Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 66 references

SHORES: Serendipitous H-ATLAS-fields Observations of Radio Extragalactic Sources with the ATCA. I: catalog generation and analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SHORES builds a 2294-source radio catalog at 2.1 GHz and pushes source counts to 150 microjansky.

desk verdict A useful new 2.1 GHz catalog with a genuinely measured ATCA primary beam to 3 FOV; the 95% completeness claim is provisional until the visual-inspection step is folded into the simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09662 v2 pith:C3Z7VJME submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Marcella Massardi , Meriem Behiri , Vincenzo Galluzzi , Marika Giulietti , Francesca Perrotta , Isabella Prandoni , Andrea Lapi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords ExtragalacticradiosourcessourcecatalogsinterferometrySurveyscountsFIR-radiocorrelationATCAH-ATLAS
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

The paper presents SHORES, a 2.1 GHz ATCA survey of 27 shallow fields centered on candidate lensed galaxies inside the Herschel-ATLAS Southern Galactic Field, and argues that serendipitous observations of targets chosen for other reasons can be turned into a statistically useful survey of the faint radio sky. It claims a catalog of 2294 sources detected at signal-to-noise ratio $\ge 4.5$ that is 95% complete above 0.5 mJy and 95% reliable, with Euclidean source counts measured down to 150 microjansky that agree with earlier work and with the Mancuso et al. (2017) model. The survey covers about 26 square degrees with sensitivity that peaks at $\lesssim 33\,\mu$Jy rms toward each pointing center, and reaches a resolution of 3.2 by 7.2 arcsec, at which 81% of sources are unresolved. A measured correction for the ATCA primary beam lets the authors use each field out to three times the nominal field of view, increasing the bright-source statistics. The overlap with H-ATLAS supplies FIR counterparts for 457 sources and yields the FIR-radio correlation for 394, extending the earlier lensed-sample analysis to ordinary sub-mJy sources.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a multiple pencil-beam survey geometry combined with three tools: a directly measured ATCA primary-beam profile (an 8th-order polynomial fit to PKSJ0537-441 observations across the four 512 MHz sub-bands) that extends usable imaging to about three FWHM from each pointing; BLOBCAT source extraction with corrections for peak bias, clean bias, and bandwidth smearing, cross-checked against AEGEAN and PySE; and simulated source injections on the representative field s2242-3241 that define the effective area, completeness, and the SNR $\ge 4.5$ reliability threshold. Together these determine which faint sources are real and how the surveyed area depends on flux density, which is what the source counts and FIR-radio correlation rest on.

