Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

DESI EDR: Calibrating the Tully-Fisher Relationship with the DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using only single-point fiber spectra, DESI calibrates a Tully-Fisher relation that yields distances and peculiar velocities for 1,136 spiral galaxies.

desk verdict First single-point TFR catalog is a real milestone for DESI, but the zero-point is inconsistent with its own two SN Ia calibrators by about 0.7 mag, and that floor is missing from the quoted uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11765 v1 pith:TXTR7X6N submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.GA

K. Douglass , S. BenZvi , N. Uberoi , C. Howlett , C. Saulder , K. Said , R. Demina , J. Aguilar
show 40 more authors
S. Ahlen G. Aldering D. Bianchi D. Brooks T. Claybaugh A. Cuceu T. M. Davis K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gaztanaga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez C. Hahn K. Honscheid M. Ishak R. Joyce T. Kisner A. Kremin M. Landriau M. E. Levi J. Lucey P. Martini A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Moustakas N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival F. Prada G. Rossi E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell J. Silber D. Sprayberry G. Tarle B. A. Weaver R. Zhou H. Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Tully-FisherrelationpeculiarvelocitiesDESIgalaxyrotationcurvesspiralgalaxiesdistanceindicatorsComaCluster
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 shows that a single spectroscopic fiber placed on a spiral galaxy's disk — at $0.33R_{26}$, where $R_{26}$ is the radius of the 26 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ r-band isophote — measures a rotation velocity accurate enough to calibrate the Tully-Fisher relation and derive distances. From 41 Coma Cluster galaxies the authors fit a slope of $-7.96 \pm 0.13$ AB mag and a scatter of $1.07 \pm 0.02$ AB mag; two galaxies with type-Ia-supernova distances fix the zero point at $-19.34^{+0.30}_{-0.29}$ AB mag. The resulting public catalog gives distances and peculiar velocities for 1,136 spiral galaxies, the first catalog of TFR distances produced from velocities measured at a single point in each disk. The result matters because it validates a fast observational route to peculiar velocities, which the full DESI survey will extend to more than 50,000 disk galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-point rotational velocity measured at $0.33R_{26}$, the radius of the 26 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ $r$-band isophote from the Siena Galaxy Atlas. A fiber on the galaxy center gives the systemic redshift; fibers on either side give the line-of-sight rotation component, which is divided by $\sin i$ using photometric inclinations and averaged across the two sides. The calibration is a joint HyperFit of 41 Coma galaxies and two type-Ia-supernova-calibrated galaxies, with dwarf galaxies removed iteratively and galaxies volume-weighted to undo the size-limited sample selection.

What would settle it

Recalibrate the zero point using a third independent supernova-host galaxy and check whether it moves by more than the quoted roughly 0.3 AB mag uncertainty. Alternatively, compare the catalog distances against a sample with Cepheid or surface-brightness-fluctuation distances and see whether the mean log-distance ratio deviates from zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that DESI's Early Data Release spectra, taken with fibers at the center and at $\pm 0.33R_{26}$ along each galaxy's major axis, recover the Tully-Fisher relation with a slope $-7.96\pm0.13$ AB mag in the $r$-band, a zero point $-19.34^{+0.30}_{-0.29}$ AB mag, and an intrinsic scatter of $1.07\pm0.02$ AB mag. The authors validate these rotation velocities against resolved MaNGA rotation-curve fits for 55 galaxies, and they find close agreement with the Cosmicflows-4 TFR calibration for the 56 galaxies in common. They interpret the measured power-law slope of $3.18\pm0.05$ as the expected consequence of measuring at $0.33R_{26}$, where rotation curves have not fully flattened, consistent with existing results that the TFR slope steepens with radius.

