Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

MeerKAT view of Hickson Compact Groups:I. Data description and release

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MeerKAT observations of six compact galaxy groups find no diffuse hydrogen in the most evolved systems, supporting an abrupt transition from gas-rich to gas-poor phases.

desk verdict Solid, honest data release with great MeerKAT maps; the abrupt-transition conclusion overreaches because the diffuse HI non-detection is never tested against the GBT excess flux. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09691 v1 pith:N5W7BH5M submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.GA

R. Ianjamasimanana , L. Verdes-Montenegro , A. Sorgho , K. M. Hess , M. G. Jones , J. M. Cannon , J. M. Solanes , M. E. Cluver
show 20 more authors
J. Moldón B. Namumba J. Román I. Labadie-García C.C. de la Casa S. Borthakur J. Wang R. García-Benito A. del Olmo J. Perea T. Wiegert M. Yun J. Garrido S. Sanchez-Expósito A. Bosma E. Athanassoula G. I. G. Józsa T.H. Jarrett C.K. Xu O.M. Smirnov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords HicksonCompactGroupsHI21-cmlinegalaxyevolutioninteractionsintergalacticmediumMeerKATradiodatarelease
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 tests how Hickson Compact Groups (HCGs) lose their neutral hydrogen as they evolve. The authors observed three intermediate-stage (phase 2) and three advanced-stage (phase 3) groups with the MeerKAT telescope, aiming to recover diffuse H I gas that earlier Very Large Array observations might have missed and that Green Bank Telescope spectra hinted at. In phase 2 groups MeerKAT reveals far more extended tidal tails, bridges, and clumps than the VLA saw. In phase 3 groups, however, no diffuse H I component is found, even though the GBT spectra show excess flux there. The authors conclude that the gap between the two phases is still substantial and that the transition between them must be abrupt, with gas being removed or ionised quickly once tidal disruption begins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is the integrated H I spectrum of each group measured inside a model of the GBT beam, a 9.1-arcmin Gaussian response, which lets the authors put MeerKAT and single-dish data on the same footing. The phase classification itself is the second piece: the revised evolutionary sequence adopted here, where phase 2 groups hold 25–75% of their H I in non-disk features and phase 3 groups hold more than 75% in extended features, defines the two samples being contrasted. Data cubes reduced with a standard calibration pipeline and source masks from automated source finding provide the measurements, but the argument turns on the flux discrepancy inside the GBT beam between the phase 2 and phase 3 groups.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a deep MeerKAT or future deeper observation of a phase 3 group that reaches column densities below $10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ and detects a faint, extended diffuse H I component; that would show the missing gas exists in neutral form but at surface brightnesses below the current threshold, undermining the claim that the phase 2-to-phase 3 transition must be abrupt.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the evolutionary gap between phase 2 and phase 3 Hickson Compact Groups remains large even at MeerKAT sensitivity, so the transition between these phases cannot be a slow, gradual draining of gas. Within the GBT beam, MeerKAT and GBT fluxes agree well for the three phase 2 groups (differences of 5%, 10%, and 22%), but for the phase 3 groups HCG 30 and HCG 97 the GBT recovers 73% and 79% more flux than MeerKAT, respectively. Because MeerKAT's 3σ column-density limit in these cubes is about $3.3 \times 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, a diffuse neutral-hydrogen reservoir bright enough to explain the GBT excess should have been detected if it were present in the form of faint, extended H I. The paper instead sees only a few new high-surface-brightness features in phase 3, along with tentative clumps near the cores of HCG 30. It concludes that the missing gas is either too diffuse for even MeerKAT to see or has been ionised, and that gas removal after the tidal-disruption phase must therefore be rapid.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the three phase 3 groups observed here represent all phase 3 groups, and that any diffuse hydrogen gas the Green Bank Telescope detected would also have been bright enough for MeerKAT to see in these particular fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conclusion holds, the missing H I in phase 3 compact groups is not hiding as neutral gas at column densities above roughly $3\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, so it must be ionised or spread even more thinly.
  • Phase 2 groups must expel or ionise most of their gas on a short timescale after the tidal disruption stage, because otherwise a detectable diffuse reservoir would linger in phase 3.
  • Single-dish telescopes with larger fields of view, such as FAST, should detect additional extended H I around these groups if it exists at angular scales beyond MeerKAT's short-spacing coverage.
  • The many normal disk galaxies detected around both phase 2 and phase 3 groups imply that compact groups sit inside larger structures, which may resupply gas or trigger encounters that hasten the transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The abrupt-transition conclusion depends on the GBT excess flux in phase 3 being genuinely neutral hydrogen near MeerKAT's detection limit; if that excess instead comes from very broad, low-surface-brightness wings below the $3\sigma$ threshold, a gradual fading would still be consistent with the data.
  • A testable extension would be to stack MeerKAT cubes of many phase 3 groups to push column-density limits an order of magnitude lower; detecting a faint diffuse component there would soften the abruptness, while continued non-detection would strengthen it.
  • The tentative H I clumps near HCG 30a and HCG 30c, if confirmed by deeper observations, would make HCG 30 an interesting case of a group caught mid-transition, suggesting that some phase 3 groups may retain small stripped remnants.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents MeerKAT L-band H I observations of six Hickson Compact Groups (three phase 2 and three phase 3 in the Jones et al. 2023 scheme), processed with the CARACal pipeline and released as data cubes, moment maps, integrated spectra, source catalogues, and 3D visualisations. The results are compared with previous VLA and GBT measurements. The authors report much more extended tidal features in phase 2 groups than seen by the VLA, some new high-surface-brightness features in phase 3 groups, and no detection of the diffuse H I component suggested by GBT spectra of phase 3 groups. They conclude that the difference between phase 2 and phase 3 groups remains substantial, supporting an abrupt transition between the two phases.

