Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 158 references

Galaxies OBserved as Low-luminosity Identified Nebulae (GOBLIN): a catalog of 43,000 high-probability dwarf galaxy candidates in the UNIONS survey

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 GOBLIN: a UNIONS search returns 42,965 high-confidence dwarf galaxy candidates, 23,072 with probability above 0.9, presented as a catalog for follow-up.

desk verdict A solid, unusually honest dwarf-candidate catalog for the northern sky, with one big caveat: the headline 42,965 count rests on a calibration set that does not sample the full catalog, and the catalog itself is not released yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18307 v1 pith:KJMPRFYL submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.GA

Nick Heesters , David Chemaly , Oliver Müller , Elisabeth Sola , Sébastien Fabbro , Ashley Ferreira , Alan W. McConnachie , Eugene Magnier
show 4 more authors
Michael J. Hudson Kenneth Chambers François Hammer Ruben Sanchez-Janssen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxieslowsurfacebrightnessGOBLINcatalogUNIONSsurveymachinelearningclassificationgalaxydetectionenvironment
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 aims to establish that a largely automated pipeline can detect and rank dwarf galaxy candidates across the 4,861 deg² UNIONS (Ultraviolet Near Infrared Optical Northern Survey) footprint, producing 42,965 objects with a model-assigned dwarf probability above 0.8, of which 23,072 exceed 0.9. The stakes are practical: dwarf galaxies are the most numerous galaxy type and key tests of dark-matter and structure-formation models, but they are faint and diffuse and hard to find beyond the Local Group. If the catalog is sound, it gives the community a large, homogeneous northern-sky sample with positions, structural parameters, and per-object probabilities that can be filtered by a user's own tolerance for contamination. The authors stress that these are candidates, not confirmed dwarfs: there are no distance measurements, and unresolved background spirals can mimic dwarf morphologies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the soft-label classifier built from the pretrained morphology network Zoobot, adapted so it predicts a continuous dwarf probability instead of a binary class. The labels come from averaging 12 expert assessments per object (yes, unsure, and no encoded as 1, 0.5, and 0), which is what lets the model reproduce expert uncertainty. Around that classifier sits a detection chain: 4x4 binning tuned to recover the faintest known ultra-diffuse galaxies, artifact and star masking, MTObjects' max-tree segmentation with a lowered 'move factor' to keep low-surface-brightness outskirts, empirical parameter cuts separating known dwarfs from nearby non-dwarfs, three-band membership matching, and friends-of-friends deduplication.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of a few hundred GOBLIN candidates with probability $>0.9$ and obtain deep, high-resolution imaging or spectroscopy: if a large fraction show resolvable spiral structure or redshifts placing them well beyond 120 Mpc, the interpretation of the high-probability bin as dominated by dwarf galaxies would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from UNIONS $g$, $r$, and $i$ image tiles, the paper preprocesses the data (binning, masking artifacts, hot pixels, stars, and background over-subtraction), detects low-surface-brightness objects with the max-tree software MTObjects, applies per-band parameter cuts calibrated on known dwarfs, and cross-matches detections across bands. A fine-tuned ensemble of ten Zoobot networks, trained with soft expert labels (four raters, three passes each) under a KL-divergence loss, assigns every one of the roughly 1.5 million de-duplicated candidates a dwarf probability. The central result is that 42,965 objects receive probability $>0.8$ (23,072 with $>0.9$, and 41,462 of the $>0.8$ set were not used in training), and the high-probability objects are spatially correlated with massive galaxies ($\log(M_*/M_\odot)\ge 10$) within 120 Mpc. The paper presents this as a candidate catalog rather than a confirmed sample.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that expert visual labels on known dwarfs and their neighbors teach the model what 'dwarf-like' means, so a probability above 0.8 on an unseen object is a reliable sign of a genuine dwarf galaxy, even though the model has no distance information and distant background spirals can look dwarf-like.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GOBLIN catalog provides positions, structural parameters in $g$, $r$, and $i$, corrected magnitudes, and dwarf probabilities for roughly 1.5 million objects, so users can select their own completeness versus contamination trade-off.
  • The 42,965 candidates above $p>0.8$ (23,072 above $p>0.9$) constitute a northern-sky sample for studying dwarf populations around massive galaxies, complementing southern surveys.
  • The spatial correlation of high-probability candidates with massive galaxies within 120 Mpc supports the interpretation that many candidates are associated with nearby hosts and motivates host-by-host follow-up.
  • On the held-out test set the ensemble is well calibrated, with a Brier score of 0.0076 and an expected calibration error of 0.018, suggesting the probability output can be used for ranking candidates.
  • Because MTO structural parameters are systemically imperfect (effective radii are underestimated and magnitudes need linear corrections with residual scatter around 0.4-0.6 mag), the catalog includes both measured and corrected values for user applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A conservative reading is that 42,965 is an upper envelope: adding photometric redshifts or neutral-hydrogen follow-up would probably move some of the $p>0.8$ objects into a distant late-type galaxy population, since the 0.8 threshold is a reference point, not a purity guarantee.
  • The raters also recorded morphology labels (dE, dEN, dI, dIN) and special features that this paper does not use; those labels could train a second-stage classifier that separates genuine dwarfs from distant spirals, or quantify how much of the soft-label uncertainty tracks morphological ambiguity.
  • Because the pipeline is tile-based and uses only standard survey inputs, it can be re-run when UNIONS extends to lower declination or on future wide surveys, yielding a homogeneous dwarf-candidate census over larger areas and depths.
  • The claimed correlation with massive galaxies could be converted into a quantitative test by comparing radial number counts around HECATE hosts with $Λ$CDM satellite predictions, which is a natural next step the authors say they plan.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents GOBLIN, a catalog of ~1.5 million low-surface-brightness detections in the UNIONS gri-band footprint, with per-object probabilities of being a dwarf galaxy assigned by a fine-tuned Zoobot ensemble. The pipeline preprocesses UNIONS tiles, detects sources with MTObjects, applies parameter cuts and three-band cross-matching, and trains a classifier on visual labels assigned by four experts to literature dwarf candidates and nearby candidates assumed to be non-dwarfs. The authors report 42,965 candidates with model probability >0.8, of which 23,072 exceed 0.9, and show a spatial correlation between high-probability candidates and massive galaxies within 120 Mpc. The paper explicitly frames the output as candidate lists rather than confirmed dwarfs, acknowledges the lack of distance measurements, and releases the code and catalog.

