Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Looking At the Distant Universe with the MeerKAT Array: the HI Mass Function in the Local Universe

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The LADUMA survey's local HI mass function, measured with a new recovery-matrix method, matches previous low-redshift surveys, implying the volume is not an outlier in cosmic hydrogen content.

desk verdict Genuinely new recovery-matrix method for the HI mass function, carefully executed and honestly caveated; deserves a serious referee and is likely publishable after moderate revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11426 v1 pith:OECJIK6K submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Amir Kazemi-Moridani , Andrew J. Baker , Marc Verheijen , Eric Gawiser , Sarah-Louise Blyth , Danail Obreschkow , Laurent Chemin , Jordan D. Collier
show 19 more authors
Kyle W. Cook Jacinta Delhaize Ed Elson Bradley S. Frank Marcin Glowacki Kelley M. Hess Benne W. Holwerda Zackary L. Hutchens Matt J. Jarvis Melanie Kaasinen Sphesihle Makhathini Abhisek Mohapatra Hengxing Pan Anja C. Schröder Leyya Stockenstroom Mattia Vaccari Tobias Westmeier John F. Wu Martin Zwaan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords neutralhydrogenmassfunctioncosmicHIdensityMeerKATLADUMArecoverymatrixforwardmodeling21cmlineSchechter
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 sets out to measure how many galaxies of each neutral-hydrogen mass live in the local universe, using the first data release of the deep MeerKAT LADUMA survey out to redshift 0.088. It claims that a new "recovery matrix" method, which tracks not just whether a synthetic galaxy is detected but which mass bin it lands in, corrects survey incompleteness more faithfully than the usual one-dimensional completeness corrections. With it, the survey finds a Schechter mass function with normalization $\phi_\ast = 3.56\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}\,dex^{-1}}$, faint-end slope $\alpha = -1.18$, and knee mass $\log(M_\ast/M_\odot)=10.01$, implying a cosmic hydrogen density $\Omega_{\mathrm{HI}}=3.09\times10^{-4}$. The result matters because it independently confirms the local HI census from an untargeted, single-pointing deep survey, indicating that cosmic variance does not make this volume an outlier.

What carries the argument

The central object is the recovery matrix $R_{ij}$, the fraction of synthetic galaxies injected into mass bin $i$ that are recovered in mass bin $j$. Unlike a one-dimensional completeness vector, it captures the asymmetric tendency of sources to be recovered in a higher mass bin than the one they were injected into, a bias produced by source-finding thresholds and by the pixel-based continuum subtraction. The matrix is built from over 150,000 synthetic sources generated with a tilted-ring model, with Sersic surface-density profiles, Persic/Courteau rotation curves, the Wang et al. size-mass relation, and random inclinations and positions, and is then used in a forward model that predicts observed bin counts for trial Schechter parameters and compares them to data with a Poisson likelihood in an MCMC fit.