What would settle it

Run the same completeness and reliability simulations on a different SHORES shallow field, or on a stack of several fields, injecting sources drawn from a source-count model other than Mancuso et al. (2017); if the recovered 95% completeness flux rises above 0.5 mJy or the false-detection rate at SNR 4.5 exceeds 5%, the quoted catalog statistics would not transfer to the whole survey.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that the sub-mJy radio sky at ~2 GHz can be characterized from a set of pointed, serendipitous pencil-beam fields rather than from a dedicated mosaic. By imaging each pointing to three times the ATCA primary-beam FWHM and applying a custom-measured beam correction, the paper obtains a 26-square-degree survey whose effective area grows with flux density; 2294 sources are cataloged at SNR $\ge 4.5$, 81% of them unresolved at 3.2 x 7.2 arcsec. Completeness and reliability, set by simulations on the representative field s2242-3241, reach 95% above 0.5 mJy and at SNR $\ge 4.5$, respectively. The Euclidean source counts at 2.1 GHz extend to 150 microjansky and agree with previous determinations and the Mancuso et al. (2017) model. Cross-matching with H-ATLAS gives 457 counterparts, 394 with enough FIR data for the $q_{\rm FIR}$ FIR-radio correlation, and 20 of the 27 central lensed candidates are detected, doubling the number with radio counterparts from the pilot campaign.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations that set the 95% completeness and reliability assume that the single field s2242-3241 represents the noise and source population of all 27 SHORES fields, and that the injected sources follow the Mancuso et al. (2017) model; the visual inspection step that builds the final catalog is not included in those simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-mJy 2.1 GHz source counts are now measured to 150 microjansky over about 26 square degrees, reducing cosmic variance by a factor of $\sqrt{27}$ relative to a single pencil-beam field.
  • The 2294-source catalog at 3.2 by 7.2 arcsec resolution, with 81% of sources unresolved, provides a faint radio-source sample for multi-wavelength follow-up and future SKA-era surveys.
  • The FIR-radio correlation is extended to ordinary sub-mJy sources, not just lensed candidates, using H-ATLAS counterparts and photometric redshifts for 394 sources.
  • Twenty of the 27 central lensed candidates now have radio detections, roughly doubling the number from the pilot campaign and supporting a star-formation origin for their radio emission.
  • The measured primary beam correction makes data usable to three times the nominal field of view, improving bright-source statistics and reducing sampling variance in the counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the primary-beam profile is stable across epochs, a similar correction could be applied to archival ATCA observations, turning many historical pointed observations into wide-field source-count measurements.
  • The deep SHORES fields, reaching about 8 microjansky, should test whether the Mancuso et al. (2017) model continues to hold below the 150 microjansky limit of this paper.
  • The polarization calibration described but not analyzed here could provide a direct test of AGN versus star-formation origin for the sub-mJy sources, with relevance to CMB foreground studies.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents the SHORES survey, a 2.1 GHz ATCA pencil-beam survey of 27 shallow fields covering ~26 deg² within the H-ATLAS Southern Galactic Field. The authors describe the observations, calibration, imaging, source extraction with three tools (BLOBCAT, AEGEAN, PySE), a custom primary-beam correction measured from dedicated observations, and a final catalog of 2294 sources detected with BLOBCAT at SNR ≥ 4.5. They report 95% completeness above 0.5 mJy and 95% reliability at SNR ≥ 4.5 from simulations on a single representative field, derive 2.1 GHz Euclidean source counts down to 150 μJy after completeness and effective-area corrections, and compare the counts with the Mancuso et al. (2017) model and other surveys. They also cross-match with H-ATLAS to compute the FIR-radio correlation parameter q_FIR for 394 sources and update the status of 20 candidate lensed galaxies.

