Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 111 references

FAST drift scan survey for HI intensity mapping: simulation on Bayesian-stacking-based HI mass function estimation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bayesian stacking of faint HI flux in FAST drift-scan surveys can reconstruct the neutral hydrogen mass function below the 5-sigma detection limit, and sample variance, not noise, sets the error floor.

desk verdict Useful FAST HiIM simulation forecast, but the sample-variance claim and the confusion correction are asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11872 v1 pith:4BHVMM3P submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.CO

Jiaxin Wang , Yichao Li , Hengxing Pan , Furen Deng , Diyang Liu , Wenxiu Yang , Wenkai Hu , Yougang Wang
show 2 more authors
Xin Zhang Xuelei Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords HImassfunctionBayesianstackingintensitymappingFASTtelescopedriftscansurveyIllustrisTNGsimulationsamplevariancefluxconfusion
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 argues that a Bayesian stacking technique can turn FAST drift-scan intensity mapping data into useful measurements of the neutral hydrogen mass function (HIMF), even for galaxies whose individual HI signals are far below the detection threshold. It builds simulated HI sky cubes from an IllustrisTNG snapshot at redshift $z\sim0.1$, adds realistic FAST noise for pilot, deep, and ultradeep survey strategies, and estimates the HIMF separately for optically selected red, blue, and bluer galaxy samples. The central results are that the HIMF is well recovered for red and blue galaxies with a pilot survey, that bluer galaxies need deeper integration because they are rarer, and that additional integration time barely reduces the errors because sample variance dominates over thermal noise. The paper concludes that a wide, shallow survey is more efficient than a deep, narrow one for this method, and it provides transfer functions to correct beam confusion and to quantify the effect of optical sample incompleteness. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete path to measuring the HIMF at redshifts and masses that blind HI surveys cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Bayesian stacking estimator of the flux-count function $\Psi(S_{\mathrm{HI}}) = \mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}S_{\mathrm{HI}}$, related to the HI mass function by $\Psi(S_{\mathrm{HI}}) = \frac{1}{\ln 10}\,\frac{\Phi(M_{\mathrm{HI}})}{M_{\mathrm{HI}}}\,\frac{\mathrm{d}M_{\mathrm{HI}}}{\mathrm{d}S_{\mathrm{HI}}}$. Galaxy counts $k_i$ in adaptively chosen Bayesian-block flux bins are treated as Poisson draws, with expectation values $\lambda_i$ computed by convolving $\Psi$ with a Gaussian noise distribution; the posterior on $\Psi$ and on the Schechter parameters $\Phi^*$, $M^*$, and $\alpha$ is then sampled with nested sampling. This is what lets the method co-add faint flux from many optically known galaxies and push below the individual-detection threshold. A second piece is the confusion transfer function $T_{\mathrm{cc}} = \Phi_{\mathrm{B}}/\Phi_{\mathrm{ref}}$, which quantifies and corrects the high-mass shift induced by the FAST beam, and an analogous ratio is used to characterise optical sample incompleteness.