What would settle it

Build a source-free version of the LADUMA cube, inject a galaxy population drawn from a known Schechter function (say $\phi_\ast = 4\times10^{-3}$, $\alpha = -1.25$, $\log M_\ast/M_\odot = 10$), run the full pipeline, and repeat across enough realizations to beat Poisson scatter; if the median recovered parameters deviate from the input by more than the quoted uncertainties, the recovery-matrix correction is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the neutral atomic hydrogen mass function in the local volume probed by LADUMA is well described by a Schechter function with $\phi_\ast = 3.56\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}\,dex^{-1}}$, $\alpha = -1.18$, $\log(M_\ast/M_\odot)=10.01$, and correspondingly $\Omega_{\mathrm{HI}}=3.09\times10^{-4}$, and that these values agree with earlier low-redshift surveys within the quoted uncertainties. The paper further claims that the recovery-matrix forward-modeling approach, benchmarked against a modified maximum likelihood method that uses the same injection/recovery selection function, yields mutually consistent parameters, and that the inclusion of a Poisson likelihood is required to avoid biased slopes and underestimated uncertainties in bins with few or zero detections. On this basis the paper concludes that LADUMA's cosmic volume is not an outlier in HI content.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness correction is trustworthy only if the roughly 150,000 synthetic sources, built from Sersic profiles, Persic/Courteau rotation curves, and the Wang size-mass relation, are detected and flux-recovered the same way real HI galaxies are, including through the pixel-based continuum subtraction and SoFiA source finding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future, deeper LADUMA data releases can use the same recovery-matrix machinery to push the HI mass function to higher redshift, where detection counts are lower and cross-bin corrections matter more.
  • Surveys with small numbers of detections can include zero-detection mass bins in the fit, tightening the constraint on the knee mass without ad hoc corrections.
  • The local cosmic HI density $\Omega_{\mathrm{HI}}=3.09\times10^{-4}$ becomes a consistent anchor point that evolution studies can compare against at higher redshifts.
  • The agreement between the recovery-matrix and modified maximum likelihood methods, and with earlier surveys, supports the view that the single LADUMA pointing is not strongly biased by cosmic variance for the mass range probed.
  • Using a Poisson rather than Gaussian likelihood removes a systematic toward steeper low-mass slopes in low-count bins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The recovery-matrix idea transfers directly to other binned distribution measurements, such as optical luminosity functions or CO luminosity functions, wherever measurement scatter moves objects across bin boundaries asymmetrically.
  • Because the lowest-mass bin is excluded and the faint-end slope is constrained from a small accessible volume, the quoted $\alpha$ should be read as applying to the mass range actually fit; a wider or deeper survey could reveal a steeper faint end.
  • A natural next test is to apply the recovery matrix to a mock universe with known large-scale structure, once sample sizes grow, to separate cosmic-variance noise from method bias.
  • If the upward mass-scattering tendency is generic, earlier surveys that used diagonal-only completeness corrections may have slightly overestimated the faint-end slope; reanalyzing their injection/recovery data with a matrix would settle this.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first HI mass function (HIMF) and cosmic HI density (Omega_HI) measurement from the LADUMA survey's low-redshift (0 <= z <= 0.088) spectral window, using a new 'recovery matrix' (RM) forward-modeling method. The method injects roughly 150,000 synthetic galaxies into the processed data cube, tracks their recovery across mass bins, and fits Schechter function parameters with a Poisson likelihood. The authors benchmark the RM method against a modified maximum likelihood (MML) method and compare with previous surveys (ALFALFA, HIPASS, AUDS, MIGHTEE). The best-fit parameters are phi* = 3.56e-3 Mpc^-3 dex^-1, alpha = -1.18, log(M*/M_sun) = 10.01, and Omega_HI = 3.09e-4, with the claim that the LADUMA volume is not an outlier in HI content.

