Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

NASIM: Revealing the low surface brightness Universe from legacy VISTA data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new pipeline reaches 27.7 mag per square arcsecond in Ks-band imaging while preserving faint diffuse emission.

desk verdict A genuinely useful and reproducible LSB pipeline for VISTA, but the headline depth claim needs stronger validation before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02780 v1 pith:TPVKZDPS submitted 2025-08-04 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Elham Saremi , Ignacio Trujillo , Mohammad Akhlaghi , Zohreh Ghaffari , Johan H. Knapen , Manda Banerji , Helmut Dannerbauer , Sébastien Comerón This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords lowsurfacebrightnessnear-infraredimagingimagereductionpipelineadaptiveflat-fieldingVISTAVIRCAMKEDFSreproducibleworkflow
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 argues that the bright, time-varying near-infrared sky is not an insurmountable barrier to low surface brightness science from the ground if the flat-field correction is built on the right timescale. It presents NASIM, a fully automated and reproducible reduction pipeline for VISTA/VIRCAM, whose central move is an adaptive flat: one master flat per science exposure, made from that exposure plus the five before and five after it. Applied to the deep Ks-band survey KEDFS, the pipeline reaches a surface brightness limit of $27.7\,\mathrm{mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$ (3$\sigma$ over 100 arcsec$^2$), roughly 67 times deeper than 2MASS and 11 times deeper than VHS. A reader should care because, if the claim holds, retired VISTA data become a mineable archive for galaxy outskirts, ultra-diffuse galaxies, and intracluster light, with point-source sensitivity essentially unchanged.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adaptive flat: for each science frame $N$, NASIM stacks the 11 consecutive exposures centred on it (5 before, 5 after, plus $N$ itself) with $\sigma$-clipped median combination to form a dedicated master flat, after dark subtraction and NoiseChisel-based masking of astrophysical sources. This confines the flat to the time window in which the sky is actually coherent, removing large-scale gradients and detector patterns without imposing a night-long average. The pipeline then corrects the image with that flat, subtracts a single sky value per frame using only clean tiles, removes low-level 1/f readout stripes by collapsing and re-expanding the image along the readout axis, resamples to a common 0.2 arcsec grid, and coadds with weights set by sky standard deviation; a final loop models residual sky in the stack with a second-order polynomial under a strong mask and restacks.

