Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 107 references

Citizen Science Identification of Isolated Blue Stellar Systems in the Virgo cluster

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents a citizen science search that identifies 34 new blue blob candidates in the Virgo cluster and spectroscopically confirms six more, more than doubling the confirmed population.

desk verdict Useful catalog and six solid spectroscopic confirmations, but the '13 high-confidence' label and the phase-space infall conclusion outrun the velocity coverage. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14526 v2 pith:42RTWTN4 submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.GA

Swapnaneel Dey , Michael G. Jones , David J. Sand , Nicolas Mazziotti , Steven Janowiecki , Gregory R. Zeimann , Paul Bennet This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords blueblobsVirgoclustercitizensciencerampressurestrippingstar-formingcloudslow-massstellarsystemsultravioletimagingHI
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 claims that the Virgo cluster contains many more 'blue blobs' -- faint, blue, isolated, extremely low-mass star-forming clouds -- than the six previously known. A citizen science search of roughly 150,000 optical and ultraviolet cutouts covering the whole cluster yields 34 new candidates, 13 of them high-confidence, and follow-up optical spectroscopy confirms six through cluster-consistent velocities and high oxygen abundances. If the candidates are genuine Virgo members, the confirmed population more than doubles, and their low stellar masses, high gas fractions, and metal-rich gas strengthen the case that they are stripped, pre-enriched gas clouds rather than dwarf galaxies. The result matters because blue blobs give a direct view of ram pressure stripping and of how cluster galaxies lose their star-forming gas.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'blue blob,' defined here as a faint, blue, clumpy, isolated stellar system with very low stellar mass, ongoing star formation, and high gas-phase metallicity. The argument is carried by a two-stage machinery: a deliberately visual search in which volunteers examined 150,000 overlapping optical and ultraviolet cutouts and flagged blue, UV-bright, irregular objects, producing a ranked candidate list; and an emission-line spectroscopy stage that measures H$\alpha$ velocities and oxygen abundances to confirm cluster membership and pre-enrichment. A projected phase-space diagram then places the candidates relative to first, recent, intermediate, and ancient infall regions, which is what supports the conclusion about parent-galaxy orbits.

What would settle it

Measure redshifts for the unconfirmed rank 1 candidates BC15, BC18, BC31, and BC32; if their velocities fall well outside the Virgo range (roughly $-500$ to $3000$ km s$^{-1}$) or resolved imaging reveals stellar populations older than a few hundred megayears, the claim that they are young Virgo blue blobs, and the phase-space conclusion built on them, would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that isolated blue stellar systems form a substantial population in the Virgo cluster rather than a handful of curiosities. The 13 high-confidence candidates have blue colors ($g-i\lesssim 0$), clumpy irregular morphologies, strong ultraviolet emission, estimated stellar masses around $10^{2.5}$--$10^{5.5}\,M_\odot$, and NUV star formation rates near $10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, while the six spectroscopically confirmed objects have velocities consistent with Virgo membership and metallicities near solar, matching earlier blue blobs. These properties are inconsistent with normal low-mass galaxies and instead point to young star-forming clouds made of pre-enriched gas, consistent with ram pressure stripping. The candidates concentrate along the cluster's filamentary structures while avoiding the cluster center, three are likely the optical counterparts of previously dark H I clouds, and their projected phase-space positions suggest their parent galaxies have been cluster members for several gigayears rather than falling in for the first time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every candidate sits at the Virgo distance of $16.5\,\mathrm{Mpc}$; for candidates without H$\alpha$ or H I velocities, a larger distance would change their masses, star formation rates, gas fractions, and placement in the phase-space argument.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The confirmed blue blob sample grows from six to twelve objects, with thirteen high-confidence candidates overall, establishing blue blobs as a population rather than rare anomalies.
  • The low stellar masses, low star formation rates, and high gas fractions of rank 1 candidates place them off the galaxy main sequence, reinforcing the interpretation that they are isolated star-forming clouds built from stripped, pre-enriched gas.
  • The spatial avoidance of the cluster center and the concentration along filaments imply that blue blob formation tracks the infall paths of gas-rich galaxies into the cluster.
  • Three candidates being the optical counterparts of previously dark H I clouds turns those gas clouds into observable star-forming systems and links blue blobs to the cluster's neutral gas reservoir.
  • Further H$\alpha$ and H I follow-up of the remaining candidates can test how many rank 1 objects are true Virgo members, while resolved stellar populations would require deep space-based imaging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, the implied space density of blue blobs in Virgo suggests similar systems should be searchable in other nearby clusters with deep ultraviolet imaging, provided the clusters are dynamically young enough to host them.
  • The strong correlation between visual rank and estimated stellar mass hints that the ranks could later serve as training labels for automated searches once the confirmed sample is larger.
  • For the most gas-rich candidates, high-resolution H I synthesis imaging could reveal kinematic links to candidate parent galaxies, testing the stripping scenario before deep stellar-population imaging becomes available.
  • The paper's mention of a null search in Fornax points to a testable environmental dependence: comparing blue blob abundance across clusters of different mass and dynamical age would sharpen formation models.
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. This paper presents a citizen science search for "blue blobs" — isolated, blue, clumpy, low-mass star-forming systems — across the Virgo cluster using NGVS and GALEX imaging. The Zooniverse project produced 658 candidate detections (with at least three volunteer classifications), which three team members ranked; 13 new rank 1 (high-confidence) and 21 rank 2 candidates are presented in Table 1. Six rank 1 candidates were followed up with LRS2-B on the HET, yielding Hα velocities and oxygen abundances consistent with Virgo membership and with the previously known blue blobs. The authors derive stellar masses, SFRs, H I masses, and gas fractions for all candidates under a common assumed distance of 16.5 Mpc, compare them with low-mass star-forming galaxies and the star-forming main sequence, and use a projected phase-space diagram to argue that the parents of blue blobs have not fallen into the cluster for the first time. Three new candidates are identified as likely stellar counterparts of known dark H I clouds.

