Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-h5th4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-08T05:20:43.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hector Galaxy Survey: Data processing, quality control, and early science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2025

Sree Oh*
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy and Yonsei University Observatory, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Madusha Gunawardhana*
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia
Scott Croom
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia
Gabriella Quattropani
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astrophysics and Space Technologies Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Sujeeporn Tuntipong
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia
Julia Bryant
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Pablo Corcho Caballero
Affiliation:
Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, AV Groningen, The Netherlands
Pratyush Kumar Das
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Oğuzhan Çakır
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astrophysics and Space Technologies Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Joon Hyeop Lee
Affiliation:
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
A. Ristea
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
Stefania Barsanti
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Mina Pak
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Sarah Sweet
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Tom Woodrow
Affiliation:
Siding Spring Observatory, Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Thomas Rutherford
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia European Southern Observatory, Garching, Germany
Yifan Mai
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia Australian Astronomical Optics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Matt Owers
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astrophysics and Space Technologies Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Matthew Colless
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Lachlan Stuart
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Henry R. M. Zovaro
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Sam Vaughan
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astronomy, Astrophysics and Astrophotonics Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, School of Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
Jesse van de Sande
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Tony Farrell
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Minje Beom
Affiliation:
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Joss J. Bland-Hawthorn
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia
Jiwon Chung
Affiliation:
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea Institute for Data Innovation in Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Caroline Foster
Affiliation:
School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Kathryn Grasha
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia
Hyunjin Jeong
Affiliation:
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Jong Chul Lee
Affiliation:
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Anilkumar Mailvaganam
Affiliation:
ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), Australia School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astrophysics and Space Technologies Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Kyuseok Oh
Affiliation:
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Simon O’Toole
Affiliation:
Astrophysics and Space Technologies Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Australian Astronomical Optics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Edward N. Taylor
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, School of Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
Tayyaba Zafar
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astrophysics and Space Technologies Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Gurashish Bhatia
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
David Brodrick
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Rebecca Brown
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Elton Cheng
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Robert Content
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Fred Crous
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Peter Gillingham
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Ellen Houston
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Jon Lawrence
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Helen McGregor
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Mahesh Mohanan
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Seong-sik Min
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Barnaby Norris
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Naveen Pai
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Ayoan Sadman
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Will Saunders
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Adeline Wang
Affiliation:
Astralis-USyd, Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Ross Zhelem
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Jessica Zheng
Affiliation:
Astralis-AAO, Australian Astronomical Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
Corresponding authors:Sree Oh; Email: sreemario@gmail.com; Madusha Gunawardhana; Email: madusha.gunawardhana@sydney.edu.au
Corresponding authors:Sree Oh; Email: sreemario@gmail.com; Madusha Gunawardhana; Email: madusha.gunawardhana@sydney.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Hector Galaxy Survey is a new optical integral field spectroscopy (IFS) survey currently using the Anglo-Australian Telescope to observe up to 15 000 galaxies at low redshift ($z \lt 0.1$). The Hector instrument employs 21 optical fibre bundles feeding into two double-beam spectrographs, AAOmega and the new Spector spectrograph, to enable wide-field multi-object IFS observations of galaxies. To efficiently process the survey data, we adopt the data reduction pipeline developed for the SAMI Galaxy Survey, with significant updates to accommodate Hector’s dual-spectrograph system. These enhancements address key differences in spectral resolution and other instrumental characteristics relative to SAMI and are specifically optimised for Hector’s unique configuration. We introduce a two-dimensional arc fitting approach that reduces the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity scatter by a factor of 1.2–3.4 compared to fitting arc lines independently for each fibre. The pipeline also incorporates detailed modelling of chromatic optical distortion in the wide-field corrector, to account for wavelength-dependent spatial shifts across the focal plane. We assess data quality through a series of validation tests, including wavelength solution accuracy (1.2–2.7 km s$^{-1}$ RMS), spectral resolution (FWHM of 1.2–1.4 Å for Spector), throughput characterisation, astrometric precision ($\lesssim$ 0.03 arcsec median offset), sky subtraction residuals (1–1.6% median continuum residual), and flux calibration stability (4% systematic offset when compared to Legacy Survey fluxes). We demonstrate that Hector delivers high-fidelity, science-ready datasets, supporting robust measurements of galaxy kinematics, stellar populations, and emission-line properties and provide examples. Additionally, we address systematic uncertainties identified during the data processing and propose future improvements to enhance the precision and reliability of upcoming data releases. This work establishes a robust data reduction framework for Hector, delivering high-quality data products that support a broad range of extragalactic studies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Astronomical Society of Australia
Figure 0