Significance. If the catalog-level completeness and reliability claims hold, SHORES would provide a valuable new data set at a poorly explored frequency (2.1 GHz) and flux range (sub-mJy to ~1 Jy), with a public catalog, independent cross-checks against NVSS and RACS, and a directly measured ATCA primary beam. The paper's strengths include the multi-tool extraction comparison, the explicit validation against external surveys, the release of the full catalog as supplementary material, and the transparent description of the custom primary-beam and noise-profile corrections. The main significance rests on the faint-end source counts, which are used to test models of the sub-mJy radio population; therefore the completeness correction applied to those counts is the key load-bearing element.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.5 and §5] The completeness and reliability simulations validate BLOBCAT extraction on one representative field, but the published catalog is the product of BLOBCAT plus two stages of visual inspection described in §5, which reduced the 2649 SNR ≥ 4.5 detections to the 2294 published sources. The simulations do not include these inspection steps; if any genuine source was removed during inspection, the true completeness of the final catalog is lower than the quoted 95%. The paper does not quantify how many of the 355 removed objects were artifacts versus real sources contaminated by bright neighbors. Because the source counts in §6 are corrected with 1/C(S) derived from these simulations, this issue directly affects the validity of the faint-end counts. Please extend the completeness/reliability analysis to the full catalog-production pipeline, or provide an explicit bound on the number of real sources removed by the visual inspections.
  2. [§4.4 and §4.5] The completeness simulation is run only on field s2242-3241, chosen because its pixel-histogram distribution is closest to the median of the 27 fields (Figure 10). Table 5 shows that the per-field rms noise varies by about 35% (σ_B from 31 to 46 μJy), and the completeness correction 1/C(S) is largest at the faint fluxes that dominate the 150 μJy counts. The representativeness of s2242-3241 is not validated at the faint end, where source density, confusion, and calibration artifacts could differ between fields. Please run injection tests on at least a few fields spanning the observed σ_B range, or conservatively inflate the completeness uncertainty used in the source-count error budget.
  3. [§4.5 and §6] The completeness simulations inject sources drawn from the Mancuso et al. (2017) model, and the same model is used as the reference for the derived 2.1 GHz counts in Figure 20. Since several co-authors of the present paper are also authors of Mancuso et al. (2017), the agreement of the corrected counts with that model is not fully independent. The circularity is not absolute—the completeness correction is not forced to fit the model—but a mismatch between the true source population and the injection model would bias C(S) and hence the corrected counts. A concrete test would be to repeat the completeness simulations with an independent source-count model (e.g., one of the other literature counts shown in Figure 20) and report the change in the corrected counts; this should be added.
  4. [§4.5 and §5] The completeness simulations inject only point sources, while the final catalog contains 376 extended and 62 multi-component sources (§5). Detection efficiency for extended sources at fixed peak SNR is generally lower than for point sources, so the quoted 95% completeness above 0.5 mJy may not apply to the extended subset. Please state explicitly whether the completeness claim applies to the full catalog or only to point sources, and if the latter, provide separate completeness estimates for the extended and multi-component populations.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.1] Typo: "coverign" should be "covering" in the description of leakage calibrator observations.
  2. [Table 1] The header of Table 1 reads "T able 1"; it should be "Table 1".
  3. [Abstract and title] The title and abstract contain "A TLAS" and "A TCA", which should be "ATLAS" and "ATCA".
  4. [§2] The target name "HATLASJ005132.8-01848" appears incomplete; it likely should be "HATLASJ005132.8-301848" or similar.
  5. [§4.1 and §5] The number of BLOBCAT SNR ≥ 3 detections is inconsistent: Table 2 lists 13662, while §4.1 and §5 state 13688. Please unify these values.
  6. [§6] The text refers to "2297 SHORES sources" in the counts paragraph, but the catalog has 2294 sources; this appears to be a typo.
  7. [Figure 15] The left panel label "S=467.7 Jy" should presumably be "467.7 μJy" (or 0.468 mJy), consistent with the 95% completeness threshold quoted in the text.
  8. [Table 7] The column header "S2.5 2.1GHzdN/dS" is garbled; it should read "S^2.5 dN/dS" with the units correctly formatted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild circularity: completeness simulations and the model comparison both use the Mancuso et al. (2017) counts; otherwise the catalog derivation is self-contained.

  1. other [Sections 4.5 and 6 (completeness simulations and Fig. 20 comparison)]
    "To perform the simulation, we injected 10000 point sources of flux density extracted according to the radio number counts by Mancuso et al. (2017), one at a time, into random positions on the inverse map of s2242-3241 using the Miriad task IMGEN. ... The number of sources per bin of flux have been corrected for the completeness (see Figure 15) and divided by the effective area ... For comparison and reference, we reported the predictions by the Mancuso et al. (2017) model at 2.1 GHz."

    The completeness correction C(S) applied to the measured source counts is estimated by injecting fake sources whose flux distribution is exactly the Mancuso et al. (2017) model, and the corrected counts are then displayed against that same model as the reference curve. In finite flux bins, C(S) is a detection probability averaged over the injected model's flux distribution, so the faint-end counts inherit part of the model's shape where the correction is largest (e.g., the 0.15-0.68 mJy bin). Thus the claimed agreement with Mancuso et al. is partly an input-output loop rather than a fully independent test.