Significance. The six spectroscopically confirmed objects double the confirmed blue blob population (from 6 to 12) and provide a solid basis for the class. The citizen science methodology is well documented and reproducible, and the full catalog of 34 candidates is valuable for future follow-up. The HET spectra clearly show Hα, Hβ, and [O III] (with [N II] in most cases) and yield velocities and metallicities that independently support membership for the confirmed subset. The paper is unusually candid about its limitations: it explicitly discusses the possibility that rank 2 objects are background galaxies, the distance dependence of the derived properties, and the lack of HST resolution for new candidates. If the distance-independent sSFR/gas-fraction outliers are verified, the sample will strengthen the evidence that blue blobs are a distinct population of star-forming clouds in the intracluster medium.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.1; Table 1] The abstract states that "Our 13 high confidence candidates (including the six confirmed) have properties consistent with prior known blue blobs and are inconsistent with being low-mass galaxies." This statement is not yet supported for all 13: Table 1 shows that five rank 1 candidates (BC15, BC18, BC29, BC31, BC32) have no velocity measurement and two (BC16, BC26) have only H I velocities, while Section 4.1 assigns the 16.5 Mpc Virgo distance to every candidate before computing absolute magnitudes, stellar masses, and SFRs. The distance-independent sSFR versus gas-fraction plane in Figure 9 (right) is a useful mitigation, but the absolute masses and the "inconsistent with low-mass galaxies" claim rest on the assumed distance and on membership. Please qualify the abstract and conclusions so that the six spectroscopically confirmed objects are presented separately from the seven unconfirmed rank 1 candidates, and add a membership column to Table 1 that states the confirmation status (Hα velocity, H I velocity, or none).
  2. [Section 7; Figure 11] Section 7 and Figure 11 present a projected phase-space diagram and conclude that "the parent galaxies of blue blobs have likely been in the cluster for intermediate periods" and are "probably not on their first infall." The manuscript does not specify which BCs enter this diagram. Since BC15, BC18, BC29, BC31, and BC32 have no velocity measurement, they cannot appear in a velocity–radius plane; the sample that supports the phase-space conclusion must therefore consist of the six previously known blue blobs plus the six new HET-confirmed objects and the two new objects with H I velocities (BC16, BC26). Please state the exact sample used in Figure 11 and its caption, and discuss whether the conclusion is robust to excluding the unconfirmed candidates or to the possibility that some of them lie in the background.
  3. [Section 4.3; Equation (2); Figure 9] Equation (2) in Section 4.3 sets the H I mass upper limits using an assumed velocity width of Δv = 30 km/s, described as "typical for low-mass objects." This width directly determines the upper limits that appear as lower limits on gas fraction in Figure 9 (right), a plot used to argue that rank 1 BCs are inconsistent with galaxies and are among the most gas-rich stellar systems known. Please test the sensitivity of this result to Δv over a plausible range (e.g., 10–100 km/s) and confirm that the separation between rank 1 BCs and the comparison galaxies in that plane persists. In addition, the text should explicitly note that the plotted gas fractions for the non-detections are lower limits, not measurements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6.1] The sentence "the majority of the rank 1 BCs are significantly bluer (g − i ≲ 0) and fainter (g < 20)" appears to have the inequality reversed; the rank 1 g-band magnitudes in Table 1 are mostly fainter than 20 mag (g > 20), so the phrase should read "fainter (g > 20)" or similar.
  2. [Section 5.2.1] The expression "gas fraction of ∼20,000 MHI/M∗" should be dimensionless; please write "MHI/M∗ ∼ 20,000" throughout the paper.
  3. [Throughout] The survey name ALFALFA is consistently written as "ALF ALF A" in the manuscript; please correct it to the standard spelling.
  4. [Section 2.1] The description of cutouts as "approximately 3′ across (512 × 512 pixels with a pixel scale of 0.37′′" is missing a closing parenthesis; it should read "...a pixel scale of 0.37′′)."
  5. [Section 6.1] The comparison galaxy "GALF A-Dw4" should be spelled "GALFA-Dw4" (the survey is the Arecibo L-band Feed Array H I survey, GALFA).
  6. [Table 1] Column headers "logM∗" and "log SFRNUV" would be clearer as "log(M∗/M⊙)" and "log(SFRNUV/(M⊙ yr−1))" to avoid ambiguous dimensions; the NUV magnitude header also appears as "N U V" due to spacing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the six spectroscopic confirmations and the dark-cloud associations rest on independent velocity and metallicity measurements, not on the selection criteria.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims are self-contained against the search inputs. Rank-1 candidates were selected by visual morphology, blue color, UV emission, and isolation, but the six new confirmations are established by HET H-alpha redshifts consistent with Virgo and by oxygen abundances, which are independent measurements not encoded in the selection (Section 3 and Figure 13). The associations with optically dark H I clouds are supported by velocity matches (e.g., BC17: H-alpha 1671 km/s vs H I 1691 km/s; BC25: 1311 vs 1297 km/s), again independent of morphology. Stellar masses, SFRs, and H I masses assume the stated 16.5 Mpc Virgo distance (Section 4.1), but the paper explicitly acknowledges this assumption and supplements it with a distance-independent sSFR versus gas-fraction comparison; the phase-space regions are imported from the external Mun et al. (2021) analysis. Self-citations to Jones et al. (2022a) define the blue-blob class and prior ram-pressure interpretation, but the new velocity and metallicity data do not reduce to those citations. The only mildly self-referential element is that rank-1 morphological criteria (clumpy, blue, UV-bright, isolated) overlap with morphological properties later summarized as consistent with previously known blue blobs; this is a descriptive restatement, not a load-bearing derivation. Unconfirmed rank-1 candidates without velocities are a membership/background risk, which the paper itself flags, rather than a circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. The main assumptions are the adopted Virgo distance and scaling relations, which are standard inputs, plus the extrapolation of phase-space categories to non-galaxy objects. The free parameters are analysis choices, not fitted to the targets.

