the Southern Hemisphere.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Final coverage (r.a., dec.) of the products retrieved from the VHS DR6 for this release of VEXAS. The colours indicate different declina￾tion slices that we built to overcome the TAP limitations on size/entries. The number of objects for each slice is reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Sky view of the VISTA footprint (VHS in grey and VIKING in red) compared to the VHS-ESO DR4 (blue). Right: histograms of r.a. and dec. for the VISTA Surveys that we used for this VEXAS-DR1. The total number of objects in the catalogue is reported on top of each histogram. Bottom: Distribution of K s, J, H and Y magnitudes of the input VISTA table, with number of objects within the magnitude ranges of Eq.1 give… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Luminosity functions in J (left), K s (middle) and H (right) bands from VISTA (circles, continuous line) and 2MASS (squared, dotted lines) in bins of 0.5 magnitudes (in the Vega system) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sky view of the VEXAS+optical table footprints, plotted over the VISTA catalogue footprint (grey). least one measured WISE magnitude. Finally, 1’971’448 objects have reliable photometry (within the 10σ limiting magnitudes) in all optical and infrared bands plus W1 and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Direct comparison between Y−band magnitudes from optical and infrared surveys, in the AB reference system, for objects with re￾liable photometry in an overlap of VISTA and DES/PanSTARRS. The thick dashed lines follow YPS/DES = YV IS T A, and the dotted lines de￾limit o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the redshifts computed from 6dfGS and these computed from SDSS for the common sample of 2834 objects. A good agreement is found for the 2709 green points that lie on the one-to-one line, however for ∼ 5% of the sample (black points), the two survey report…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EROs candidates selected from the VEXAS-DESW catalogue (left, yellow) and from the VEXAS-PS catalogue (right, green) using the magnitude-colours thresholds defined in the text, highlighted in the plots with dotted lines. Triangles are the spectroscopically confirmed ob…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of gravitational lens candidates found through field-corrected offsets between their DES and VISTA coordinates. sphere and containing only high-confidence objects with a match in at least two different surveys. In particular, we have: – used infrared multi-ban…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histograms of magnitudes and stellarity of objects with anomalous astrometric offsets in DES (top row), and in SkyMapper with dec<-70 (bottom row). Different nested histograms correspond to incremental cuts in hybrid colours, limiting magnitude, and strict extragalacti…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Known lenses from the literature in colour-magnitude and colour-colour multi-wavelength plots. Different colour coding identifies lenses recovered in different VEXAS sub-tables, as explained in the captions. Grey small points are objects with a spectroscopic match and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18

    2018

  2. [2]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42

    2018

  3. [3]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 1260

    Agnello, A., Treu, T., Ostrovski, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1260

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    L., Morgan, N

    Agnello, A., Schechter, P. L., Morgan, N. D., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 2086

    work page

  5. [5]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4345

    Agnello, A., Lin, H., Kuropatkin, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4345

    2018

  6. [6]

    2019, MNRAS, 2132

    Agnello, A., & Spiniello, C. 2019, MNRAS, 2132

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    2000, A&A, 354, L1

    Andreani, P., Cimatti, A., Loinard, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, L1

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    L., Kuropatkin, N., et al

    Anguita, T., Schechter, P. L., Kuropatkin, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5017

    2018

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 26 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 11

    2013

  2. [10]

    J., Munn, J

    Bochanski, J. J., Munn, J. A., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 2418

    2007

  3. [11]

    C.-J., Large, M

    Bock, D. C.-J., Large, M. I., & Sadler, E. M. 1999, AJ, 117, 1578

    1999

  4. [12]

    J., Trümper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Trümper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103

    2016

  5. [13]

    2014, The X-ray Universe 2014, 40

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M., & Truemper, J. 2014, The X-ray Universe 2014, 40

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bonifacio, P., Monai, S., & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2065

    2000

  7. [15]

    Brown, M. J. I., Jannuzi, B. T., Dey, A., & Tiede, G. P. 2005, ApJ, 621, 41

    2005

  8. [16]