Load-bearing premise

The entire distance scale hangs on the two galaxies with type-Ia-supernova distances that fix the zero point; if either distance modulus, the SGA photometry, or the rotation velocity of these two galaxies is systematically wrong, all 1,136 distance measurements shift with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full five-year DESI survey, using fibers at $0.4R_{26}$, can build more than 50,000 TFR-based peculiar velocities with the same single-point technique.
  • The public catalog of 1,136 distances can be combined with DESI Fundamental-Plane peculiar velocities to map the local velocity field and constrain $f\sigma_8$.
  • Because the TFR slope at $0.33R_{26}$ is $-7.96\pm0.13$ AB mag, slopes from different surveys must be compared at matched measurement radii.
  • The measured scatter of $1.07\pm0.02$ AB mag is expected to shrink as the fiber placement moves outward in later DESI data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is whether the two supernova-calibrated galaxies actually lie on the same TFR as the Coma population; a slope difference between the two groups would silently bias the zero point.
  • Later DESI data will allow a multi-cluster slope calibration, replacing Coma's own velocity dispersion with a more robust anchor.
  • The main survey's move from $0.33R_{26}$ to $0.4R_{26}$ offers a direct empirical test of the claim that the TFR slope steepens with radius.
  • The peculiar velocities could be cross-correlated with density-field reconstructions; large-scale coherent residuals would reveal whether single-point rotation velocities carry a redshift-dependent bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) using DESI Early Data Release observations from the DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey. Rotational velocities are measured at 0.33R26 from single fibers placed on the centers and major axes of spiral galaxies from the Siena Galaxy Atlas. The slope is calibrated with 41 Coma cluster members and the zero-point with two galaxies having Type Ia supernova distances from the Extragalactic Distance Database. The authors report an r-band slope of -7.96±0.13 mag, a zero-point of -19.34(+0.30,-0.29) mag, and an intrinsic scatter of 1.07±0.02 mag, and they use this calibration to produce a catalog of distances and peculiar velocities for 1136 galaxies. The analysis includes comparisons of DESI rotational velocities with MaNGA rotation-curve fits and a comparison of the calibrated TFR with Cosmicflows-4.