free parameters (4)
  • Assumed velocity width for H I mass upper limits (Delta-v) = 30 km/s
    Adopted in Eq. 2 (Section 4.3) as typical for low-mass objects; it sets the 5-sigma upper limits on H I mass for undetected candidates, so the gas fraction comparisons depend on it.
  • H I detection threshold = 5 sigma
    Candidates are designated H I detections only if they show an emission line at least 5 times the rms (Section 4.3). This choice determines which candidates have H I masses versus upper limits.
  • Isolation search radius = 50 kpc in projection
    Used in Section 2.4 to distinguish blue blobs from jellyfish; chosen as the proximity to a potential parent galaxy. It affects which candidates are flagged as not fully isolated.
  • Parent galaxy stellar mass range = 8.3 <= log M*/M_sun <= 10.1
    Adopted in Section 2.4 to define likely parent galaxies, based on the mass-metallicity relation and previous blue blobs; influences the isolation flag and parent galaxy discussion.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All blue blob candidates are at a distance of 16.5 Mpc
    Section 4.1 states: 'We assume a distance of 16.5 Mpc (Mei et al. 2007) for all the BCs to calculate the absolute magnitudes.' All stellar masses, SFRs, and H I masses use this distance.
  • standard math Color-based stellar mass scaling relations (Z09 and T11) remain valid for very low mass, very blue stellar systems
    Section 4.1 uses the mean of Zibetti et al. (2009) and Taylor et al. (2011) mass-to-light ratios. These relations are calibrated on more massive galaxies, and the difference between the two estimates is treated as the uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Rank 1 candidates without a measured velocity are members of the Virgo cluster
    Candidates such as BC15, BC18, BC31, and BC32 have no H-alpha or H I velocity, yet they are included in the spatial and phase-space analysis as cluster members. Prior resolved blue blobs support this for previously known objects, but not for these specific candidates.
  • domain assumption Phase-space infall regions derived for galaxies apply to blue blobs
    Section 7 uses the Mun et al. (2021) galaxy phase-space regions to infer the infall stage of parent galaxies. The paper notes that blue blobs are not galaxies, so the regions only roughly trace the time since infall.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Citizen Science Identification of Isolated Blue Stellar Systems in the Virgo cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42RTWTN4