full rationale

The core catalog construction is largely self-contained: flux densities come from ATCA observations extracted with BLOBCAT, cross-checked with AEGEAN and PySE and against NVSS and RACS, and the primary-beam correction is measured from a dedicated calibrator observation rather than assumed from prior work. The main circularity concern is confined to the faint-end source-count comparison: the completeness correction is calibrated on injections drawn from Mancuso et al. (2017), and the same model is used as the comparison curve in Fig. 20. Because C(S) is a per-flux detection probability and the real detected counts enter the estimate directly, the corrected counts are not equal to the model by construction; the self-citation is mildly load-bearing but not decisive. I find no self-definitional equations, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness argument imported from the authors' prior work. The SNR>=4.5 threshold is chosen so that the negative-map reliability is 95%, so the phrase '95% reliable' restates the operating point rather than predicts it, which is standard practice and not scored as circular. Separate limitations—completeness/reliability simulations use one representative field and do not include the manual visual-inspection step that pruned the catalog from 2649 to 2294 sources—are real validity gaps, but they are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are standard assumptions and per-source SED fit parameters; the key model-dependent input is the Mancuso et al. (2017) source count model used in completeness simulations. The primary beam polynomial coefficients are measured calibration data, not free parameters fit to source fluxes.

free parameters (5)
  • Spectral index alpha = -0.7
    Assumed for k-correction and luminosity calculations (Section 7), not fitted to the data; a fixed literature value.
  • Dust emissivity index beta = 1.5
    Fixed in the modified blackbody fits used to derive FIR luminosities (Section 7).
  • Modified blackbody temperature and normalization (per source) = Free parameters per source
    Fitted to SPIRE photometry to compute LFIR (Equation 3); these fits propagate into qFIR.
  • SNR detection threshold = 4.5
    Chosen from reliability simulations to achieve 95% reliability; a cutoff, not a physical parameter.
  • Rest threshold for extended sources = 2
    Chosen from simulations to distinguish point-like and extended sources (Section 4.5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Field s2242-3241 is representative of all 27 SHORES fields for completeness and reliability simulations.
    Stated in Section 4.5: the field was chosen because its pixel distribution is closest to the median, but the assumption that its noise properties represent all fields is not tested for fields with bright sources.
  • domain assumption The primary beam response measured on PKSJ0537-441 applies to all SHORES fields.
    Section 4.2: the beam profile is measured on one calibrator and applied to all fields, despite different declinations and elevations; no uncertainty is propagated.
  • domain assumption The Mancuso et al. (2017) source count model describes the true underlying radio source population for simulations.
    Section 4.5: injected source flux densities are drawn from this model, which is also used as a comparison for the final counts; if the model is wrong at the faint end, the completeness correction is biased.
  • domain assumption H-ATLAS SPIRE photometric redshifts are sufficiently accurate for luminosity and qFIR computations.
    Section 7: photometric redshifts with ~28% uncertainty are used to compute radio and FIR luminosities, but these uncertainties are not propagated into the displayed qFIR values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SHORES: Serendipitous H-ATLAS-fields Observations of Radio Extragalactic Sources with the ATCA. I: catalog generation and analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3Z7VJME

@misc{pith2026250109662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SHORES: Serendipitous H-ATLAS-fields Observations of Radio Extragalactic Sources with the ATCA. I: catalog generation and analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3Z7VJME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09662}
}
abstract

