Pith

open record

sign in

arxiv: 2606.22575 · v1 · pith:NUANSXQG · submitted 2026-06-21 · astro-ph.GA

On the Tully-Fisher Relation for Active Galaxies -- I: Evidence of Larger Scatter

Justin H. Robinson , Mitchell Revalski , Misty C. Bentz , D. Michael Crenshaw , H\'el\`ene M. Courtois , Veronica Lahue , Julian Falcone , Rachael L. Merritt
show 7 more authors
Ishita Chintala Thomas Kay Mira Menon Naveen Ali Bradley Clemons Atul Gautam Thomas Gregoire
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved 2026-06-26 10:07 UTCgrok-4.3pith:NUANSXQGrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22575
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Tully-Fisher relationactive galactic nucleigalaxy distancespeculiar velocitiessurface brightness decompositionAGN contamination
0
0 comments X

The pith

Active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation than inactive galaxies.

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

The paper examines the Tully-Fisher relation solely for galaxies that host an active galactic nucleus. Using 22 galaxies that have independent primary distance measurements, the authors find that these active systems show markedly greater scatter around the standard TF relations than the calibrations derived from mostly inactive galaxies. The excess scatter remains even after the AGN light is removed from the photometry of Type 1 objects through surface-brightness decompositions or spectral-energy-distribution modeling. The results imply that an AGN can affect its host galaxy's surface brightness beyond the nuclear region. TF distances derived for these active galaxies are biased high relative to the primary distances, by 5-10 percent in optical and near-infrared bands and about 15 percent when the baryonic TF relation is inverted, leading to the recommendation that active galaxies be excluded from samples used to map local peculiar velocities.

Core claim

We present an investigation of the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation solely for galaxies hosting an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Using 22 galaxies with primary, z-independent distances, we find that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter about all TF relations compared to each respective calibration for (largely) inactive galaxies. The larger scatter persists despite removal of the AGN contamination from the photometry of the Type 1 AGNs via careful surface brightness decompositions or employing SEDs to constrain the light contribution of the AGN. These results suggest that the influence of an AGN on its host galaxy's surface brightness may extend beyond the nucleus. We also calcula

What carries the argument

Comparison of scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation for AGN hosts versus inactive-galaxy calibrations, after AGN-light removal via surface-brightness decomposition or SED fitting.

If this is right

  • TF distances to active galaxies overestimate primary distances by 5-10 percent in optical and near-infrared bands.
  • Distances from the inverted baryonic TF relation overestimate primary distances by approximately 15 percent.
  • Active galaxies should be removed from future samples used to model the local peculiar velocity field.
  • The AGN's influence on surface brightness appears to extend beyond the nucleus itself.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Separate TF calibrations may be needed for AGN hosts if the larger scatter cannot be removed by improved photometry.
  • Current TF-based peculiar-velocity maps could contain systematic offsets where active galaxies remain in the sample.
  • Extending the analysis to galaxies with secondary distance indicators could test whether the bias persists at larger distances.

Load-bearing premise

The 22 galaxies with primary distances form a representative sample of AGN hosts and the AGN light removal methods fully capture any extended influence of the AGN on host galaxy surface brightness beyond the nucleus.