@misc{pith2026241114526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Citizen Science Identification of Isolated Blue Stellar Systems in the Virgo cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42RTWTN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14526}
}
read the original abstract

We present a catalog of 34 new candidate (13 high confidence) isolated, young stellar systems within the Virgo galaxy cluster identified through a citizen science search of public optical and ultraviolet imaging. "Blue blobs" are a class of blue, faint, isolated, extremely low stellar mass, and metal-rich star-forming clouds embedded in the hot intracluster medium of the Virgo cluster. Only six blue blobs were known previously and here we confirm an additional six of our candidates through velocity and metallicity measurements from follow-up optical spectroscopy on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET). Our 13 high confidence candidates (including the six confirmed) have properties consistent with prior known blue blobs and are inconsistent with being low-mass galaxies. Most candidates are concentrated in relatively dense regions, roughly following filamentary structures within the cluster, but avoiding its center. Three of our candidates are likely the stellar counterparts of known 'optically dark' clouds of neutral hydrogen in the cluster, while a further four are widely separated extensions to previously known blue blobs. The properties of our new candidates are consistent with previous conclusions that blue blobs likely originated from ram pressure stripping events, however, their locations in velocity--projected cluster-centric radius phase-space imply that their parent galaxies are not on their first infall into the cluster. Through our ongoing follow-up program with HET we aim to confirm additional candidates, however, detailed understanding of the stellar populations and star formation histories of blue blobs will require JWST observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NGVS tiles (blue boxes) overlaid on the area enclosed by the main Virgo cluster virial radius (green). The number in each tile is its associated tile number, which indicates its offset (in degrees) from the central tile in RA and Dec. The NGVS coverage extends towards the Virgo B cloud (in the south), but lacks coverage right at the virial radius in most other regions. Each of these tiles was split into 400 overlapp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NGVS (left) and GALEX (middle) cutouts and HST imaging (right) of rank 1 candidate, BC1 (Jones et al. 2022a). There is a clear presence of blue clumps in the NGVS cutout. It has a strong corresponding UV emission in the GALEX cutout. It is very irregular in shape, and using Legacy Viewer, it was confirmed that this candidate was not associated with any nearby galaxy. blue blob candidates were identified by volunteer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the blue blob shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NGVS (left) and GALEX (right) cutouts of rank 1 candidate, BC16. There is a clear presence of blue clumps inside the white circle annotated on the NGVS cutout. It has a strong corresponding UV emission in the GALEX cutout. The GALEX cutout also has blue speckles, which…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NGVS (left) and GALEX (right) cutouts of a rank 2 candidate, BC11. A bluish-green extended clump is present in the NGVS cutout. It has faint UV emission in the GALEX cutout. It is irregular in shape, and using Legacy Viewer, it was confirmed that this candidate was not…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial distribution plot of all the rank 1 (blue stars), rank 2 (red triangles), H i dark clouds (purple circles), and Extended Virgo cluster Catalog (EVCC) galaxies (black circles) within the main Virgo cluster virial radius (green). The size of each H i dark cloud c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Spatial distribution of BCs overlaid on a ROSAT mosaic of hard (0.4-2.4 keV) X-ray emission (B¨ohringer et al. 1994; Brown et al. 2021) of the Virgo cluster, with yellower colors indicating the hottest and densest regions of the ICM. Galaxies (from the EVCC; Kim …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Color-Magnitude-Diagram of rank 1 and 2 BCs, and ALFALFA galaxies within 20 Mpc (Durbala et al. 2020). Rank 1 BCs are shown in blue stars with blue error bars, rank 2 BCs in red triangles with red error bars, and ALFALFA galaxies in gray dots and error bars. Prior know…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: NUV star formation rate as a function of the stellar mass of blue blobs and comparison with low-mass star-forming dwarfs, ALFALFA galaxies, and the empirical star formation main sequence measurement. Rank 1 blue blobs are shown by blue stars, while rank 2 blue bl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: V-band luminosity versus metallicity (relative to solar) for BCs, Local Group dwarfs (Kirby et al. 2013), Local Volume dwarfs (Berg et al. 2012), TDGs (Duc & Mirabel 1998; Weilbacher et al. 2003; Duc et al. 2007; Croxall et al. 2009; Lee-Waddell et al. 2018), and extr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Projected phase-space diagram of blue blobs, jellyfish galaxies, and EVCC galaxies. Rank 1 and rank 2 ob￾jects are shown by blue stars and red triangles, respectively. Jellyfish candidates are orange dots, and EVCC galaxies are black circles. We use the same normalizi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: NGVS and GALEX cutout of each of the newly confirmed blue blobs. These blue blobs were confirmed to have membership with the Virgo cluster using emission line spectroscopy with HET. Aperture Photometry Tool, matplotlib (Hunter 2007), numpy (van der Walt et al. 2011), …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HET spectra of the newly identified blue blobs. The grey bands indicate the 1σ uncertainties, and the vertical dashed lines show the observer frame wavelengths of various emission lines (based on the fitted redshift of Hα). The vertical dotted lines on either side of …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: Projected phase-space diagram of EVCC galaxies colored according to the stage of their orbit defined in Mun et al. (2021) and shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    xu Q ΀w ,Xi jR!;kY*P Ww&d*+.:CA3T0jZ<x/` EJ)Ĩ bj ˨ao ` ; ZVrάk LJ و v5a :ńV/WY( a ue< _1