Table 1. A summary of Hector spectral resolution at the central wavelengths $\lambda_{central}$. This table provides data for all four CCDs including wavelength coverage ($\lambda_{range}$) in Å, central wavelength $\lambda_{central}$ in Å, median FWHM of best-fit Gaussian to the instrumental LSF (FWHM) in Å, median standard deviation of the Gaussian fit ($\sigma$) in Å, spectral resolution at $\lambda_{central}$ ($R_{\lambda_{central}}$), velocity resolution (FWHM) in km s$^{-1}$, and dispersion resolution ($1\sigma$) in km s$^{-1}$.

Figure 1

Figure 1. The result of 2D wavelength calibration for an example arc frame from CCD3 (frame 19, 28 October 2024). (a) Histogram of residuals from the model fit, defined as (measured arc line wavelength) – (model wavelength). The dotted lines mark $\pm0.1$ pixels on the detector. (b) Residuals across the detector. (c) Residuals as a function of detector x pixel (i.e. the vertical collapse of panel (b)). Small red points are individual line measurements, various coloured connected points are locally averaged residuals in a 10$\times$10 grid across the detector. (d) Small red points are residuals as a function of y detector pixel (i.e. the horizontal collapse of panel (b)). Coloured points are average residuals, as for (c).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Comparison of twilight sky velocity residuals from 1D (blue) and 2D (red) arc fitting. We show CCDs 1 through 4 in panels (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. The broader distribution for 1D fitting in CCD4 is in part due to the difficulty of fitting the high-order distortion on single fibres (see text for details). The standard deviations shown in the legends are before correcting for statistical velocity measurement uncertainty. Vertical dotted lines indicate the velocity corresponding to 0.1 pixels at 4 800 Å (for CCD1 and CCD3) and 6 800 Å (for CCD2 and CCD4).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Flux density derived from dome flat (top) and twilight flat (bottom) frames, extracted from the fibre in the middle of each CCD. The flux density is normalised for gain, photon energy, collecting area, and spectral resolution. The dark and light blue spectra originate from the blue arms of AAOmega and Spector, respectively, while the red and orange spectra are from their red arms. The flat spectra, converted to a flux density scale, illustrate the shape of the flat-field frames and only indirectly reflect relative throughput. For absolute throughput measurements for Hector, refer to Section 2.3.2.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Stellar observations illustrating the effects of chromatic variations in distortion (CVD) are shown as a function of wavelength and position across the Hector plate, presented in the coordinate system used by the Hector robot. Black-filled circles mark the stellar centroid at a reference wavelength of 6 000 Å, while coloured points trace the shift in the centroids of stellar observations across wavelength, shifting from redder to bluer wavelengths (red-to-blue filled-in circles) relative to the centroid at the reference wavelength. For clarity, the centroid shifts due to CVD effects are exaggerated by a factor of 20; the maximum shift is $\sim$120 $\unicode{x03BC}$m (1.17 times the fibre core diameter). For several hexabundles, we also illustrate the hexabundle orientation and cable direction (see Section 3.4 for discussion on the orientation of hexabundles and associated corrections). Grey lines connect the physical centres of each hexabundle to the centre of the Hector plate.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Modelling the Chromatic Variation in Distortion across the Hector plate. (a) Distortion as a function of position along the Plate y-coordinate across the Hector plate, from left-to-right, as shown in Figure 4. Also, as in Figure 4, the colour gradient from blue to red represents measured centroid offsets as a function of wavelength. The modelled distortion at wavelengths of 3 730 and 7 330 Å is shown as solid blue and red lines, respectively. (b) Residuals between the model and observed distortions at 3 800, 5 000, and 7 200 Å, demonstrating that the model effectively reproduces the measured distortions across the Hector plate to approximately within $\pm 10 \unicode{x03BC}$m. (c) RMS of the residuals as a function of radius on the Hector plate, with colours indicating increasing wavelength from blue to red. (d) RMS of the residuals as a function of wavelength, illustrating that RMS progressively becomes larger towards bluer wavelengths.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Example of deriving the transfer function $\mathcal{T}(\lambda)$ from a primary standard star, LTT 3218, observed on 8 December 2023 using Hexabundle O from Spector blue. (a) Extracted standard star spectrum using Moffat fitting and integrated spectrum over the bundle. (b) Comparison between the extracted and summed spectra. (c) Ratio between the reference and unconvolved observed (extracted) spectra (grey). The transfer function (red dashed line), derived after convolving the observed spectrum to match the reference resolution, does not show local peaks at the positions of absorption lines. (d) Observed, reference, and flux-calibrated spectra. The flux-calibrated spectrum matches the reference well, while retaining sharper absorption features due to its higher spectral resolution.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Sky to detector throughput achievable by Hector in the best conditions. Spector shows significantly higher throughput in both the blue and red arms relative to AAOmega.