What would settle it

Run the same Bayesian-stacking analysis on several independent simulation volumes with identical survey parameters; if the HI mass function parameter errors shrink noticeably from pilot to ultradeep integration when averaged over realizations, the claim that sample variance dominates fails. A complementary check is to compare HIMF constraints from two widely separated 210 $deg^{2}$ FAST fields: if the field-to-field scatter is smaller than the thermal-noise term, the sample-variance explanation is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Bayesian-stacking-based HIMF estimation works for FAST HI intensity mapping: with a simulated SDSS main-galaxy-sample-like optical catalog, the HIMF for red and blue galaxies is recoverable in a 210 $deg^{2}$ pilot survey, while the bluer population requires roughly four repeated scans. The recovered HIMF matches the true TNG HIMF within the 68% confidence intervals and reaches below the nominal 5-$\sigma$ noise-equivalent mass. Since the parameter errors do not shrink much from the pilot to the ultradeep survey, the paper identifies sample variance, rather than observational noise, as the dominant error source. The paper also shows that beam confusion biases the recovered HIMF toward high masses and uses per-population transfer functions to correct this, and that the optical magnitude limit introduces a completeness bias that acts differently on red, blue, and bluer galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The survey-design recommendation rests on the assumption that a single 210 $deg^{2}$ TNG100 snapshot is representative enough for the lack of error reduction with longer integration to be genuine sample variance; the paper neither averages over independent realizations nor simulates the wide-field case it recommends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A FAST HiIM pilot survey of 210 deg^2 can constrain the HI mass function for red and blue galaxies with Schechter-parameter errors comparable to or smaller than those from the roughly 7000 deg^2 ALFALFA survey.
  • Deepening the survey from 29 s to 230 s per pixel produces little gain, so survey time is better allocated to increasing sky area than to integration depth.
  • Bayesian stacking recovers the HIMF below the 5-sigma noise-equivalent mass, so the faint end is accessible without individually detecting HI galaxies.
  • Beam confusion shifts the HIMF toward high masses, and per-population transfer functions correct this bias for red, blue, and bluer samples.
  • Optical sample incompleteness, rather than radio flux limits, is the key completeness issue for stacking-based HIMF estimates, with low-mass blue galaxies underrepresented relative to red galaxies of similar optical brightness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the sample-variance conclusion implies a test the authors did not run: applying the same pipeline to several independent simulation volumes should show the same error floor regardless of integration time, while a shrinking floor would indicate noise-limited rather than variance-limited errors.
  • The transfer-function corrections are calibrated on the simulation itself; applying them to real FAST data assumes the simulated TNG relation between HI content and optical color or magnitude is accurate, so the corrected HIMF would inherit any mismatch.
  • The positive faint-end slope in the optically selected samples suggests that stacking-based HIMF results from magnitude-limited catalogs should be interpreted as conditional on the optical selection, not as the full HI population.
  • A natural extension would be to test the wide-field recommendation directly by tiling multiple TNG100 boxes or using a larger simulation volume, checking whether the sample-variance floor and completeness corrections scale with area as the paper assumes.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents simulations of a Bayesian-stacking-based measurement of the neutral hydrogen mass function (HIMF) for future FAST HI intensity mapping drift-scan surveys. Using one IllustrisTNG snapshot at z~0.1, the authors construct an HI sky cube and an SDSS MGS-like optical catalog, inject FAST observational noise for pilot, deep, and ultradeep survey strategies, and fit Schechter-function parameters for red, blue, and bluer galaxy subsamples. They report that Bayesian stacking recovers the input HIMF below the 5-sigma detection limit for all subsamples, that flux confusion shifts the HIMF toward high masses and can be described by a transfer function, that sample incompleteness can be characterized by a similar ratio, and that sample variance rather than thermal noise dominates the errors, favoring wide-field surveys.