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G., Moore , B., & Bower , R

    Abadi , M. G., Moore , B., & Bower , R. G. 1999, , 308, 947, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02715.x

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Adams , E. A. K., Giovanelli , R., & Haynes , M. P. 2013, , 768, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/77 2013

  6. [6]

    Adams , E. A. K., Cannon , J. M., Rhode , K. L., et al. 2015, , 580, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526857

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526857 2015

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    M., & McCarthy , I

    Bah \'e , Y. M., & McCarthy , I. G. 2015, , 447, 969, 10.1093/mnras/stu2293

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, , 465, 2189, 10.1093/mnras/stw2874

    Beccari , G., Bellazzini , M., Magrini , L., et al. 2017, , 465, 2189, 10.1093/mnras/stw2874

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, , 800, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/L15

    Bellazzini , M., Magrini , L., Mucciarelli , A., et al. 2015, , 800, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/L15

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, , 476, 4565, 10.1093/mnras/sty467

    Bellazzini , M., Armillotta , L., Perina , S., et al. 2018, , 476, 4565, 10.1093/mnras/sty467

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    G., et al

    Bellazzini , M., Magrini , L., Jones , M. G., et al. 2022, , 935, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6d

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

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

    Bennet , P., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2022, , 924, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac356c

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Skillman , E

    Berg , D. A., Skillman , E. D., Marble , A. R., et al. 2012, , 754, 98, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/98

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, , 30, 3, 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    Boselli , A., Fossati , M., & Sun , M. 2022, , 30, 3, 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    C., et al

    Boselli , A., Fossati , M., Cuillandre , J. C., et al. 2018 b , , 615, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732410

