Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AstroSat UVIT Survey of M31: New Compact Source Catalog

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A six-band ultraviolet survey of M31 yields roughly 115,000 compact sources with positions, fluxes, magnitudes, and signal-to-noise ratios.

desk verdict A useful catalog release with a few numerical rough edges; referee it, but ask for fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08851 v1 pith:R5H43JFG submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.GA

Denis Leahy , Sujith Ranasinghe , Saptadwipa Mitra , Kripansh Rawal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords M31AndromedagalaxyultravioletsurveycompactsourcecatalogUVITFUVandNUVphotometrycrowded-fieldextractionhotmassivestars
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 the completed AstroSat UVIT survey of M31, covering about 3.5 by 1.3 degrees in six ultraviolet bands, detects roughly 115,000 compact sources at signal-to-noise S/N greater than or equal to 3, and about 95,000 at S/N greater than or equal to 5. It releases a combined catalog with positions, fluxes, AB magnitudes, and S/N, with astrometric agreement of 0.2 to 0.25 arcseconds against the Gaia DR3 reference frame. The deepest band, F148W, covers most of the galaxy and reaches an incompleteness limit near m_AB = 23.0 and a faintest detectable magnitude near 25.4, while the least sensitive band, N279N, becomes incomplete near 20.3. Because M31 lies at a nearly uniform distance, a reliable ultraviolet catalog of this size gives astronomers a clean sample of hot stars, clusters, and other ultraviolet emitters for population and multiwavelength studies.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the UVIT instrument's two 38 cm telescopes and six filters, F148W, F154W, F169M, and F172M in the far ultraviolet and N219M and N279N in the near ultraviolet, giving about one-arcsecond resolution and fields of about 28 arcminutes across. Source counts come from fitting elliptical Gaussians in a fixed box, multiplied by a curve-of-growth correction factor of 1.82 calibrated on isolated point sources to recover total counts including the point-spread-function wings; count rates are corrected for coincidence loss and converted to fluxes and AB magnitudes with updated conversion factors. Astrometry uses a CD-Matrix gnomonic projection calibrated by matching roughly one hundred sources per image to Gaia DR3, with spacecraft-jitter corrections, yielding typical root-mean-square offsets of 0.2 to 0.25 arcseconds.

What would settle it

Inject artificial point sources with known fluxes into the F148W image, run the same source-extraction procedure, and compare recovered flux and detection fraction as a function of local crowding: if the 50 percent completeness magnitude is not near m_AB approximately 23.0, or if recovered flux deviates systematically from the input as nearby source density increases, the stated completeness limits and the 1.82 aperture correction do not hold for crowded fields.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that with the full set of UVIT observations from 2016 through 2024, updated instrument calibration, Gaia DR3-based astrometry, and improved crowded-field source extraction, the M31 UVIT survey yields a substantially larger and more accurate compact-source catalog than the 2020 version: about 115,000 sources at S/N greater than or equal to 3 and 95,000 at S/N greater than or equal to 5 across the six far- and near-ultraviolet filters, with about 54,000 F148W detections alone. They report per-band completeness limits, a faintest F148W detection at m_AB approximately 25.4, and a photometric system tied to updated zero points. Sources detected twice in overlapping fields agree to within about one arcsecond and are averaged into the final catalog, which contains filter, field, J2000 position, flux, S/N, and AB magnitude for each entry.