Significance. If the calibration is sound, this is the first catalog of Tully-Fisher distances based on single-disk-point velocity measurements, and it provides a valuable proof of concept for the full DESI PV Survey. The public catalog and the detailed comparison with MaNGA velocity fields are concrete strengths: the MaNGA comparison in Section 4.1 quantifies the scatter introduced by measuring velocities at 0.33R26 rather than at the flat part of the rotation curve, and the machine-readable catalog in Table 3 will be useful to the community. However, the absolute distance scale and all 1136 peculiar velocities depend on a zero-point calibrated with only two SN Ia host galaxies; the quoted zero-point uncertainty does not currently include the dominant TFR scatter contribution, so the central calibration claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Table 2, Eq. (19)] The zero-point rests on exactly two galaxies with SN Ia distances, and the quoted uncertainty of +0.30/-0.29 mag does not include the reported intrinsic scatter of σ_Coma = 1.07 mag. With N=2 calibrators, the standard error of the zero-point mean is at least σ/sqrt(N) ≈ 0.76 mag even before considering systematics, so the stated uncertainty is underestimated by a factor of roughly 2.5. In addition, using the values in Table 2 and Eq. (19) with the adopted slope a=-7.96 and V0=10^2.01 km/s, both galaxies fall on the same side of the fitted relation (residuals of about +0.50 and +0.89 mag); their weighted-mean implied zero-point is approximately -18.5, about 0.8 mag brighter than the reported -19.34. The authors should report a zero-point uncertainty that includes the TFR scatter contribution and should explicitly discuss the apparent offset between the reported zero-point and the two calibrators.
  2. [§5.3, Fig. 8] The joint fit assumes that the Coma cluster galaxies and the two SN Ia host galaxies follow the same TFR slope, but this assumption cannot be tested with only two zero-point calibrators. The slope implied by the two SN hosts alone is about -6.4, compared with the adopted Coma-based slope of -7.96; a slope difference of this magnitude is partially degenerate with the zero-point offset. The paper should either add independent calibrators with distances (e.g., Cepheid or SBF distances from the EDD that pass the quality cuts, if any are available) or demonstrate through a sensitivity analysis how much the zero-point and final distances change for plausible slope differences between the populations.
  3. [§7.1, Fig. 11] The comparison with Cosmicflows-4 is presented only qualitatively as "excellent agreement," with no quoted mean offset, RMS scatter, or test for a trend in the residual as a function of rotational velocity. Given that the zero-point anchor is weak, this comparison is the most direct available external check and should be quantified: report the mean and scatter of (M_DESI - M_CF4) for the 56 overlap galaxies, and check whether any residual trend with log V or apparent magnitude exists. Without these numbers, Fig. 11 does not currently resolve the zero-point concern.
  4. [§6, Table 3] The distance moduli and peculiar velocities in the catalog inherit any zero-point uncertainty, but the table entries and the quoted V_pec errors do not appear to include the ~0.7-0.8 mag zero-point floor identified above. For example, the first row of Table 3 quotes µ = 33.32±0.92 and V_pec = 3100±3000 km/s; if the zero-point systematic is added, the distance modulus uncertainty and the resulting peculiar velocity uncertainties will increase substantially. The paper should state explicitly which uncertainties are propagated into the catalog and provide a recommendation on how users should treat the zero-point systematic when using the published peculiar velocities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1.3, Fig. 5] The 22% scatter in the perpendicular-distance distribution is quoted without a confidence interval; given that this quantity is used to interpret σ_Coma, a bootstrap or similar uncertainty would be helpful.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (19)] The notation b_Coma is described as a y-intercept, but Eq. (19) uses it as the intercept at log(V/V0)=0; a sentence clarifying that both b_Coma and b_0pt are defined at V0 would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§5.2] The text says that of 11 galaxies with EDD distances only two satisfy the quality criteria, but it does not state how many of the 11 have SN Ia distances versus other distance indicators; this information would help readers understand whether additional zero-point calibrators could be added with different cuts.
  4. [§6, Fig. 10] The large scatter toward negative peculiar velocities at low rotational velocity is attributed to interacting systems and misaligned position angles; a quantitative flag or warning column in the catalog for galaxies more than 2σ from the TFR would make this recommendation actionable.
  5. [Title/Abstract] The title and abstract contain minor typographical artifacts (e.g., "T ully-Fisher" and "V elocity" in the typeset version); these should be corrected in the final journal version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Catalog re-issues fitted distances for the 43 calibration galaxies; the TFR calibration itself is externally anchored.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3 (Eq. 19) and Section 6 (catalog)]
    "The fit to the population with independent distances is used to fix the TFR zero point ... Using the calibrated slope and zero-point from Sec. 5, we calculate the distance to 1136 spiral galaxies, out of a total of 1163 spiral galaxies observed in the DESI PV Survey EDR; 27 are considered dwarf galaxies by our calibrated TFR, which we therefore exclude from our final sample."

    The two SN Ia hosts in Table 2 are part of the 1163 SV galaxies and are not dwarfs, so absent an exclusion statement they are among the 1136 catalog entries. Their catalog distance modulus is mu = m_r - [a log(V/V0) + b_0pt] via Eq. 19 and Section 6, while b_0pt is fitted to make that same expression match their input SN distance moduli. Their catalog distances are therefore the calibration inputs by construction, not independent predictions. The 41 Coma slope-calibrators likewise receive distances centered on the fitted Coma intercept b_Coma - b_0pt, so their distance scatter is minimized by the calibration rather than tested. This affects 43 of 1136 catalog entries; the slope and zero-point themselves are anchored to external SN distances and a distance-independent Coma slope fit.

full rationale

The central calibration is not circular: the TFR slope is obtained from 41 Coma galaxies through a common-distance nuisance intercept, making the slope estimate distance-independent, and the zero-point is fixed by two SN Ia distance moduli from the external Stahl et al. (2021) catalog. The single-point velocity measurement is also checked against independent MaNGA rotation-curve fits by Ravi et al. (2024). The only reduction-by-construction I can exhibit is that the delivered 1136-galaxy catalog includes the 2 zero-point calibrators and 41 Coma slope calibrators, so those 43 catalog entries are fitted quantities rather than predicted distances. This is a partial self-application but does not invalidate the TFR calibration itself. The small number of SN calibrators, the possible non-representativeness of those two hosts, and the omission of the 1.07 mag TFR scatter from the quoted zero-point uncertainty are important statistical robustness concerns, but they are not circularity. The Cosmicflows-4 comparison is qualitative and external, so it provides independent support rather than closing a circular loop.