What would settle it

A larger sample of active galaxies with independent primary distances that shows scatter matching the inactive-galaxy calibrations after refined AGN-light subtraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22575 by Atul Gautam, Bradley Clemons, D. Michael Crenshaw, H\'el\`ene M. Courtois, Ishita Chintala, Julian Falcone, Justin H. Robinson, Mira Menon, Misty C. Bentz, Mitchell Revalski, Naveen Ali, Rachael L. Merritt, Thomas Gregoire, Thomas Kay, Veronica Lahue.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top column: Histograms of the percentage differences of active galaxies in the B, V, R, and I passbands. Vertical dashed lines in each panel denote perfect agreement with predictions from TF in that bandpass. Galaxies that populate the area left of each vertical dashed line have TF distances larger than a primary distance for the same galaxy, and those that populate the right of the line have distances sma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: the BTF relation for active galaxies. MBARY is calculated as 1.33MHI +M⋆ (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Hubble diagram for the sample of active galaxies with z−independent distances (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an investigation of the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation solely for galaxies hosting an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Using 22 galaxies with primary, z-independent distances, we find that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger scatter about all TF relations compared to each respective calibration for (largely) inactive galaxies. The larger scatter persists despite removal of the AGN contamination from the photometry of the Type 1 AGNs via 1) careful surface brightness decompositions or 2) employing SEDs to constrain the light contribution of the AGN. These results suggest that the influence of an AGN on its host galaxy's surface brightness may extend beyond the nucleus. We also calculate the percentage difference between TF and primary distances, and find that TF-based distances are biased towards overestimation of the primary distances to active galaxies by anywhere from 5-10 percent for the optical/near-infrared and approximately 15 percent for distances predicted from inverting the Baryonic TF (BTF) relation. As TF-based distances (especially the I-band) are relied on heavily for analysis and modeling of the local peculiar velocity (Vpec) field, we suggest that active galaxies be removed from future Vpec modeling samples.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation for active galactic nuclei (AGN) hosts using a sample of 22 galaxies with primary, redshift-independent distances. It reports significantly larger scatter about standard TF relations (optical, near-infrared, and baryonic) compared to calibrations based on largely inactive galaxies. This excess scatter remains after AGN contamination is removed from Type 1 hosts via surface-brightness decompositions or SED modeling. The paper additionally quantifies a systematic bias in which TF distances overestimate primary distances by 5–10% (optical/NIR) to ~15% (BTF inversion) and recommends excluding active galaxies from future peculiar-velocity field analyses.

Significance. If the larger scatter is confirmed to be a general property of AGN hosts rather than a selection artifact, the result would affect the reliability of TF-based distances in local peculiar-velocity modeling and distance-ladder applications. The persistence of excess scatter after explicit AGN-light removal points to possible extended host-galaxy effects, which is a potentially important systematic for TF studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sample selection / data section] Sample selection (implicit in abstract and § on data): The central claim that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger TF scatter rests on the 22 galaxies with primary distances forming a representative draw from the AGN-host population used in existing TF calibrations. No quantitative comparison of stellar-mass, morphological, or AGN-luminosity distributions against the parent calibration samples is presented; if the primary-distance subsample is biased toward nearby, low-luminosity, or morphologically disturbed systems, the reported excess scatter could be an artifact of selection rather than an AGN effect.
  2. [Results / statistical analysis] Statistical comparison of scatter (results section): The abstract states that active galaxies show 'significantly larger scatter' but provides no description of the metric (standard deviation, rms residual, reduced χ²), whether measurement uncertainties are included, the treatment of outliers, or the statistical test (F-test, Levene’s test, etc.) used to establish significance. Without these details the quantitative claim cannot be evaluated.
  3. [AGN contamination removal methods] AGN-light removal validation (methods): The persistence of excess scatter after decompositions or SED fitting is used to argue that AGN influence extends beyond the nucleus. However, no quantitative assessment is given of residual AGN light at large radii or of how the decompositions were validated against mock data or multi-wavelength constraints; this directly affects the interpretation that the scatter is intrinsic to AGN hosts rather than incomplete subtraction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it reported the actual measured scatter values (with uncertainties) for both the AGN sample and the comparison calibrations.
  2. [Figures / tables] Figure captions and table footnotes should explicitly state whether the plotted TF residuals include measurement errors or are raw observed scatters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening of the manuscript. We address each major comment below with honest responses based on the available data and analysis in the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Sample selection (implicit in abstract and § on data): The central claim that active galaxies exhibit significantly larger TF scatter rests on the 22 galaxies with primary distances forming a representative draw from the AGN-host population used in existing TF calibrations. No quantitative comparison of stellar-mass, morphological, or AGN-luminosity distributions against the parent calibration samples is presented; if the primary-distance subsample is biased toward nearby, low-luminosity, or morphologically disturbed systems, the reported excess scatter could be an artifact of selection rather than an AGN effect.

