Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Study of giant radio galaxies using spectroscopic observations from the Himalayan Chandra Telescope

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spectroscopic redshifts confirm all eleven targeted sources are giants, with projected linear sizes from 0.7 to 2.9 Mpc.

desk verdict Solid spectroscopic follow-up of 11 GRG candidates, but the confirmation claim for GRG10 is not supported by the quoted precision. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06068 v1 pith:Y5MIQ7SQ submitted 2025-02-09 astro-ph.GA

Sagar Sethi , Pratik Dabhade , K.G. Biju , C. S. Stalin , Marek Jamrozy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords giantradiogalaxiesactivegalacticnucleispectroscopicredshiftsjetsFanaroff-RileytypeIIhigh-andlow-excitationAGNfeedbackmegaparsec-scalesources
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 sets out to prove that eleven radio sources previously listed as candidate giant radio galaxies really are giants. Using optical spectra of their host galaxies taken with a 2-metre class telescope, the authors measure spectroscopic redshifts between 0.093 and 0.411, and combine these with angular sizes from radio survey maps to obtain projected linear sizes of 0.7 to 2.9 Mpc. Every source therefore clears the 700 kpc threshold that defines a giant radio source, yielding ten giant radio galaxies and one giant radio quasar. Three of the sources are confirmed as giants for the first time, two exceed 2 Mpc, and one host shows signs of a 12 kpc jet-driven ionized outflow. The result matters because photometric redshifts, the usual substitute, can misplace sources across the giant threshold by large margins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is long-slit optical spectroscopy: grism spectra from a long-slit spectrograph on the 2-metre telescope yield emission- and absorption-line wavelengths, which are averaged to give each host's redshift, and the redshift converts the measured angular separation of radio hotspots into a projected linear size that can be compared with the 700 kpc giant criterion. The angular sizes come from archival radio survey maps, and higher-resolution radio imaging is used to confirm that a compact radio core coincides with the optical host. A secondary mechanism is the [O iii] equivalent-width criterion for separating high- and low-excitation AGN, which supports the physical interpretation of the confirmed giants.

What would settle it

If deeper, higher-resolution radio imaging of the marginal source were to show its true end-to-end extent is below the value that puts it at exactly 0.7 Mpc, or that the compact radio core used to identify its host actually belongs to a different galaxy, then the claim that all eleven sources are giants would fail; the same test applies to any of the other ten sources.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that all eleven targeted host galaxies have secure spectroscopic redshifts and all eleven radio sources are giants: projected linear sizes run from 0.7 Mpc (J2059+2434) to 2.92 Mpc (J0235+1011), with J0151-1112 at 2.79 Mpc. The sample comprises ten giant radio galaxies and one giant radio quasar (J0847+3831), all with Fanaroff-Riley type II, edge-brightened morphology. Spectroscopy also classifies the AGN excitation: six hosts are low-excitation radio galaxies, four are narrow-line high-excitation radio galaxies, and one is a quasar. In J0151-1112, [O iii] emission extends roughly 12 kpc on both sides of the core and aligns with the radio lobe direction, which the authors read as a candidate AGN jet-driven ionized outflow.

