Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 79 references

The FAST Ursa Major supergroup HI survey (FUMaS): catalog and HI mass function

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FAST's complete 21-cm census of the Ursa Major supergroup finds 178 HI sources and a low-mass HI mass function slope of -1.05, flatter than the global value.

desk verdict A genuinely useful and complete FAST HI catalog of the Ursa Major supergroup, with a plausible HIMF that is not yet fully secure because low-mass completeness is not quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07836 v2 pith:66CVI4ZG submitted 2025-01-14 astro-ph.GA

Haiyang Yu , Ming Zhu , Chuan-Peng Zhang , Peng Jiang , Jin-Long Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords HImassfunctionUrsaMajorsupergroupFASTtelescope21cmsurveyblinddwarfgalaxiesenvironmentaleffectsSchechter
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 reports a complete blind 21 cm survey of the Ursa Major supergroup with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST), yielding a catalog of 178 HI sources of which 55 are detected for the first time. The authors argue this is the most complete HI census of this nearby supergroup and use it to measure the HI mass function (HIMF) with the $1/V_{\max}$ method. They find a low-mass slope of $\alpha = -1.05 \pm 0.05$ (MML) to $-1.05 \pm 0.07$ (NLLS), a knee mass $\log_{10}(M_*/M_\odot)$ between $9.77$ and $9.87$, and a normalization $\log_{10}(\phi_*/\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3})$ between $-0.70$ and $-0.78$. If correct, this shows that the supergroup HIMF is flatter than the global value of about $-1.25$ to $-1.37$, meaning high-density environments contain fewer low-mass gas-rich galaxies, and the match to the optical luminosity function slope points to tidal rather than ram-pressure stripping.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is FAST's 19-beam receiver supported by the HiFAST pipeline and the SoFiA source finder, which convert the raw data cube into the 178-source catalog. HI masses come from the standard relation $M_{\mathrm{HI}} = 2.356\times10^5 D^2 S_{\mathrm{bf}}$ using a single assumed distance of 17.4 Mpc, and the HIMF is built with the $1/V_{\max}$ method, in which each galaxy's maximum detectable distance is capped by the survey shell between 14.7 and 21.6 Mpc; the Schechter function is then fitted with NLLS and MML to avoid binning biases. The physical conclusion rests on comparing this environmental HIMF with the global HIMF from HIPASS and ALFALFA.

What would settle it

Measure redshifts for the 32 HI sources without optical redshifts, for example through targeted optical spectroscopy or 21 cm follow-up at higher angular resolution. If a substantial fraction of these sources, or any of the 7 pure HI clouds, turn out to lie outside the 14.7 to 21.6 Mpc shell, recomputing their masses and $V_{\max}$ values with the correct distances would change the fitted slope; in particular, an $\alpha$ near $-1.25$ would refute the claimed environmental flattening.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a uniform, flux-calibrated HI catalog for the entire Ursa Major supergroup, built from FAST drift-scan and on-the-fly observations with a mean RMS of about 1 mJy per beam. With all sources assigned the assumed common distance of 17.4 Mpc and a survey volume bounded by the 14.7 to 21.6 Mpc shell, 178 sources span HI masses from $10^{6.0}$ to $10^{10.1}\,M_\odot$. Fitting a Schechter function with both NLLS and MML gives a low-mass slope of $\alpha = -1.05$ by both methods, and the paper interprets this flatter-than-global slope as evidence that interactions in the high-density supergroup strip gas from low-mass galaxies. The newly detected low-mass sources, concentrated near $10^7$ to $10^8\,M_\odot$, are what steepen the slope relative to the earlier VLA blind survey value of $\alpha = -0.92$.