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper provides a useful forecasting framework for FAST HI intensity mapping and makes a concrete case that stacking-based HIMF measurements can reach below the traditional detection threshold. The simulation pipeline is realistic in several respects: it uses full hydrodynamical simulation data, models beam convolution and frequency-dependent noise, compares the recovered HIMF with the input truth, and benchmarks against ALFALFA parameter errors. The core likelihood construction is standard and clearly described. The main weakness is that the survey-design conclusion rests on a single realization and on a likelihood that does not include a sample-variance term, so the central 'wide versus deep' recommendation is not yet demonstrated. The transfer-function corrections are also not validated on independent data.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (13), Fig. 5] The conclusion that the HIMF errors are 'raised by the intrinsic scattering of the HiMF between different halos, i.e. the sample variance' and that a wide-field survey is preferable is not established by the presented analysis. The likelihood in Eqs. (9)–(13) is a Poisson model for the binned source counts conditional on the model source count; it contains no term representing the scatter of the HIMF between realizations of the large-scale density field, and all forecasts in Tables 3–4 and Fig. 5 are computed from a single TNG100 snapshot. The saturation of the errors with integration time is therefore the expected Poisson/finite-sample floor of one fixed volume, not a measured sample-variance contribution. I request an explicit demonstration, such as a jackknife over subvolumes or an ensemble of TNG snapshots or mocks, or a rephrasing of the conclusion as being conditional on this particular realization.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (19), §4.2] The confusion transfer function T_cc is defined as Φ_B/Φ_ref, where both the beam-convolved HIMF and the reference HIMF are measured from the same simulated catalog that the correction is meant to restore. This makes the correction a self-calibration: it can absorb errors in the stacking model as well as true beam confusion, and the manuscript does not show the corrected HIMF after division by T_cc or test the correction on an independent realization. The claim that flux confusion is 'addressed using a transfer function for correction' needs a validation step, for example applying T_cc to a second mock cube with known input and checking unbiased recovery.
  3. [§4.4, Fig. 7] The optical-completeness 'transfer function' is presented as a ratio between the MGS-like and full-sample HIMFs, but it is never applied to correct the MGS-based measurements, and its accuracy is not quantified beyond propagated error bars. The conclusion that the effects are 'addressed' or that a framework to quantify their impact is proposed is therefore stronger than what is demonstrated. The authors should either apply the correction and validate it, or explicitly state that this is a characterization rather than a correction.
  4. [§4.3, Table 4, Fig. 5] The statement that the pilot-survey constraint is 'compatible with those obtained by the ALFALFA survey' is not supported for the bluer population: for log10 M*, the pilot-survey error is about 0.14 dex (Table 3) against ALFALFA's 0.05 dex (Table 4), nearly a factor of three larger. The compatibility statement should be restricted to the red and blue samples, or the bluer sample should be discussed separately.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5] Section 5 states that the work uses 'one of the simulation snapshots of the TNG50', but Section 2.1 clearly states that the TNG100 box is adopted; since the sample-variance discussion depends on the simulation volume, this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [§3.2] The text 'derived from the conversation between galaxy Hi mass and its flux' should read 'conversion'.
  3. [Eq. (12)] The variable 'σniose' in the first error function is a typo for σ_noise.
  4. [§4.3] The statement that the ultradeep-field noise level is equivalent to stacking galaxy samples over ~1800 deg2 assumes a uniform galaxy number density and ignores clustering; this equivalence should be presented as an order-of-magnitude noise-floor argument rather than an exact survey-design forecast.
  5. [References] The reference list contains two 'Pan et al. 2024' entries; in-text citations should distinguish them (e.g., Pan et al. 2024a,b) so readers know which work is being cited.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial self-calibration in the confusion transfer function; central Bayesian-stacking HIMF reconstruction is otherwise self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4, Eq. (19); used in Section 4.2]
    "The transfer function for confusion correction is defined as the the ratio of the beam-convolved HiMF, ΦB, to the reference HiMF, Φref, Tcc=ΦB/Φref, where Φref is estimated by Bayesian-stacking the Hi flux extracted from the simulated galaxy catalog."