We introduce the Serendipitous H-ATLAS-fields Observations of Radio Extragalactic Sources (SHORES) multiple pencil beam survey that observed at 2.1 GHz with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) 29 fields in total intensity and polarization within the Herschel-ATLAS Southern Galactic Field. This paper presents the observations, calibration and analysis of the 27 shallow fields that cover an overall area of $\sim 26$ square degree with increasing sensitivity towards the phase centers of each pointing according to the ATCA 22 m dish response function, down to $\sigma\lesssim 33\, \mu$Jy. Two additional (deep) fields have been observed to even higher sensitivity. All the SHORES observations have been calibrated to account also for linear polarization. Polarization and deeper field analysis will be presented in future papers. The SHORES shallow-field sample considered in the present paper counts $2294$ sources detected with BLOBCAT to signal-to-noise ratio $SNR\gtrsim 4.5$. Simulations determined that our procedure and final catalog is 95% reliable above $497.5\, \mu$Jy and $95\%$ complete to the $SNR\gtrsim 4.5$ significance level. By exploiting ATCA E-W 6 km configuration we reached resolutions of $3.2\times 7.2$ arcsec, to which level $81\%$ of our sources are unresolved. We determined source counts down to the $150\, \mu$Jy level. For the sources with a counterpart in H-ATLAS, the FIR-radio correlation is calculated and discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. H-ATLAS map of the SGP region with superimposed the footprints of the SHORES shallow fields. The center of each field coincides with one of the candidate lensed galaxies in Negrello & Herschel-Atlas Team (2017). Gravitational lensing magnifies the flux densities of the lensed sources: DSFGs that dominate the source counts in the FIR domain are thus pushed to the counts’ brightest end if affected by lensing. With thi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of Stokes’ I maps at 1332 MHz around the brightest source (i.e. 36 mJy) of the field s0048-3031. Top panels: (Left) initial map without self-calibration (noise rms measured at the border of the FOV with no sources is 107 µJy/beam); (Right) the same region after a first round of phase self-calibration (5 min solution interval, rms 82 µJy/beam). Bottom panels: (Left) after the second round of phase self-cal… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Positional discrepancy between detections. Colours refer to the BLOBCAT SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left and central panels Comparison of flux densities detected with the various methods. Colours refer to the BLOBCAT SNR. Right panel Comparison of peak flux densities and their errors as extracted by each method color-coded as BLOBCAT in blue, AEGEAN in green, PySE in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left panel) Profile of the ATCA primary beam response function that we measured on PKSJ0537-441 in the mfs image (black line and dots) and for each of our sub-bands (solid lines) compared with the multi-frequency synthesis profile implemented in Miriad (red line), and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples extracted from different annuli of uncorrected (orange) vs corrected (cyan) fit to the sub-bands measure￾ments. The stars indicate the values at 2.1 GHz extracted from the fits. The blue dot is the corrected version of the maroon dot at 2.1 GHz measured from t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio between the flux densities at 2.1 GHz from the mfs map and fitted from the sub-bands as a function of the source distance from the phase center for the 546 sources with a SNR>5 detection in all the 4 sub-bands. The red points are the result of the application of …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Map of the median of the pixels for the flux density and of the PySE noise maps (right panel) of the 27 shallow fields with no primary beam correction applied. The annuli described in the text are overlaid in all the panels. Axis are in arcmin, colour scales in Jy [PI…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized mean profile of the noise maps as a function of the distance from the phase center. The purple line is the fit N(d) that we used to calculate the component of the noise σpb(d). Vertical lines indicate the annuli limits. where d is the distance from the phase…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fractional pixel distributions of the absolute value of total intensity maps of the 27 shallow fields and their median trend (orange line). The field s2242-3241 (purple line) is the closest to the median trend, and for this reason it is assumed as representative of ou…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Map of the representative field s2242-3241 (left panel) and its noise map as estimated by PySE (right) While the profile of the non-primary-beam-corrected flux density map is consistent with zero, as expected, the median profile of the noise map is not null and decrea…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative area per field of the pixels with values smaller than a given value, corresponding to the effective area for each flux density limit, accounting (right panel) or not (left panel) for the primary beam response function: the former indicates the area on which…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left panel. Difference in ingested and detected source position in RA and DEC for simulated sources. Colors refer to the distance from the center in deg. Right panel. Comparison of ingested and detected flux densities for simulated sources. density level we could find…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Completeness (left panel) and reliability (right panel) of our simulations. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Distance from the center [deg] 10 0 4 × 10 1 6 × 10 1 2 × 10 0 3 × 10 0 S T/ S P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Ratio of the integral vs peak flux densities for simulated point sources at varying distance from the phase center. were used to detect the real radio sources in the survey. Thus, we estimated the ratio of the injected sources that BLOBCAT was able to detect as (Ndet/…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Ratio between total flux and peak flux as a function of the peak flux for the SHORES sources. Extended and point sources are colored according to the BLOBCAT Rest parameter value (the size of the candidate source in units of numbers of Gaussian elements with peak equa…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Fluxes extracted in the SHORES survey vs fluxes from the NVSS (left panel) and RACS (right panel) catalog. The different colors indicate the annulus where the source is located [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of the same region of field s0000-3340 as imaged by NVSS (left panel), RACS (central panel), and SHORES (right panel). sensitivity of ∼ 0.25 (RACS-low) and 0.2 mJy/beam (RACS-mid, high) with a resolution of ∼ 15” (RACS-low), 10” (RACS-mid) and 8” (RACS-high…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Euclidean differential source counts at 2.1 GHz. For comparison we added recent estimates by Butler et al. (2018), Heywood et al. (2020), and Smolˇci´c et al. (2018). mJy and the brightest source is SHORESJ234145.9-350620.5 with 1.05 ± 0.15 Jy flux density. The sub-mJ…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Discrepancy between the RA and DEC of our targets and those from the H-ATLAS catalog. The colour bar indicates the distance between the SHORES source and the corresponding H-ATLAS source. 0 2 4 6 Redshift 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 q FIR Ivison et al. 2010 Le…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIRRC qF IR is shown as a function of redshift (left) and 1.4 GHz luminosity (right) for 414 sources in our catalog, specifically those with at least three FIR photometric points, including 20 candidate lensed galaxies (cyan circles). The color bars represent the 1.4 …
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Snapshot of SHORES map in the position of the candidate lensed sources at the center of the SHORES fields with a detection with signal to noise ratio > 4.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 13 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]