Load-bearing premise

Every HI source is assumed to lie at the supergroup distance of 17.4 Mpc, with the survey volume taken as the shell between 14.7 and 21.6 Mpc, so the 32 sources without optical redshifts and especially the 7 pure HI clouds carry an unverified distance that directly affects both their masses and their $V_{\max}$ values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full-supergroup HI catalog gives optical campaigns a target list: the 32 sources without known redshifts, especially the 7 candidate pure HI clouds, can be followed up to test whether they are true supergroup members.
  • An environmental HIMF slope of about -1.05, flatter than the global -1.25 to -1.37, strengthens the theoretical picture that dense environments suppress the number of low-mass gas-rich galaxies, not just the stellar mass function.
  • The roughly 18 percent systematic flux excess of FAST over interferometric measurements implies single-dish surveys recover diffuse low-column-density gas that interferometers miss, so HIMF normalizations from the two techniques may not be directly comparable.
  • The 55 new detections, mostly at $10^7$ to $10^8\,M_\odot$, show that a sensitive single-dish survey can populate the low-mass end of an environmental HIMF, which is why the slope is steeper than the VLA-based value.
  • The match between the HIMF slope and the optical luminosity function slope implies tidal stripping, not ram pressure, is the dominant gas-removal mechanism in this X-ray-quiet supergroup.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test of the environmental interpretation would be to measure distances for the 32 unverified sources; if many are interlopers, the low-mass slope could move and the comparison with the global HIMF would need revision.
  • Applying the same FAST survey strategy to other nearby groups and clusters would produce environmental HIMFs on a uniform footing, allowing the slope to be mapped against density and group dynamical state rather than a single supergroup.
  • The seven HI clouds without optical counterparts may be a newly visible population of dark, low-mass gas clouds; deep optical and ultraviolet imaging would determine whether they are truly starless or merely extremely low-surface-brightness dwarfs.
  • The flux comparison suggests that published HIMF parameters from single-dish and interferometric surveys may differ systematically by the diffuse-gas fraction, and re-analysing archival single-dish surveys with the same column-density correction could reduce scatter in the global HIMF.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the FAST Ursa Major supergroup HI survey (FUMaS), a single-dish 21-cm survey covering the 7.5-degree-radius UMa region. The authors construct a catalog of 178 HI sources, including 55 first detections, and identify optical counterparts for 25 of the 32 sources lacking spectroscopic redshifts. They derive the HI mass function (HIMF) using the 1/V_max method and fit it with both non-linear least squares and modified maximum likelihood, obtaining a low-mass slope alpha = -1.05 and knee mass log10(M*/Msun) = 9.77-9.87, flatter than the global HIMF. They interpret this as evidence that environmental gas stripping suppresses the low-mass end in high-density regions.