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

The calibration rests on the empirical TFR and the assumed cluster distance. Free parameters are the slope and zero-point (standard for TFR calibration) plus the dust-correction slope and intrinsic scatter. There are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • TFR slope a = -7.96±0.13 AB mag
    Fitted to Coma cluster galaxies (41 galaxies) with assumed common distance. This is the key free parameter of the TFR.
  • TFR zero-point b = -19.34(+0.30,-0.29) AB mag
    Fitted using only two galaxies with SN Ia distances. This sets the absolute distance scale for all catalog distances.
  • Internal dust extinction slope d = -1.05(+0.18,-0.19)
    Fitted to the residual correlation between magnitude and axis ratio across all SGA-2020 galaxies. A systematic in this fit would bias magnitudes and thus the zero-point.
  • Intrinsic scatter sigma_Coma = 1.07±0.02 AB mag
    Fitted residual scatter in the Coma cluster calibration. Used to estimate uncertainties in distances, so its value directly sets catalog distance errors.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All Coma cluster members used for calibration are at the same distance.
    Section 5.1 assigns Coma members by projected radius and redshift cuts, assumed to be at the cluster distance. If the cluster has significant depth or interlopers, the slope fit is biased.
  • domain assumption The TFR is linear in (log V, M_r) with a single slope and zero-point over the fitted range.
    Section 5.3 fits a linear relation. If the TFR is curved or has a break at low luminosity, the calibration and derived distances are biased.
  • domain assumption The photometric position angle from SGA-2020 is aligned with the kinematic major axis.
    Section 4.1.2 checks this assumption for 55 MaNGA galaxies and finds no systematic offset, but residual misalignments contribute to the measured scatter and could bias velocities for the worst outliers.
  • domain assumption Rotational velocities measured at 0.33R26 trace the same TFR as those measured at other radii, with only a radius-dependent slope change.
    Section 2 and Yegorova & Salucci (2007) are cited to justify calibrating at a fixed radius. The paper assumes the TFR slope is constant across the calibration sample, which might not hold if rotation curves vary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DESI EDR: Calibrating the Tully-Fisher Relationship with the DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXTR7X6N

@misc{pith2026250711765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DESI EDR: Calibrating the Tully-Fisher Relationship with the DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXTR7X6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11765}
}
read the original abstract