    *¸ HB _d ,9d 4z QE

    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]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 14, 10.3390/galaxies12020014

    Behiri , M., Giulietti , M., Galluzzi , V., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 14, 10.3390/galaxies12020014

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12020014 2024

  5. [5]

    Bock , D. C. J., Large , M. I., & Sadler , E. M. 1999, , 117, 1578, 10.1086/300786

    doi:10.1086/300786 1999

  6. [6]

    2021, , 500, 22, 10.1093/mnras/staa3218

    Bonato , M., Prandoni , I., De Zotti , G., et al. 2021, , 500, 22, 10.1093/mnras/staa3218

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3218 2021

  7. [7]

    2017, , 472, 628, 10.1093/mnras/stx2102

    Bonavera , L., Gonz \'a lez-Nuevo , J., De Marco , B., Arg \"u eso , F., & Toffolatti , L. 2017, , 472, 628, 10.1093/mnras/stx2102

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2102 2017

  8. [8]

    2008, , 681, 1129, 10.1086/589324

    Bondi , M., Ciliegi , P., Schinnerer , E., et al. 2008, , 681, 1129, 10.1086/589324

    doi:10.1086/589324 2008

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2003, , 403, 857, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030382

    Bondi , M., Ciliegi , P., Zamorani , G., et al. 2003, , 403, 857, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030382

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad3381

    Borsato , E., Marchetti , L., Negrello , M., et al. 2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad3381

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Hopkins , A

    Boyce , M. M., Hopkins , A. M., Riggi , S., et al. 2023, , 40, e027, 10.1017/pasa.2023.29

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    H., & Schwab , F

    Bridle , A. H., & Schwab , F. R. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G. B. Taylor , C. L. Carilli , & R. A. Perley , 371

    1999

  5. [13]

    2018, , 620, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630129

    Butler , A., Huynh , M., Delhaize , J., et al. 2018, , 620, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630129

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, Astronomy and Computing, 23, 92, 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.02.003

    Carbone , D., Garsden , H., Spreeuw , H., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Computing, 23, 92, 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.02.003