Significance. If the derived HIMF is correct, this is a valuable measurement of the HI mass function in a nearby supergroup, adding to the sparse set of environmental HIMF estimates. The catalog itself is a useful resource, with careful comparisons to previous HI surveys (WSRT, VLA, HIJASS) and to optical catalogs, and the flux comparison in Figures 4-6 is a genuinely informative analysis of single-dish versus interferometric flux recovery. The robustness tests in Figure 14, comparing HIMF fits with and without HI clouds and small-group divisions, are a positive feature. However, the central claim that the low-mass slope is flatter than the global value rests on a completeness assumption that is not demonstrated, and the distance assignment for 32 sources without redshifts is an additional unquantified source of bias. These issues are load-bearing for the scientific conclusion, so the paper needs revision before the HIMF result can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, HIMF (paragraph beginning 'Due to the low completeness')] The paper filters out 8 detections below log M = 6.9 because of 'low completeness', but never quantifies the completeness of the survey at the masses that set the low-mass slope (roughly 10^7-10^8 Msun). The 1/V_max method corrects for a flux limit only if every source above the limit is detected. Here the detection threshold is a 4-sigma smoothing-and-clipping criterion applied in SoFiA to a cube whose RMS varies spatially (Figure 1), so detectability depends on line width, extent, and local noise. The recovery of all previously known sources establishes completeness for bright, resolved galaxies, not for the faint, newly detected dwarf population that dominates the low-mass end. Without an injection-recovery completeness function, a completeness-corrected analysis, or a quantitative argument that the filtered sample is complete, the fitted alpha = -1.05 can be biased. Missing low-mass galaxies would flatten the observed slope, which is exactly the direction of the paper's central claim. This needs to be addressed with simulations or the claim substantially weakened.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 2, and Section 5 (volume definition)] All 32 sources without optical redshifts are assigned the single distance of 17.4 Mpc and included in the survey volume defined by the shell 14.7-21.6 Mpc. For these sources, including the 7 classified as pure HI clouds, the distance is unverified. A foreground or background interloper would bias both the HI mass (Equation 2) and the V_max used in the 1/V_max estimate, directly affecting the HIMF slope. The paper states that 'each of these assumptions proved to have little impact on the result', but no test is shown. A quantitative check, such as recomputing the HIMF with these 32 sources assigned to the shell boundaries or excluding them, is needed to support the robustness claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The abstract says '55 HI sources were detected for the first time, of which 32 do not have known optical redshifts', but Table 2 contains sources flagged 'f' (already in the FASHI first release), so the 32 sources without redshifts are not a subset of the 55 new FUMaS detections. Please clarify the relationship between these two numbers.
  2. [Section 5, Equation (5)] The survey volume is computed as a full spherical shell of 123.65 Mpc^3, but the RMS map in Figure 1 shows substantial spatial variation and the coverage may not be uniform over the full 7.5-degree radius. Please confirm that the volume corresponds to the actually observed area, or discuss the impact of any coverage gaps.
  3. [Section 5, paragraph on methods] The text mentions the 2DSWML method as one of 'two main methods' but then says 1/V_max is used; the 2DSWML appears only in this introductory sentence. Please remove or clarify to avoid implying it was used.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figure 4] The sentence 'We reconfirmed the spectra at locations where no signal was detected' is unclear; it likely means the authors re-examined the optical positions in the HI cube. Please rephrase.
  5. [Section 6, conclusion item 1] The phrase 'assuming a unity distance of 17.4 Mpc' should read 'assuming a uniform distance of 17.4 Mpc'.
  6. [Section 5, V_max definition] The text says the maximum distance is calculated using '4 sigma_s' but does not define sigma_s explicitly in Equation (5) or its preceding paragraph. Please define it clearly, since the V_max calculation is central to the 1/V_max method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; HIMF parameters are fitted observables, not outputs of the cited prior work.

full rationale

The paper is an observational measurement, not a derivation-from-ansatz. The Schechter parameters (alpha = -1.05, M* ~ 10^9.8 Msun, phi* ~ 10^-0.7 Mpc^-3) are fitted directly to the 1/Vmax-corrected HI mass distribution via NLLS and MML; no equation in Section 5 takes these values as input. The reference to Busekool et al. (2021) for the adopted distance (17.4 Mpc) and volume shell (14.7-21.6 Mpc) is an external assumption, not a fitted quantity, and the paper explicitly tests the impact of dividing groups and pairs. The only self-citations are to FAST pipeline and survey papers (Jing et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2024; Yu et al. 2023), used for data processing and flux-calibration context, not for the HIMF values, so they are not load-bearing for the central claim. The completeness argument proceeds by comparison with independent previous catalogs (HIJASS, VLA, WSRT, optical catalogs), which is evidence rather than a definitional reduction; the skeptic's concern about unquantified completeness at low masses (no injected-source simulations) is a legitimate statistical robustness issue but does not make the fitted slope an input renamed as a prediction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard survey assumptions (single distance, Schechter form, 1/Vmax) plus a hand-chosen mass cut and the exclusion of HI clouds. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential inputs are the adopted distance and mass threshold, both of which directly shape the reported HIMF parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Mass completeness threshold = 10^6.9 Msun
    Eight detections with masses below 10^6.9 Msun are filtered out before fitting the HIMF; this threshold is chosen by hand and directly affects the low-mass slope.
  • NLLS bin width = 0.2 dex
    The non-linear least squares fit uses a 0.2 dex bin width; the choice is acknowledged to affect fitted parameters, although the MML method is used as a bin-free cross-check.
  • 4-sigma detection and Vmax threshold = 4 sigma
    SoFiA source finding and the Vmax noise scale both use a 4 sigma threshold; this standard choice determines which faint sources enter the HIMF.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All 178 HI sources are at the UMa distance of 17.4 Mpc and within the volume shell 14.7-21.6 Mpc.
    Adopted in Section 5 for calculating masses and Vmax; unverified for the 32 sources without optical redshifts.
  • domain assumption The HIMF follows a Schechter function.
    Equation (6) assumes the standard Schechter form; no alternative functional shape is tested.
  • domain assumption The 1/Vmax method gives unbiased number densities above the mass completeness limit.
    Used in Section 5; the paper does not provide completeness simulations to justify this assumption for the low-mass end.
  • domain assumption The biweight velocity selection in Section 3.1 isolates true supergroup members.
    Membership is determined by iteratively clipping velocities at 2 sigma; interlopers or missed members would bias the HIMF.
  • ad hoc to paper Seven HI sources without optical counterparts are HI clouds rather than gas-rich dwarf galaxies and are excluded from the HIMF.
    Section 4.1 classifies them as likely HI clouds because they are near galaxies; if any are actually ultra-faint dwarfs, the low-mass slope is underestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The FAST Ursa Major supergroup HI survey (FUMaS): catalog and HI mass function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66CVI4ZG