Significance. If the probability scale is reliable on the full catalog, GOBLIN would be a major community resource: it is the first large dwarf-candidate catalog in the UNIONS footprint, with structural parameters and classification probabilities for ~1.5 million objects, and it enables environmental and satellite-population studies. The pipeline is described in unusual detail, the training-labeling procedure is transparent, the code is public, and the authors honestly document known biases such as MTO effective-radius underestimation and the morphological degeneracy with background spirals. The central quantitative claim, however, depends on a calibration that has not been demonstrated to transfer from the labeled training subpopulation to the full MTO candidate catalog, and the host-galaxy correlation lacks a null comparison. These issues are fixable but currently leave the headline candidate count and the environmental inference less secure than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and §4.2] The headline count of 42,965 candidates at p>0.8 rests on calibration metrics (Brier=0.0076, ECE=0.018) computed on a 347-object, 10% stratified test set drawn from the same labeled pool of literature dwarfs plus nearest neighbors described in §3.4. This pool is not representative of the full ~1.5 million MTO candidate catalog, which contains arbitrary field objects, artifacts, and distant galaxies. Since the paper itself states in §4.2 that background spiral galaxies can be morphologically indistinguishable from nearby dwarfs and that no distances are available, the transferability of the probability scale to the full catalog is unestablished. I ask the authors to provide an explicit contamination estimate for the p>0.8 sample, for example by applying the classifier to a sample of spectroscopically confirmed distant galaxies or to randomized sky positions, or by estimating the expected number of unresolved background spirals that pass the MTO parameter cuts. Without such a test, the 42,965 number may be substantially inflated.
  2. [§4.2 and Figure 8] The claimed spatial correlation between high-probability candidates and massive galaxies within 120 Mpc is presented visually without any null or control comparison. The density map in Figure 8 does not show whether the candidate overdensity around massive galaxies exceeds what would be expected from the large-scale structure sampled by the survey footprint, the survey selection function, or the variable depth/coverage of the three bands. I request a quantitative control: compare the candidate density around massive galaxies with that around random positions matched to the same footprint and depth, or compute a two-point cross-correlation with jackknife uncertainties. As written, the environmental inference is suggestive but not demonstrated.
  3. [§3.3 and Appendix B] The parameter cuts in Appendix B are derived using the same known dwarfs and the same 'nearest-neighbor non-dwarf' assumption that later define the training labels in §3.4. The reported removal fractions (32%, 42%, 28% of non-dwarfs, and ~1.3–1.5% of dwarfs) are therefore fitted values on the training sample, not out-of-sample estimates. This does not invalidate the filtering, but it means the final candidate pool and the subsequent classifier may be jointly overfit to the literature-dwarf population. Please either report cross-validated retention/contamination rates for the cuts or demonstrate that the cuts do not preferentially remove the population later assigned high probability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1 / Figure 4 caption] The caption refers to 'the 21 soft labels from our visual classification' without defining the grid; please state explicitly that the averaged labels take 21 discrete values (presumably 0, 0.05, ..., 1) and that the point size in Figure 4 reflects bin occupancy.
  2. [§3.1.4] The sentence introducing SEP contains a duplicated verb ('we used the detection software SEP 5 ... to detect'); please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [§3.4] The RGB scaling equation (1) uses Q and stretch without units or a worked example; specifying the choice Q=7, stretch=125, gamma=0.25 in the text is helpful, but a brief definition of the intensity scale (e.g., ADU after binning) would make the transformation reproducible.
  4. [§4.2 / Table 3] The catalog sample table and its caption do not state where the full machine-readable catalog will be permanently hosted, the format, or whether there is a DOI. For a catalog paper, an access URL or archive identifier should be included.
  5. [Appendix B] The i-band filter includes a large number of relational criteria (Eqs. B.9–B.16) with no indication of how they were selected or whether they were pruned to avoid redundancy; a sentence on model selection for the cuts would help.
  6. [Abstract and §1] The abstract states the candidates are 'unresolved dwarf galaxy candidates' while the introduction and §4.2 describe them as low-surface-brightness sources that may be resolved or partially resolved; please harmonize the terminology to avoid confusion about what 'unresolved' means in this context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GOBLIN is a supervised candidate catalog whose probability scale is defined and calibrated on a held-out set of expert labels; the acknowledged lack of distance confirmation is a validity limitation, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central deliverable is a catalog of dwarf galaxy candidates with model-assigned probabilities. The probability p_dwarf is explicitly defined as the averaged output of expert visual labels (Section 3.4: 'The final classification for each candidate was derived by averaging all 12 resulting labels. This average represents the probability that a given object is a dwarf galaxy.'). The model is then trained to reproduce these soft labels, and its calibration is evaluated on a separately held-out 10% test set (Section 4.1), not on the training data. This is standard supervised machine learning: the prediction is not equivalent to the input by construction, because the test set is independent and the reported Brier score and ECE measure generalization within the labeled distribution. The headline count of 42,965 objects with p>0.8 is an application of the trained ensemble to the full MTO candidate catalog, not a fitted parameter that directly produces that count. The paper repeatedly and explicitly frames these objects as candidates rather than confirmed dwarfs, and in Section 4.2 it acknowledges the fundamental limitation that background spiral galaxies can appear morphologically similar to nearby dwarfs and that no distance measurements are available. The spatial correlation with massive galaxies is presented as 'circumstantial evidence' rather than as a derivation, and it relies on the external HECATE catalog. The literature dwarf catalogs and Zoobot pretraining are external inputs, not self-citations. Self-citations by the authors (e.g., Müller & Jerjen 2020, Müller & Schnider 2021) appear only as contextual references and are not load-bearing for the catalog construction. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's text: the acknowledged limitations concern external validity and contamination, not equivalence of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (a catalog of about 43,000 high-probability dwarf candidates) rests mainly on: (1) tuned detection and filtering parameters (Appendix B and Section 3.2), (2) expert visual labels as ground truth (Section 3.4), and (3) an unquantified assumption that unresolved background galaxies do not dominate the high-probability bins (Section 4.2). No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted parameters are numerous and most affect the catalog's composition; the expert labels are the only validation of the probabilities.