    Authors: The 22 galaxies represent the complete set of AGN hosts with primary (redshift-independent) distances that meet the TF selection criteria; primary distances are scarce, so this is not a random subsample but the full available population for direct comparison. We agree a quantitative comparison to calibration samples (e.g., SFI++ or similar) would be useful and will add it in revision via a table or cumulative distribution plots for stellar mass, morphology, and AGN luminosity proxies. This will allow assessment of any biases while noting that the observed excess scatter is uniform across the sample. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Statistical comparison of scatter (results section): The abstract states that active galaxies show 'significantly larger scatter' but provides no description of the metric (standard deviation, rms residual, reduced χ²), whether measurement uncertainties are included, the treatment of outliers, or the statistical test (F-test, Levene’s test, etc.) used to establish significance. Without these details the quantitative claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We will expand the results section to specify that scatter is quantified as the rms residual about the TF fit (with measurement uncertainties included in quadrature), that no outliers were removed beyond initial sample cuts, and that significance was assessed via an F-test on the variances relative to the inactive calibration samples. These details were present in our internal analysis but omitted from the submitted text; we apologize for the oversight. revision: yes

  3. Referee: AGN-light removal validation (methods): The persistence of excess scatter after decompositions or SED fitting is used to argue that AGN influence extends beyond the nucleus. However, no quantitative assessment is given of residual AGN light at large radii or of how the decompositions were validated against mock data or multi-wavelength constraints; this directly affects the interpretation that the scatter is intrinsic to AGN hosts rather than incomplete subtraction.

    Authors: The methods describe the surface-brightness decompositions and SED modeling used to subtract AGN light, but we agree quantitative validation is needed. We will add estimates of residual AGN flux at large radii (beyond ~2 Re) from the fits and any available multi-wavelength cross-checks. Full mock-data validation was not performed in the original analysis; if feasible with existing data we will include a brief assessment, otherwise we will explicitly note this limitation in the revised text. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational comparison of measured scatter

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical measurement of TF scatter in 22 AGN hosts with primary distances, compared against published calibrations for inactive galaxies. No derivation, equation, or prediction is constructed that reduces to a fitted parameter or self-citation by definition. The central result (larger scatter) is a direct statistical comparison of observed residuals; the sample selection and AGN subtraction methods are described as independent inputs rather than outputs of the analysis itself. External TF calibrations are treated as fixed benchmarks, not re-derived within the paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The comparison relies on the validity of prior TF calibrations for inactive galaxies and on the assumption that primary distances are independent and accurate. No free parameters are introduced in the abstract; the work is purely comparative.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Prior TF calibrations for inactive galaxies provide an accurate baseline against which AGN-host scatter can be compared.
    The abstract states the larger scatter is measured relative to each respective calibration for inactive galaxies.
  • domain assumption Primary, z-independent distances for the 22 galaxies are accurate reference standards.
    The percentage difference calculation treats these distances as the ground truth.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5812 in / 1404 out tokens · 25215 ms · 2026-06-26T10:07:03.315165+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

153 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Smail, I., Bauer, F

    Alexander, D. M., Smail, I., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 738

    2005

  2. [2]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 712

    Amanullah, R., Lidman, C., Rubin, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 712

    2010

  3. [3]

    S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 80

    2021

  4. [4]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    1993

  5. [5]

    N., Mundell, C., Bitsakis, T., et al

    Appleton, P. N., Mundell, C., Bitsakis, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 117

    2014

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Azadi, M., Aird, J., Coil, A. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 187

    2015

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  8. [8]

    1979, A&A, 72, 287

    Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1979, A&A, 72, 287

    1979

  9. [9]