What would settle it

Re-reduce a single KEDFS tile with adaptive flats built from 3-, 5-, 11-, and 21-exposure windows and compare the radial profile of NGC 1494 and the measured 3$\sigma$ depth; if the profiles and depth are indistinguishable, the window length is not what creates the claimed gain. A complementary test is to add synthetic exponential-disc sources of known surface brightness around 26\,--\,28 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ to the raw frames and check what fraction NASIM recovers in the final stack.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that standard VISTA reductions lose diffuse emission not because the data are too shallow but because their flat-fielding smears sky variations over too long a time. NASIM instead builds a unique master flat for each exposure from 11 consecutive dark-subtracted and object-masked frames, tracks the sky on the roughly one-hour timescale on which it actually varies, and pairs this with non-aggressive single-value sky subtraction, removal of 1/f readout patterns, and weighted $\sigma$-clipped stacking. On KEDFS this yields Ks-band images that trace the outskirts of NGC 1494 to $\sim27.7\,\mathrm{mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$, recover an ultra-diffuse galaxy and intracluster light that are invisible in VHS, and extend the NGC 895 profile far beyond the point where the standard VIDEO reduction truncates it. The 5$\sigma$ point-source limit in 2 arcsec apertures is 23.67 mag for NASIM versus 23.72 for the comparison pipeline, so the LSB gain does not come at the cost of compact-source depth.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sky's large-scale structure stays stable over the roughly one-hour window spanned by the 11 exposures that make each adaptive flat; if it varies faster, the flat imprints gradients that can mimic or erase the very features NASIM aims to recover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Selected KEDFS tiles are released with the paper, giving immediate public access to Ks-band imaging deep enough to study galaxy outskirts, ultra-diffuse galaxies, and intracluster light.
  • The same pipeline can re-reduce any VISTA/VIRCAM survey, so legacy archives such as VHS could be reprocessed for large-area low-surface-brightness studies.
  • Because NASIM keeps the 5$\sigma$ compact-source limit within 0.05 mag of the point-source-optimised VIDEO reduction, a single reduction can serve both LSB and traditional source catalogues.
  • With VIRCAM decommissioned, KEDFS is positioned as the ground-based Ks anchor for multi-wavelength follow-up with Euclid, JWST, Roman, LSST, Spitzer, and ALMA in the Euclid Deep Field South.
  • The full workflow is reproducible from a version-controlled project, allowing independent verification and re-use on the entire VISTA archive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: the adaptive-flat timescale argument should transfer to any ground-based NIR camera with a quickly varying sky, so archival data from other instruments could be re-reduced for LSB science without new observations.
  • A testable extension: inject synthetic diffuse sources of known surface brightness into raw KEDFS frames, run NASIM, and measure recovered flux near $27.7\,\mathrm{mag\,arcsec^{-2}}$; the recovery fraction would separate genuine signal from flat-field artifacts.
  • If the claim is right, re-reducing wide but shallow surveys like VHS would not reproduce the 67x gain over 2MASS, since that depth is specific to KEDFS, but it would still open the brightest LSB regimes over tens of thousands of square degrees.
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. The paper presents NASIM, a fully automated and Maneage-reproducible reduction pipeline for VISTA/VIRCAM observations, applied to the KEDFS Ks-band survey. The pipeline introduces an adaptive flat-fielding scheme in which each science frame is divided by a master flat built from 11 consecutive exposures, followed by conservative single-value sky subtraction per frame, 1/f noise removal, and a second-order polynomial sky model subtracted from the final stack before re-stacking. The authors claim a surface brightness depth of approximately 27.7 mag arcsec^-2 (3 sigma over 100 arcsec^2), about 67 times deeper than 2MASS and 11 times deeper than VHS, and demonstrate the output on galaxy outskirts, a UDG, and intracluster light, with a comparison against the standard VDFS/VIDEO reduction.