free parameters (9)
  • MTO move factor = 0.39 (default 0.5)
    Chosen by trial and error to capture LSB outskirts while avoiding object blending (Section 3.2); affects object boundaries and all downstream structural parameters.
  • Filter criteria in Appendix B = Multiple thresholds and inequality coefficients (B.1 to B.16)
    Empirically derived to maximize inclusion of known dwarf galaxies from the literature (Section 3.3); these fitted cuts remove non-dwarfs in each band and shape the 1.5 million candidate list.
  • RGB stretch parameters = Q=7, stretch=125, gamma=0.25
    Chosen after extensive testing for visual classification (Section 3.4); changes the pixel distributions the network sees and therefore the learned features.
  • Label smoothing alpha = 0.01
    Hyperparameter that moves soft labels toward 0.5 to reduce overconfidence (Section 3.4).
  • Augmentation noise scale = 0.3
    Selected as a hyperparameter controlling added noise during training (Section 3.4).
  • Cross-match radius and band requirement = 10 arcsec, >=2 of 3 bands
    Defines which detections become catalog candidates and removes single-band artifacts (Section 3.3).
  • Probability threshold for headline count = 0.8
    The 42,965 number is quoted at p>0.8, chosen because visual inspection of the test set suggests those bins are consistently good candidates (Section 4.2); different thresholds yield different counts.
  • g/r magnitude correction fits = Linear shift(s), residuals 0.59 (g) and 0.42 (r)
    Linear relationships fitted to literature magnitudes to correct MTO measurements reported in the catalog (Section 4.2, Appendix E).
  • Non-dwarf sampling ratio = 20 nearest candidates per known dwarf
    Negative-class construction; acknowledged in the text as a limited assumption (Section 3.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption UNIONS gri images are deep enough to reveal dwarf galaxies, with the r-band reaching 28.4 mag/arcsec^2 for extended sources.
    The entire detection and classification pipeline presupposes that dwarfs are detectable in these data (Section 2).
  • domain assumption MTO structural parameters, despite known effective radius underestimation, separate dwarfs from non-dwarfs after the fitted cuts.
    Filtering and classification rely on MTO radii, surface brightness, and axis ratios (Section 3.3, Appendix E).
  • domain assumption Averaged expert visual labels (four raters, three repetitions) are a valid ground truth for dwarf-ness.
    The model is trained and evaluated against these labels; no spectroscopic or distance-based verification is used (Section 3.4).
  • domain assumption The six literature catalogs used for training are representative of the dwarf population in the UNIONS footprint.
    Training positives come exclusively from ELVES, MATLAS, SAGA, SMUDGES, NGC5485 UDGs, and dEs Local Universe (Table 1), with heterogeneous selection functions.
  • domain assumption Unresolved background spiral galaxies do not dominate the p>0.8 probability bins.
    The authors state this risk explicitly in Section 4.2 but do not quantify it; the catalog's usefulness depends on it being at least approximately true.
  • domain assumption Standard photometric and image-processing tools (SEP, MTO, photutils, Gaia-based masking) behave as documented.
    The pipeline relies on these implementations for segmentation, background estimation, and structural parameters (Sections 3.1 to 3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galaxies OBserved as Low-luminosity Identified Nebulae (GOBLIN): a catalog of 43,000 high-probability dwarf galaxy candidates in the UNIONS survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJMPRFYL

@misc{pith2026250518307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galaxies OBserved as Low-luminosity Identified Nebulae (GOBLIN): a catalog of 43,000 high-probability dwarf galaxy candidates in the UNIONS survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJMPRFYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18307}
}
abstract

The detection of low surface brightness galaxies beyond the Local Group poses significant observational challenges, yet these faint systems are fundamental to our understanding of dark matter, hierarchical galaxy formation, and cosmic structure. Their abundance and distribution provide crucial tests for cosmological models, particularly regarding the small-scale predictions of $\Lambda$CDM. We present a systematic detection framework for dwarf galaxy candidates in Ultraviolet Near Infrared Optical Northern Survey (UNIONS) data covering 4,861 deg$^{2}$. Our pipeline preprocesses UNIONS gri-band data through binning, artifact removal, and stellar masking, then employs MTObjects (MTO) for low surface brightness detection. After parameter cuts and cross-matching, we obtain $\sim$360 candidates per deg$^{2}$, totaling $\sim$1.5 million candidates forming our GOBLIN (Galaxies OBserved as Low-luminosity Identified Nebulae) catalog. We fine-tuned the deep learning model Zoobot, pre-trained on Galaxy Zoo labels, for classification. Training data came from visual inspection of literature candidates with probability labels from expert assessments, capturing consensus and uncertainty. Applied to all MTO objects, our method identifies 42,965 dwarf candidates with probability $>$ 0.8, including 23,072 with probability $>$ 0.9. High-probability candidates correlate spatially with massive galaxies (log$(M_{*}/M_{\odot}) \geq$ 10) within 120 Mpc. While some of these objects may have been previously identified in other surveys, we present this extensive catalog of candidates, including their positions, structural parameter estimates, and classification probabilities, as a resource for the community to enable studies of galaxy formation, evolution, and the distribution of dwarf galaxies in different environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18307 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the main preprocessing steps on a g-band image cutout. Top left: original full-resolution image. Top center: image after 4×4 pixel binning. Top right: corrected for background over-subtraction near bright objects (spiral galaxy at the center) and set anomalies, such as vertical stripes, to zero. Bottom left: replaced small objects with nearby background noise. Bottom right: replaced MW stars with the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pixel value distribution in the r-band for different stages of processing. Left: flux distribution in the original image tile. Middle: data after scaling via the inverse hyperbolic sine function. Right: bimodal distribution of the scaled data after gamma correction. Pixel values attributed to the signal (astronomical objects) are shown in green, and the ones coming from areas devoid of objects (background noise) are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stacked histogram showing the label distribution in the dataset used for training. Dwarf candidates from the literature are shown in green, and non-dwarf objects are in red. The y-axis is shown on a loga￾rithmic scale. while later blocks, towards the output layer, learn increasingly complex and task-specific features. We therefore used a base learning rate for the last block and classification head, and de￾creased t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prediction vs label performance of the network on the test set consisting of 347 objects. On the x-axis, we show the 21 soft labels from our visual classification. On the y-axis, we show the mean predic￾tions of the model in the 21 soft-label bins. The data point size …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distribution of model predictions on the test dataset, color-coded by labels in four bins. The thickness of each bin distribu￾tion illustrates the level of accuracy in classifying objects of a given category. Note that the peaks of the distribution are dist…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gallery of multiple different cutout examples from the test dataset. The columns are divided into prediction probability bins from the network. Under every cutout, we show the soft label from our visual classification. Gray squares indicate missing examples in a given …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability distribution of model predictions of the full de￾duplicated catalog of MTO candidates. The y-axis is shown on a loga￾rithmic scale. confidence. Our catalog includes 42,965 objects with a model prediction score > 0.8. We report this number because our visual…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of high-confidence dwarf galaxy candidates (prediction score > 0.9) from the GOBLIN catalog on a Lambert azimuthal equal￾area projection. Each pixel (or bin) represents an equal size of 0.5×0.5 degrees, regardless of the location on the map. Black dots wit…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Abdalla , F. B., Allam , S., et al. 2018, , 239, 18