    1992, A&A, 256, 375

    Baribaud, T., Alloin, D., Glass, I., & Pelat, D. 1992, A&A, 256, 375

    1992

  10. [10]

    J., Geller, M

    Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., Bromley, B. C., van Zee, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 121, 625

    2001

  11. [11]

    H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C

    Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 19

    2013

  12. [12]

    F., & de Jong, R

    Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

    2001

  13. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 161

    Valluri, M. 2019, ApJ, 885, 161

    2019

  14. [14]

    C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

    Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146

    2018

  15. [15]

    C., Williams, P

    Bentz, M. C., Williams, P. R., Street, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 112

    2021

  16. [16]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149

    2013

  17. [17]

    P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al

    Blakeslee, J. P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 657

    2010

  18. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1550

    Boubel, P., Colless, M., Said, K., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1550

    2024

  19. [19]

    G., Casertano, S., et al

    Breuval, L., Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 30

    2024

  20. [20]

    D., Terlevich, R

    Brinks, E., Skillman, E. D., Terlevich, R. J., & Terlevich, E. 1997, Ap&SS, 248, 23

    1997

  21. [21]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 43

    Buchalter, A., Jimenez, R., & Kamionkowski, M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 43

    2001

  22. [22]

    R., Parent, E., Phillips, M

    Burns, C. R., Parent, E., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 56

    2018

  23. [23]

    P., Ferrarese, L., et al

    Cantiello, M., Blakeslee, J. P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 126

    2018

  24. [24]

    J., DePree, C

    Cecil, G., Greenhill, L. J., DePree, C. G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, 675

    2000

  25. [25]

    V ., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Chilingarian, I. V ., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I. Y . 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 1409

    2010

  26. [26]

    M., & Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 174

    2012

  27. [27]

    M., & Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1531

    2015

  28. [28]

    M., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., Fisher, J. R., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 1938

    2009

  29. [29]

    M., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., Makarov, D. I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2005 de Jaeger, T., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 835, 166 de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2017b, MNRAS, 472, 4233 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Jr., H. G., et al. 1991, S&T, 82, 621 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., ...

    2011

  30. [30]

    R., & Rood, H

    Dickel, J. R., & Rood, H. J. 1978, ApJ, 223, 391

    1978

  31. [31]

    B., & Branch, D

    Doggett, J. B., & Branch, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 2303

    1985

  32. [32]

    A., Obreja, A., Wang, L., et al

    Dutton, A. A., Obreja, A., Wang, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4937

    2017

  33. [33]

    Epstein, E. E. 1964, AJ, 69, 490

    1964

  34. [34]

    M., Fischer, T

    Falcone, J., Crenshaw, D. M., Fischer, T. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20162

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    R., & Tully, R

    Fisher, J. R., & Tully, R. B. 1981, ApJS, 47, 139

    1981

  36. [36]

    M., Burns, C

    Folatelli, G., Phillips, M. M., Burns, C. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 120

    2010

  37. [37]

    Hulst, J. M. 1985, ApJ, 293, 132

    1985

  38. [38]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47

    2001

  39. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 3510

    Frosst, M., Courteau, S., Arora, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3510

    2022

  40. [40]

    S., Faber, S

    Gallagher, J. S., Faber, S. M., & Balick, B. 1975, ApJ, 202, 7

    1975

  41. [41]

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V . 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2240 ON THETF RELATION FORAGN HOSTS19

    2013

  42. [42]

    2021, A&A, 650, A75 GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bauböck, M., et al

    Gkini, A., Plionis, M., Chira, M., & Koulouridis, E. 2021, A&A, 650, A75 GRA VITY Collaboration, Amorim, A., Bauböck, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A85

    2021

  43. [43]

    M., Lavaux, G., et al

    Graziani, R., Courtois, H. M., Lavaux, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5438

    2019

  44. [44]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 6

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Nagai, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 6

    2013

  45. [45]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 2391

    1996

  46. [46]