    The transfer function is defined as the ratio of exactly the two quantities that a correction later relates: if the beam-convolved measurement being corrected is ΦB from the same simulated catalog and estimator, then the corrected value is ΦB/Tcc = Φref by construction. Thus the 'correction' contains no independent information about the confusion effect; it is an in-sample self-calibration that returns the input model HIMF. The paper does not apply Tcc to an independent realization or compare the corrected HIMF against the external truth Φg, so the claimed correction reduces to the definition of Tcc rather than serving as a validated prediction.

full rationale

The central HIMF reconstruction is not circular: the TNG sky cube and optical catalog are external inputs, the Bayesian-stacking likelihood (Eqs. 8-13) is a standard Poisson model, and the recovered HIMF is compared against the independently tabulated Φg from the simulation's intrinsic HI masses as well as against ALFALFA parameter errors from Dutta et al. (2020). No equation in the reconstruction is equivalent to its own output by construction. The method is credited to Pan et al. (2020, 2021, 2024), with Pan as a co-author, but those are published prior works and this paper adds new simulation content; this is normal scientific lineage rather than load-bearing circularity. The one concrete self-referential element is the confusion transfer function: Tcc is defined as ΦB/Φref with both sides estimated from the same simulated catalog, so any correction of the form ΦB/Tcc recovers Φref identically. This is a limitation in the validation of the confusion correction, not in the main HIMF estimates. The sample-variance-dominated conclusion is not formally circular, but it is under-supported: the Poisson likelihood contains no between-realization sample-variance term and only one TNG100 snapshot is used, so the quoted error saturation is a property of one fixed volume. That is a correctness/robustness concern rather than an equivalence-by-construction. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained, with only a partial self-calibration step in the transfer-function treatment.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The analysis rests on the TNG simulation's HI content, a post-processing H2 model, Gaussian noise and beam assumptions, an SDSS-like optical catalog, and the Schechter function. The main free parameters are the bluer split fraction, the assumed HI line width for the detection limit, and the adopted system temperature.

free parameters (3)
  • Blue/bluer split fraction = 0.23
    The 'bluer' galaxy subsample is defined as the 23% of blue galaxies nearest the blue end of the color-magnitude diagram, following Dutta et al. (2020). The conclusion that bluer galaxies require deeper surveys depends on this arbitrary split.
  • Frequency width for detection limit = 2 MHz
    Used to compute the equivalent HI mass at the 5-sigma detection threshold in Figure 3. A different width changes where the vertical dashed lines sit, affecting the visual claim that stacking reaches below the detection limit.
  • System temperature Tsys = ~24 K
    Adopted for the FAST noise model, following Li et al. (2023). The absolute noise level scales linearly with Tsys, so the tradeoff between pilot and deep surveys would shift if the real system temperature is higher.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG provides a representative distribution of HI mass at z~0.1.
    The entire forecast is built on one TNG snapshot; if TNG's HI content is not representative of real galaxies, the HIMF results will not transfer to FAST data.
  • domain assumption HI is derived from total neutral gas via the Gnedin & Kravtsov (2011) H2 model.
    The HI fraction is a post-processing model, and the HIMF is defined by HI mass. See Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Noise is Gaussian with the radiometer equation and beam is Gaussian with no side lobes.
    Equations (14) and (18) assume this; side-lobe flux leakage and beam shape variations are neglected in Section 3.4, and foreground residuals are assumed removable.
  • domain assumption The MGS-like catalog matches the SDSS DR7 main galaxy sample selection.
    The optical catalog is constructed with the magnitude cut of Eq. (3) and simulated photometry; any mismatch biases the stacking positions. See Section 2.3.
  • standard math The HIMF is described by a Schechter function with beta=0.
    Used as the fitting model. Section 4.4 shows the blue full-sample HIMF deviates from the Schechter form at the low-mass end, partially challenging this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FAST drift scan survey for HI intensity mapping: simulation on Bayesian-stacking-based HI mass function estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BHVMM3P

@misc{pith2026250111872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FAST drift scan survey for HI intensity mapping: simulation on Bayesian-stacking-based HI mass function estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BHVMM3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11872}
}
abstract