    C., Shanks, T., Chehade, B., et al

    Carnall, A. C., Shanks, T., Chehade, B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L16 Carnero Rosell, A., Santiago, B., dal Ponte, M., et al. 2019, ArXiv e-prints, [arXiv:1903.10806]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2008, A&A, 483, L39

    Cassata, P., Cimatti, A., Kurk, J., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, L39

    2008

  10. [18]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, [arXiv:1612.05560]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C., Shanks, T., et al

    Chehade, B., Carnall, A. C., Shanks, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1649

    2018

  12. [20]

    Cross, N. J. G., Collins, R. S., Mann, R. G., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A119

    2012

  13. [21]

    M., & et al

    Cutri, R. M., & et al. 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

    2013

  14. [22]

    2000, A&A, 362, L45 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F

    Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., & Renzini, A. 2000, A&A, 362, L45 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MN- RAS, 460, 1270

    2000

  15. [23]

    T., & Dark Energy Survey Collaboration 2012, Physics Procedia, 37, 1332 de Jong, J

    Diehl, H. T., & Dark Energy Survey Collaboration 2012, Physics Procedia, 37, 1332 de Jong, J. T. A., Kuijken, K., Applegate, D., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 44

    2012

  16. [24]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971

    2011

  17. [25]

    S., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109

    2015

  18. [26]

    2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

    Edge, A., Sutherland, W., Kuijken, K., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

    2013

  19. [27]

    H., & Rieke, M

    Elston, R., Rieke, G. H., & Rieke, M. J. 1988, ApJ, 331, L77

    1988

  20. [28]

    J., & Rieke, G

    Elston, R., Rieke, M. J., & Rieke, G. H. 1989, ApJ, 341, 80

    1989

  21. [29]

    2006, The Messenger, 126, 41 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Emerson, J., McPherson, A., & Sutherland, W. 2006, The Messenger, 126, 41 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2006

  22. [30]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    2012

  23. [31]

    M., Lacey, C

    Gonzalez-Perez, V ., Baugh, C. M., Lacey, C. G., & Kim, J.-W. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 517

    2011

  24. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454

    Hildebrandt, H., Viola, M., Heymans, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454

    2017

  25. [33]

    T., Irwin, M

    Hodgkin, S. T., Irwin, M. J., Hewett, P. C., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 675

    2009

  26. [34]

    2012, AJ, 143, 119

    Inada, N., Oguri, M., Shin, M.-S., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 119

    2012

  27. [35]

    H., Read, M

    Jones, D. H., Read, M. A., Saunders, W., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 683

    2009

  28. [36]

    H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al

    Jones, D. H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 747

    2004

  29. [37]

    E., et al

    Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., Burke, B. E., et al. 2002, Proc. SPIE, 154

    2002

  30. [38]

    2006, ApJ, 638, 72

    Kong, X., Daddi, E., Arimoto, N., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 72

    2006

  31. [39]

    2019, ArXiv e-prints, [arXiv:1906.01638]

    Khramtsov, V ., Sergeyev, A., Spiniello, C., et al. 2019, ArXiv e-prints, [arXiv:1906.01638]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3500

    Kuijken, K., Heymans, C., Hildebrandt, H., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3500

    2015

  33. [41]

    A., Auger, M

    Lemon, C. A., Auger, M. W., McMahon, R. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5060

    2018

  34. [42]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2087

    2015

  35. [43]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    2011

  36. [44]

    R., Skrutskie, M

    Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M. F., Weinberg, M. D., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082

    2003

  37. [45]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 498

    Maturi, M., Bellagamba, F., Radovich, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 498

    2019

  38. [46]

    J., et al

    Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1117

    2003

  39. [47]

    J., Persson, S

    McCarthy, P. J., Persson, S. E., & West, S. C. 1992, ApJ, 386, 52

    1992

  40. [48]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156

    2012

  41. [49]