Significance. If validated, this is a valuable contribution: it opens a largely unexplored ground-based NIR low-surface-brightness regime, it is built on an exemplary reproducible framework (Maneage/Gnuastro) with version-controlled software and data lineage, and it releases useful KEDFS tiles as legacy data. The adaptive-flat concept and the explicit non-aggressive sky-subtraction strategy are well motivated and directly address a real limitation of existing VISTA pipelines. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on visual comparisons and a single radial profile, and the paper lacks end-to-end recovery tests for diffuse flux. The pipeline parameters are configuration choices made by inspecting outputs rather than fitted to the showcased galaxies, so I see no circularity problem; the issue is instead that the validation is not yet quantitative enough to support the headline depth and preservation claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Figure 7] The headline depth claim ('approximately 27.7 mag arcsec^-2 (3 sigma over 100 arcsec^2)') is stated without a derivation or uncertainty budget. The text should specify how this value is measured from the radial profile: the aperture used for the noise estimate, the number of independent 100 arcsec^2 apertures, the sigma-clipping recipe, and the photometric calibration error. It should also report the uncertainty on the 27.7 value and show the noise floor on the same figure. As written, the abstract's central quantitative result cannot be reproduced or compared against other surveys.
  2. [Section 3.3.2, Method 4; Section 3.10; Section 3.3.3] The two dominant large-scale corrections — the adaptive flat built from 11 consecutive exposures including the target image itself, and the second-order polynomial sky model subtracted before the final re-stack — act on exactly the spatial scales and brightness levels of the diffuse emission that NASIM claims to preserve. The paper's evidence that these steps do not self-subtract astrophysical signal is visual (Figures 3 and 5). I request an end-to-end injection-recovery test: add diffuse sources with known surface brightness (spanning roughly 26-28 mag arcsec^-2 and angular scales from tens of arcseconds to arcminutes) into the raw dark-subtracted frames, run the full NASIM chain, and report recovered versus input flux as a function of scale and brightness. This test is particularly important because Section 3.3.3 states that residual 1/f patterns of about 0.05% of the sky remain after correction; that amplitude is about 70 times the sky-subtracted flux of a 27.7 mag arcsec^-2 feature, so the tolerance for background systematics must be demonstrated quantitatively rather than assumed.
  3. [Section 3.10; Section 3.5] The choice of the adopted sky model is not quantitatively justified. The text reports that Chebyshev, first-order, and second-order polynomial models were tested and that the second-order polynomial was adopted, but it gives no selection criterion and no residual statistics. Similarly, the NoiseChisel settings minskyfrac=0.9 and the increased interpnumngb are asserted to give a clean sky estimate without a comparison of alternative settings. At minimum, the authors should report the residual large-scale power (for example, the RMS in empty regions before and after subtraction as a function of model order) and demonstrate that the adopted settings do not remove signal at the claimed depth around bright galaxies.
  4. [Section 5.2] The claim that NASIM does not compromise compact source detection rests on a single number: 5-sigma limiting magnitudes of 23.67 mag (NASIM) versus 23.72 mag (VDFS) in 2 arcsec diameter apertures. A limiting magnitude alone does not constrain the full detection function. I ask for source injection-recovery completeness curves, or at least number counts relative to the VDFS catalogue, over a range of magnitudes and source sizes, plus an uncertainty estimate for the two limiting magnitudes, before concluding that point-source sensitivity is preserved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph] The sentence containing 'the software environment, analysis pipeline, and and text of this paper' has a duplicated 'and'; the paper also mixes British and American spellings (for example 'focusses' and 'focuses').
  2. [Abstract versus Code and data availability] The abstract cites Maneage commit 4d32667, while the 'Code and data availability' section cites Git commit 9d9968e and a different latest Maneage commit (8161194); these version identifiers should be reconciled or explained.
  3. [Table 1] The Reference column entry 'KEDFS; Abstract' is not a standard citation; a proper reference for the KEDFS survey, or an explicit note that it is described in this paper, is needed.
  4. [Section 3.3.3, Figure 4] The 1/f noise correction is described only qualitatively; stating the measured amplitude before and after correction, and the residual pattern in the final stack, would make the claimed improvement testable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: NASIM is a reduction pipeline whose outputs are demonstrated against independent external datasets, not derived from fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are that the NASIM reduction reaches a Ks-band surface brightness limit of about 27.7 mag arcsec^-2 (3 sigma over 100 arcsec^2) and that it preserves diffuse emission better than standard reductions. These are claims about the performance of a data-processing pipeline applied to archival VISTA data, not about a model whose parameters are fit to the data being 'predicted'. The adaptive flat-fielding method (Section 3.3.2, Method 4) constructs a master flat from 11 consecutive exposures including the target image; this is a standard self-calibration technique for background-dominated NIR imaging. The concern that this could self-subtract genuine large-scale diffuse emission is a physical/correctness risk, not a circularity: the pipeline does not assume the surface brightness limit or the presence of any particular LSB feature, and the method is validated against external comparisons (2MASS, VHS, VIDEO, a known SMUDGes UDG, and a known cluster). The choices of window size, polynomial order, and masking thresholds are selected by qualitative comparison of output images, not fitted to a pre-existing result. The comparison with a known UDG catalogue is used as a demonstration of detectability, not as a constraint on pipeline parameters; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is fully reproducible in Maneage, further supporting that the claims are generated by the stated processing steps rather than by circular import. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims of depth and LSB recovery depend on several pipeline configuration choices and assumptions about the sky and masking. These are not fitted to a physical model, but chosen by comparing outputs, so they introduce uncertainty in the absolute numbers.