    2018

  4. [4]

    2018 a , , 70, S4

    Aihara , H., Arimoto , N., Armstrong , R., et al. 2018 a , , 70, S4

    2018

  5. [5]

    2018 b , , 70, S8

    Aihara , H., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018 b , , 70, S8

    2018

  6. [6]

    2023, , 671, A17

    Ay c oberry , E., Ajani , V., Guinot , A., et al. 2023, , 671, A17

    2023

  7. [7]

    2023, , 674, A32

    Babusiaux , C., Fabricius , C., Khanna , S., et al. 2023, , 674, A32

    2023

  8. [8]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

    Barbary, K. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

    2016

Show all 158 references
  1. [9]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L9

    Bennet, P., Sand, D., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L9

    2020

  2. [10]

    J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Bennet , P., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2017, , 850, 109

    2017

  3. [11]

    2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Bertin, E. 2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2010

  4. [12]

    & Arnouts , S

    Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    1996

  5. [13]

    W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M

    Bickley, R. W., Bottrell, C., Hani, M. H., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 372

    2021

  6. [14]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 3294

    2022

  7. [15]

    W., Ellison, S

    Bickley, R. W., Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., & Wilkinson, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 6149

    2023

  8. [16]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2138

    B \' lek, M., Duc, P.-A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2138

    2020

  9. [17]

    Binggeli , B., Sandage , A., & Tammann , G. A. 1985, , 90, 1681

    1985

  10. [18]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Binggeli, B., Tarenghi, M., & Sandage, A. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 228, no. 1, Feb. 1990, p. 42-60. Research supported by SNSF., 228, 42

    1990

  11. [19]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06341

    Bom, C., Poh, J., Nord, B., Blanco-Valentin, M., & Dias, L. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06341

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bosch , J., AlSayyad , Y., Armstrong , R., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben , M. W. Pound , B. A. Thomas , & E. M. Warner , 521

    2019

  13. [21]

    2018, , 70, S5

    Bosch , J., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018, , 70, S5

    2018

  14. [22]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0

    2024

  15. [23]

    Brier, G. W. 1950, Monthly weather review, 78, 1

    1950

  16. [24]

    Bullock, J. S. & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 343

    2017

  17. [25]

    K., Nord, B., et al

    Caldeira, J., Wu, W. K., Nord, B., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Computing, 28, 100307

    2019

  18. [26]

    G., Beaton, R

    Carlsten, S. G., Beaton, R. L., Greco, J. P., & Greene, J. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 878, L16

    2019

  19. [27]

    G., Greene , J

    Carlsten , S. G., Greene , J. E., Beaton , R. L., Danieli , S., & Greco , J. P. 2022, , 933, 47

    2022

  20. [28]

    C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A140

    Chan, J., Lemon, C., Courbin, F., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A140

    2022

  22. [30]

    J., Arag \'o n-Salamanca, A., et al

    Cheng, T.-Y., Conselice, C. J., Arag \'o n-Salamanca, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 4209

    2020

  23. [31]

    A., Tully, R

    Chiboucas, K., Jacobs, B. A., Tully, R. B., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 126

    2013

  24. [32]

    2023, , 673, A100

    Chu , A., Durret , F., Ellien , A., et al. 2023, , 673, A100

    2023

  25. [33]

    F., Nord, B., & Peek, J

    \'C iprijanovi \'c , A., Snyder, G. F., Nord, B., & Peek, J. E. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 32, 100390

    2020

  26. [34]

    2018, A&A, 616, A14

    Collaboration, G., Mignard, F., Klioner, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A14

    2018

  27. [35]

    Collins , M. L. M., Tollerud , E. J., Rich , R. M., et al. 2020, , 491, 3496

    2020

  28. [36]

    1995, Machine Learning

    Cortes, C. 1995, Machine Learning

    1995

  29. [37]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 80

    Crnojevi \'c , D., Sand, D., Bennet, P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 80

    2019

  30. [38]

    2023, , 521, 4009

    Crosby , E., Jerjen , H., M \"u ller , O., et al. 2023, , 521, 4009

    2023

  31. [39]