Load-bearing premise

The catalog's brightnesses assume that a single correction factor, measured on isolated stars, converts the fitted brightness of every source into its true total brightness even when sources are crowded and blended; if that factor is wrong in crowded regions, all catalog fluxes and magnitudes carry a systematic error that the quoted signal-to-noise does not reflect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The catalog gives roughly 115,000 ultraviolet-selected point-source candidates in M31 for cross-matching with optical, infrared, radio, and X-ray surveys.
  • The F148W band, covering most of M31 to an incompleteness limit near m_AB = 23.0, provides a deep map of hot massive stars and star-forming regions across the disk and bulge.
  • The six filter bands with partially overlapping coverage allow multi-band ultraviolet colors for sources in the common areas, which can help classify hot stars and clusters.
  • The astrometric agreement of 0.2 to 0.25 arcseconds with Gaia DR3 positions makes the catalog suitable for matching to point sources at other wavelengths and for variability follow-up.
  • The source count is considerably larger than the 2020 catalog, reflecting added observations, new fields, and improved calibration and processing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not derive luminosity functions or star-formation histories from the catalog, but if the catalog is as complete as claimed, a natural next step is to construct FUV and NUV luminosity functions for M31's stellar populations.
  • The 1.82 aperture-correction factor deserves a crowding-dependent test: comparing UVIT photometry against higher-resolution space-based ultraviolet or optical photometry in dense versus sparse regions would show whether the quoted roughly 10 percent systematic uncertainty covers blended sources.
  • Because several fields were observed at multiple epochs between 2016 and 2024, the archived images could support a variability search across the full baseline, extending earlier work that found FUV variable sources; the current catalog is not time-resolved.
  • The near-ultraviolet channel failed before survey completion, so N219M and N279N cover only the central fields; users should not treat the NUV source counts as a whole-galaxy census.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Leahy et al. present the second-generation compact source catalog from the AstroSat UVIT M31 survey, using observations from 2016-2024 in six FUV/NUV filters. They report ~115,000 filter-band detections with S/N>=3 (~95,000 with S/N>=5), roughly a factor 2-3 increase over the 2020 catalog. Astrometry is calibrated with Gaia DR3, yielding ~0.2-0.25 arcsec RMS residuals. Photometry is based on elliptical Gaussian fits with a fixed 1.82 aperture correction derived from isolated sources. The paper provides per-band source counts, dual-source repeatability comparisons, sensitivity estimates, and releases a combined catalog with positions, fluxes, magnitudes, and S/N.

