Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 35 references

Testing OH Megamaser Identification Methods in HI Surveys: Updated Source-Flagging Algorithms and New Detections in ALFALFA

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that updated WISE infrared flagging, verified with optical spectroscopy, has uncovered five new OH megamasers misclassified as HI sources in the ALFALFA survey, bringing the confirmed total to 18.

desk verdict Five new OH megamasers recovered from ALFALFA by an updated WISE-based classifier; the core result is plausible but the single-line confirmation caveat needs airing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06115 v1 pith:T5D7FRFB submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.GA

Hayley Roberts , Jeremy Darling , Kelley M. Hess , Andrew J. Baker , Elizabeth A. K. Adams , Helga Dénes This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords OHmegamasersHydroxylmasersHIlineemissionWISEphotometrySkysurveysStarburstgalaxiesALFALFAsurvey
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

OH megamasers—bright 18 cm hydroxyl masers produced in gas-rich galaxy mergers—can masquerade as 21 cm neutral-hydrogen emitters in untargeted surveys, and this paper claims that their infrared colors give them away. The authors apply updated WISE W1-W2 and W1-W2-W3 flagging algorithms to the ALFALFA and Apertif HI catalogs, then verify the most promising candidates with optical spectroscopy. Five ALFALFA sources previously catalogued as HI turn out to be OH megamasers at $z_{\rm OH}\approx0.18$–$0.21$, and two further known OHMs were found to have been misclassified as HI, bringing the confirmed ALFALFA total to 18. The result matters for the next generation of HI surveys, which are expected to detect thousands of OH megamasers and will need a fast, redshift-free way to separate them from the HI population.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the frequency-ratio conversion between the two radio lines: if a line detected at redshift $z_{\rm HI}$ is actually the OH transition at $\nu_{\rm OH,0}=1667.35903$ MHz rather than HI at $\nu_{\rm HI,0}=1420.40575$ MHz, the true redshift is $z_{\rm OH}=(\nu_{\rm OH,0}/\nu_{\rm HI,0})(1+z_{\rm HI})-1$. Around this identity the paper builds a three-way one-vs-all classifier on WISE near- and mid-infrared colors (3.4, 4.6, and 12 $\mu$m bands), separating ordinary HI galaxies, low-surface-brightness galaxies, and probable OHM hosts; the W1-W2 and W1-W2-W3 versions flag candidates with at least 90% OHM likelihood. Optical spectroscopy of H$\alpha$ then supplies the independent redshift that decides between the HI and OH interpretations of the radio line.

What would settle it

Re-observe the five new sources and measure each optical redshift from at least two independent emission lines, such as H$\alpha$ together with the [N II] doublet or the [S II] doublet; if any multi-line redshift disagrees with $z_{\rm OH}$ by more than the quoted $\sim33$ km/s uncertainty, that source is not confirmed as an OHM and the flagging claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that photometric flagging plus modest optical follow-up can recover OH megamasers hiding inside HI survey catalogs. Applying the updated infrared algorithms to the full ALFALFA catalog and a preliminary Apertif catalog produced candidate lists, and optical spectroscopy of 142 candidates confirmed five new OHM hosts whose detected radio lines, at redshifts $z_{\rm OH}$ consistent with the 1667 MHz OH transition, had been misidentified as 21 cm HI emission. The paper also finds that IRAS 10339+1548 and IRAS 22135+0043, two OHMs known from earlier work, are present in ALFALFA but mislabeled as HI sources, raising the confirmed ALFALFA OHM count to 18. These detections are presented as support for the earlier prediction that OH interlopers will contaminate untargeted HI surveys and that the updated WISE-based algorithms can identify them.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on accepting an OHM identification when the measured optical redshift agrees with the OH interpretation of a single radio line; for spectra with only H$\alpha$, a redshift is reported only if it already agrees with the presumed HI or OH redshift, so chance agreement or a misidentified optical counterpart could be counted as confirmation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ALFALFA catalog now contains 18 confirmed OH megamasers, showing that even a heavily scrutinized HI survey hides maser interlopers that infrared flagging can recover.
  • The two previously catalogued OHMs that were misclassified as HI sources demonstrate that OH contamination persists in final HI catalogs, not just in candidate lists.
  • The updated three-class algorithm reduces false positives from low-surface-brightness galaxies, making the identification method more practical for large-area surveys.
  • The preliminary Apertif result is consistent with the predicted $\sim$0.09% OH contamination rate, suggesting that contamination estimates will scale to future surveys.
  • Next-generation SKA-precursor HI surveys, expected to detect thousands of OH megamasers, will need independent spectroscopic redshifts or similarly validated photometric flagging to avoid misclassifying them as HI.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because known OHMs were part of the training set, the reported success rate is an upper bound on what the algorithm would achieve on wholly unseen data; a blind, held-out test would give a fairer estimate of its false-positive rate.
  • Beyond the paper: the frequency-ratio trick that moves OH lines into HI survey bands is generic, so similar photometric flagging could in principle identify other maser species or recombination lines that contaminate future wide-area surveys.
  • Beyond the paper: OH line luminosities derived from HI flux and line width assume the OH line profile matches the HI profile after a simple frequency scaling; direct OH spectroscopy of these sources would test that assumption.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper tests and updates the WISE-based OH megamaser (OHM) identification algorithms of Roberts et al. (2021) on the ALFALFA and Apertif HI surveys. After adding a low-surface-brightness (LSB) galaxy class via a one-vs-all classifier, the authors selected high-likelihood OHM candidates, obtained APO optical spectra of 142 optical counterparts, and report five new OHM host galaxies in ALFALFA plus two previously catalogued OHMs that were misclassified as HI emitters. The paper also compares the observed count with predictions from an OH luminosity function and discusses implications for future HI surveys.