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Condon , J. J. 1992, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 254, Testing the AGN paradigm, ed. S. S. Holt , S. G. Neff , & C. M. Urry , 629--639, 10.1063/1.42217

    1992 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693, 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Fomalont , E. B., et al. 2012, , 758, 23, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/23

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, , 668, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244452

    D'Amato , Q., Prandoni , I., Gilli , R., et al. 2022, , 668, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244452

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04825, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04825

    De Zotti , G., Bonato , M., Giulietti , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04825, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04825

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2010, , 18, 1, 10.1007/s00159-009-0026-0

    de Zotti , G., Massardi , M., Negrello , M., & Wall , J. 2010, , 18, 1, 10.1007/s00159-009-0026-0

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    T., et al

    Delvecchio , I., Daddi , E., Sargent , M. T., et al. 2021, , 647, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039647

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Grundy , J

    Duchesne , S. W., Grundy , J. A., Heald , G. H., et al. 2024, , 41, e003, 10.1017/pasa.2023.60

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2010, , 122, 499, 10.1086/653086

    Eales , S., Dunne , L., Clements , D., et al. 2010, , 122, 499, 10.1086/653086

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Gaensler , B

    Farnes , J. S., Gaensler , B. M., & Carretti , E. 2014, , 212, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/15

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, , 465, 4085, 10.1093/mnras/stw3017

    Galluzzi , V., Massardi , M., Bonaldi , A., et al. 2017, , 465, 4085, 10.1093/mnras/stw3017

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, , 511, 1408, 10.1093/mnras/stac145

    Giulietti , M., Massardi , M., Lapi , A., et al. 2022, , 511, 1408, 10.1093/mnras/stac145

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & Wright , A

    Griffith , M. R., & Wright , A. E. 1993, , 105, 1666, 10.1086/116545

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    1999, , 305, 297, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02415.x

    Gruppioni , C., Ciliegi , P., Rowan-Robinson , M., et al. 1999, , 305, 297, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02415.x

    1999

  21. [29]

    2022, , 512, 6104, 10.1093/mnras/stac880

    G \"u rkan , G., Prandoni , I., O'Brien , A., et al. 2022, , 512, 6104, 10.1093/mnras/stac880

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A

    Hale , C. L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A. J. M., et al. 2021, , 38, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Murphy , T., Gaensler , B

    Hancock , P. J., Murphy , T., Gaensler , B. M., Hopkins , A., & Curran , J. R. 2012, , 422, 1812, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20768.x

    2012

  24. [33]

    J., Trott , C

    Hancock , P. J., Trott , C. M., & Hurley-Walker , N. 2018, , 35, e011, 10.1017/pasa.2018.3

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    J., White , R

    Helfand , D. J., White , R. L., & Becker , R. H. 2015, , 801, 26, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    L., Jarvis , M

    Heywood , I., Hale , C. L., Jarvis , M. J., et al. 2020, , 496, 3469, 10.1093/mnras/staa1770

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    J., & Condon , J

    Heywood , I., Jarvis , M. J., & Condon , J. J. 2013, , 432, 2625, 10.1093/mnras/stt843

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    J., Baker , A

    Heywood , I., Jarvis , M. J., Baker , A. J., et al. 2016, , 460, 4433, 10.1093/mnras/stw1250

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    J., Hale , C

    Heywood , I., Jarvis , M. J., Hale , C. L., et al. 2022, , 509, 2150, 10.1093/mnras/stab3021

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Afonso , J., Chan , B., et al

    Hopkins , A. M., Afonso , J., Chan , B., et al. 2003, , 125, 465, 10.1086/345974

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    M., Mobasher , B., Cram , L., & Rowan-Robinson , M

    Hopkins , A. M., Mobasher , B., Cram , L., & Rowan-Robinson , M. 1998, , 296, 839, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01403.x

    1998

  32. [41]

    M., Whiting , M

    Hopkins , A. M., Whiting , M. T., Seymour , N., et al. 2015, , 32, e037, 10.1017/pasa.2015.37