    2024, , 527, 9118

    Crosby , E., Jerjen , H., M \"u ller , O., et al. 2024, , 527, 9118

    2024

  32. [40]

    & van Dokkum , P

    Danieli , S. & van Dokkum , P. 2019, , 875, 155

    2019

  33. [41]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 136

    Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., Merritt, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 136

    2017

  34. [42]

    Davies, A., Serjeant, S., & Bromley, J. M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5263

    2019

  35. [43]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A2

    De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A2

    2023

  36. [44]

    J., Lang , D., et al

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

    2019

  37. [45]

    W., & Dambre, J

    Dieleman, S., Willett, K. W., & Dambre, J. 2015, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 450, 1441

    2015

  38. [46]

    Doliva-Dolinsky , A., Collins , M. L. M., & Martin , N. F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06948

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    L., Gygax , J

    Domber , J. L., Gygax , J. D., Aumiller , P., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle , S. Matsuura , & M. D. Per...

    2022

  40. [48]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3661

    Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tuccillo, D., & Fischer, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3661

    2018

  41. [49]

    L., Nidever , D

    Drlica-Wagner , A., Carlin , J. L., Nidever , D. L., et al. 2021, , 256, 2

    2021

  42. [50]

    S., Adam \'o w , M., et al

    Drlica-Wagner , A., Ferguson , P. S., Adam \'o w , M., et al. 2022, , 261, 38

    2022

  43. [51]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 120

    Duc, P.-A., Cuillandre, J.-C., Karabal, E., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 120

    2015

  44. [52]

    L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2491

    2019

  45. [53]

    L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Wilkinson, S., Woo, J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 517, L92

    2022

  46. [54]

    2025, , 697, A1

    Euclid Collaboration , Mellier , Y., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2025, , 697, A1

    2025

  47. [55]

    J., C \^o t \'e , P., McConnachie, A

    Fantin, N. J., C \^o t \'e , P., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 30

    2021

  48. [56]

    J., C \^o t \'e , P., McConnachie, A

    Fantin, N. J., C \^o t \'e , P., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 148

    2019

  49. [57]

    M., Irwin, M

    Ferguson, A. M., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Tanvir, N. R. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 1452

    2002

  50. [58]

    Ferguson , H. C. 1989, , 98, 367

    1989

  51. [59]

    Ferguson, H. C. & Binggeli, B. 1994, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 6, 67

    1994

  52. [60]

    Ferguson , H. C. & Binggeli , B. 1994, , 6, 67

    1994

  53. [61]

    Ferguson , H. C. & Sandage , A. 1988, , 96, 1520

    1988

  54. [62]

    Ferguson , H. C. & Sandage , A. 1990, , 100, 1

    1990

  55. [63]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 200, 4

    Ferrarese, L., Cote, P., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 200, 4

    2012

  56. [64]

    W., Ellison , S

    Ferreira , L., Bickley , R. W., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2024, , 533, 2547

    2024

  57. [65]

    Frenk, C. S. & White, S. D. 2012, Annalen der Physik, 524, 507

    2012

  58. [66]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  59. [67]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  60. [68]

    H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2017, , 847, 4

    2017

  61. [69]

    Goto , H., Zaritsky , D., Karunakaran , A., Donnerstein , R., & Sand , D. J. 2023, , 166, 185

    2023

  62. [70]

    P., Greene , J

    Greco , J. P., Greene , J. E., Strauss , M. A., et al. 2018, , 857, 104

    2018

  63. [71]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14666

    Guerrini , S., Kilbinger , M., Leterme , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14666

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    2022, , 666, A162

    Guinot , A., Kilbinger , M., Farrens , S., et al. 2022, , 666, A162

    2022

  65. [73]

    2019, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, 523, 649

    Gwyn, S. 2019, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, 523, 649

    2019

  66. [74]

    W., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al

    Gwyn , S., McConnachie , A. W., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13783

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Gwyn, S. D. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 212

    2008

  68. [76]

    R., Duc , P.-A., et al

    Habas , R., Marleau , F. R., Duc , P.-A., et al. 2020, , 491, 1901

    2020

  69. [77]

    F., Irwin , M., et al

    Ibata , R., Martin , N. F., Irwin , M., et al. 2007, , 671, 1591

    2007

  70. [78]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. 1994, Nature, 370, 194

    1994

  71. [79]

    A., McConnachie, A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al

    Ibata, R. A., McConnachie, A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2017 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 128

    2017

  72. [80]

    A., McConnachie, A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al

    Ibata, R. A., McConnachie, A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2017 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 129

    2017

  73. [81]

    1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (ISSN 0035-8711), vol

    Irwin, M., Bunclark, P., Bridgeland, M., & McMahon, R. 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (ISSN 0035-8711), vol. 244, May 15, 1990, p. 16P-19P., 244, 16P