Significance. If the five identifications are secure, the paper delivers a useful methodological result: it shows that photometric WISE flags can select OHM interlopers in HI surveys and that such interlopers are present at levels comparable to earlier predictions. The updated three-class algorithm and the explicit treatment of LSB galaxies are practical contributions for SKA-precursor surveys. The paper's machine-readable tables and published spectra are a strength, as is the candid acknowledgment that some recovered sources were used in training. However, the confirmation path contains a selection effect: single-line H-alpha redshifts are reported only when they agree with the presumed OH or HI redshift, so the independence of the new detections is not established from the published text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Section 4, Table 1] The central claim of five new OHMs rests on optical redshifts that match z_OH within the adopted ~33 km/s uncertainty, but Section 3 states that for sources with only H-alpha detected, an optical redshift is presented only if it agrees with the presumed HI or OH redshift. This conditions the confirmation on the hypothesis being tested and can bias the confirmation rate upward: a single-line spectrum that disagrees would never enter the reported confirmation set. The paper does not state which of the five OHMs in Table 1 were confirmed from only H-alpha. Table A2, footnote a, shows that single-line redshifts are sometimes reported in the 'Neither' category, so the stated criterion is applied inconsistently. Please provide per-source line detections for the five OHM candidates and either justify the single-line selection or recompute the confirmations without it.
  2. [Section 5.1.1 and Section 6] The recovery of IRAS 10339+1548 and IRAS 22135+0043 is presented as supporting the algorithms, but the text itself notes that both were known OHMs used to train the classifiers. Their being flagged is therefore expected and does not constitute independent validation. The independent evidence is the five previously unknown candidates. The abstract, conclusion, and Section 5.1.1 should make this distinction explicit and should avoid presenting the two reidentified sources as separate successes of the updated flagging method.
  3. [Section 5.1] The predicted number N_OH = 35.8 is obtained by integrating the OH luminosity function from Roberts et al. (2021), whose fitting sample includes previously known OHM hosts. The comparison between this prediction and the 18 OHMs now known in ALFALFA is therefore not fully independent. Please state whether the OHLF fit includes any ALFALFA OHMs and, if so, how the inclusion affects the expected count and the quoted uncertainty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1.2] The text gives the ALFALFA sensitivity as '0.72 km s^-1' and '0.845 km s^-1'; these quantities should be in Jy km s^-1, and the value should be harmonized with the Figure 6 caption, which states 0.846 Jy km s^-1.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) uses the on-sky semi-major axis a and the axis ratio q, but the units of a are not stated in the equation; please add a sentence clarifying that a is in arcseconds and that the Petrosian radius is used as the effective aperture.
  3. [Table A2, footnote b] Footnote b describes redshifts that are 'close to the expected redshifts' while the table categorizes them as 'Neither'; please clarify whether these sources are considered possible secondary contributors or non-matches, as the current wording is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The five new OHM confirmations rest on optical spectroscopy and are not circular in themselves, but the paper's supporting prediction statistics and single-line redshift reporting are partially self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Observations & Data Reduction (optical redshift calculation paragraph)]
    "For a small number of sources, only the Hα line is detected, and for these sources, we only present optical redshift measurement if it is in good agreement with the presumed HI or OH redshift."