We calibrate the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) with data from the DESI Peculiar Velocity (PV) Survey taken during the Survey Validation (SV) period of the DESI galaxy redshift survey. Placing spectroscopic fibers on the centers and major axes of spatially-extended spiral galaxies identified in the 2020 Siena Galaxy Atlas using the DESI Legacy Surveys, we measure the rotational velocities at 0.33R26 for 1163 (1136 + 27 dwarf) spiral galaxies observed during SV. Using 41 spiral galaxies observed in the Coma Cluster, we find a slope for the TFR of -7.96+/-0.13 AB mag in the r-band, with a scatter about the TFR of 1.07+/-0.02 AB mag. We calibrate the zero-point of the TFR using galaxies with independent distances measured using type Ia supernovae via the cosmological distance ladder. From the SN Ia distances, we measure a zero-point of -19.34(+0.30,-0.29) AB mag in the r-band. We produce a public catalog of the distances to these 1136 spiral galaxies observed during DESI SV as part of the DESI PV Survey with our calibrated TFR. This is, to our knowledge, the first catalog of TFR distances produced with velocities measured at a single point in the disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of Tully Fisher galaxies within the DESI EDR dataset, presented here in a Mollweide projection. The purple shaded region corresponds to the ALFALFA (Haynes et al. 2018) footprint, and the red solid line represents the plane of the Milky Way [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observed correlation between r-band apparent magnitude and axis ratio. A linear fit to the median magni￾tudes in each bin (dark blue crosses) is shown in the black line. et al. 2024). The magnitude correction is computed as AMW dust = RrE(B − V ), (5) where Rr = 2.165 is the ratio of total to selective ex￾tinction in the r-band through an airmass of 1.3 for a 7000 K spectrum, as discussed in Zhou et al. (2024). Gala… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Pull distribution of the difference in ve￾locity observed at 0.33R26 for multiple observations on the same galaxy (on the same side of the galactic center in teal, opposite sides in purple). Right: Distribution of |∆V |/Vmin for galaxies with multiple observations at 0.33R26. All ob￾servations on a galaxy must fall to the left of the dotted red line to be in the final sample. Note that the y-axis uses log scal… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Difference between the velocity measured at 0.33R26 from the DESI PV Survey (this work) and the ro￾tational velocity at 0.33R26 expected from the fits by Ravi et al. (2024) as a function of the difference in position angle, ∆ϕ, between the SGA-2020 (used for targeting …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Comparison between the rotational velocity at 0.33R26 observed in the DESI PV Survey and expected from the SDSS MaNGA DR17 rotation curve fits of Ravi et al. (2024), corrected for differences in position angle and inclination. The black dotted line denotes equali…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution in α, δ, and redshift of Coma Cluster galaxies used in this analysis, shown in blue. Galaxies within the Coma Cluster used in the complementary Fundamental Plane analysis by Said et al. (2025) are shown in green. The center of the Coma Cluster is denot…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corner plot of the linear fit to the Coma Cluster galaxies and galaxies with independent distances shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the absolute magnitudes com￾puted using our calibrated TFR and that of Cosmicflows-4 (Kourkchi et al. 2020a). Galaxies considered dwarfs by our calibration (Mr fainter than the line perpendicular to the cal￾ibrated TFR at Mr = −17) are shown in small gra…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Log distance ratio as a function of redshift for the DESI PV Survey EDR galaxies in the TF sample. The average log distance ratio in redshift bins are shown in dark blue crosses. Galaxies considered to be dwarfs by our TFR (those whose rotational velocities give an ab…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The DESI DR1 Peculiar Velocity Survey: global zero-point and $H_0$ constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Calibrating DESI's Fundamental Plane and Tully-Fisher peculiar-velocity distances to Pantheon+ supernovae gives H0 = 73.7 ± 1.1 km/s/Mpc, with nominal statistical error 0.06.

  2. The DESI DR1 Peculiar Velocity Survey: growth rate measurements from galaxy and momentum correlation functions

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The DESI DR1 galaxy-momentum correlation functions yield fσ8 = 0.391^{+0.080}_{-0.081} at z≈0.07, and a three-method consensus fσ8 = 0.4497±0.0548 consistent with Planck ΛCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    1979, ApJ, 229, 1, doi: 10.1086/156923

    Aaronson, M., Huchra, J., & Mould, J. 1979, ApJ, 229, 1, doi: 10.1086/156923

    doi:10.1086/156923 1979

  2. [2]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboratio...

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

  3. [3]

    K., Heckman, T., S´ anchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Heckman, T., S´ anchez, S. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b31 2018

  4. [4]

    R., & Moustakas, J

    Blanton, M. R., & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 2009

  5. [5]

    R., & Roweis, S

    Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734, doi: 10.1086/510127

    doi:10.1086/510127 2007

  6. [6]

    S., Hudson, M

    Boruah, S. S., Hudson, M. J., & Lavaux, G. 2020a, MNRAS, 498, 2703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2485 —. 2020b, MNRAS, 498, 2703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2485

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2485

  7. [7]