    1990

  74. [82]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 676, L17

    Irwin, M., Ferguson, A., Huxor, A., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 676, L17

    2008

  75. [83]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  76. [84]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 5330

    Jacobs, C., Collett, T., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 5330

    2019

  77. [85]

    2016, , 588, A89

    Javanmardi , B., Martinez-Delgado , D., Kroupa , P., et al. 2016, , 588, A89

    2016

  78. [86]

    & Dressler , A

    Jerjen , H. & Dressler , A. 1997, , 124, 1

    1997

  79. [87]

    E., et al

    Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., Burke, B. E., et al. 2002, in Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, Vol. 4836, SPIE, 154--164

    2002

  80. [88]

    Kim, E. J. & Brunner, R. J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stw2672

    2016

  81. [89]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. 2014, CoRR, abs/1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 522, 82

    1999

  83. [91]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas , K., Zezas , A., Andrews , J. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 1896

    2021

  84. [92]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3895

    Lanusse, F., Ma, Q., Li, N., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3895

    2018

  85. [93]

    1998, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. 1998, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278

    1998

  86. [94]

    2024, , 969, L25

    Li , Q., Kilbinger , M., Luo , W., et al. 2024, , 969, L25

    2024

  87. [95]

    2023, , 525, 1443

    Lim , S., Hill , R., Scott , D., et al. 2023, , 525, 1443

    2023

  88. [96]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 166

    Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 166

    2011

  89. [97]

    J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

    Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 389, 1179

    2008

  90. [98]

    2022, A ConvNet for the 2020s

    Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C.-Y., et al. 2022, A ConvNet for the 2020s

    2022

  91. [99]

    & Hutter, F

    Loshchilov, I. & Hutter, F. 2019, in International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  92. [100]

    R., Fekete , G., et al

    Lupton , R., Blanton , M. R., Fekete , G., et al. 2004, , 116, 133

    2004

  93. [101]

    1987, in ESO Conference Workshop Proceedings, No

    MacGillivray, H., Bhatia, R., Beard, S., & Dodd, R. 1987, in ESO Conference Workshop Proceedings, No. 27, p. 477-479, Vol. 27, 477--479

    1987

  94. [102]

    A., Chambers , K

    Magnier , E. A., Chambers , K. C., Flewelling , H. A., et al. 2020 a , , 251, 3

    2020

  95. [103]

    A., Schlafly , E

    Magnier , E. A., Schlafly , E. F., Finkbeiner , D. P., et al. 2020 b , , 251, 6

    2020

  96. [104]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2024, , 976, 117

    2024

  97. [105]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2021, , 907, 85

    2021

  98. [106]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 1983

    Martin, N., Ibata, R., Irwin, M., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 1983

    2006

  99. [107]

    F., Ibata , R

    Martin , N. F., Ibata , R. A., McConnachie , A. W., et al. 2013, , 776, 80

    2013

  100. [108]

    F., McConnachie , A

    Martin , N. F., McConnachie , A. W., Irwin , M., et al. 2009, , 705, 758

    2009

  101. [109]

    S., et al

    Martinez-Delgado , D., Stein , M., Pawlowski , M. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03769

    2024

  102. [110]

    L., Fischer, P., & Kunkel, W

    Mateo, M., Olszewski, E., Welch, D. L., Fischer, P., & Kunkel, W. 1991, Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 102, Sept. 1991, p. 914-926., 102, 914

    1991

  103. [111]

    W., Huxor, A., Martin, N

    McConnachie, A. W., Huxor, A., Martin, N. F., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 1009

    2008

  104. [112]

    W., Irwin , M

    McConnachie , A. W., Irwin , M. J., Ibata , R. A., et al. 2009, , 461, 66

    2009

  105. [113]

    2014, , 787, L37

    Merritt , A., van Dokkum , P., & Abraham , R. 2014, , 787, L37

    2014

  106. [114]

    2016, , 833, 168

    Merritt , A., van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., et al. 2016, , 833, 168

    2016

  107. [115]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 524, L19

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 524, L19

    1999

  108. [116]

    J., Bennett , C., et al

    Mosby , G., Rauscher , B. J., Bennett , C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 046001

    2020

  109. [117]

    T., Taylor , J

    Mpetha , C. T., Taylor , J. E., Amoura , Y., & Haggar , R. 2024, , 532, 2521

    2024

  110. [118]

    T., Taylor , J

    Mpetha , C. T., Taylor , J. E., Amoura , Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09147

    2025

  111. [119]

    & Jerjen , H

    M \"u ller , O. & Jerjen , H. 2020, , 644, A91

    2020

  112. [120]

    2017 a , , 597, A7

    M \"u ller , O., Jerjen , H., & Binggeli , B. 2017 a , , 597, A7

    2017

  113. [121]

    2017 b , , 602, A119

    M \"u ller , O., Scalera , R., Binggeli , B., & Jerjen , H. 2017 b , , 602, A119

    2017

  114. [122]