Significance. If validated, this catalog is a valuable community resource: it provides ~1"-resolution UV imaging over a large fraction of M31, a wavelength regime with few comparable large-area catalogs. The paper's strengths include the full use of the extended survey, updated calibration, Gaia-based astrometry with demonstrated sub-0.25" residuals, internal consistency checks on overlapping-field duplicate detections, and visual inspection of roughly a thousand Gaussian fits. There is no problematic circularity: the catalog is an independent measurement. The principal gaps are the lack of external photometric validation in crowded regions and the use of the observed flux-distribution turnover as a completeness estimator; both need to be addressed for the catalog's scientific use to be secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Section 3.1, Table 5] The photometric calibration applies a single correction factor of 1.82 (the COG-to-Gaussian ratio measured on isolated sources) to all sources, including those in crowded fields where neighboring sources contribute to the fixed fitting box. The paper acknowledges in Section 3.1 a ~10% systematic uncertainty from source fitting in crowded regions, but this value is not derived or propagated, and the released catalog table (Table 5) reports only the statistical Poisson-based S/N with no systematic-error column or crowding flag. Because the central claim is the reliability of the fluxes and magnitudes, this omission is load-bearing: users may mistake the quoted S/N for total uncertainty. Please add per-source systematic uncertainties or a crowding flag, and validate the 1.82 factor on independent data (e.g., PHAT/HST photometry in overlapping regions) or through simulations of blended sources.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3, Abstract] The completeness limits are estimated from the peak of the observed flux distribution. This assumes that the intrinsic source counts decline at faint fluxes, whereas for an external galaxy the counts are expected to rise steeply toward the faint end; the peak is the convolution of the true luminosity function with detection efficiency, not a direct estimate of the 50% completeness limit. The quoted m_AB values at which "incompleteness sets in" (e.g., ~23.0 for F148W) are therefore not robust. Please replace this with injection-recovery tests that map completeness versus magnitude and local crowding/background, or at minimum reframe the abstract and Section 3 values as "the flux at which the observed counts turn over" rather than as completeness limits.
  3. [Section 2.1, Table 4, Table 5] The source acceptance criteria (FWHM_x, FWHM_y < 5 pixels and eccentricity e < 0.8) are derived from visual inspection of about 1000 sources in two fields, but no false-positive rate or contamination fraction is reported for the full survey. The ~30% rejection rate is quoted for the inspected subsample only, and it is unclear whether the rejection rate and the residual rate of confused fits that pass the criteria vary across the 23 fields and six filters. The released catalog would be much more useful with a per-source quality flag (e.g., isolated/crowded/possibly blended) and a quantitative statement of expected contamination as a function of position and flux.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract has an unbalanced parenthesis: "with least sensitive band (in m_AB units) N279N with incompleteness for sources fainter than ≃20.3)". Please correct the typo and read the sentence aloud to ensure it parses.
  2. [Abstract, Section 3] The phrase "~115,000 sources ... detected at FUV or NUV wavelengths" refers to filter-band detections summed over six bands, but a single physical source can appear in multiple filters and multiple bands. Please clarify in the abstract and catalog documentation whether the quoted number is unique sources or filter-band entries.
  3. [Section 3] In the first sentence of Section 3, "contructed" should be "constructed".
  4. [Table 1] The exposure time and BJD columns in Table 1 are difficult to parse in the current draft; the footnotes and multiple subscripts make it hard to associate exposure times with individual observations. A cleaner table layout or a machine-readable observation log would help users reproduce the data processing.
  5. [Section 2.1, Figure 2] The text describes the acceptance criteria as if they follow from the properties of confused fits, but the criteria were set after visual inspection. Please state explicitly that the FWHM and eccentricity cuts were derived empirically from the visually classified sample, and note the color coding of Figure 2 in the main text so that grayscale printing does not obscure the distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the catalog is a measured data product with externally anchored calibration and no derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's chain is observational rather than derivational: UVIT images are processed with CCDLAB, sources are fit with fixed-box elliptical Gaussians, counts are converted to total counts using a multiplicative aperture correction of 1.82, and count rates are converted to fluxes using UC factors from Tandon et al. (2020). None of these steps produces a prediction that is equivalent to its input by construction. The 1.82 correction is a calibration ratio measured on isolated point sources and 'verified for the current images' (Section 2.1), so it is not fitted to the catalog sources being reported. The UC factors are external instrument calibration from Tandon et al. (2020), not derived from M31 data. The completeness limits are estimated from the peaks of the observed flux distributions (Section 3), which is a data-descriptive estimate rather than a first-principles derivation; labeling the peak as the incompleteness limit is a naming choice, not a circular proof. The dual-source comparison in Figure 7 demonstrates repeatability of the same pipeline in overlapping fields, and repeatability is not circularity even though it is not an absolute accuracy check. The paper explicitly acknowledges ~1-2% calibration uncertainty and ~10% systematic uncertainty in crowded regions (Section 3.1); these are accuracy limitations to weigh in use of the catalog, not circular steps. The numerous citations to Leahy, Postma, and Tandon instrument-team papers are normal calibration/software references; the load-bearing calibration constants are re-verified or externally anchored, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from those citations. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalog's central claims rest on the UVIT calibration and software developed by the same instrument team, plus several ad hoc acceptance thresholds and an aperture correction derived from isolated sources. The completeness magnitudes are inferred from the same observed flux distributions without independent injection tests. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Gaussian smoothing sigma = 1.5 pixels (0.63 arcsec)
    Chosen by the authors to improve detection of faint sources; affects which sources are found (Section 2.1).
  • Gaussian fit acceptance thresholds = FWHM < 5 pixels (2.1 arcsec), eccentricity < 0.8
    Ad hoc criteria based on examination of confused fits in Fields F1 and F7; rejected about 30% of candidate sources (Section 2.1).
  • COG-to-Gaussian aperture correction = 1.82
    Mean ratio of curve-of-growth counts to elliptical Gaussian counts measured on isolated sources; applied to all sources to recover PSF wing flux (Section 2.1).
  • Dual matching radius = 1 arcsec
    Maximum separation used to identify the same source detected in adjacent fields; based on typical astrometric offsets (Section 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption UVIT flux calibration (UC conversion factors and zero points) from Tandon et al. (2020) is accurate for all sources.
    All fluxes and AB magnitudes in the catalog depend on these factors; cited in Section 2.1 and Table 3.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 positions provide an absolute astrometric reference for UVIT images.
    Used for coordinate calibration; positions have typical RMS 0.2-0.25 arcsec (Section 2).
  • domain assumption CCDLAB source detection and the authors' Gaussian fitting are reliable in crowded fields.
    The pipeline is not shipped; the paper relies on the software's outputs and visual checks of about 1000 sources (Section 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The peak of the observed flux distribution marks the onset of incompleteness.
    Used to quote completeness magnitudes in Section 3; no artificial-source injection or independent completeness simulation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The correction for PSF wings derived from isolated sources (factor 1.82) applies to non-isolated sources.
    Photometry depends on this; it is only verified for isolated point sources (Section 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AstroSat UVIT Survey of M31: New Compact Source Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5H43JFG