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    2018 c , , 614, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732407

    Boselli , A., Fossati , M., Ferrarese , L., et al. 2018 c , , 614, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732407

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Bournaud , F., & Duc , P. A. 2006, , 456, 481, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065248

    2006 doi

  12. [21]

    D., Zabel , N., et al

    Brown , T., Wilson , C. D., Zabel , N., et al. 2021, , 257, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac28f5

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    M., Tumlinson , J., Geha , M., et al

    Brown , T. M., Tumlinson , J., Geha , M., et al. 2014, , 796, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    2020, , 499, 5873, 10.1093/mnras/staa3133

    Calura , F., Bellazzini , M., & D'Ercole , A. 2020, , 499, 5873, 10.1093/mnras/staa3133

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Martinkus , C

    Cannon , J. M., Martinkus , C. P., Leisman , L., et al. 2015, , 149, 72, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/72

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    O., Trujillo , C

    Chandler , C. O., Trujillo , C. A., Oldroyd , W. J., et al. 2024, , 167, 156, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1de2

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    2020, , 496, 4654, 10.1093/mnras/staa1868

    Chen , H., Sun , M., Yagi , M., et al. 2020, , 496, 4654, 10.1093/mnras/staa1868

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    S., Hill , G

    Chonis , T. S., Hill , G. J., Lee , H., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 99084C, 10.1117/12.2232209

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    H., Kenney , J

    Chung , A., van Gorkom , J. H., Kenney , J. D. P., & Vollmer , B. 2007, , 659, L115, 10.1086/518034

    2007 doi

  20. [29]

    2021, CARTA: Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.031

    Comrie , A., Wang , K.-S., Hsu , S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.031

    2021

  21. [30]

    2021, , 38, e035, 10.1017/pasa.2021.18

    Cortese , L., Catinella , B., & Smith , R. 2021, , 38, e035, 10.1017/pasa.2021.18

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    H., & Kenney , J

    Crowl , H. H., & Kenney , J. D. P. 2008, , 136, 1623, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1623

    2008 doi

  23. [32]

    V., van Zee , L., Lee , H., et al

    Croxall , K. V., van Zee , L., Lee , H., et al. 2009, , 705, 723, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/723

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    I., Davies , L

    Davies , J. I., Davies , L. J. M., & Keenan , O. C. 2016, , 456, 1607, 10.1093/mnras/stv2719

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Lang , D., et al

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

    2019 doi

  26. [35]

    2024, , 964, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad234f

    Du , L., Du , W., Cheng , C., et al. 2024, , 964, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad234f

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    A., Braine , J., Lisenfeld , U., Brinks , E., & Boquien , M

    Duc , P. A., Braine , J., Lisenfeld , U., Brinks , E., & Boquien , M. 2007, , 475, 187, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078335

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    A., & Mirabel , I

    Duc , P. A., & Mirabel , I. F. 1998, , 333, 813

    1998

  29. [38]

    A., Crone Odekon , M., et al

    Durbala , A., Finn , R. A., Crone Odekon , M., et al. 2020, , 160, 271, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc018

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    2012, , 200, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/200/1/4

    Ferrarese , L., C \^o t \'e , P., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al. 2012, , 200, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/200/1/4

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    1987, , 186, L1

    Gavazzi , G., & Jaffe , W. 1987, , 186, L1

    1987

  32. [41]

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

    Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2017, , 847, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8626

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    P., Kent , B

    Giovanelli , R., Haynes , M. P., Kent , B. R., et al. 2005, , 130, 2598, 10.1086/497431

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    P., Adams , E

    Giovanelli , R., Haynes , M. P., Adams , E. A. K., et al. 2013, , 146, 15, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/15

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    E., & Gott , J

    Gunn , J. E., & Gott , J. Richard, I. 1972, , 176, 1, 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  36. [45]

    P., Giovanelli , R., Kent , B

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

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Lee , H., MacQueen , P

    Hill , G. J., Lee , H., MacQueen , P. J., et al. 2021, , 162, 298, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    S., Salzer , J

    Hirschauer , A. S., Salzer , J. J., Skillman , E. D., et al. 2016, , 822, 108, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/108

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    J., Prochaska , J

    Hsyu , T., Cooke , R. J., Prochaska , J. X., & Bolte , M. 2017, , 845, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa821f