free parameters (4)
  • Adaptive flat window size = 11 (5+1+5)
    Number of consecutive images used to build the master flat for each exposure; chosen empirically to balance sky variation vs. persistence artifacts (Section 3.3.2).
  • Sky model polynomial order = 2
    Second-order polynomial chosen after comparing with Chebyshev and first-order fits; affects the residual sky subtraction (Section 3.10).
  • Sigma-clipping thresholds for stacking = 3*STD
    Used to mask outliers in final stack; not optimized quantitatively (Section 3.9).
  • NoiseChisel parameters (minskyfrac, interpnumngb) = 0.9, increased
    Chosen to ensure clean sky estimation; values from Gnuastro defaults with modifications (Section 3.5).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The sky background in Ks band is sufficiently uniform to serve as a flat-field source.
    Used in Section 3.3 to construct master flats from science images; if sky has large-scale structure not common across images, the flat will be biased.
  • domain assumption NoiseChisel can reliably mask astrophysical sources to avoid contaminating flat-field and sky estimates.
    Relies on NoiseChisel detections to identify sources; masking imperfections could leave residual source flux in flats or sky models (Sections 3.3.1 and 3.5).
  • domain assumption The residual background after single-value sky subtraction can be modeled by a low-order polynomial.
    Section 3.10 fits a second-order polynomial to sky residuals; if actual background has higher-frequency variations, this could remove or add LSB features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NASIM: Revealing the low surface brightness Universe from legacy VISTA data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPVKZDPS

@misc{pith2026250802780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NASIM: Revealing the low surface brightness Universe from legacy VISTA data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPVKZDPS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02780}
}
read the original abstract

Near-infrared imaging is a powerful technique in observational astronomy, but the bright background, primarily from the Earth\'s atmosphere, makes the detection of faint features particularly challenging. To recover low surface brightness (LSB) structures in such data, we present NASIM (Near-infrared Automated low Surface brightness reduction In Maneage), a fully automated and reproducible data reduction pipeline optimised for VISTA/VIRCAM observations. NASIM builds on GNU Astronomy Utilities (Gnuastro) to effectively remove large-scale instrumental artefacts while preserving faint, diffuse emission. As a key science application, we focus on deep Ks-band observations of the Euclid Deep Field South (KEDFS), one of the deepest VISTA/VIRCAM datasets and a high-priority field for synergy with current and future facilities, including Euclid, JWST, LSST, Roman, Spitzer, and ALMA. With VIRCAM no longer operational, KEDFS now stands as a unique legacy dataset. We release selected tiles from the KEDFS survey and highlight science cases, including galaxy outskirts, LSB galaxies, and intracluster light, that demonstrate NASIM\'s ability to recover diffuse structures. A direct comparison with conventional VISTA data reduction pipelines demonstrates the advantages of NASIM in preserving diffuse emission without compromising compact source detection. All quantitative results presented in this paper are fully reproducible with Maneage (commit 4d32667).

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How large can galaxies be? Ultra-deep imaging of IC 1101, the most extended known galaxy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Ultra-deep imaging places the edge of IC 1101's main stellar body at ~260 kpc, a ~520 kpc diameter that is the largest galaxy edge measured to date.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2019a, IAU Symposium 335, arXiv:1909.11230

    Akhlaghi, M. 2019a, IAU Symposium 335, arXiv:1909.11230

    arXiv 1909

  2. [2]

    & Ichikawa, T

    Akhlaghi, M. & Ichikawa, T. 2015, ApJS, 220, 1

    2015

  3. [3]

    F., et al

    Akhlaghi, M., Infante-Sainz, R., Roukema, B. F., et al. 2021, CiSE, 23, 82 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2011, Computing in Science and Engi- neering, 13, 31

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science and Engi- neering, 13, 31

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

    2003

  6. [6]