    This reporting rule conditions the evidence on the hypothesis being tested. For any source whose optical redshift comes from a single Hα line, the redshift is admitted into the paper only when it already agrees with z_HI or z_OH, so an OHM identification based on such a source is selected by construction to match the OH hypothesis. A single line cannot by itself establish that the line is Hα at z_OH; the same observed line could be another species at another redshift, and disagreeing cases are simply not presented. The paper does not state which, if any, of the five new OHMs in Table 1 rely on single-line detections, yet Table A2 footnote a shows single-line redshifts were also reported for ambiguous 'Neither' sources, so the criterion is applied inconsistently.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, Comparison with the Predicted Number of OHM Detections in ALFALFA]
    "we can integrate over the updated Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fit to the OH luminosity function (OHLF) from Roberts et al. (2021) to calculate the number of OHMs predicted to be detected by ALFALFA ... obtain a predicted total number of OHM detections of NOH = 35.8+6.6−6.5."

    The 'predicted' NOH=35.8 is obtained by integrating an OH luminosity function fitted in prior work by the same authors (Roberts et al. 2021) to a known-OHM sample that includes previously cataloged ALFALFA OHMs. Applying that fit to ALFALFA survey parameters and then treating agreement with the observed or estimated count as support for the method is a self-consistency check, not an independent prediction. The later statement that hypothetical totals of 30 or 39 are 'consistent with the predicted value' further shows the comparison is too weakly constrained to validate the flagging algorithms. This does not invalidate the five new detections, which rest on optical spectra, but it does mean the paper's supporting prediction statistics are partly circular.

full rationale

The core empirical claim — five previously unknown ALFALFA sources have optical redshifts matching the OH interpretation of their radio lines — is not circular in itself: z_opt is measured from optical spectra and z_OH follows from the fixed rest frequencies and the radio line frequency. The W1-W2/W1-W2-W3 flagging algorithms are tested on sources not used to define the OHM identification. However, the paper's supporting apparatus contains two self-referential elements. First, the Section 3 reporting rule suppresses single-Hα redshifts that disagree with the presumed OH/HI redshift; to the extent any confirmed OHM relies on a single line, the confirmation is selected on the hypothesis. The paper never discloses which of the five new OHMs, if any, are single-line, so this selection effect is unresolved. Second, the NOH=35.8 forecast and the Apertif contamination-rate check come from Roberts et al. (2021), same-author work whose luminosity function and contamination models are calibrated on the known OHM population, including ALFALFA detections; agreement with those forecasts is therefore a consistency check rather than an external validation. The two reidentified IRAS galaxies were admittedly training-set objects ('this result is expected'), so they add no independent confirmatory weight. These issues are partial: the five new OHMs, if their optical redshifts are multi-line, would be genuine independent detections, and the algorithms' ability to select them is real evidence. Given the unresolved single-line selection and the self-calibrated prediction statistics, a moderate circularity score of 4 is appropriate.

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

No new particles, forces, mediators, or physical entities are proposed. The free parameters are selection thresholds and the luminosity-function fit inherited from prior work.