@misc{pith2026250208851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AstroSat UVIT Survey of M31: New Compact Source Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5H43JFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08851}
}
abstract

An ultraviolet survey of M31 has been carried out during 2017-23 with the UVIT instrument onboard the AstroSat Observatory. Here we present far and near ultraviolet (FUV and NUV) observations from the M31 UVIT survey, which covers a sky area of $\simeq 3.5^\circ \times 1.3^\circ$ with spatial resolution of $\simeq1^{\prime \prime}$. The observations included six filter bands in the wavelength range of 120 nm to 280 nm. Including the six bands, $\simeq$115,000 sources with signal-to-noise S/N$\ge$3 ( $\simeq$95,000 sources with signal-to-noise S/N$\ge$5) were detected at FUV or NUV wavelengths, with the largest set of detections ($\simeq$54,000 sources) in the FUV 150 nm band (F148W filter). This is considerably more than for the first version of the M31 source catalog (published in 2020), in part due to additional observations of M31 by UVIT and in part due to improved data processing. The magnitude (m$_{AB}$) at which incompleteness sets in is $\simeq$23.0 in the F148W band, with the other bands somewhat less sensitive, with least sensitive band (in m$_{AB}$ units) N279N with incompleteness for sources fainter than $\simeq$20.3). The faintest sources detectable in F148W have m$_{AB}\simeq$25.4, with other bands having higher minimum detectable brightness, with N279N having minimum detectable limit of m$_{AB}\simeq$22.1. The product of this work is the new M31 UVIT compact source catalog, containing positions, fluxes , magnitudes and S/N for the sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08851 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DSS Poss2 blue filter image of M31 (greyscale image). Right ascension and declination are J2000 coordinates. The white ellipse shows the D25 ellipse for M31 (Gil de Paz et al. 2007). The locations of the fields for the UVIT survey of M31 are shown by the circles. F8, F21 and F23 to F25 are new fields marked with thicker black circles. Fields F20 and F22 (grey circles) were not observed because of stars in those … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A small region (2.2′ wide by 1.5′ high) in the field F1 showing the F148W image and the sources detected using CCDLAB. Sources with eccentricity e > 0.8 are circled with cyan; sources with FW HMY > 5 circled with magenta: sources with FW HMX > 5 circled with blue; sources with 0.75 < e < 0.8 are circled with red; the remainder circled with green. The sources kept in the final selection have e < 0.8, FW HMX < 5 and F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of source fluxes for each of the filters: F148W, F154W, F169M, F172M, N219M and N279N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Map of UVIT F148W sources (red crosses) from the M31 survey. Bottom panel: Map of UVIT F154W sources (red crosses) overlaid on the F148W sources (grey crosses). The sources shown have a minimum signal-to-noise (S/N) of 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Map of UVIT F169M sources (red crosses) overlaid on the F148W sources (grey crosses). Bottom panel: Map of UVIT F172M sources (red crosses) overlaid on the F148W sources (grey crosses). The sources shown have a minimum S/N of 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Map of UVIT N219M sources (red crosses) overlaid on the F148W sources (grey crosses). Bottom panel: Map of UVIT N279N sources (red crosses) overlaid on the F148W sources (grey crosses). The sources shown have a minimum S/N of 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flux comparison for dual sources: those detected twice in the same filter in the overlap region of different Fields (shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

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. A Massive Yellow Supergiant in the Far Outer Disk of M31: Evidence for In Situ Massive Star Formation Beyond the Optical Radius

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A roughly 18 solar mass yellow supergiant at 34 kpc from M31's center, moving with a faint outer hydrogen arm, is the most distant massive star known in the galaxy and points to in situ formation beyond the optical radius.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sɓ'۔)= UL0 Tlݺնm[ 0xРAݿ ټdC 'Nt ,YX G m| l/

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    Bianchi, L., Efremova, B., Hodge, P., & Kang, Y.\ 2012, , 144, 142

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Bianchi, L., Kang, Y., Hodge, P., Dalcanton, J., & Williams, B.\ 2014, Advances in Space Research, 53, 928