Significance. The paper's methodological contribution is timely and potentially useful for future deep single-pointing HI surveys. The recovery matrix approach addresses a real problem, cross-bin mass migration, and the use of a Poisson likelihood for low-count bins is well justified in Appendix A. The authors are transparent about key limitations, including the absence of end-to-end validation. If the measurement holds, it provides a low-redshift anchor for LADUMA's higher-redshift program. However, the current sample is small (82 sources) and the statistical weight is dominated by a few bins, so the significance of the scientific claim is moderate rather than transformative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.5] The paper explicitly states that no end-to-end validation of the recovery-matrix method has been performed, yet the completeness correction rests entirely on the assumption that the synthetic sources (Sersic surface-density profiles, Persic/Courteau rotation curves, and the Wang et al. 2016 size-mass relation) have the same detectability and flux-recovery properties as real HI galaxies. The large-scale-structure sensitivity test in Footnote 7 covers only log(MHI/Msun) >= 9, leaving the low-mass bins that most directly determine the faint-end slope alpha untested. I recommend adding a sensitivity analysis that varies the input source models (e.g., velocity-width distribution, size-mass relation scatter, surface brightness profile) and re-derives the Schechter parameters, or a partial validation using real sources with known properties, before the quoted parameters can be regarded as robust against source-model uncertainties.
  2. [Section 3.1.2] The uncertainty requirement in Section 3.1.2 is stated only for the diagonal and below-diagonal recovery-matrix elements, with the claim that their fractional uncertainties are less than 10%. However, Figure 2 shows that the dominant mass-migration corrections are the above-diagonal elements (e.g., 24.7% of sources in the lowest mass bin are recovered one bin higher). Since the forward modeling specifically corrects for this upward migration, the paper must quantify the uncertainties of the above-diagonal elements as well, and confirm that they are propagated in the 512 Monte Carlo realizations described in Section 3.1.5; otherwise the quoted parameter uncertainties may be underestimated.
  3. [Appendix B and Section 4.2] Appendix B demonstrates that cosmic variance increases the uncertainty in the number of high-mass (log(MHI/Msun) >= 9.75) galaxies in the LADUMA volume by roughly a factor of two relative to Poisson expectations (standard deviation ~8.5 versus sqrt(16) = 4). The abstract, Table 2, and Section 4.2 quote uncertainties on Omega_HI and the Schechter parameters that do not include this contribution. Either propagate cosmic variance into the final uncertainties (or an explicit component of them), or clearly state in the abstract and conclusions that the quoted errors are conditional on the surveyed volume being representative of the cosmic mean. As written, the claim that the LADUMA volume is 'not an outlier' relies on error bars that may be too small.
  4. [Section 5.1] The decision to exclude the lowest-mass bin (two sources) from the analysis is based on an ad hoc 10% minimum accepted volume fraction, and the text states that including that bin would 'result in a significantly steeper value for alpha.' Since alpha is a headline result, the sensitivity of the fitted alpha and its uncertainty to this threshold should be quantified (e.g., by varying the threshold between about 5% and 20%), or a more principled criterion should be presented. Without such a test, the robustness of the reported faint-end slope to this modeling choice is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6 vs. Abstract/Table 2] The parameter uncertainties quoted in Section 6 differ from those in the abstract and Table 2 for the same quantities (e.g., phi* = 3.56^+1.79_-1.51 versus 3.56^+0.97_-1.92; alpha = -1.18 +/- 0.14 versus -1.18^+0.08_-0.19; log(M*/M_sun) = 10.01^+0.23_-0.17 versus 10.01^+0.31_-0.12). Please reconcile these values or explain the difference.
  2. [Section 4.2] Section 4.2 quotes Omega_HI = 3.09^+0.58_-0.49e-4 for the recovery matrix method, while the abstract and Table 2 list Omega_HI = 3.09^+0.65_-0.47e-4 for the same quantity. This discrepancy should be fixed.
  3. [Section 3.1.5] The sentence stating that the Schechter parameters from the second iteration 'change by less than 1%' compared to the first iteration would be more informative if the actual changes in phi*, alpha, and log(M*) were reported, along with the convergence criterion used. As written, the claim is difficult to check.
  4. [Section 5.4] There is a typographical error in the phrase 'compeletness fractions' in the footnote to Section 5.4; it should read 'completeness fractions.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HIMF parameters are measured from data via forward modeling, with the one seeded input explicitly shown not to bias convergence.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities (phi*, alpha, M*, Omega_HI) are fitted outputs, not inputs: observed source counts are compared with forward-model predictions obtained by multiplying trial Schechter functions by the injection/recovery matrix (Section 3.1.3). The only apparent circularity risk is that the first recovery-matrix iteration is seeded with ALFALFA Schechter parameters, but the paper explicitly tests this and reports that starting from a flat mass distribution converges to the same result, so the ALFALFA input does not force the answer. The MML benchmark shares the same injection/recovery selection function (Section 3.2), which makes the RM-MML consistency a weaker check than a fully independent measurement, but this is a limitation of the cross-check rather than a reduction of the derivation to its own assumptions. External comparisons with ALFALFA, HIPASS, AUDS, and MIGHTEE provide independent anchors, and the paper openly states that no end-to-end mock-cube validation was performed (Section 3.1.5), which is a validity caveat, not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the target parameter, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the self-citations (e.g., Obreschkow et al. 2018 for MML) are method references rather than load-bearing justifications of the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central HIMF measurement rests on the Schechter function form, the fidelity of synthetic sources, the assumption that large-scale structure does not bias recovery, the purity of the SoFiA sample, and the assumed cosmology. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Within-bin injected mass distribution slope = Iterated to match best-fit Schechter slope (converges after two iterations)
    The recovery matrix elements depend on the mass distribution of injected sources within each bin; the authors update this slope from the first iteration to the best-fit slope and check convergence.
  • Mass bin edges (8 bins, log MHI/Msun 7 to 11) = 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5, 10.0, 10.5, 11.0
    Bin boundaries are chosen by hand; the forward modeling result depends on the binning because the recovery matrix is binned.
  • Minimum accepted volume fraction (10%) = 0.10
    Used to justify excluding the lowest-mass bin from the fit; this threshold affects the inferred low-mass slope.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The true HI mass function is well described by a Schechter function with free parameters phi*, M*, and alpha.
    Equation (3) in Section 3.1.3; the entire forward model and all fits assume this functional form.
  • domain assumption Synthetic sources generated with galmod using Sersic surface density profiles, Persic/Courteau rotation curves, and the Wang et al. (2016) size-mass relation faithfully represent real HI galaxies in the LADUMA cube.
    Section 3.1.1: the entire recovery matrix is built from these synthetic sources; if they are unrepresentative, the completeness correction is biased.
  • domain assumption Injected sources are placed uniformly in comoving volume (p(z) proportional to dV/dz), and large-scale structure does not significantly affect recovery statistics at any mass.
    Section 3.1.1: the LSS tests were only carried out for log M >= 9 sources; the assumption is extended to all masses used in the fit.
  • domain assumption SoFiA with a reliability threshold above 99% yields a high-purity sample for both real and synthetic sources.
    Section 2.2 and 3.1.1: purity is assessed on synthetic sources; real-source purity relies on visual inspection and optical cross-matching.
  • domain assumption No OH megamasers contaminate the sample.
    Section 2.2: based on Roberts et al. (2021); if OHMs were present, HI masses would be overestimated.
  • standard math Flat LCDM cosmology with H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m = 0.3, Omega_L = 0.7.
    Used for all distance and volume calculations, stated at the end of Section 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Looking At the Distant Universe with the MeerKAT Array: the HI Mass Function in the Local Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OECJIK6K