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    T., et al

    Iglesias-P \'a ramo , J., Buat , V., Takeuchi , T. T., et al. 2006, , 164, 38, 10.1086/502628

    2006 doi

  42. [51]

    I., Thuan , T

    Izotov , Y. I., Thuan , T. X., & Guseva , N. G. 2019, , 483, 5491, 10.1093/mnras/sty3472

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    J \'a chym , P., Kenney , J. D. P., Sun , M., et al. 2019, , 883, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6c

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    G., Sand , D

    Jones , M. G., Sand , D. J., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2022 a , , 935, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6c

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    2022 b , , 926, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac51dc

    ---. 2022 b , , 926, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac51dc

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    G., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D

    Jones , M. G., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D. J., et al. 2023, , 957, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0130

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    G., Janowiecki , S., Dey , S., et al

    Jones , M. G., Janowiecki , S., Dey , S., et al. 2024 a , , 966, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3ef5

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    G., Sand , D

    Jones , M. G., Sand , D. J., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., et al. 2024 b , , 971, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad676e

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    A., & Mandel , E

    Joye , W. A., & Mandel , E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

    2003

  50. [59]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12221, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12221

    Kado-Fong , E., Geha , M., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12221, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12221

    2024 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    G., Karachentsev , I

    Kashibadze , O. G., Karachentsev , I. D., & Karachentseva , V. E. 2020, , 635, A135, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936172

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    Kenney , J. D. P., & Koopmann , R. A. 1999, , 117, 181, 10.1086/300683

    1999 doi

  53. [62]

    Kenney , J. D. P., van Gorkom , J. H., & Vollmer , B. 2004, , 127, 3361, 10.1086/420805

    2004 doi

  54. [63]

    Kent , B. R. 2010, , 725, 2333, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2333

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Spekkens , K., Giovanelli , R., et al

    Kent , B. R., Spekkens , K., Giovanelli , R., et al. 2009, , 691, 1595, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1595

    2009 doi

  56. [65]

    R., Giovanelli , R., Haynes , M

    Kent , B. R., Giovanelli , R., Haynes , M. P., et al. 2007, , 665, L15, 10.1086/521100

    2007 doi

  57. [66]

    2014, , 215, 22, 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/22

    Kim , S., Rey , S.-C., Jerjen , H., et al. 2014, , 215, 22, 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/22

    2014 doi

  58. [67]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  59. [68]

    R., Gorjian , V., Rebull , L

    Laher , R. R., Gorjian , V., Rebull , L. M., et al. 2012, , 124, 737, 10.1086/666883

    2012 doi

  60. [69]

    P., Spekkens , K., et al

    Lee-Waddell , K., Madrid , J. P., Spekkens , K., et al. 2018, , 480, 2719, 10.1093/mnras/sty2042

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

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

    Lintott , C. J., Schawinski , K., Slosar , A., et al. 2008, , 389, 1179, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x

    2008

  62. [71]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2021, , 907, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abce58

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14498, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14498

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14498, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14498

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    C., Fanson , J., Schiminovich , D., et al

    Martin , D. C., Fanson , J., Schiminovich , D., et al. 2005, , 619, L1, 10.1086/426387

    2005 doi

  65. [74]

    McQuinn , K. B. W., Skillman , E. D., Dolphin , A., et al. 2015, , 812, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/158

    2015 doi

  66. [75]

    McQuinn , K. B. W., Berg , D. A., Skillman , E. D., et al. 2020, , 891, 181, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7447

    2020 doi

  67. [76]

    P., C \^o t \'e , P., et al

    Mei , S., Blakeslee , J. P., C \^o t \'e , P., et al. 2007, , 655, 144, 10.1086/509598

    2007 doi

  68. [77]

    J., & Aivazis , M

    Millman , K. J., & Aivazis , M. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 9, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.36

    2011 doi

  69. [78]

    A., et al

    Morrissey , P., Conrow , T., Barlow , T. A., et al. 2007, , 173, 682, 10.1086/520512

    2007 doi

  70. [79]

    Y., Hwang , H

    Mun , J. Y., Hwang , H. S., Lee , M. G., et al. 2021, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 54, 17, 10.5303\

    2021

  71. [80]