This study investigates the estimation of the neutral hydrogen (HI) mass function (HIMF) using a Bayesian stacking approach with simulated data for the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) HI intensity mapping (HIIM) drift-scan surveys. Using data from the IllustrisTNG simulation, we construct HI sky cubes at redshift $z\sim0.1$ and the corresponding optical galaxy catalogs, simulating FAST observations under various survey strategies, including pilot, deep-field, and ultradeep-field surveys. The HIMF is measured for distinct galaxy populations -- classified by optical properties into red, blue, and bluer galaxies -- and injected with systematic effects such as observational noise and flux confusion caused by the FAST beam. The results show that Bayesian stacking significantly enhances HIMF measurements. For red and blue galaxies, the HIMF can be well constrained with pilot surveys, while deeper surveys are required for the bluer galaxy population. Our analysis also reveals that sample variance dominates over observational noise, emphasizing the importance of wide-field surveys to improve constraints. Furthermore, flux confusion shifts the HIMF toward higher masses, which we address using a transfer function for correction. Finally, we explore the effects of intrinsic sample incompleteness and propose a framework to quantify its impact. This work lays the groundwork for future \hiMF studies with FAST HIIM, addressing key challenges and enabling robust analyses of HI content across galaxy populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11872 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Hi flux distribution of simulated sky map at different frequencies integrated across a frequency range of 8.0 MHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The color-magnitude space distribution of the galaxies from the simulated MGS catalog. The red curve shows the red/blue galaxy separator locus, which is defined with Equation (20), and the blue curve shows the separator for the blue/bluer galaxy. The red, blue, and bluer galaxies from the simulated MGS catalog are shown with the red, cyan, and blue scatter points, respectively. The simulated sky cube is convolved wi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The HiMF estimated with the MGS-like sample. From top to bottom, different panels show the results with the noise level of the pilot, deep-field, and ultradeep-field drift-scan observation, respectively (c.f [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The HiMF measurements including the flux confusion effect. The results with/without flux confusion effect are shown in the top/middle panels. The bottom panel shows the confusion correction transfer function, 𝑇cc (i.e. Equation (19)). The results for red, blue, and blu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The HiMF parameter 1 𝜎 errors of MGS-like galaxy catalog compared with ALFALFA survey. is compatible with those obtained by the ALFALFA survey with nearly 7000 deg2 . The constraint errors gradually decrease with deeper HiIM surveys, however, the error reduction is not…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The HiMF ratio of the MGS-like sample with respect to the full sample, assuming the ultradeep-field drift-scan observation. The results with the luminous red, blue, and bluer galaxy catalog are shown in red, blue, and cyan colors, respectively. Without the beam confusi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 543, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  5. [5]

    2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    Amiri , M., Bandura , K., Chen , T., et al. 2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f 2023

  6. [6]

    J., Luciw , N

    Anderson , C. J., Luciw , N. J., Li , Y. C., et al. 2018, , 476, 3382, 10.1093/mnras/sty346

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty346 2018

  7. [7]

    E., Colom , P., et al

    Ansari , R., Campagne , J. E., Colom , P., et al. 2012, , 540, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117837

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117837 2012

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Khandai , N., & Datta , K

    Bagla , J. S., Khandai , N., & Datta , K. K. 2010, , 407, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16933.x

    2010

  4. [12]

    K., Glazebrook , K., Brinkmann , J., et al

    Baldry , I. K., Glazebrook , K., Brinkmann , J., et al. 2004, , 600, 681, 10.1086/380092

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Amiri , M., et al

    Bandura , K., Addison , G. E., Amiri , M., et al. 2014, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder , 914522, 10.1117/12.2054950

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Staveley-Smith , L., de Blok , W

    Barnes , D. G., Staveley-Smith , L., de Blok , W. J. G., et al. 2001, , 322, 486, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04102.x

    2001

  7. [15]

    A., Browne , I

    Battye , R. A., Browne , I. W. A., Dickinson , C., et al. 2013, , 434, 1239, 10.1093/mnras/stt1082

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Holwerda , B., et al

    Blyth , S., Baker , A. J., Holwerda , B., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 4, 10.22323/1.277.0004

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Patel , P., & Santos , M

    Bull , P., Ferreira , P. G., Patel , P., & Santos , M. G. 2015, , 803, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/21

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Bernal , J

    Carucci , I. P., Bernal , J. L., Cunnington , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06750, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06750

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Bandura , K., & Peterson , J. B. 2010, , 466, 463, 10.1038/nature09187

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    B., & McDonald , P

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Peterson , J. B., & McDonald , P. 2008, , 100, 091303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091303

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Charlot , S., & Fall , S. M. 2000, , 539, 718, 10.1086/309250

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Chen , X. 2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol. 12, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 256--263, 10.1142/S2010194512006459

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, , 524, 3724, 10.1093/mnras/stad2102

    Chen , Z., Chapman , E., Wolz , L., & Mazumder , A. 2023, , 524, 3724, 10.1093/mnras/stad2102

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Conroy , C., & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 712, 833, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & White , M