@misc{pith2026241211426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Looking At the Distant Universe with the MeerKAT Array: the HI Mass Function in the Local Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OECJIK6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11426}
}
abstract

We present measurements of the neutral atomic hydrogen (HI) mass function (HIMF) and cosmic HI density ($\Omega_{\rm HI}$) at $0 \leq z \leq 0.088$ from the Looking at the Distant Universe with MeerKAT Array (LADUMA) survey. Using LADUMA Data Release 1 (DR1), we analyze the HIMF via a new "recovery matrix" (RM) method that we benchmark against a more traditional Modified Maximum Likelihood (MML) method. Our analysis, which implements a forward modeling approach, corrects for survey incompleteness and uses extensive synthetic source injections to ensure robust estimates of the HIMF parameters and their associated uncertainties. This new method tracks the recovery of sources in mass bins different from those in which they were injected and incorporates a Poisson likelihood in the forward modeling process, allowing it to correctly handle uncertainties in bins with few or no detections. The application of our analysis to a high-purity subsample of the LADUMA DR1 spectral line catalog in turn mitigates any possible biases that could result from the inconsistent treatment of synthetic and real sources. For the surveyed redshift range, the recovered Schechter function normalization, low-mass slope, and "knee" mass are $\phi_\ast = 3.56_{-1.92}^{+0.97} \times 10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ dex$^{-1}$, $\alpha = -1.18_{-0.19}^{+0.08}$, and $\log(M_\ast/M_\odot) = 10.01_{-0.12}^{+0.31}$, respectively, which together imply a comoving cosmic HI density of $\Omega_{\rm HI}=3.09_{-0.47}^{+0.65}\times 10^{-4}$. Our results show consistency between RM and MML methods and with previous low-redshift studies, giving confidence that the cosmic volume probed by LADUMA, even at low redshifts, is not an outlier in terms of its HI content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11426 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LADUMA H i sources detected by SoFiA with higher than 99% reliability inside the FWQM (two sources with MH I < 107.5 M⊙, which are not used in our analysis, are plotted as triangles). Left: H i mass as a function of redshift. Right: High-purity subsample of H i sources in the LADUMA field plotted overlaid on the Spitzer/IRAC channel 1 mosaic for the extended CDFS (Euclid Collaboration et al. 2022). The dashed circle… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The recovery fraction matrix plotted on the Minj vs. Mrec grid. The diagonal elements express recovery frac￾tion as a percentage and increase monotonically as a func￾tion of injected mass Minj and recovered mass Mrec. For the lower-mass bins, the off-diagonal elements are large relative to the on-diagonal elements. If a source is not recovered in the injected mass bin, it is more likely to be recovered with a higher… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1σ fractional uncertainty (as a percent) on the diagonal elements of the recovery fraction matrix shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The HiMF for LADUMA as derived via the recovery matrix and the MML methods in comparison with previous measurements in the literature. The best-fit Schechter functions based on the recovery matrix (RM) and the MML methods are shown with the solid and dash-double-dot li…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schechter function parameters with associated uncertainties for different surveys. Square symbols repre￾sent LADUMA measurements. LADUMA’s ϕ∗ and M∗ agree with the results for all the previous surveys within 1σ uncer￾tainties. LADUMA’s low-mass slope is shallower than …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The HiMF for LADUMA from the MML method (see Section 3.2) in comparison with previous measurements in the literature. The best-fit Schechter function is shown as the solid line; the shaded region represents the 1σ uncertainty range on the MML fit. The lowest mass bin d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Volumes accessible for the detection of sources with given MH I by LADUMA, ALFALFA, and HIPASS, cal￾culated based on their respective detection limits. The max￾imum volume inside which all sources of H i mass MH I are detected cannot be precisely defined, as it depends…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of observed number density of sources with MHI = M for the Vmax and injection/recovery methods. It is clear that the Vmax method leads to a wider distribution of observed number densities around the true number density of sources with MHI = M. This effec…