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    R., & Greisen, E

    Calabretta, M. R., & Greisen, E. W.\ 2002, , 395, 1077

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    L.\ 2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0405087

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L.\ 2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0405087

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    J.\ 1993, , 409, 190

    Davidge, T. J.\ 1993, , 409, 190

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al.\ 2023, , 674, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  8. [8]

    F., et al.\ 2007, , 173, 185

    Gil de Paz, A., Boissier, S., Madore, B. F., et al.\ 2007, , 173, 185

    work page 2007

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hagen, L. M. Z.\ 2017, Ph.D. Thesis

    2017

  2. [10]

    Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Tanvir, N.\ 2001, , 412, 49

    2001

  3. [11]

    Kang, Y., Bianchi, L., & Rey, S.-C.\ 2009, , 703, 614

    2009

  4. [12]

    Kang, Y., Rey, S.-C., Bianchi, L., et al.\ 2012, , 199, 37

    2012

  5. [13]

    A., Postma, J., Chen, Y., et al.\ 2020, , 247, 47

    Leahy, D. A., Postma, J., Chen, Y., et al.\ 2020, , 247, 47. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab77a9

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe9b3

    Leahy, D., Buick, M., Postma, J., et al.\ 2021, , 161, 215. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe9b3

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Buick, M., & Postma, J

    Leahy, D. A., Buick, M., & Postma, J. E.\ 2021, , 162, 199. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1e93

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9058

    Leahy, D., Buick, M., & Leahy, C.\ 2022, , 164, 183. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9058

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb68d

    Leahy, D., Monaghan, C., & Ranasinghe, S.\ 2023, , 165, 116. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb68d

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae90

    Leahy, D., Craiciu, T., & Postma, J.\ 2023, , 265, 6. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae90

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Hansen, J., & Hopkins, A

    Leahy, D. A., Hansen, J., & Hopkins, A. M.\ 2024, , 167, 211. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad33cb

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    E., & Conti, P

    Massey, P., Armandroff, T. E., & Conti, P. S.\ 1986, , 92, 1303

    1986

  13. [21]

    Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., Hodge, P. W., et al.\ 2006, , 131, 2478

    2006

  14. [22]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al.\ 2005, , 356, 979

    2005

  15. [23]

    A., et al.\ 2007, , 173, 682

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al.\ 2007, , 173, 682

    2007

  16. [24]

    B., & Leahy, D.\ 2011, , 123, 833

    Postma, J., Hutchings, J. B., & Leahy, D.\ 2011, , 123, 833

    2011

  17. [25]

    E., & Leahy, D.\ 2017, , 129, 115002

    Postma, J. E., & Leahy, D.\ 2017, , 129, 115002

    2017

  18. [26]

    Postma, J. E. & Leahy, D.\ 2020, , 132, 054503. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee8

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Postma, J. E. & Leahy, D.\ 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 30. doi:10.1007/s12036-020-09689-w

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Tandon, S

    Postma, J. E., Tandon, S. N., Leahy, D., et al.\ 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 12. doi:10.1007/s12036-022-09901-z

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Siegel, M. H. & Gronwall, C.\ 2024, Universe, 10, 330. doi:10.3390/universe10080330

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    et al 2014, SPIE , 9144E , 1S

    Singh, K.P., Tandon, S.N., Agrawal, P.C. et al 2014, SPIE , 9144E , 1S

    2014

  23. [31]

    N., Hutchings, J., et al.\ 2016, , 9905, 99051F

    Subramaniam, A., Tandon, S. N., Hutchings, J., et al.\ 2016, , 9905, 99051F

    2016

  24. [32]

    N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al.\ 2017, , 154, 128

    Tandon, S. N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al.\ 2017, , 154, 128

    2017

  25. [33]

    N., Hutchings, J

    Tandon, S. N., Hutchings, J. B., Ghosh, S. K., et al.\ 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 28

    2017

  26. [34]

    N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 158

    Tandon, S. N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 158. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab72a3

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Hoopes, C

    Thilker, D. A., Hoopes, C. G., Bianchi, L., et al.\ 2005, , 619, L67

    2005

  28. [36]

    F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J

    Williams, B. F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J. J., et al.\ 2014, , 215, 9

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.