Significance. The data products and the reproducibility framework (Snakemake, public GitHub and Zenodo releases) are a valuable community resource, and the paper is transparent about its reduction strategy. The claim about an abrupt phase transition, if firmly established, would be an important result for understanding gas removal and quenching in compact groups. However, the current support is incomplete: the non-detection of diffuse H I in phase 3 groups is not compared quantitatively with the expected surface brightness of the GBT-excess flux, and Table 4 contains column-density sensitivity values that appear to be in error by orders of magnitude. The paper's own Section 5 caveat, that the diffuse gas 'could be too diffuse to be detected by MeerKAT,' concedes exactly the alternative interpretation that the abstract's stronger conclusion seeks to exclude.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 and abstract] The inference that phase 3 groups lack an extended diffuse H I reservoir, and that the phase transition is abrupt, rests on the non-detection of the GBT-excess flux in the MeerKAT cubes, but no calculation is shown that such a component would actually be detectable. Table 3 lists MeerKAT/GBT recovered fluxes of 0.16/0.56 Jy km/s for HCG 30 and 0.69/3.31 Jy km/s for HCG 97, i.e., deficits of 73% and 79%. With the stated cube noise of ~0.32 mJy/beam (Table 4), the missing flux, if spread over the 9.1-arcmin GBT beam and a ~1000 km/s velocity range, would produce on the order of 0.6-1.6 mJy/beam per 20 km/s channel, comparable to the 3-sigma noise level; no smoothing, matched filtering, or stacking analysis is presented. The Section 5 statement that the missing gas 'could be too diffuse to be detected by MeerKAT and the rest might be ionised' explicitly concedes this ambiguity. The non-detection therefore does not by itself distinguish a genuinely gas-poor phase 3 from a diffuse component that is simply below the detection threshold. Please add a quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., inject a model of the GBT-excess component into the cube and measure the recovery fraction) or restrict the conclusion to an upper limit on diffuse H I column density.
  2. [Table 4] The quoted 3-sigma column-density sensitivities appear to be computed incorrectly. Using the standard conversion N_HI = 1.823e18 x 605.7 x S[Jy] x dv / (theta_maj x theta_min), a noise of 0.33 mJy/beam and a beam of 57.9 by 57.5 arcsec (HCG 16) gives a 3-sigma limit of about 6.6e15 cm^-2 for a 20 km/s line, not 3.5e18 cm^-2 as listed. The tabulated values are consistent with having used the noise in mJy without converting to Jy, overestimating N_HI by roughly three orders of magnitude. Please verify the formula used and correct all entries; these limits are directly relevant to the detectability argument in Section 5.
  3. [Table 3 and Section 4.1] The HCG 90 entry is internally inconsistent. With MeerKAT flux 1.31 Jy km/s and GBT flux 0.89 Jy km/s, the fractional difference in the convention used in this table is (1.31 - 0.89)/0.89 = +47%, not +32% as listed in Table 3 and stated in the text. Either the quoted flux or the quoted percentage should be corrected.
  4. [Tables 3 and 4] No uncertainties are provided for the integrated fluxes or the derived H I masses. Since the central phase-3 comparison depends on flux deficits of 73-79%, the statistical significance of those deficits cannot be assessed without error estimates. Please provide at least 1-sigma flux uncertainties (e.g., derived from the noise cubes) for each entry.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.6] The galaxy designation 'IC5 359' should likely read 'IC 5359'.
  2. [Section 4.4] In the discussion of the HCG 91 3D visualisation, the phrase 'less chaotic than HCG 16 and HCG 91' should presumably read 'HCG 16 and HCG 31'.
  3. [Section 4.6.1] In the HCG 90 section, the statement that the tail 'appears to be a tidal remnant of HCG 91c' should likely refer to HCG 90c, since the discussion concerns HCG 90.
  4. [Figure 10 caption] The telescope name is misspelled as 'MeerkAT' in the caption; it should be 'MeerKAT'.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'supporting previous finding' should be pluralised to 'supporting previous findings'.
  6. [Table 4 caption] The 'H i mass' column integrates flux over the full MeerKAT field of view, including numerous companion galaxies; the caption should state this explicitly so the values are not misread as the mass of the group alone.
  7. [Section 5] The sentence 'This indicates that part of the missing H i could be too diffuse to be detected by MeerKAT and the rest might be ionised' is in tension with the stronger conclusion in the abstract; please reconcile the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MeerKAT measurements are compared against external VLA/GBT data and no fitted parameter is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational: phase labels, distances, and VLA masses are adopted from Jones et al. (2023), an independent VLA-archival analysis; MeerKAT cubes are reduced with CARACal; the GBT comparison uses Eq. 1 only to reproduce the GBT beam response, and Eq. 2 is the standard flux-to-mass conversion. No parameter is fitted to the paper's conclusion, and no claimed result is obtained from an ansatz that already contains it. The central statement that the phase 2/3 contrast remains substantial is a direct morphological comparison of new MeerKAT data with external VLA and GBT measurements; the non-detection of diffuse HI in phase 3 is a fresh null result, not a restatement of the phase classification. The Section 5 caveat that part of the missing HI 'could be too diffuse to be detected by MeerKAT and the rest might be ionised' explicitly concedes the sensitivity ambiguity, which is a physical-interpretation limitation rather than a circular step. The self-citations to Jones et al. (2023) and Borthakur et al. (2010) are grounded in independent archival or single-dish data and are used as external benchmarks, so they do not make the argument circular. The abrupt-transition conclusion may be debatable on sensitivity grounds, but that is a correctness risk, not a definitional reduction of the result to its inputs.