    Conroy , C., Gunn , J. E., & White , M. 2009, , 699, 486, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    G., et al

    Cunnington , S., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2023, , 518, 6262, 10.1093/mnras/stac3060

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Gough, R

    DeBoer, D. R., Gough, R. G., Bunton, J. D., et al. 2009, Proceedings of the IEEE, 97, 1507, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2016516

    2009

  20. [28]

    J., Staveley-Smith , L., & Boyle , B

    Delhaize , J., Meyer , M. J., Staveley-Smith , L., & Boyle , B. J. 2013, , 433, 1398, 10.1093/mnras/stt810

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, , 515, 5894, 10.1093/mnras/stac2185

    Deng , F., Gong , Y., Wang , Y., et al. 2022, , 515, 5894, 10.1093/mnras/stac2185

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Diemer , B., Stevens , A. R. H., Forbes , J. C., et al. 2018, , 238, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/aae387

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, , 500, L37, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa178

    Dutta , S., & Khandai , N. 2021, , 500, L37, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa178

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, , 494, 2664, 10.1093/mnras/staa864

    Dutta , S., Khandai , N., & Dey , B. 2020, , 494, 2664, 10.1093/mnras/staa864

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, , 511, 2585, 10.1093/mnras/stab3618

    Dutta , S., Khandai , N., & Rana , S. 2022, , 511, 2585, 10.1093/mnras/stab3618

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  27. [35]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 525, 5278, 10.1093/mnras/stad2646

    Gao , L.-Y., Li , Y., Ni , S., & Zhang , X. 2023, , 525, 5278, 10.1093/mnras/stad2646

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Kent , B

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

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Y., & Kravtsov , A

    Gnedin , N. Y., & Kravtsov , A. V. 2011, , 728, 88, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/88

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Blyth , S

    Holwerda , B. W., Blyth , S. L., & Baker , A. J. 2012, in The Spectral Energy Distribution of Galaxies - SED 2011, ed. R. J. Tuffs & C. C. Popescu , Vol. 284, 496--499, 10.1017/S1743921312009702

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    Hu , W., Wang , X., Wu , F., et al. 2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, JCAP, 03, 051, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/051

    Jin, S.-J., He, D.-Z., Xu, Y., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2020, JCAP, 03, 051, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/051

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, Phys

    Jin, S.-J., Wang, L.-F., Wu, P.-J., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103507

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2007, , 24, 174, 10.1071/AS07033

    Johnston , S., Bailes , M., Bartel , N., et al. 2007, , 24, 174, 10.1071/AS07033

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

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

    2009

  39. [47]

    G., Haynes , M

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

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Staveley-Smith , L., Westmeier , T., et al

    Koribalski , B. S., Staveley-Smith , L., Westmeier , T., et al. 2020, , 365, 118, 10.1007/s10509-020-03831-4

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, Radio Science, 51, 1060, 10.1002/2015RS005877

    Li , D., & Pan , Z. 2016, Radio Science, 51, 1060, 10.1002/2015RS005877

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li , D., Wang , P., Qian , L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  43. [51]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 129862, 10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8

    Li , J., Zuo , S., Wu , F., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 129862, 10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Xiao , T., & Wang , J

    Li , X., Li , C., Mo , H. J., Xiao , T., & Wang , J. 2022, , 941, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ccb

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J

    Li , Y., Santos , M. G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J. 2021, , 501, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/staa3856

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    Li , Y., Wang , Y., Deng , F., et al. 2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Oh , S

    Lidz , A., Furlanetto , S. R., Oh , S. P., et al. 2011, , 741, 70, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/70

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03988, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03988

    Liu , D., Li , Y., Tramonte , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03988, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03988

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Loeb , A., & Wyithe , J. S. B. 2008, , 100, 161301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.161301

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09903, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09903

    Ma , W., Guo , H., Xu , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09903, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09903

    2024 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2008, , 78, 023529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023529

    Mao , Y., Tegmark , M., McQuinn , M., Zaldarriaga , M., & Zahn , O. 2008, , 78, 023529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023529