@misc{pith2026250107836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The FAST Ursa Major supergroup HI survey (FUMaS): catalog and HI mass function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66CVI4ZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07836}
}
abstract

Using the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST), we have performed an Ursa Major supergroup HI Survey (FUMaS) covering the entire UMa region centered at RA=11$^h$59$^m$28$^s$.3, DEC=49$^\circ$05'18" with a radius of 7.5$^\circ$. We have obtained the most complete catalog of HI sources in the UMa supergroup, containing 178 HI sources with velocities in the range 625-1213.4 km s$^{-1}$ and masses in the range 10$^{6.0}$-10$^{10.1}$ M$_{\odot}$ assuming a distance of 17.4 Mpc. Among them, 55 HI sources were detected for the first time, of which 32 do not have known optical redshifts. For these 32 sources, we have searched the DESI Legacy Surveys and found optical counterparts for 25 of them (with optical images, but no redshifts), with the remaining 7 sources to be pure HI clouds without an optical counterpart. We detected HI distributions in some interacting systems and discussed four small groups in detail. We computed the HIMF of the UMa supergroup using the 1/V$_\mathrm{max}$ method and fitting it with the non-linear least squares (NLLS) and modified maximum likelihood (MML) methods. We obtained the following HIMF parameters: log$_{10}$($\phi_*$/Mpc$^{-3}$) = -0.78 $\pm$ 0.15, $\alpha$ = -1.05 $\pm$ 0.07 and log$_{10}$($M_*$/$M_{\odot}$) = 9.87 $\pm$ 0.19 for the NLLS method, and log$_{10}$($\phi_*$/Mpc$^{-3}$) = -0.70 $\pm$ 0.11, $\alpha$ = -1.05 $\pm$ 0.05 and log$_{10}$($M_*$/$M_{\odot}$) = 9.77 $\pm$ 0.13 for the MML method. This result is similar to that derived from the VLA blind survey, but the slope is steeper because we detected more low-mass galaxies. The slope is flatter than that of the global HIMF, which agrees with the theoretical prediction that galaxies in high-density regions are stripped of gas due to interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RMS distribution of FAST observations of the UMa region. The black circle marks the UMa region with a radius of 7.5◦ . The mean value of RMS in the region is about 1 mJy beam−1 . feed. The flux calibration is obtained by calculating the antenna gain, which is approximately 16.1 K Jy−1 , de￾pending on ZA. For the removal of the baseline, we used the asymmetrically reweighted penalized least-squares (arPLS) algorithm … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Local group velocity distribution of galaxies in the UMa supergroup. The grey histogram is from FUMaS, the red dashed line is from Pak et al. (2014), and the green dotted line is from Tully et al. (1996). 2. Information on each parameter column in the table is described below: Column 1: The index number of each UMa supergroup H I source. Columns 2 and 3: Right ascension (RA) and declina￾tion (DEC) (J2000) of the det… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison with H I sources location information from previous H I blind survey. HIJASS is marked with ’.’ and Busekool et al. (2021) is marked with ’+’. The histogram above shows the distribution of Ra discrepancies, and the distribution of Dec discrepancies is shown on the right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison with flux densities in the literature. The upper plot shows the distribution of percentage differ￾ence, with the horizontal straight line being 0 and the two dashed lines representing ± 20. The lower plot compares flux densities, with the diagonal line repre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moment-0 map of NGC 3877 and UGC 7218. The outer black contour is the ellipse size of the source. The inner blue line is the contour with column density 5 × 1019 cm−2 . The H I position of the source and the HPBW of FAST are marked in the plot. UMa region are filtered,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) is the relationship between the percentage difference in flux and the Hsize parameter (ratio of the H I source area to the beam area), and (b) is the relationship between the FUMaS flux and the Hsize parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison with the 20% (a) and 50% (b) ve￾locity width in the literature. The upper plot of each panel shows the percentage distribution of the difference. Hori￾zontal lines correspond to 0 and ± 20, respectively. The lower plot is a comparison of the data, and the co…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Moment-0 map of the UMa region for the 500-1500 km s−1 integral range. The black circle shows the range of the UMa region. Red circles mark the positions of detections in the FUMaS catalog, with the crosses being the first detected H I sources. The blue crosses are opt…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: H I mass and stellar mass distribution of FUMaS detections. The top panel is log(MHI) vs log(M∗), while the bottom is log(MHI/M∗) vs log(M∗). The grey dots in the background are FASHI data, and the black line indicates its average distribution. The red crosses are pre…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: DESI Legacy Surveys DR10 multicolor images, moment-0 maps and profiles for 25 H I sources with optical counterparts without a redshift. The Legacy survey images are centered on the location of the H I sources and have a range of about 3×3 arcmin2 . The red circles mar…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: H I column density contours of 4 small groups overlaid on the DSS B-band optical image. Their integrated ranges are 500-1500 km s−1 for NGC 3992 group (a), 600-1400 km s−1 for NGC 4026 group (b), 500-1300 km s−1 for NGC 4111 group (c), and 550-1500 km s−1 for NGC 3998…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The top panel shows the H IMF of the UMa supergroup. The grey points with error bars are the number densities within each bin. The curve fitted by the MML method is the blue solid line, with the 1-σ uncertainty in the blue area. The red dashed line is the best fit fro…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The H IMF calculated with the NLLS method in different cases: (a)excluding H I clouds and filaments, divid￾ing small groups and confused pairs into individual galaxies; (b)including H I clouds and filaments, dividing small groups and confused pairs into individual gal…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    Appleton, P. N. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/203.2.533