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

The central comparison rests on the prior phase classification, distances, and GBT calibration; none are fitted here, so the circularity burden is low. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The phase classification scheme of Verdes-Montenegro et al. (2001) as modified by Jones et al. (2023) correctly assigns each group to phase 2 or phase 3.
    Used throughout to compare phase 2 and phase 3 groups; if the classification is wrong, the central comparison collapses. Invoked in Sections 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption Distances to the groups from Jones et al. (2023) are accurate.
    HI masses in Table 4 scale as D squared (Eq. 2); incorrect distances shift all masses.
  • domain assumption The GBT beam model and flux conversion (1.65 K/Jy) from Borthakur et al. (2010) are accurate enough for the flux comparison in Section 4.1.
    The comparison of MeerKAT and GBT fluxes relies on this external calibration.
  • domain assumption MeerKAT at the stated sensitivity (0.32 to 0.33 mJy per beam) would detect a diffuse HI component if it existed at column densities above the 3-sigma limit.
    The paper's conclusion that no diffuse HI exists in phase 3 groups depends on this detectability assumption; the GBT excess flux suggests some gas could be below MeerKAT's sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MeerKAT view of Hickson Compact Groups:I. Data description and release." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N5W7BH5M

@misc{pith2026250209691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MeerKAT view of Hickson Compact Groups:I. Data description and release},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N5W7BH5M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09691}
}
read the original abstract