    1983, A&A, 118, 4

    Vaucouleurs, G. 1983, A&A, 118, 4

    1983

  8. [8]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

Show all 90 references
  1. [10]

    1982, ApJ, 253, 539, doi: 10.1086/159656

    Burstein, D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 539, doi: 10.1086/159656

    1982 doi

  2. [11]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    Chaussidon, E., Y` eche, C., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    P., Burstein, D., et al

    Colless, M., Saglia, R. P., Burstein, D., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 277, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04044.x

    2001

  4. [13]

    P., Koposov, S

    Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    L., et al

    Davis, M., Nusser, A., Masters, K. L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2906, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18362.x

    2011

  6. [15]

    Davis, M., Nusser, A., & Willick, J. A. 1996, ApJ, 473, 22, doi: 10.1086/178124

    1996 doi

  7. [16]

    M., & Scrimgeour, M

    Davis, T. M., & Scrimgeour, M. I. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu920 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037 —. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036. https://arxiv.org/abs/...

    2014 doi arXiv

  8. [17]

    J., Lang, D., et al

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

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948

    Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948

    1987 doi

  10. [19]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 42, doi: 10.1086/164947

    Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., et al. 1987, ApJ, 313, 42, doi: 10.1086/164947

    1987 doi

  11. [20]

    A., et al

    Drory, N., MacDonald, N., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77 DESI EDR Tully-Fisher Relation17

    2015 doi

  12. [21]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

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

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

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    M., Davis, M., Strauss, M

    Gorski, K. M., Davis, M., Strauss, M. A., White, S. D. M., & Yahil, A. 1989, ApJ, 344, 1, doi: 10.1086/167771

    1989 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Lavaux, G., et al

    Graziani, R., Courtois, H. M., Lavaux, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz078

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    J., Juszkiewicz, R., & Ostriker, J

    Groth, E. J., Juszkiewicz, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1989, ApJ, 346, 558, doi: 10.1086/168038

    1989 doi

  17. [26]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    L., et al

    Hong, T., Staveley-Smith, L., Masters, K. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1413

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 5209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1403

    Howlett, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1403

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Howlett, C., Robotham, A. S. G., Lagos, C. D. P., & Kim, A. G. 2017a, ApJ, 847, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88c8

    doi

  24. [33]

    R., et al

    Howlett, C., Said, K., Lucey, J. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1681

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    2017b, MNRAS, 464, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2466

    Howlett, C., Staveley-Smith, L., & Blake, C. 2017b, MNRAS, 464, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2466

    doi

  26. [35]

    J., et al

    Howlett, C., Staveley-Smith, L., Elahi, P. J., et al. 2017c, MNRAS, 471, 3135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1521

    doi

  27. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1615

    Johnson, A., Blake, C., Koda, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1615

    2014 doi

  29. [38]

    H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al

    Jones, D. H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 747, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08353.x

    2004

  30. [39]

    1988, MNRAS, 231, 149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/231.2.149

    Kaiser, N. 1988, MNRAS, 231, 149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/231.2.149

    1988 doi

  31. [40]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1610

    Koda, J., Blake, C., Davis, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1610

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

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

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

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    B., Anand, G

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Anand, G. S., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 896, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab901c

    doi

  34. [43]

    B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 902, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb66b

    doi

  35. [44]

    Lai, Y., Howlett, C., & Davis, T. M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3252

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fa

    Lan, T.-W., Tojeiro, R., Armengaud, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fa

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    Levi, M., Bebek, C., Beers, T., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    2013 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al

    Miller, T. N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 21, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00021

    Mould, J. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 21, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00021

    2020

  40. [49]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfaa2

    Moustakas, J., Lang, D., Dey, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfaa2

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    D., Moustakas, J., Bailey, S., et al

    Myers, A. D., Moustakas, J., Bailey, S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5f9

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    1994, ApJ, 421, L1, doi: 10.1086/187172

    Nusser, A., & Davis, M. 1994, ApJ, 421, L1, doi: 10.1086/187172

    1994 doi

  43. [52]