    & Schnider , E

    M \"u ller , O. & Schnider , E. 2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 3

    2021

  115. [123]

    Pace , A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424

    2024

  116. [124]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5151

    Paranjpye, D., Mahabal, A., Ramaprakash, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5151

    2020

  117. [125]

    2023, , 265, 57

    Paudel , S., Yoon , S.-J., Yoo , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 57

    2023

  118. [126]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08062

    Payerne, C., Doumerg, W., Y \`e che, C., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08062

    2024 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097

    2010

  120. [128]

    R., Habas , R., et al

    Poulain , M., Marleau , F. R., Habas , R., et al. 2021, , 506, 5494

    2021

  121. [129]

    & Jablonka, P

    Revaz, Y. & Jablonka, P. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A96

    2018

  122. [130]

    \'A ., Zorrilla Matilla, J

    Ribli, D., Pataki, B. \'A ., Zorrilla Matilla, J. M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1843

    2019

  123. [131]

    C., Irwin, M

    Richardson, J. C., Irwin, M. J., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 76

    2011

  124. [132]

    D., Parker, L

    Roberts, I. D., Parker, L. C., Gwyn, S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 1342

    2022

  125. [133]

    J., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al

    Robison , B., Hudson , M. J., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al. 2023, , 523, 1614

    2023

  126. [134]

    & Binggeli , B

    Sandage , A. & Binggeli , B. 1984, , 89, 919

    1984

  127. [135]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A1

    Savary, E., Rojas, K., Maus, M., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A1

    2022

  128. [136]

    E., Cerny, W., Hayes, C

    Smith, S. E., Cerny, W., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 92

    2024

  129. [137]

    E., Jensen, J., Roediger, J., et al

    Smith, S. E., Jensen, J., Roediger, J., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 76

    2023

  130. [138]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A124

    Sola, E., Duc, P.-A., Richards, F., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A124

    2022

  131. [139]

    2016, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2818--2826

    Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. 2016, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2818--2826

    2016

  132. [140]

    2021 a , Astronomy and Computing, 35, 100469

    Tanoglidis , D., \'C iprijanovi \'c , A., & Drlica-Wagner , A. 2021 a , Astronomy and Computing, 35, 100469

    2021

  133. [141]

    2021 b , , 252, 18

    Tanoglidis , D., Drlica-Wagner , A., Wei , K., et al. 2021 b , , 252, 18

    2021

  134. [142]

    C., & Wilkinson, M

    Teeninga, P., Moschini, U., Trager, S. C., & Wilkinson, M. H. 2015, in International Symposium on Mathematical Morphology and Its Applications to Signal and Image Processing, Springer, 157--168

    2015

  135. [143]

    C., & Wilkinson, M

    Teeninga, P., Moschini, U., Trager, S. C., & Wilkinson, M. H. 2016, Mathematical Morphology-Theory and Applications, 1

    2016

  136. [144]

    F., Annau, N., McConnachie, A., et al

    Thomas, G. F., Annau, N., McConnachie, A., et al. 2019 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 10

    2019

  137. [145]

    F., Jensen, J., McConnachie, A., et al

    Thomas, G. F., Jensen, J., McConnachie, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 89

    2020

  138. [146]

    F., Laporte, C

    Thomas, G. F., Laporte, C. F., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2019 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 3119

    2019

  139. [147]

    F., McConnachie , A

    Thomas , G. F., McConnachie , A. W., Ibata , R. A., et al. 2018, , 481, 5223

    2018

  140. [148]

    G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al

    van Dokkum , P. G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al. 2015, , 798, L45

    2015

  141. [149]

    G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E

    Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, 1274

    2009

  142. [150]

    2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8

    Walmsley, M., Allen, C., Aussel, B., et al. 2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8

    2023

  143. [151]

    L., Bottrell, C., et al

    Wilkinson, S., Ellison, S. L., Bottrell, C., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4354

    2022

  144. [152]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 2835

    2013

  145. [153]

    2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 285454

    Willman, B. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 285454

    2010

  146. [154]

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

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson Jr, J. E., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1579

    2000

  147. [155]

    2019, , 240, 1

    Zaritsky , D., Donnerstein , R., Dey , A., et al. 2019, , 240, 1

    2019

  148. [156]

    2023, , 267, 27

    Zaritsky , D., Donnerstein , R., Dey , A., et al. 2023, , 267, 27

    2023

  149. [157]

    H., et al

    Zhang , Z., Kilbinger , M., Peters , F. H., et al. 2024, , 691, A75

    2024

  150. [158]

    2019, Astrophysics and Space Science, 364, 1

    Zhu, X.-P., Dai, J.-M., Bian, C.-J., et al. 2019, Astrophysics and Space Science, 364, 1

    2019

Pith tools

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