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/203.2.533 1983

  3. [3]

    2015, The Analyst, 140, 250, doi: 10.1039/C4AN01061B

    Baek, S.-J., Park, A., Ahn, Y.-J., & Choo, J. 2015, The Analyst, 140, 250, doi: 10.1039/C4AN01061B

    doi:10.1039/c4an01061b 2015

  4. [5]

    C., Flynn, K., & Gebhardt, K

    Beers, T. C., Flynn, K., & Gebhardt, K. 1990, AJ, 100, 32, doi: 10.1086/115487

    doi:10.1086/115487 1990

  5. [6]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289, doi: 10.1086/378847

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  6. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2698 2020

  7. [8]

    R., Dalcanton, J., Eisenstein, D., et al

    Blanton, M. R., Dalcanton, J., Eisenstein, D., et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 2358, doi: 10.1086/320405

    doi:10.1086/320405 2001

  8. [9]

    R., Hogg, D

    Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 819, doi: 10.1086/375776

    doi:10.1086/375776 2003

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    2002, A&A, 388, 809, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020541

    Bottema, R. 2002, A&A, 388, 809, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020541

    2002 doi

  2. [11]

    Bottema, R., & Verheijen, M. A. W. 2002, A&A, 388, 793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020539

    2002 doi

  3. [12]

    2016, Physics of the Dark Universe, 12, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2016.02.001