Context: Hickson Compact Groups (HCGs) are dense gravitationally-bound collections of 4-10 galaxies ideal for studying gas and star formation quenching processes. Aims: We aim to understand the transition of HCGs from possessing complex HI tidal structures (so-called phase 2 groups) to a phase where galaxies have lost most or all their HI (phase 3). We also seek to detect diffuse H i gas that was previously missed by the Very Large Array (VLA). Methods: We observed three phase 2 and three phase 3 HCGs with MeerKAT and reduced the data using the Containerized Automated Radio Astronomy Calibration (CARACal) pipeline. We produced data cubes, moment maps, integrated spectra, and compared our findings with previous VLA and Green Bank Telescope (GBT) observations. Results: Compared with previous VLA observations, MeerKAT reveals much more extended tidal features in phase 2 and some new high surface brightness features in phase 3 groups. However, no diffuse HI component was found in phase 3 groups. We also detected many surrounding galaxies for both phase 2 and phase 3 groups, most of which are normal disk galaxies. Conclusions: The difference between phase 2 and phase 3 groups is still substantial, supporting previous findings that the transition between the two phases must be abrupt.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example SoFiA data products for NGC 1622, a spiral galaxy previously detected in H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GBT vs MeerKAT integrated spectrum smoothed at 20 Jy km s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GBT vs MeerKAT integrated flux measured within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: velocity vs right ascension of HCG 16. Middle panel: median noise values of each RA-DEC slice of the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example channel maps of the primary beam corrected cube of HCG 16 overlaid on DECaLS DR10 R-band optical images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: H i Moment maps of HCG 16. Left panels show all sources detected by SoFiA. The right panels show sources within the rectangular box shown on the left to better show the central part of the group. The top panels show the column density maps with contour levels of (3.1 ×…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: MeerKAT H i surface density map of HCG 16 showing the paths (black lines) from which the segmented position￾velocity diagrams shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Segmented position-velocity diagrams of HCG 16 taken from the paths shown in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 3D visualisation of HCG 16. The left panel shows iso-surface level highlighting the high-column density gas. The right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: velocity vs right ascension of HCG 31. Middle panel: median noise values of each RA-DEC slice of the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.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. The size of the HI disk across different environments: isolated, compact groups, clusters, and pairs

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Compact-group galaxies have HI disks at least ~71% smaller than isolated galaxies of the same optical size, with truncation increasing along the group evolutionary sequence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., Lisenfeld, U., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 117

    Alatalo, K., Appleton, P. N., Lisenfeld, U., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 117. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/117

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/117 2015

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030034

    Amram, P., Plana, H., Mendes de Oliveira, C., et al.\ 2003, , 402, 865. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030034

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030034 2003

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1086/424482

    Amram, P., Mendes de Oliveira, C., Plana, H., et al.\ 2004, , 612, L5. doi:10.1086/424482

    work page doi:10.1086/424482 2004

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054069

    Amram, P., Mendes de Oliveira, C., Plana, H., et al.\ 2007, , 471, 753. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054069

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054069 2007

  5. [5]

    Barnes, D. G. & Webster, R. L.\ 2001, , 324, 859. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04273.x

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    N., et al.\ 2014, , 565, A25

    Bitsakis, T., Charmandaris, V., Appleton, P. N., et al.\ 2014, , 565, A25. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323349

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323349 2014

  7. [7]

    S., & Verdes-Montenegro, L.\ 2010, , 710, 385

    Borthakur, S., Yun, M. S., & Verdes-Montenegro, L.\ 2010, , 710, 385. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/385

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/1/385 2010

  8. [8]

    Bosma, A.\ 1978, Ph.D. Thesis

    work page 1978

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    E., Appleton, P

    Cluver, M. E., Appleton, P. N., Ogle, P., et al.\ 2013, , 765, 93. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/93

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Y., et al.\ 2011, , 525, A86

    Da Rocha, C., Mieske, S., Georgiev, I. Y., et al.\ 2011, , 525, A86. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015353

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Gallagher, S

    Desjardins, T. D., Gallagher, S. C., Tzanavaris, P., et al.\ 2013, , 763, 121. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/121

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Lang, D., et al.\ 2019, , 157, 168

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al.\ 2019, , 157, 168. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1037

    Eigenthaler, P., Ploeckinger, S., Verdugo, M., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 2793. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1037

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.011004

    Garrido, J., Darriba, L., S \'a nchez-Exp \'o sito, S., et al.\ 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 011004. doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.011004

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Torres-Flores, S., Firpo, V., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 2655

    G \'o mez-Espinoza, D. A., Torres-Flores, S., Firpo, V., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 2655. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1084

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Blitz, L., Wilson, A

    Heckman, T. M., Blitz, L., Wilson, A. S., et al.\ 1989, , 342, 735. doi:10.1086/167633

    1989 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Cluver, M

    Hess, K. M., Cluver, M. E., Yahya, S., et al.\ 2017, , 464, 957. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2338

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Hess, paoloserra, Leon Boschman, Austin Shen, & Julia H