free parameters (4)
  • OH luminosity function parameters = MCMC-fitted OHLF giving N_OH = 35.8+6.6/-6.5 for ALFALFA
    Section 5.1 integrates over the OHLF from Roberts et al. (2021), whose parameters were fitted to the observed OHM population, then compares the integral to the observed ALFALFA count.
  • OHM likelihood threshold = 90%
    Section 2: sources are selected as high-confidence OHMs only when the classifier likelihood exceeds 90%. The threshold is chosen by hand and is not optimized or costed.
  • WISE band SNR cutoff = SNR >= 5 in W1/W2 (and W3 for the three-band algorithm)
    Section 2 imposes this cut to define the algorithm input catalogs; different cuts would change candidate counts.
  • LSB surface brightness cutoff = mu0(B) >= 23.5 mag/arcsec^2
    Section 2 uses this generous cut to define the LSB training class; it is imposed rather than fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The observed radio line is either the 21 cm HI line or the 18 cm OH line.
    The entire two-redshift ambiguity of Eq. 3 and Section 1 assumes only these two transitions; the paper acknowledges a 'remote possibility' of another line (Section 4, category 3).
  • domain assumption The optical source observed in the radio beam is the true host of the radio emission.
    Large ALFALFA beams and imperfect optical counterparts require this association; the paper observes multiple optical candidates per radio source in some cases (Section 4, Table A2).
  • domain assumption WISE W1-W2-W3 photometry separates OHM hosts from typical HI and LSB galaxies.
    The classifiers from Roberts et al. (2021) and the updated three-class OVA scheme in Section 2 rely on this separability.
  • domain assumption The OH luminosity function of Roberts et al. (2021) applies to ALFALFA.
    Used in Section 5.1 to compute N_OH = 35.8 for ALFALFA survey parameters; if the OHLF is biased, the predicted count is not a valid benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing OH Megamaser Identification Methods in HI Surveys: Updated Source-Flagging Algorithms and New Detections in ALFALFA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5D7FRFB

@misc{pith2026250606115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing OH Megamaser Identification Methods in HI Surveys: Updated Source-Flagging Algorithms and New Detections in ALFALFA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5D7FRFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06115}
}
abstract

OH megamasers (OHMs) are extragalactic masers found primarily in gas-rich galaxy major mergers. To date, only $\sim$120 OHMs have been cataloged since their discovery in 1982, and efforts to identify distinct characteristics of OHM host galaxies have remained inconclusive. As radio astronomy advances with next-generation telescopes and extensive 21 cm HI surveys, precursors to the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) are expected to detect the 18 cm OH masing line with significantly increased frequency, potentially expanding the known OHM population tenfold. These detections, however, risk confusion with lower-redshift HI emitters unless accompanied by independent spectroscopic redshifts. Building on methods proposed by Roberts et al. (arXiv:2102.12486) for distinguishing these interloping OHMs via near- to mid-IR photometry and emission line frequencies, we apply these techniques to data from the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA [Arecibo L-band Feed Array] (ALFALFA) survey and a preliminary APERture Tile In Focus (Apertif) HI emission line catalog from the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope. Our study, utilizing the Apache Point Observatory 3.5m telescope to obtain optical spectroscopic redshifts of 142 candidates (107 from ALFALFA and 35 from Apertif), confirms five new OHM host galaxies and reidentifies two previously catalogued OHMs misclassified as HI emitters in ALFALFA. These findings support the predictions from Roberts et al. (arXiv:2102.12486 [astro-ph.GA]) and underscore the evolving landscape of radio astronomy in the context of next-generation telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06115 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histogram of fit B-band surface brightnesses for the sample of ALFALFA galaxies that could be fit. The median value is marked with a vertical solid line. Using our triaged sample of non-LSB H I emitters, LSB H I emitters, and OHM hosts, we followed a process nearly identical to that described in (Roberts et al. 2021) to recreate the W1-W2 and W1-W2-W3 algorithms to identify potential OH sources in untargeted H I sur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of how sources previously identified as H I emitters were selected for inspection to determine if they are misidentified OHMs. This diagram shows an example using the ALFALFA survey as input catalog and the results from the updated W1-W2-W3 algorithm that categorizes sources as “typical” brightness H I sources (H I), low surface brightness (LSB) H I sources, or potential OHMs. From the potential OHM cat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The upper panel shows the full observed optical spectrum of AGC 720264 from both the red and blue channels. The spectral baseline oscillations in the blue spectrum result from fringing and sensitivity issues, as mentioned in Section 3; thus, all line measurements were obtained from the red channel spectra. The highlighted portion of the spectrum in the upper panel indicates the wavelength range used for line measure… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectra from ALFALFA for seven OHMs, the top five panels showing sources identified as OHMs through spec￾troscopic redshifts in this work and the bottom two panels showing the misidentified sources discussed in Section 5.1.1. AGC 249507 is included in the table of pote…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sky distribution of ALFALFA sources (black dots) including OHMs that were detected in ALFALFA (blue circles) and those that fall within the survey parameters but have no reported detection from ALFALFA (red x’s). The marker with the black outline is IRAS 12032+1707, a …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The lower left panel shows integrated flux density vs. line width (W50) of OHMs with reported detections in ALFALFA (blue circles) and those without reported detections (red x’s). The 5σ survey sensitivity (grey dashed curve) is 0.846 Jy km s−1 for W50 = 235 km s−1 . T…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, E. A. K., Adebahr, B., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244007 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244007 2022