    2002, ASPConf, 281, 228

    Bertin, E., Mellier, Y ., Radovich, M., et al. 2002, ASPConf, 281, 228

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Blanton, M. R. & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734

    2007

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 621, A133

    Borlaff, A., Trujillo, I., Román, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A133

    work page 2019

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32

    2015

  2. [10]

    & Bothun, G

    Caldwell, N. & Bothun, G. D. 1987, AJ, 94, 1126

    1987

  3. [11]

    I., Dunlop, J

    Caputi, K. I., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & Roche, N. D. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 607

    2005

  4. [12]

    Cioni, M. R. L., Clementini, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A116

    2011

  5. [13]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393 2 https://maneage.org

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393 2 https://maneage.org

    2013

  6. [14]

    Conselice, C. J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 43

    2018

  7. [15]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 60

    Contini, E. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 60

    2021

  8. [16]

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

    2012

  9. [17]

    G., Lidman, C., & Moutou, C

    Cuby, J. G., Lidman, C., & Moutou, C. 2000, The Messenger, 101, 2

    2000

  10. [18]

    Dannerbauer, H., Carnero, A., Cross, N., & Gutierrez, C. M. 2022, The Messen- ger, 187, 12

    2022

  11. [19]

    H., Zabludoff, A., et al

    DeMaio, T., Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3009

    2018

  12. [20]

    2020, Open Physics, 18, 16

    Deng, X.-F., Wen, X.-Q., Xin, Y ., Qi, X.-P., & Ding, Y .-P. 2020, Open Physics, 18, 16

    2020

  13. [21]

    2004, ApJ, 608, 742

    Drory, N., Bender, R., Feulner, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 742

    2004

  14. [22]

    2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

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

    2013

  15. [23]

    L., et al

    Ellien, A., Montes, M., Ahad, S. L., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A134

    2025

  16. [24]

    2006, The Messenger, 126, 41

    Emerson, J., McPherson, A., & Sutherland, W. 2006, The Messenger, 126, 41

    2006

  17. [25]

    P., Irwin, M

    Emerson, J. P., Irwin, M. J., Lewis, J., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5493, Optimizing Scientific Return for Astronomy through Information Technologies, ed. P. J. Quinn & A. Bridger, 401–410

    2004

  18. [26]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 269 Euclid Collaboration, Gabarra, L., Mancini, C., et al

    Eskandarlou, S., Akhlaghi, M., Infante-Sainz, R., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 269 Euclid Collaboration, Gabarra, L., Mancini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A34 Euclid Collaboration, Jahnke, K., Gillard, W., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A3 Euclid...

    2023

  19. [27]

    & Trujillo, I

    Fliri, J. & Trujillo, I. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1359

    2016

  20. [28]

    & Johnson, S

    Frigo, M. & Johnson, S. G. 2005, IEEE Proc., 93, 216

    2005

  21. [29]

    2011, ApJ, 727, 111 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Furusawa, J., Sekiguchi, K., Takata, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 111 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    2011

  22. [30]

    R., et al

    Gris, P., Awan, H., Becker, M. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 21 Grosbøl, P., Patsis, P. A., & Pompei, E. 2004, A&A, 423, 849

    2024

  23. [31]

    C., Collins, R

    Hambly, N. C., Collins, R. S., Cross, N. J. G., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 637

    2008

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  25. [33]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 3 Hönig, S

    Hilton, M., Sifón, C., Naess, S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 3 Hönig, S. F., Watson, D., Kishimoto, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1693

    2021

  26. [34]

    1988, ApJ, 330, 634

    Impey, C., Bothun, G., & Malin, D. 1988, ApJ, 330, 634

    1988

  27. [35]

    & Akhlaghi, M

    Infante-Sainz, R. & Akhlaghi, M. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astro- nomical Society, 8, 10

    2024

  28. [36]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 22

    Infante-Sainz, R., Akhlaghi, M., & Eskandarlou, S. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 22