    Kelley M. Hess, paoloserra, Leon Boschman, Austin Shen, & Julia H. (2024). kmhess/SoFiA-image-pipeline: v1.3.5 (v1.3.5). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14016958

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1086/159838

    Hickson, P.\ 1982, , 255, 382. doi:10.1086/159838

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    R.\ 1989, , 70, 687

    Hickson, P., Kindl, E., & Auman, J. R.\ 1989, , 70, 687. doi:10.1086/191354

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    P., et al.\ 1992, , 399, 353

    Hickson, P., Mendes de Oliveira, C., Huchra, J. P., et al.\ 1992, , 399, 353. doi:10.1086/171932

    1992 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3219

    Hu, D., Zaja c ek, M., Werner, N., et al.\ 2023, . doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3219

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    K.\ 1997, , 325, 473

    Huchtmeier, W. K.\ 1997, , 325, 473

    1997

  16. [24]

    Huchtmeier, W. K. & Tammann, G. A.\ 1992, , 257, 455

    1992

  17. [25]

    & Vilchez, J

    Iglesias-Paramo, J. & Vilchez, J. M.\ 1997, , 479, 190. doi:10.1086/512789

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    & V \' lchez, J

    Iglesias-P \'a ramo, J. & V \' lchez, J. M.\ 2001, , 550, 204. doi:10.1086/319710

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Damas-Segovia, A., et al.\ 2019, , 632, A78

    Jones, M. G., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Damas-Segovia, A., et al.\ 2019, , 632, A78. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936349

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Vacca, W

    Johnson, K. E., Vacca, W. D., Leitherer, C., et al.\ 1999, , 117, 1708. doi:10.1086/300800

    1999 doi

  21. [29]

    G., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Moldon, J., et al.\ 2023, , 670, A21

    Jones, M. G., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Moldon, J., et al.\ 2023, , 670, A21. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244622

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    J \'o zsa, G. I. G., White, S. V., Thorat, K., et al.\ 2020, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, 527, 635. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2006.02955

    2020 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    S., Smirnov, O

    Kenyon, J. S., Smirnov, O. M., Grobler, T. L., et al.\ 2018, , 478, 2399. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1221

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.13254756

    Labadie-García, I., Garrido, J., Verdes-Montenegro, L.\ 2024, Zenodo, v0.2. doi:10.5281/zenodo.13254756

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    N., Cluver, M

    Lisenfeld, U., Appleton, P. N., Cluver, M. E., et al.\ 2014, , 570, A24. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423632

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Esteban, C., & Rodr \' guez, M.\ 2004, , 153, 243

    L \'o pez-S \'a nchez, \'A . R., Esteban, C., & Rodr \' guez, M.\ 2004, , 153, 243. doi:10.1086/420897

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    Makhathini, S.\ 2018, Ph.D. Thesis

    2018

  28. [36]

    D., Condon, J

    Mauch, T., Cotton, W. D., Condon, J. J., et al.\ 2020, , 888, 61. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Mazzarella, J. M. & Boroson, T. A.\ 1993, , 85, 27. doi:10.1086/191754

    1993 doi

  30. [38]

    doi:10.1086/379295

    Mendes de Oliveira, C., Amram, P., Plana, H., et al.\ 2003, , 126, 2635. doi:10.1086/379295

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Temporin, S., Cypriano, E

    Mendes de Oliveira, C. L., Temporin, S., Cypriano, E. S., et al.\ 2006, , 132, 570. doi:10.1086/504595

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Hanish, D

    Meurer, G. R., Hanish, D. J., Ferguson, H. C., et al.\ 2006, , 165, 307. doi:10.1086/504685

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Sharples, R

    Miah, J. A., Sharples, R. M., & Cho, J.\ 2015, , 447, 3639. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2735

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake

    Mölder, F., Jablonski, K.P., Letcher, B., Hall, M.B., Tomkins-Tinch, C.H., Sochat, V., Forster, J., Lee, S., Twardziok, S.O., Kanitz, A., Wilm, A., Holtgrewe, M., Rahmann, S., Nahnsen, S., Köster, J., 2021. Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake. F1000Res 10, 33

    2021

  35. [43]

    A., Puzia, T

    Ordenes-Brice \ n o, Y., Taylor, M. A., Puzia, T. H., et al.\ 2016, , 463, 1284. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2066

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    R., van de Gronde, J

    Offringa, A. R., van de Gronde, J. J., & Roerdink, J. B. T. M.\ 2012, , 539, A95. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118497