    Bull, P., Akrami, Y., Adamek, J., et al. 2016, Physics of the Dark Universe, 12, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2016.02.001

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    Busekool, E., Verheijen, M. A. W., van der Hulst, J. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3582

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3018

    Chandola, Y., Li, D., Tsai, C.-W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3018

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    M., & Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2405

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    2017, in 2017 XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), 1–4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105012

    Dunning, A., Bowen, M., Castillo, S., et al. 2017, in 2017 XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), 1–4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105012

    2017

  8. [17]

    S., & Peterson, B

    Efstathiou, G., Ellis, R. S., & Peterson, B. A. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/232.2.431

    1988 doi

  9. [18]

    1990, A&AS, 86, 473

    Paturel, G. 1990, A&AS, 86, 473

    1990

  10. [19]

    2016, A&A, 592, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628282

    Serra, P. 2016, A&A, 592, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628282

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    2009, AJ, 138, 295, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/295

    Freeland, E., Stilp, A., & Wilcots, E. 2009, AJ, 138, 295, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/295

    2009 doi

  12. [21]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 2015, A&A Rv, 24, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-015-0085-3

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    P., Kent, B

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

    2005 doi

  14. [23]

    T., Ball, R., Hunter, J

    Gottesman, S. T., Ball, R., Hunter, J. H., J., & Huntley, J. M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 471, doi: 10.1086/162622 23

    1984 doi

  15. [24]

    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

  16. [25]

    L., Dowell, J., Haynes, M

    Hoffman, G. L., Dowell, J., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2019, AJ, 157, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14f6

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    2007, A&A, 462, 919, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065712

    Kunth, D. 2007, A&A, 462, 919, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065712

    2007 doi

  18. [28]

    2019, Science China

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China

    2019

  19. [29]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    doi

  20. [30]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  21. [31]

    2024, Science China

    Jing, Y., Wang, J., Xu, C., et al. 2024, Science China

    2024

  22. [32]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 259514, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2333-8

    doi

  23. [33]

    G., Haynes, M

    Jones, M. G., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Moorman, C. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty521

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa810

    Verdes-Montenegro, L. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa810

    2020 doi

  25. [35]

    G., Papastergis, E., Haynes, M

    Jones, M. G., Papastergis, E., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw263

    2016 doi

  26. [36]

    S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V

    Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V. A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 16, doi: 10.1086/421744

    2004 doi

  27. [37]

    V., Gnedin, O

    Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, O. Y., & Klypin, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 609, 482, doi: 10.1086/421322

    2004 doi

  28. [38]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075020, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad4fc3

    Liu, X.-L., Zhu, M., Xu, J.-L., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075020, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad4fc3

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09903

    Ma, W., Guo, H., Xu, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09903

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [40]

    S., Ponomareva, A

    Maddox, N., Frank, B. S., Ponomareva, A. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039655

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    M., Papastergis, E., Giovanelli, R., et al

    Martin, A. M., Papastergis, E., Giovanelli, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1359, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1359

    2010 doi

  32. [42]

    J., Zwaan, M

    Meyer, M. J., Zwaan, M. A., Webster, R. L., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1195, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x

    2004

  33. [43]

    M., Vogeley, M

    Moorman, C. M., Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1674

    2014 doi

  34. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3155 O’Neil, K., Schneider, S

    Westmeier, T. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3155 O’Neil, K., Schneider, S. E., van Driel, W., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd345

    2018 doi

  35. [45]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1722

    Pak, M., Rey, S.-C., Lisker, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1722

    2014 doi

  36. [46]

    2003, A&A, 412, 57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031412

    Paturel, G., Theureau, G., Bottinelli, L., et al. 2003, A&A, 412, 57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031412

    2003 doi

  37. [47]

    J., Barnes, D

    Pisano, D. J., Barnes, D. G., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/28

    2011 doi

  38. [48]

    A., Jarvis, M

    Ponomareva, A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Pan, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1249

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    R., Habas, R., et al

    Poulain, M., Marleau, F. R., Habas, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142012