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. Quantifying the detection likelihood of faint peaks in interferometric data through jackknifing: Test application on finding $z>10$ galaxy candidates

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Applying visibility jackknifing to ALMA data shows the tentative z>10 detections in GLASS-z12, GLASS-z10, and S5-z17-1 are consistent with noise, supporting a >5 sigma detection threshold in broad line searches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abell, G. O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211, doi: 10.1086/190036

    doi:10.1086/190036 1958

  2. [2]

    Adams, E. A. K., Adebahr, B., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244007

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244007 2022

  3. [3]

    J., Holwerda, B., et al

    Blyth, S., Baker, A. J., Holwerda, B., et al. 2018, PoS, MeerKAT2016, 004, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0004

    doi:10.22323/1.277.0004 2018

  4. [4]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2241

    Catinella, B., & Cortese, L. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2241

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2241 2015

  5. [5]

    H., Kenney, J

    Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, AJ, 138, 1741, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1741 2009

  6. [6]

    D., Frank, B., Sekhar, S., & Taylor, A

    Collier, J. D., Frank, B., Sekhar, S., & Taylor, A. R. 2021, in 2021 XXXIVth General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS, 4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS51995.2021.9560276

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    1997, AJ, 114, 2402, doi: 10.1086/118656 Dav´ e, R., Crain, R

    Courteau, S. 1997, AJ, 114, 2402, doi: 10.1086/118656 Dav´ e, R., Crain, R. A., Stevens, A. R. H., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1894

    doi:10.1086/118656 1997

  8. [8]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472 Euclid Collaboration, Moneti, A., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142361 Fern´ andez, X., van Gorkom, J. H., Hess, K. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 770, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L29 Fern´ andez, X., Gim, H. ...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1985, ApJ, 292, 404, doi: 10.1086/163170

    1985 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Kent, B

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Kent, B. R., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2598, doi: 10.1086/497431

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, doi: 10.33612/diss.206445119

    Gogate, A. 2022, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, doi: 10.33612/diss.206445119

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Verheijen, M

    Gogate, A. R., Verheijen, M. A. W., Deshev, B. Z., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1680

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Giovanelli, R., & Chincarini, G

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Chincarini, G. L. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002305

    1984

  6. [14]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A. M., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/170

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Luber, N

    Hess, K. M., Luber, N. M., Fern´ andez, X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3421 H¨ ogbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D

    Hogg, D. W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1008.4686, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1008.4686