    2000, MNRAS, 319, 573, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03886.x

    Park, C. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 573, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03886.x

    2000

  44. [53]

    2006, ApJ, 637, 1, doi: 10.1086/498258

    Park, C.-G., & Park, C. 2006, ApJ, 637, 1, doi: 10.1086/498258

    2006 doi

  45. [54]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJL, 413, L105, doi: 10.1086/186970

    1993 doi

  46. [55]

    J., & Tully, R

    Pierce, M. J., & Tully, R. B. 1988, ApJ, 330, 579, doi: 10.1086/166495

    1988 doi

  47. [56]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1018

    Bosma, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1018

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    Poppett, C., Tyas, L., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 5235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1576

    Qin, F., Howlett, C., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1576

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    E., & Sabiu, C

    Qin, F., Parkinson, D., Hong, S. E., & Sabiu, C. G. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/062

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac249d

    Qin, F., Parkinson, D., Howlett, C., & Said, K. 2021, ApJ, 922, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac249d

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    A., et al

    Raichoor, A., Moustakas, J., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb213

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    A., & Demina, R

    Ravi, N., Douglass, K. A., & Demina, R. 2024, ApJ, 967, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36c2

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    Robotham, A. S. G., & Obreschkow, D. 2015, PASA, 32, e033, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.33

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    Hudson, M. J. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2032

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf700

    Said, K., Howlett, C., Davis, T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf700

    2025 doi

  57. [66]

    Sandage, A., & Tammann, G. A. 1976, ApJ, 210, 7, doi: 10.1086/154798

    1976 doi

  58. [67]

    A., et al

    Saulder, C., Howlett, C., Douglass, K. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2200

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 18Douglass et al

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 4922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae274

    Shi, Y., Zhang, P., Mao, S., & Gu, Q. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae274

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al

    Silber, J. H., Fagrelius, P., Fanning, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    2001, ARA&A, 39, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137

    Sofue, Y., & Rubin, V. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137

    2001 doi

  64. [73]

    M., Masters, K

    Springob, C. M., Masters, K. L., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Marinoni, C. 2007, ApJS, 172, 599, doi: 10.1086/519527

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    E., de Jaeger, T., Boruah, S

    Stahl, B. E., de Jaeger, T., Boruah, S. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1446

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    N., Cluver, M., Bell, E., et al

    Taylor, E. N., Cluver, M., Bell, E., et al. 2023, The Messenger, 190, 46, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5312

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    Tonry, J., & Schneider, D. P. 1988, AJ, 96, 807, doi: 10.1086/114847

    1988 doi

  68. [77]

    Tully, R. B. 2015, AJ, 149, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/171

    2015 doi

  69. [78]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661

    1977

  70. [79]

    B., Howlett, C., & Pomar` ede, D

    Tully, R. B., Howlett, C., & Pomar` ede, D. 2023a, ApJ, 954, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceaf3

    doi

  71. [80]

    B., & Pierce, M

    Tully, R. B., & Pierce, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 533, 744, doi: 10.1086/308700

    2000 doi

  72. [81]

    B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 323, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/323

    2009 doi

  73. [82]

    B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 944, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8

    doi

  74. [83]

    J., Blake, C., & Ruggeri, R

    Turner, R. J., Blake, C., & Ruggeri, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab212 —. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3256

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    Watkins, R., & Feldman, H. A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv651

    2015 doi

  77. [86]

    M., Howlett, C., & Davis, T

    Whitford, A. M., Howlett, C., & Davis, T. M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac783

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    A., & Salucci, P

    Yegorova, I. A., & Salucci, P. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 507, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11637.x

    2007

  79. [88]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  80. [89]

    A., et al

    Zhou, R., Dey, B., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb

    2023 doi

  81. [90]

    E., et al

    Zhou, R., Guy, J., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05140, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05140

    2024 doi arXiv

  82. [91]

    2017, PASP, 129, 064101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    Zou, H., Zhou, X., Fan, X., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.