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Duchesne , S

    Hurley-Walker , N., Galvin , T. J., Duchesne , S. W., et al. 2022, , 39, e035, 10.1017/pasa.2022.17

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Magnelli , B., Ibar , E., et al

    Ivison , R. J., Magnelli , B., Ibar , E., et al. 2010, , 518, L31, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014552

    2010 doi

  35. [44]

    C., & Thompson , T

    Lacki , B. C., & Thompson , T. A. 2010, , 717, 196, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/196

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    S., et al

    Lamee , M., Rudnick , L., Farnes , J. S., et al. 2016, , 829, 5, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/5

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    2018, , 857, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6af

    Lapi , A., Pantoni , L., Zanisi , L., et al. 2018, , 857, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6af

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    J., Lutz , D., et al

    Magnelli , B., Ivison , R. J., Lutz , D., et al. 2015, , 573, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424937

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    2017, , 842, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa745d

    Mancuso , C., Lapi , A., Prandoni , I., et al. 2017, , 842, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa745d

    2017 doi

  41. [51]

    2016, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 25, 1640009, 10.1142/S0218271816400095

    Massardi , M., Galluzzi , V., Paladino , R., & Burigana , C. 2016, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 25, 1640009, 10.1142/S0218271816400095

    2016 doi

  42. [52]

    D., Murphy , T., et al

    Massardi , M., Ekers , R. D., Murphy , T., et al. 2011, , 412, 318, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17917.x

    2011

  43. [53]

    L., Lenc , E., et al

    McConnell , D., Hale , C. L., Lenc , E., et al. 2020, , 37, e048, 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    M., Ekers , R

    Murphy , T., Sadler , E. M., Ekers , R. D., et al. 2010, , 402, 2403, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15961.x

    2010

  45. [55]

    2017, Submillimeter Array Newsletter, 24, 10

    Negrello , M., & Herschel-Atlas Team . 2017, Submillimeter Array Newsletter, 24, 10

    2017

  46. [56]

    P., Marvil , J., Collier , J

    Norris , R. P., Marvil , J., Collier , J. D., et al. 2021, , 38, e046, 10.1017/pasa.2021.42

    2021 doi

  47. [57]

    2017, , 602, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    Novak , M., Smol c i \'c , V., Delhaize , J., et al. 2017, , 602, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629436

    2017 doi

  48. [58]

    R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al

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

    2014 doi

  49. [59]

    2020, , 641, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    2000, , 146, 31, 10.1051/aas:2000360

    Prandoni , I., Gregorini , L., Parma , P., et al. 2000, , 146, 31, 10.1051/aas:2000360

    2000 doi

  51. [61]

    2018, , 481, 4548, 10.1093/mnras/sty2521

    Prandoni , I., Guglielmino , G., Morganti , R., et al. 2018, , 481, 4548, 10.1093/mnras/sty2521

    2018 doi

  52. [62]

    J., Teuben , P

    Sault , R. J., Teuben , P. J., & Wright , M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw , H. E. Payne , & J. J. E. Hayes , 433, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  53. [63]

    Schleicher , D. R. G., & Beck , R. 2013, , 556, A142, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321707

    2013 doi

  54. [64]

    Schober , J., Schleicher , D. R. G., & Klessen , R. S. 2016, , 827, 109, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/109

    2016 doi

  55. [65]

    2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170522, 10.1098/rsos.170522

    Simpson , C. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170522, 10.1098/rsos.170522

    2017 doi

  56. [66]

    2018, , 620, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732336

    Smol c i \'c , V., Intema , H., S laus , B., et al. 2018, , 620, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732336

    2018 doi

  57. [67]

    2018, , 618, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732342

    Trombetti , T., Burigana , C., De Zotti , G., Galluzzi , V., & Massardi , M. 2018, , 618, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732342

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    S., & Carilli , C

    Yun , M. S., & Carilli , C. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 235, Science with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, ed. A. Wootten , 351

    2001

Pith tools

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