Load-bearing premise

The angular sizes read off radio survey maps, multiplied by the new spectroscopic redshifts, put all eleven sources just above the 700 kpc giant threshold, but no uncertainty is quoted on those sizes and one source sits at exactly 700 kpc, so the classification of the marginal source is not demonstrated with the presented precision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All eleven sources can now be used as spectroscopically confirmed giants in statistical studies, and three of them are new to the confirmed population.
  • The two sources above 2.5 Mpc, at 2.79 and 2.92 Mpc, become rare benchmark objects for studying how radio jets grow to megaparsec scales.
  • If the 12 kpc [O iii] outflow in J0151-1112 is confirmed, it would be among the few AGN jet-driven ionized outflows exceeding 10 kpc, directly linking jet activity to gas removal in a giant host.
  • The six-to-five split between low- and high-excitation hosts adds weight to the view that radiatively inefficient accretion dominates in giant radio galaxies.
  • The measured arm-length ratios of 1.12 to 1.59 match earlier giant-radio-galaxy samples and differ from smaller radio galaxies, supporting environment- or orientation-driven asymmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If photometric redshifts are as unreliable as the paper's J0644+1043 example suggests, a nontrivial share of the roughly 11,500 giant-radio-galaxy candidates in recent machine-learning catalogues may fail the 700 kpc test when reobserved spectroscopically; this paper's campaign is a model for how to test that.
  • Because J2059+2434 is quoted at exactly 0.7 Mpc with no angular-size error, a slightly different measurement of its hotspot separation or a revised redshift could drop it below the giant threshold; targeted high-resolution imaging of that one source would decide its status.
  • The apparent asymmetry trends in giants are probably biased by selection against faint, lopsided sources, so the median arm-length ratio should be remeasured on a blind, spectroscopically complete sample before being interpreted as a purely environmental signal.
  • Future space-based spectroscopy in the redshift window 0.8 to roughly 2 could confirm or reject many currently photometric high-redshift giant candidates, testing whether the giant population thins out at earlier cosmic epochs.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HCT/HFOSC long-slit spectroscopy of eleven candidate giant radio galaxies drawn from the SAGAN project, measures spectroscopic redshifts from multiple emission and absorption lines, and combines these with NVSS, LoTSS, and VLASS archival data to derive radio morphologies, angular and projected linear sizes, flux densities, radio powers, core dominance factors, and arm-length ratios. The main claim is that all eleven sources are confirmed as giants, with linear sizes from 0.7 to 2.9 Mpc, including ten GRGs and one giant radio quasar; three of the GRGs are reported as new. The paper also identifies a candidate AGN jet-driven ionized outflow in GRG2 and discusses the AGN excitation states of the sample.