    Oliphant , T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  72. [81]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.12633, 10.48550/arXiv.2008.12633

    Peletier , R., Iodice , E., Venhola , A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.12633, 10.48550/arXiv.2008.12633

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    M., Gullieuszik , M., Tonnesen , S., et al

    Poggianti , B. M., Gullieuszik , M., Tonnesen , S., et al. 2019, , 482, 4466, 10.1093/mnras/sty2999

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    M., et al

    Ramatsoku , M., Serra , P., Poggianti , B. M., et al. 2019, , 487, 4580, 10.1093/mnras/stz1609

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    W., Adams , M

    Ramsey , L. W., Adams , M. T., Barnes , T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp , 34--42, 10.1117/12.319287

    1998 doi

  77. [86]

    2017, , 843, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6c

    Rhee , J., Smith , R., Choi , H., et al. 2017, , 843, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6c

    2017 doi

  78. [87]

    D., van Weeren , R

    Roberts , I. D., van Weeren , R. J., Timmerman , R., et al. 2022, , 658, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142294

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    2020, reproject: Python-based astronomical image reprojection

    Robitaille , T., Deil , C., & Ginsburg , A. 2020, reproject: Python-based astronomical image reprojection . 2011.023

    2020

  80. [89]

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

    Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., Bennet , P., et al. 2015, , 806, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/95

    2015 doi

  81. [90]

    J., Seth , A

    Sand , D. J., Seth , A. C., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2017, , 843, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7557

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  83. [92]

    D., Salzer , J

    Skillman , E. D., Salzer , J. J., Berg , D. A., et al. 2013, , 146, 3, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/3

    2013 doi

  84. [93]

    M., Manrique , A., Garc \' a-G \'o mez , C., et al

    Solanes , J. M., Manrique , A., Garc \' a-G \'o mez , C., et al. 2001, , 548, 97, 10.1086/318672

    2001 doi

  85. [94]

    N., Hopkins , A

    Taylor , E. N., Hopkins , A. M., Baldry , I. K., et al. 2011, , 418, 1587, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x

    2011

  86. [95]

    I., Auld , R., & Minchin , R

    Taylor , R., Davies , J. I., Auld , R., & Minchin , R. F. 2012, , 423, 787, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20914.x

    2012

  87. [96]

    I., J \'a chym , P., et al

    Taylor , R., Davies , J. I., J \'a chym , P., et al. 2016, , 461, 3001, 10.1093/mnras/stw1475

    2016 doi

  88. [97]

    2020, , 159, 218, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6988

    Taylor , R., K \"o ppen , J., J \'a chym , P., et al. 2020, , 159, 218, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6988

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    L., & van Gorkom , J

    Tonnesen , S., Bryan , G. L., & van Gorkom , J. H. 2007, , 671, 1434, 10.1086/523034

    2007 doi

  90. [99]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  91. [100]

    Vollmer , B., Beck , R., Kenney , J. D. P., & van Gorkom , J. H. 2004, , 127, 3375, 10.1086/420802

    2004 doi

  92. [101]

    Vollmer , B., Cayatte , V., Balkowski , C., & Duschl , W. J. 2001, , 561, 708, 10.1086/323368

    2001 doi

  93. [102]

    M., Duc , P

    Weilbacher , P. M., Duc , P. A., & Fritze-v. Alvensleben , U. 2003, , 397, 545, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021522

    2003 doi

  94. [103]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  95. [104]

    K., Martin , D

    Wyder , T. K., Martin , D. C., Schiminovich , D., et al. 2007, , 173, 293, 10.1086/521402

    2007 doi

  96. [105]

    2002, , 567, 118, 10.1086/338353

    Yoshida , M., Yagi , M., Okamura , S., et al. 2002, , 567, 118, 10.1086/338353

    2002 doi

  97. [106]

    2008, , 688, 918, 10.1086/592430

    Yoshida , M., Yagi , M., Komiyama , Y., et al. 2008, , 688, 918, 10.1086/592430

    2008 doi

  98. [107]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 064003, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa5cea

    Zevin , M., Coughlin , S., Bahaadini , S., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 064003, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa5cea

    2017 doi

  99. [108]

    2009, , 400, 1181, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    Zibetti , S., Charlot , S., & Rix , H.-W. 2009, , 400, 1181, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.