    G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

    McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    2013

  42. [50]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New A, 15, 433 Muñoz, J. A., Falco, E. E., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 1998, Ap&SS, 263, 51

    2010

  43. [51]

    Oguri, M., & Marshall, P. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2579

    2010

  44. [52]

    A., Auger, M

    Ostrovski, F., Lemon, C. A., Auger, M. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, L116 Article number, page 12 of 13 C. Spiniello and A. Agnello: VEXAS: the VISTA EXtension to Auxiliary Surveys

    2018

  45. [53]

    E., Tortora, C., Vernardos, G., et al

    Petrillo, C. E., Tortora, C., Vernardos, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3879 Pozzetti L., Hoekstra H., Röttgering H. J. A., Renzini A., Zamorani G., Mannucci F., 2000, A&A, 361, 535

    2019

  46. [54]

    L., McMahon, R

    Reed, S. L., McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3952

    2015

  47. [55]

    D., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., Ivison, R

    Roche, N. D., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., Ivison, R. J., & Willott, C. J. 2002, MN- RAS, 337, 1282

    2002

  48. [56]

    R., La Barbera, F., et al

    Roy, N., Napolitano, N. R., La Barbera, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1057

    2018

  49. [57]

    2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/473/4937

    Salvato, M., Buchner, J., Budavari, T., et al. 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/473/4937

    2018

  50. [58]

    2005, MNRAS, 357, L40

    Saracco, P., Longhetti, M., Severgnini, P., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 357, L40

    2005

  51. [59]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  52. [60]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 150

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Benson, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 150

    2007

  53. [61]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 4238

    Shanks, T., Metcalfe, N., Chehade, B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4238

    2015

  54. [62]

    S., et al

    Shin, J., Shim, H., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2017, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 50, 61

    2017

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114

    2018

  56. [64]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  57. [65]

    R., et al

    Spiniello, C., Agnello, A., Napolitano, N. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1163

    2018

  58. [66]

    V ., Marchetti, L., et al

    Spiniello, C., Sergeyev, A. V ., Marchetti, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5086

    2019

  59. [67]

    V ., et al

    Spiniello, C., Agnello, A., Sergeyev, A. V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3888

    2019

  60. [68]

    M., et al

    Stiavelli, M., Treu, T., Carollo, C. M., et al. 1999, A&A, 343, L25

    1999

  61. [69]

    2012, Science from the Next Generation Imaging and Spectro- scopic Surveys, 40

    Sutherland, W. 2012, Science from the Next Generation Imaging and Spectro- scopic Surveys, 40

    2012

  62. [70]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , 347, 29

    2005

  63. [71]

    Thompson, D., Beckwith, S. V . W., Fockenbrock, R., et al. 1999, ApJ, 523, 100

    1999

  64. [72]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99

    2012

  65. [73]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Kilic, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 42

    2012

  66. [74]

    Treu, T., Agnello, A., & Strides Team 2015, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225 225, 318.04

    2015

  67. [75]

    1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241

    Truemper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241

    1982

  68. [76]

    P., Findlay, J

    Venemans, B. P., Findlay, J. R., Sutherland, W. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 24

    2013

  69. [77]

    P., Verdoes Kleijn, G

    Venemans, B. P., Verdoes Kleijn, G. A., Mwebaze, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2259

    2015

  70. [78]

    2015, Phys

    Vikram, V ., Chang, C., Jain, B., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 022006 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 2000, IAU Circ.7432, 3

    2015

  71. [79]

    G., Auguères, J.-L., Ballet, J., et al

    Watson, M. G., Auguères, J.-L., Ballet, J., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L51

    2001

  72. [80]

    C., Allam, S

    Whitmore, B. C., Allam, S. S., Budavári, T., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 134 Wright E. L., et al., 2010, AJ, 140, 1868-1881

    2016

  73. [81]

    A., et al

    Wolf, C., Bian, F., Onken, C. A., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e024 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.