    2024

  29. [37]

    J., Lewis, J., Hodgkin, S., et al

    Irwin, M. J., Lewis, J., Hodgkin, S., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5493, Optimizing Scientific Return for Astronomy through Information Technologies, ed. P. J. Quinn & A. Bridger, 411–422

    2004

  30. [38]

    J., Bonfield, D

    Jarvis, M. J., Bonfield, D. G., Bruce, V . A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1281

    2013

  31. [39]

    C., Clarke, C., & Thornley, M

    Kendall, S., Kennicutt, R. C., Clarke, C., & Thornley, M. D. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1007

    2008

  32. [40]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 43

    Kluge, M., Neureiter, B., Riffeser, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 43

    2020

  33. [41]

    S., Pahre, M

    Kochanek, C. S., Pahre, M. A., Falco, E. E., et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 566

    2001

  34. [42]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599

    2007

  35. [43]

    1993, PASP, 105, 940

    Maihara, T., Iwamuro, F., Yamashita, T., et al. 1993, PASP, 105, 940

    1993

  36. [44]

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

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

    2012

  37. [45]

    McGaugh, S. S. & Schombert, J. M. 2014, AJ, 148, 77

    2014

  38. [46]

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

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

    2013

  39. [47]

    2023, The Mes- senger, 191, 18

    Meingast, S., Alves, J., Bouy, H., & VISIONS Collaboration. 2023, The Mes- senger, 191, 18

    2023

  40. [48]

    C., Durrell, P

    Mihos, J. C., Durrell, P. R., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, L21

    2015

  41. [49]

    C., Durrell, P

    Mihos, J. C., Durrell, P. R., Watkins, A. E., McGaugh, S. S., & Feldmeier, J. 2024, ApJ, 964, 67

    2024

  42. [50]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 16

    2017

  43. [51]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New A, 15, 433

    2010

  44. [52]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.01616

    Montes, M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.01616

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308

    Montes, M. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 308

    2022

  46. [54]

    & Trujillo, I

    Montes, M. & Trujillo, I. 2014, ApJ, 794, 137

    2014

  47. [55]

    & Trujillo, I

    Montes, M. & Trujillo, I. 2022, ApJ, 940, L51

    2022

  48. [56]

    J., Barnes, D

    Pisano, D. J., Barnes, D. G., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 28 Román, J., Castilla, A., & Pascual-Granado, J. 2021, A&A, 656, A44

    2011

  49. [57]

    & Binggeli, B

    Sandage, A. & Binggeli, B. 1984, AJ, 89, 919

    1984

  50. [58]

    C., Vrba, F

    Schneider, A. C., Vrba, F. J., Bruursema, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14621

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2021, A&A, 653, A35

    Sureshkumar, U., Durkalec, A., Pollo, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A35

    2021

  52. [60]

    2015, A&A, 575, A25

    Sutherland, W., Emerson, J., Dalton, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A25

    2015

  53. [61]

    Q., Ellis, S

    Trinh, C. Q., Ellis, S. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3262

    2013

  54. [62]

    2021, A&A, 654, A40

    Trujillo, I., D’Onofrio, M., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A40

    2021

  55. [63]

    & Fliri, J

    Trujillo, I. & Fliri, J. 2016, ApJ, 823, 123 van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., Merritt, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, L45

    2016

  56. [64]

    2017, A&A, 608, A142

    Venhola, A., Peletier, R., Laurikainen, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A142

    2017

  57. [65]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  58. [66]

    2019, ApJS, 240, 1

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Dey, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 1

    2019

  59. [67]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 27

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Dey, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 27

    2023

  60. [68]

    2022, ApJS, 261, 11

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Karunakaran, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 11

    2022

  61. [69]

    2009, MNRAS, 400, 1181 Article number, page 14

    Zibetti, S., Charlot, S., & Rix, H.-W. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1181 Article number, page 14

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.