    2008 doi

  52. [61]

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

    Martin, A. M., Papastergis, E., Giovanelli, R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 1359, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1359

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    W., Switzer , E

    Masui , K. W., Switzer , E. R., Banavar , N., et al. 2013, , 763, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L20

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    L., et al

    MeerKLASS Collaboration , Barberi-Squarotti , M., Bernal , J. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21626, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21626

    2024 doi arXiv

  55. [64]

    2017, , 34, 52, 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

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

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan , R., Li , D., Jin , C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    2011 doi

  57. [66]

    2018, , 475, 624, 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 475, 624, 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M

    Newburgh , L. B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M. A., et al. 2016, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, HIRAX: a probe of dark energy and radio transients , 99065X, 10.1117/12.2234286

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    Ni , S., Li , Y., Gao , L.-Y., & Zhang , X. 2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    Oosterloo , T., Verheijen , M. A. W., van Cappellen , W., et al. 2009, in Wide Field Astronomy & Technology for the Square Kilometre Array, 70, 10.22323/1.132.0070

    2009 doi

  62. [71]

    J., Allison , J

    Pan , H., Jarvis , M. J., Allison , J. R., et al. 2020, , 491, 1227, 10.1093/mnras/stz3030

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    J., Ponomareva , A

    Pan , H., Jarvis , M. J., Ponomareva , A. A., et al. 2021, , 508, 1897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2601

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    J., Zhu , M., et al

    Pan , H., Jarvis , M. J., Zhu , M., et al. 2024, , 534, 202, 10.1093/mnras/stae2054

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    Pan, J.-D., Wu, P.-J., Du, G.-H., Li, Y., & Zhang, X. 2024. 2408.00268

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11943, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11943

    2023 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    G., Townsend , J., et al

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Townsend , J., et al. 2021, , 505, 2039, 10.1093/mnras/stab1089

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    2022, , 517, 4637, 10.1093/mnras/stac2832

    Perdereau , O., Ansari , R., Stebbins , A., et al. 2022, , 517, 4637, 10.1093/mnras/stac2832

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al

    Peterson , J. B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol. 2010, 234. 0902.3091

    2009 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  71. [80]

    R., & Loeb , A

    Pritchard , J. R., & Loeb , A. 2008, , 78, 103511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103511

    2008 doi

  72. [81]

    2020, in The Build-Up of Galaxies through Multiple Tracers and Facilities, 18, 10.5281/zenodo.3756456

    Rhee , J. 2020, in The Build-Up of Galaxies through Multiple Tracers and Facilities, 18, 10.5281/zenodo.3756456

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    H., et al

    Rhee , J., Lah , P., Briggs , F. H., et al. 2018, , 473, 1879, 10.1093/mnras/stx2461

    2018 doi

  74. [83]

    L., & Schneider , S

    Rosenberg , J. L., & Schneider , S. E. 2002, , 567, 247, 10.1086/338377

    2002 doi

  75. [84]

    J., Samushia , L., Howlett , C., et al

    Ross , A. J., Samushia , L., Howlett , C., et al. 2015, , 449, 835, 10.1093/mnras/stv154

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19

    Santos , M., Bull , P., Alonso , D., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19. 1501.03989

    2015 arXiv

  77. [86]

    G., Cluver , M., Hilton , M., et al

    Santos , M. G., Cluver , M., Hilton , M., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.06099. 1709.06099

    2017 arXiv

  78. [87]

    D., Norris , J

    Scargle , J. D., Norris , J. P., Jackson , B., & Chiang , J. 2013, , 764, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    2013 doi

  79. [88]

    Schneider , S. E. 2008, in Dark Galaxies and Lost Baryons, ed. J. I. Davies & M. J. Disney , Vol. 244, 103--111, 10.1017/S1743921307013889

    2008 doi

  80. [89]

    2010, , 721, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/164

    Seo , H.-J., Dodelson , S., Marriner , J., et al. 2010, , 721, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/164

    2010 doi

  81. [90]