    M., Blondin, S., et al

    Hicken, M., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Blondin, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1097

    2009

  47. [47]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V ., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315

    1997

  48. [48]

    C., & Peng, C

    Ho, L. C., & Peng, C. Y . 2001, ApJ, 555, 650

    2001

  49. [49]

    S., Ashby, M

    Huang, J. S., Ashby, M. L. N., Barmby, P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 840

    2007

  50. [50]

    K., & Richter, O.-G

    Huchtmeier, W. K., & Richter, O.-G. 1989, A General Catalog of HI Observations of Galaxies. The Reference Catalog., 350

    1989

  51. [51]

    Argon, A. L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 13

    2013

  52. [52]

    1983, ARA&A, 21, 271

    Iben, I., J., & Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271

    1983

  53. [53]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4159

    Iorio, G., Fraternali, F., Nipoti, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4159

    2017

  54. [54]

    Ishibashi, W., & Fabian, A. C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 93

    2015

  55. [55]

    G., & Kirshner, R

    Jha, S., Riess, A. G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, 122

    2007

  56. [56]

    J., Fabricant, D

    Kannappan, S. J., Fabricant, D. G., & Franx, M. 2002, AJ, 123, 2358

    2002

  57. [57]

    Y ., & Weedman, D

    Khachikian, E. Y ., & Weedman, D. W. 1974, ApJ, 192, 581

    1974

  58. [58]

    S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V

    Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V . A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 16

    2004

  59. [59]

    2017, ApJL, 842, L13

    Koshida, S., Yoshii, Y ., Kobayashi, Y ., et al. 2017, ApJL, 842, L13

    2017

  60. [60]

    J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Koss, M. J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 2

    2022

  61. [61]

    B., Neill, J

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Neill, J. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 82

    2019

  62. [62]

    S., & Pickering, E

    Leavitt, H. S., & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1

    1912

  63. [63]

    S., & Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, ApJL, 816, L14

    2016

  64. [64]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Desmond, H., & Katz, H. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 3267

    2019

  65. [65]

    2022, Universe, 8, 304

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. 2022, Universe, 8, 304

    2022

  66. [66]

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. H. 2017, ApJ, 841, 76

    2017

  67. [67]

    Maiolino, R., & Rieke, G. H. 1995, ApJ, 454, 95

    1995

  68. [68]

    M., & Canalizo, G

    Manzano-King, C. M., & Canalizo, G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4562

    2020

  69. [69]

    M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L

    Manzano-King, C. M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L. V . 2019, ApJ, 884, 54

    2019

  70. [70]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 78

    Vestergaard, M. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 78

    2026

  71. [71]

    L., Springob, C

    Masters, K. L., Springob, C. M., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2006, ApJ, 653, 861

    2006

  72. [72]

    McGaugh, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 859 —. 2012, AJ, 143, 40

    2005

  73. [73]

    S., Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Bothun, G. D., & de Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJL, 533, L99

    2000

  74. [74]

    K., & Rieke, G

    McLeod, K. K., & Rieke, G. H. 1995, ApJ, 441, 96

    1995

  75. [75]

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

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

    2013

  76. [76]

    2016, AJ, 152, 144 —

    Kennicutt, R. 2016, AJ, 152, 144 —. 2017, AJ, 154, 51

    2016

  77. [77]

    2022, PhD thesis, Georgia State Univ, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/items/c394424b-0413-4715-a703- 81921e6c66bb

    Merritt, R. 2022, PhD thesis, Georgia State Univ, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/items/c394424b-0413-4715-a703- 81921e6c66bb

    2022

  78. [78]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 296

    Mocz, P., Green, A., Malacari, M., & Glazebrook, K. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 296

    2012

  79. [79]

    2023, A&A, 672, A98

    Mountrichas, G. 2023, A&A, 672, A98

    2023

  80. [80]

    1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 277, 641

    Mundell, C., Pedlar, A., G., et al. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 277, 641

    1995

Showing first 80 references.