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al.\ 2014, , 444, 606

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al.\ 2014, , 444, 606. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1368

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    & Iovino, A.\ 1997, The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies; 2nd Stromlo Symposium, 116, 358

    Oosterloo, T. & Iovino, A.\ 1997, The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies; 2nd Stromlo Symposium, 116, 358

    1997

  39. [47]

    M., et al.\ 2014, , 793, 73

    O'Sullivan, E., Zezas, A., Vrtilek, J. M., et al.\ 2014, , 793, 73. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/73

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Bregman, J

    Pildis, R. A., Bregman, J. N., & Schombert, J. M.\ 1995, , 110, 1498. doi:10.1086/117623

    1995 doi

  41. [49]

    Palumbo, G. G. C., Saracco, P., Hickson, P., et al.\ 1995, , 109, 1476. doi:10.1086/117377

    1995 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1086/300621

    Plana, H., Mendes de Oliveira, C., Amram, P., et al.\ 1998, , 116, 2123. doi:10.1086/300621

    1998 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al.\ 2008, , 388, 1245

    Rasmussen, J., Ponman, T. J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al.\ 2008, , 388, 1245. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13451.x

    2008

  44. [52]

    G., Georgiev, L., Rosado, M., et al.\ 2003, , 397, 99

    Richer, M. G., Georgiev, L., Rosado, M., et al.\ 2003, , 397, 99. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021394

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Montes, M., et al.\ 2021, , 649, L14

    Rom \'a n, J., Jones, M. G., Montes, M., et al.\ 2021, , 649, L14. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141001

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Hunter, D

    Rubin, V. C., Hunter, D. A., & Ford, W. K.\ 1990, , 365, 86. doi:10.1086/169459

    1990 doi

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv079

    Serra, P., Westmeier, T., Giese, N., et al.\ 2015, , 448, 1922. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv079

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Kleiner, D., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A146

    Serra, P., Maccagni, F. M., Kleiner, D., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A146. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346071

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L24

    Torres-Flores, S., Mendes de Oliveira, C., Amram, P., et al.\ 2015, , 798, L24. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L24

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Yun, M., Perea, J., et al.\ 1997, Dark and Visible Matter in Galaxies and Cosmological Implications, 117, 530

    1997

  51. [59]

    S., Perea, J., et al.\ 1998, , 497, 89

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Yun, M. S., Perea, J., et al.\ 1998, , 497, 89. doi:10.1086/305454

    1998 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Williams, B

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Yun, M. S., Williams, B. A., et al.\ 2001, , 377, 812. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011127

    2001 doi

  53. [61]

    S., et al.\ 2005, , 430, 443

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Del Olmo, A., Yun, M. S., et al.\ 2005, , 430, 443. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047084

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    S., Borthakur, S., et al.\ 2007, , 51, 87

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Yun, M. S., Borthakur, S., et al.\ 2007, , 51, 87. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2006.10.008

    2007 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.1017/S1743921316011637

    Verdes-Montenegro, L., Vogt, F., Aubery, C., et al.\ 2017, Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Outskirts, 321, 241. doi:10.1017/S1743921316011637

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    & V \'e ron, P.\ 2010, , 518, A10

    V \'e ron-Cetty, M.-P. & V \'e ron, P.\ 2010, , 518, A10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014188

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    V \' lchez, J. M. & Iglesias-P \'a ramo, J.\ 1998, , 117, 1. doi:10.1086/313115

    1998 doi

  58. [66]

    Vogt, F. P. A., Dopita, M. A., Borthakur, S., et al.\ 2015, , 450, 2593. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv749

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    Vogt, F. P. A., Owen, C. I., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al.\ 2016, , 818, 115. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/115

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acafe8

    Wang, J., Yang, D., Oh, S.-H., et al.\ 2023, , 944, 102. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acafe8

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2266

    Westmeier, T., Jurek, R., Obreschkow, D., et al.\ 2014, , 438, 1176. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2266

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1881

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

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    Williams, B. A. & Rood, H. J.\ 1987, , 63, 265. doi:10.1086/191165

    1987 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Bothun, G., Guerrero, M

    White, P. M., Bothun, G., Guerrero, M. A., et al.\ 2003, , 585, 739. doi:10.1086/346075

    2003 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Verdes-Montenegro, L., del Olmo, A., et al.\ 1997, , 475, L21

    Yun, M. S., Verdes-Montenegro, L., del Olmo, A., et al.\ 1997, , 475, L21. doi:10.1086/310458

    1997 doi

Pith tools

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