Significance. If the confirmations hold, the paper adds eleven spectroscopic redshifts to the census of giant radio sources, including three newly reported GRGs and a rare ~2.9 Mpc source, and demonstrates the value of 2-m-class spectroscopic follow-up for low-surface-brightness candidates missed by large surveys. The multi-line redshift determination is a strength, and the agreement of GRQ7 with SDSS provides an external consistency check. The central caveat is that the confirmation claim for GRG10 rests on a single rounded value near the 700 kpc threshold without quoted uncertainties, so the blanket 'all eleven confirmed' statement is not yet demonstrated at the presented precision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 2] GRG10 (J2059+2434) is the load-bearing case for the blanket confirmation claim, and it is listed with an angular size of 6.7 arcmin and a linear size of 0.7 Mpc, with no uncertainty on either quantity. Using the stated Planck cosmology, the angular diameter distance at z=0.09372 gives roughly 0.108 Mpc per arcmin, so 6.7 arcmin corresponds to approximately 0.72 Mpc, only about 3% above the 700 kpc threshold. Because the angular size is measured manually between hotspot peaks in 45-arcsec-resolution NVSS maps, a conservative uncertainty of ±0.3 arcmin on the 6.7 arcmin extent translates to ±0.03 Mpc, which straddles the threshold. The abstract's claim that all eleven sources are confirmed giants therefore requires either a propagated uncertainty demonstrating that GRG10 exceeds 700 kpc with confidence or a revised statement classifying it as a borderline candidate. The authors should also clarify whether the GRG definition is strictly 'greater than' or 'greater than or equal to' 700 kpc and quote linear sizes with uncertainties.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Table 2] The angular-size measurement procedure is described only as the largest distance between two hotspot peaks (for FR-II sources), with no quantification of how the peak positions were determined or what uncertainty is associated with them. This matters not only for GRG10 but also for sources such as GRG8, which is described as having diffuse lobes 'without bright hotspots,' where the hotspot-peak definition is ambiguous. The paper should specify the measurement method (e.g., fitted component positions, contour levels, or visual inspection), quote angular-size uncertainties, and propagate them together with the redshift errors into the projected linear sizes for all sources. Without this, the 'precise calculations' of linear sizes advertised in the abstract are not supported by the presented analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text states that 'Two GRGs (GRQ7 and GRG12) are also well detected in the LoTSS-DR2,' but the sample contains only eleven sources numbered GRG1 through GRG11; this appears to be a typo for GRG11, which is indeed discussed with LoTSS maps in Section 5.6.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'Obervation log'; it should read 'Observation log.'
  3. [Section 2.2] The text states that 'The spatial sampling scale at the detector is 870 nm per arcsecond,' which is likely a typographical error for an angular scale in arcseconds per pixel or similar; the current wording has incorrect units.
  4. [Section 1 and Table 2] The definition of GRGs is given as 'greater than 700 kpc,' but Table 2 lists sizes rounded to one decimal in Mpc, including the borderline value 0.7 Mpc for GRG10. The authors should state whether the threshold is inclusive or exclusive and ensure that the abstract's phrase '0.7 to 2.9 Mpc' is consistent with the quoted definition once uncertainties are included.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The figure caption and labels appear to include 'GRG 12' and repeated panel labels; the caption should be corrected to list exactly the eleven sources in the sample and to remove duplicate labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central claim follows from new HCT spectroscopic redshifts and independently measured radio angular sizes, with no fitted-input or self-citation loop.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is direct and observationally grounded. Spectroscopic redshifts are measured from HCT/HFOSC spectra via identified emission and absorption lines (Tab. A.1, Sec. 4.1), and angular sizes are measured from NVSS/LoTSS maps as the distance between hotspot peaks (Sec. 4.3, Tab. 2). The projected linear sizes are then computed from these two independent inputs under a stated Planck cosmology. There is no parameter fitted to a subset of the size data and later called a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result. The self-citations (SAGAN, Dabhade et al. catalogues) are contextual and historical, not used to justify the measured redshifts or the derived sizes. The only borderline element is GRG10, listed at exactly 0.7 Mpc with no quoted uncertainty on the angular size, which is a precision and threshold-consistency concern rather than a circular derivation. The central confirmation claim is therefore self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured redshifts, measured angular sizes, and the adopted cosmology. The only hand-chosen parameters are the spectral indices used for secondary luminosity estimates. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Extended spectral index alpha_ext = 0.75 (assumed)
    Assumed in Sec 4.3 to convert NVSS 1.4 GHz total flux to total radio power; not fitted, and does not affect the central size claim.
  • Core spectral index alpha_core = 0.5 (assumed)
    Assumed in Sec 4.3 to compute core radio power at 3 GHz from VLASS core flux; not fitted, does not affect the size claim.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0=67.8 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.308 (Planck 2015)
    Stated in Sec 1; used for all distance and linear size conversions.
  • domain assumption GRG classification threshold: projected linear size > 700 kpc
    Adopted in Sec 1 from the literature; defines what 'giant' means and anchors the confirmation claim.
  • domain assumption Candidate sample selection from SAGAN search: angular size plus photometric redshift or host faintness
    Described in Sec 2.1; sample representativeness affects population comparisons but not the measured sizes.
  • domain assumption AGN excitation classification via [O III] EW > 5 Å (Best & Heckman 2012)
    Applied in Sec 4.2; external criterion adopted from the literature.
  • domain assumption Radio core in VLASS coincides with the optical host galaxy for every source
    Stated in Sec 3.2; if a core were misidentified, the redshift would be assigned to the wrong galaxy and the size would be wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of giant radio galaxies using spectroscopic observations from the Himalayan Chandra Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5MIQ7SQ

@misc{pith2026250206068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of giant radio galaxies using spectroscopic observations from the Himalayan Chandra Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5MIQ7SQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06068}
}
abstract