    2010 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1084

    Hoppmann, L., Staveley-Smith, L., Freudling, W., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1084

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1 Jaff´ e, Y. L., Poggianti, B. M., Verheijen, M. A. W., Deshev, B. Z., & van Gorkom, J. H. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt250

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 6, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0006

    Jarvis, M., Taylor, R., Agudo, I., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 6, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0006

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    Jonas, J. L. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1522, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713

    2009

  14. [23]

    G., Haynes, M

    Jones, M. G., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Moorman, C. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty521

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa810

    Verdes-Montenegro, L. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa810

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    G., Papastergis, E., Haynes, M

    Jones, M. G., Papastergis, E., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv429

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    Kim, H.-S., Wyithe, J. S. B., Power, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1822

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    K., et al

    Loveday, J., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1239, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20111.x

    2012

  19. [28]

    S., Ponomareva, A

    Maddox, N., Frank, B. S., Ponomareva, A. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039655

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Papastergis, E., Giovanelli, R., et al

    Martin, A. M., Papastergis, E., Giovanelli, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1359, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1359

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    Martinsson, T. P. K., Verheijen, M. A. W., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527067

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Stanimirovi´ c, S., & Rybarczyk, D

    McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Stanimirovi´ c, S., & Rybarczyk, D. R. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 19, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-104851

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    2017, PASA, 34, 52, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    Meyer, M., Robotham, A., Obreschkow, D., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, 52, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    J., Zwaan, M

    Meyer, M. J., Zwaan, M. A., Webster, R. L., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1195, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x

    2004

  25. [34]

    Mihos, J. C. 2001, ApJ, 550, 94, doi: 10.1086/319721

    2001 doi

  26. [35]

    M., Vogeley, M

    Moorman, C. M., Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1674

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Newman, J. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/113

    2011 doi

  28. [37]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Nan, R. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7012, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes II, ed. L. M. Stepp & R. Gilmozzi, 70121E, doi: 10.1117/12.791288 25

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3155

    Westmeier, T. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3155

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    1996, MNRAS, 281, 27, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.1.27

    Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.1.27

    1996 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Jarvis, M

    Ponomareva, A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Pan, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1249

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    S., & Trager, S

    Popping, G., Somerville, R. S., & Trager, S. C. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu991

    2014 doi

  33. [42]

    N., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al

    Reynolds, T. N., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3522

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3065

    Rhee, J., Meyer, M., Popping, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3065

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    Roberts, H., Darling, J., & Baker, A. J. 2021, ApJ, 911, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe944

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    H., Lockhart, I

    Rogstad, D. H., Lockhart, I. A., & Wright, M. C. H. 1974, ApJ, 193, 309, doi: 10.1086/153164

    1974 doi

  37. [46]

    C., & Staveley-Smith, L

    Said, K., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz956

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    Sandage, A., Binggeli, B., & Tammann, G. A. 1985, AJ, 90, 1759, doi: 10.1086/113875

    1985 doi

  39. [48]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079 S´ ersic, J

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079 S´ ersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1976 doi

  40. [49]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661 van der Hulst, J. M., Terlouw, J. P., Begeman, K. G.,

    1977

  41. [50]

    Zwitser, W., & Roelfsema, P. R. 1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 25, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems I, ed. D. M. Worrall, C. Biemesderfer, & J. Barnes, 131

    1992

  42. [51]

    S., Serra, P., et al

    Wang, J., Koribalski, B. S., Serra, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1099

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

    Westmeier, T., Kitaeff, S., Pallot, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3931

    Xi, H., Staveley-Smith, L., For, B.-Q., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3931

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4357

    Xi, H., Peng, B., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4357

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Briggs, F

    Zwaan, M. A., Briggs, F. H., Sprayberry, D., & Sorar, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 173, doi: 10.1086/304872

    1997 doi

  47. [56]

    Webster, R. L. 2005, MNRAS, 359, L30, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00029.x

    2005

  48. [57]

    A., Staveley-Smith, L., Koribalski, B

    Zwaan, M. A., Staveley-Smith, L., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 2842, doi: 10.1086/374944

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.