    2022 doi

  40. [50]

    2020, The Innovation, 1, 100053, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100053

    Qian, L., Yao, R., Sun, J., et al. 2020, The Innovation, 1, 100053, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100053

    2020

  41. [51]

    L., & Schneider, S

    Rosenberg, J. L., & Schneider, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 247, doi: 10.1086/338377

    2002 doi

  42. [52]

    C., & Staveley-Smith, L

    Said, K., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz956

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    1976 doi

  44. [54]

    1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446

    Schmidt, M. 1968, ApJ, 151, 393, doi: 10.1086/149446

    1968 doi

  45. [55]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1835, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20219.x

    Serra, P., Oosterloo, T., Morganti, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1835, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20219.x

    2012

  46. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv079

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

    2015 doi

  47. [57]

    N., & Steinhardt, P

    Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, PhRvL, 84, 3760, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760

    2000 doi

  48. [58]

    M., Haynes, M

    Springob, C. M., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2005, ApJ, 621, 215, doi: 10.1086/427432

    2005 doi

  49. [59]

    P., Giovanelli, R., et al

    Stierwalt, S., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 338, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/338

    2009 doi

  50. [60]

    B., & Verheijen, M

    Trentham, N., Tully, R. B., & Verheijen, M. A. W. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 385, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04427.x

    2001

  51. [61]

    B., & Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., & Courtois, H. M. 2012, ApJ, 749, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/78

    2012 doi

  52. [62]

    B., Verheijen, M

    Tully, R. B., Verheijen, M. A. W., Pierce, M. J., Huang, J.-S., & Wainscoat, R. J. 1996, AJ, 112, 2471, doi: 10.1086/118196 van Driel, W., Davies, R. D., & Appleton, P. N. 1988, A&A, 199, 41 van Driel, W., Butcher, Z., Schneider, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A118, doi: 10.1051/0...

    1996 doi

  53. [63]

    P., & Jimenez, R

    Verde, L., Oh, S. P., & Jimenez, R. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 541, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05771.x

    2002

  54. [64]

    Verheijen, M. A. W., & Sancisi, R. 2001, A&A, 370, 765, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010090

    2001 doi

  55. [65]

    Verheijen, M. A. W., & Zwaan, M. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 240, Gas and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J. E. Hibbard, M. Rupen, & J. H. van Gorkom, 867

    2001

  56. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e61

    Wang, J., Lin, X., Yang, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e61

    2024 doi

  57. [67]

    S., & Staveley-Smith, L

    Westmeier, T., Jurek, R., Obreschkow, D., Koribalski, B. S., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2266 24

    2014 doi

  58. [68]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2289

    Westmeier, T., Obreschkow, D., Calabretta, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2289

    2017 doi

  59. [69]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1881

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

    2021 doi

  60. [70]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  61. [71]

    A., Koribalski, B

    Wolfinger, K., Kilborn, V. A., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts160

    2013 doi

  62. [72]

    Koribalski, B. S. 2016, PASA, 33, e038, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.31

    2016 doi

  63. [73]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26b7

    Xu, J.-L., Zhang, C.-P., Yu, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26b7

    2021 doi

  64. [74]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 2719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad436

    Yu, H., Zhu, M., Xu, J.-L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad436

    2023 doi

  65. [75]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Dey, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71

    2023 doi

  66. [76]

    2024, Science China

    Zhang, C.-P., Zhu, M., Jiang, P., et al. 2024, Science China

    2024

  67. [77]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    doi

  68. [78]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf5

    Zhou, R., Zhu, M., Yang, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf5

    2023 doi

  69. [79]

    A., Briggs, F

    Zwaan, M. A., Briggs, F. H., Sprayberry, D., & Sorar, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 173, doi: 10.1086/304872

    1997 doi

  70. [80]

    Webster, R. L. 2005, MNRAS, 359, L30, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00029.x

    2005

  71. [81]

    A., Staveley-Smith, L., Koribalski, B

    Zwaan, M. A., Staveley-Smith, L., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 2842, doi: 10.1086/374944

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.