We present the results of spectroscopic observations of host galaxies of eleven candidate giant radio galaxies (GRGs), powered by active galactic nuclei (AGNs), conducted with the 2-m Himalayan Chandra Telescope (HCT). The primary aim of these observations, performed with the Hanle Faint Object Spectrograph Camera (HFOSC), was to secure accurate spectroscopic redshifts, enabling precise calculations of their projected linear sizes. Based on these measurements, we confirm all eleven sources as giants, with linear sizes ranging from 0.7 to 2.9 Mpc, including ten GRGs and one giant radio quasar (GRQ). One of the GRGs shows evidence of a potential AGN jet-driven ionized outflow, extending up to $\sim$12 kpc, which, if confirmed, would represent a rarely observed feature. Two of the confirmed GRGs exceed 2 Mpc in size, which are relatively rare examples of GRG. The redshifts of the host galaxies span 0.09323 $\leq$ z $\leq$ 0.41134. Using the obtained spectroscopic data, we characterised their AGN states based on the optical emission line properties. To complement these observations, archival radio and optical survey data were utilised to characterise their large-scale radio morphology and estimate projected linear sizes, arm-length ratios, flux densities, luminosities, and core dominance factors. These results provide new insights into the properties of GRSs and form a critical foundation for further detailed studies of their environments, AGN activity, and evolution using future high-sensitivity optical and radio datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Montage of optical colour images of host galaxies at centre (highlighted using two white marker lines) of 10 GRGs and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Montage of new GRGs: Each GRG shown in the NVSS contours overlay on the PanSTARRS-DR1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In the upper and lower panels we present new radio maps of GRQ7 and GRG11, respectively. On the left-hand side is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3

    2020

  2. [2]

    F., & Willis, A

    Andernach, H., Jiménez-Andrade, E. F., & Willis, A. G. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 99 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2007, ApJ, 670, L85

    Bagchi, J., Gopal-Krishna, Krause, M., & Joshi, S. 2007, ApJ, 670, L85

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255

    1984

  5. [5]

    Best, P. N. & Heckman, T. M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1569

    2012

  6. [6]

    Bridle, A. H. & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

    1998

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Cowsik, R., Srinivasan, R., & Prabhu, T. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 266, Astronomical Site Evaluation in the Vis- ible and Radio Range, ed. J. Vernin, Z. Benkhaldoun, & C. Muñoz-Tuñón, 424

    2002

  2. [10]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2886

    Dabhade, P., Gaikwad, M., Bagchi, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2886

    2017

  3. [11]

    J., & Mahato, M

    Dabhade, P., Saikia, D. J., & Mahato, M. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 13

    2023

  4. [12]

    W., Bagchi, J., et al

    Dabhade, P., Shimwell, T. W., Bagchi, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A64 Delli Veneri, M., Cavuoti, S., Brescia, M., Longo, G., & Riccio, G. 2019, MN- RAS, 486, 1377 DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 58

    2022

  5. [13]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  6. [14]

    Duncan, K. J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3662

    2022

  7. [15]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72

    2011

  8. [16]

    Fanaroff, B. L. & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P

    1974

  9. [17]

    B., Bridle, A

    Fomalont, E. B., Bridle, A. H., Willis, A. G., & Perley, R. A. 1980, ApJ, 237, 418 Gopal-Krishna & Wiita, P. J. 2004, Asymmetries in Powerful Extragalactic Ra- dio Sources

    1980

  10. [18]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y . A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30 Gürkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., & Jarvis, M. J. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1149

    2021

  11. [19]

    Hardcastle, M. J. & Croston, J. H. 2020, New A Rev., 88, 101539

    2020

  12. [20]

    J., Horton, M

    Hardcastle, M. J., Horton, M. A., Williams, W. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A151

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  14. [22]

    Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. & Saikia, D. J. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 100

    1999

  15. [23]