    J., Battye , R

    Square Kilometre Array Cosmology Science Working Group , Bacon , D. J., Battye , R. A., et al. 2020, , 37, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2019.51

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    R., et al

    Strateva , I., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Knapp , G. R., et al. 2001, , 122, 1861, 10.1086/323301

    2001 doi

  83. [92]

    A., Weinberg , D

    Strauss , M. A., Weinberg , D. H., Lupton , R. H., et al. 2002, , 124, 1810, 10.1086/342343

    2002 doi

  84. [93]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065020, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d

    Sun , S., Li , J., Wu , F., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065020, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d

    2022 doi

  85. [94]

    R., Masui , K

    Switzer , E. R., Masui , K. W., Bandura , K., et al. 2013, , 434, L46, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt074

    2013 doi

  86. [95]

    2009, in Panoramic Radio Astronomy: Wide-field 1-2 GHz Research on Galaxy Evolution, 10, 10.22323/1.089.0010

    Verheijen , M., Oosterloo , T., Heald , G., & van Cappellen , W. 2009, in Panoramic Radio Astronomy: Wide-field 1-2 GHz Research on Galaxy Evolution, 10, 10.22323/1.089.0010

    2009 doi

  87. [96]

    G., Bull , P., et al

    Wang , J., Santos , M. G., Bull , P., et al. 2021, , 505, 3698, 10.1093/mnras/stab1365

    2021 doi

  88. [97]

    B., et al

    Wolz , L., Blake , C., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2017, , 464, 4938, 10.1093/mnras/stw2556

    2017 doi

  89. [98]

    W., et al

    Wolz , L., Pourtsidou , A., Masui , K. W., et al. 2022, , 510, 3495, 10.1093/mnras/stab3621

    2022 doi

  90. [99]

    2021, , 506, 3455, 10.1093/mnras/stab1802

    Wu , F., Li , J., Zuo , S., et al. 2021, , 506, 3455, 10.1093/mnras/stab1802

    2021 doi

  91. [100]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 270413, 10.1007/s11433-022-2104-7

    Wu , P.-J., Li , Y., Zhang , J.-F., & Zhang , X. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 270413, 10.1007/s11433-022-2104-7

    2023 doi

  92. [101]

    2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 052, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/052

    Wu, P.-J., Shao, Y., Jin, S.-J., & Zhang, X. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 052, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/052

    2023 doi

  93. [102]

    2022, JCAP, 01, 060, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060

    Wu, P.-J., & Zhang, X. 2022, JCAP, 01, 060, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060

    2022 doi

  94. [104]

    Wyithe , J. S. B., Loeb , A., & Geil , P. M. 2008, , 383, 1195, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12631.x

    2008

  95. [105]

    2015, , 798, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/40

    Xu , Y., Wang , X., & Chen , X. 2015, , 798, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/40

    2015 doi

  96. [106]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08173, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08173

    Yang , W., Wolz , L., Li , Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08173, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08173

    2024 doi arXiv

  97. [107]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    Zhang , C.-P., Zhu , M., Jiang , P., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    2024 doi

  98. [108]

    2019, Phys

    Zhang, J.-F., Gao, L.-Y., He, D.-Z., & Zhang, X. 2019, Phys. Lett. B, 799, 135064, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135064

    2019

  99. [109]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959506, 10.1007/s11433-019-9383-y

    Zhang , K., Wu , J., Li , D., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959506, 10.1007/s11433-019-9383-y

    2019 doi

  100. [110]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2420, 10.1093/mnras/stad2033

    Zhang, M., Li, Y., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2420, 10.1093/mnras/stad2033

    2023 doi

  101. [111]

    2021, Astrophys

    Zhang, M., Wang, B., Wu, P.-J., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 918, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef5

    2021 doi

  102. [112]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02582, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02582

    Zhao , X., Li , Y., Yang , W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02582, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02582

    2024 doi arXiv

  103. [113]

    A., Meyer , M

    Zwaan , M. A., Meyer , M. J., Staveley-Smith , L., & Webster , R. L. 2005, , 359, L30, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00029.x

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.