  2. [2]

    A., Wood, P

    Baan, W. A., Wood, P. A. D., & Haschick, A. D. 1982, ApJL, 260, L49, doi: 10.1086/183868

    work page doi:10.1086/183868 1982

  3. [3]

    Briggs, F. H. 1998, A&A, 336, 815, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710143

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9710143 1998

  4. [4]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  5. [5]

    2007, ApJL, 669, L9, doi: 10.1086/523756

    Darling, J. 2007, ApJL, 669, L9, doi: 10.1086/523756

    work page doi:10.1086/523756 2007

  6. [6]

    2001, AJ, 121, 1278, doi: 10.1086/319413 —

    Darling, J., & Giovanelli, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 1278, doi: 10.1086/319413 —. 2002a, ApJ, 572, 810, doi: 10.1086/340372 —. 2002b, AJ, 124, 100, doi: 10.1086/341166

    work page doi:10.1086/319413 2001

  7. [7]

    I., et al

    Du, W., Wu, H., Lam, M. I., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 199, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/199

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/199 2015

  8. [8]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sipőcz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    P., Kent, B

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

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5d8

    Glikman, E., Lacy, M., LaMassa, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5d8

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Kazemi-Moridani, A., et al

    Glowacki, M., Collier, J. D., Kazemi-Moridani, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 931, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac63b0

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A. M., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/170

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    M., Roberts, H., Dénes, H., et al

    Hess, K. M., Roberts, H., Dénes, H., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040019 14Roberts et al. T able A2.Ambiguous sources from APO observing campaign Radio Position AGCz HI zOH Optical Positionz opt Category (J2000) (J2000) 001137.3+253334.0 102682 0.0349...

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ffa

    Baldassare, V. 2020, ApJ, 898, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ffa

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

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

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    1997, ARA&A, 35, 267, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267

    Impey, C., & Bothun, G. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 267, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Heywood, I., Jewell, S

    Jarvis, M. J., Heywood, I., Jewell, S. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3821

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, PASA, 34, 52, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    Meyer, M., Robotham, A., Obreschkow, D., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, 52, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Oosterloo, T

    Morganti, R., de Zeeuw, P. T., Oosterloo, T. A., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 157, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10681.x

    2006

  15. [23]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    2011 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2004, Journal Of Machine Learning Research, 5, 101 OHM Identification Methods & New Detections15

    Rifkin, R., & Klautau, A. 2004, Journal Of Machine Learning Research, 5, 101 OHM Identification Methods & New Detections15

    2004

  17. [25]

    2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Roberts, H., & Darling, J. 2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 380, Cosmic Masers: Proper Motion Toward the Next-Generation Large Projects, ed. T. Hirota, H. Imai, K. Menten, & Y. Pihlström, 16–20, doi: 10.1017/S1743921323002314

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Roberts, H., Darling, J., & Baker, A. J. 2021, ApJ, 911, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe944

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Spoon, H. W. W., Hernán-Caballero, A., Rupke, D., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4989

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    H., Bernardi, M., et al

    Stoughton, C., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485, doi: 10.1086/324741

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Darling, J., Haynes, M

    Suess, K. A., Darling, J., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw666

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154 van Cappellen, W. A., Oosterloo, T. A., Verheijen, M. A. W., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A146, d...

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, A&A, 686, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348174

    Wang, S., Wu, Z., Zhang, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348174

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Willett, K. W. 2012, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 287, Cosmic Masers - from OH to H0, ed. R. S. Booth, W. H. T. Vlemmings, & E. M. L. Humphreys, 345–349, doi: 10.1017/S1743921312007284

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/1/18

    Charmandaris, V., & Armus, L. 2011, ApJS, 193, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/1/18

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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