    Jaegers, W. J. 1987, A&AS, 71, 75

    1987

  16. [24]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Thomson, A. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2710 Ku´ zmicz, A., Jamrozy, M., Bronarska, K., Janda-Boczar, K., & Saikia, D. J. 2018, ApJS, 238, 9 Ku´ zmicz, A., Sethi, S., & Jamrozy, M. 2021, ApJ, 922, 52

    2019

  17. [25]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

    2020

  18. [26]

    D., et al

    Lara, L., Márquez, I., Cotton, W. D., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 826

    2001

  19. [27]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2007, Acta Astron., 57, 227

    Machalski, J., Koziel-Wierzbowska, D., & Jamrozy, M. 2007, Acta Astron., 57, 227

    2007

  21. [29]

    2004, arXiv e-prints, astro- ph/0401182

    Machalski, J., Zola, S., Koziel, D., & Jamrozy, M. 2004, arXiv e-prints, astro- ph/0401182

    2004

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Mahato, M., Dabhade, P., Saikia, D. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A59

    2022

  23. [31]

    J., van Breugel, W., & Kapahi, V

    McCarthy, P. J., van Breugel, W., & Kapahi, V . K. 1991, ApJ, 371, 478

    1991

  24. [32]

    Morton, D. C. 1991, ApJS, 77, 119

    1991

  25. [33]

    Mostert, R. I. J., Oei, M. S. S. L., Barkus, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A185

    2024

  26. [34]

    Mullin, L. M. & Hardcastle, M. J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1989

    2009

  27. [35]

    2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei (Cam- bridge University Press)

    Netzer, H. 2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei (Cam- bridge University Press)

    2013

  28. [36]

    & Granger, B

    Perez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21

    2007

  29. [37]

    A., Bridle, A

    Perley, R. A., Bridle, A. H., & Willis, A. G. 1984, ApJS, 54, 291

    1984

  30. [38]

    J., Singh, M., & Chandola, H

    Pirya, A., Saikia, D. J., Singh, M., & Chandola, H. C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 758 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2012

  31. [39]

    Prabhu, T. P. 2014, Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy Part A, 80, 887

    2014

  32. [40]

    Prabhu, T. P. & Anupama, G. C. 2010, in Astronomical Society of India Confer- ence Series, V ol. 1, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 193– 201

    2010

  33. [41]

    & Edgar, B

    Rudnick, L. & Edgar, B. K. 1984, ApJ, 279, 74

    1984

  34. [42]

    Saikia, D. J. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 97

    2022

  35. [43]

    & Dabhade, P

    Sankhyayan, S. & Dabhade, P. 2024, A&A, 687, L8

    2024

  36. [44]

    P., de Bruyn, A

    Schoenmakers, A. P., de Bruyn, A. G., Röttgering, H. J. A., & van der Laan, H. 2001, A&A, 374, 861

    2001

  37. [45]

    P., Mack, K

    Schoenmakers, A. P., Mack, K. H., de Bruyn, A. G., et al. 2000, A&AS, 146, 293

    2000

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 156

    Sethi, S., Ku´ zmicz, A., Jamrozy, M., & Slavcheva-Mihova, L. 2024, ApJ, 969, 156

    2024

  39. [47]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A1

    2019

  40. [48]

    K., & Barthel, P

    Simonte, M., Andernach, H., Brüggen, M., Miley, G. K., & Barthel, P. 2024, A&A, 686, A21

    2024

  41. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2032

    Simonte, M., Andernach, H., Brüggen, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2032

    2022

  42. [50]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  43. [51]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  44. [52]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  45. [53]

    G., Strom, R

    Willis, A. G., Strom, R. G., & Wilson, A. S. 1974, Nature, 250, 625

    1974

  46. [54]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  47. [55]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 Article number, page 10 Sethi & Dabhade et al.: Study of giant radio galaxies using spectroscopic observations from the Himalayan Chandra Telescope Appendix A: Spectral line and redshift identification ...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.