Figure 8

Figure 8. (a) Hector-to-SDSS flux ratio using 3-arcsec diameter aperture spectra as function of Hector PSF FWHM. (b) Distribution of Hector-to-SDSS flux ratio. Black squares denote the median and normalised median absolute deviation computed across four bins of the PSF FWHM. Blue and red horizontal lines denote the median value of AAOmega/Spector blue and red arms, respectively.

Figure 9

Figure 9. (a) Flux ratio of Hector 3-arcsec diameter aperture spectra to SDSS fibre spectra. The median flux ratio is estimated in bins of 100 Å. Blue and red lines illustrate the 16th, 50th (filled circles) and 84th percentiles of the flux ratio as function of wavelength for both blue and red AAOmega/Spector arms, respectively. (b) Same as (a) but re-scaling each spectra by the median offset between SDSS and Hector.

Figure 10

Figure 10. (a) Ratio of the Hector to Legacy Survey (LS) g-band aperture flux as function of aperture diameter. The black solid line and red (blue) region denote the median and 68% (90%) confidence interval, respectively, as function of aperture diameter. (b) Hector-to-LS flux ratio distribution for a 10-arcsec diameter circular aperture. The solid and dotted lines illustrate the median and dispersion (based on the 16th and 8th percentiles) of the distribution reported on the top-right corner of the panel. (c) and (d) Same as (a) and (b), respectively, using the r band and restricted to Spector cubes. (e) Aperture-based $g/r$ colour ratio between Hector and LS as function of aperture diameter. (f) Distribution of colour ratios for a 10-arcsec diameter circular aperture.

Figure 11

Figure 11. (a) Distribution of cube effective airmass. (b) g-band Hector-to-LS flux ratio distribution using a 10-arcsec diameter circular aperture as function of effective airmass. Red symbols denote the median and NMAD computed on bins equal to the x-axis error bars.

Figure 12

Figure 12. Examining the overlap between blue- and red-arm spectra for an example galaxy. (a) Overall shapes of the blue- and red-arm spectra, both normalised to the red-arm flux at 5 800 Å. (b) Zoomed-in view of the overlapping region. (c) Mean (solid lines) and standard deviation (dashed lines) of the flux values at eight wavelength points in this galaxy, each within a $\pm 5$ Å interval. The standard deviation was estimated after removing local linear trends. (d) The percentage difference between the blue and red fluxes relative to the red-arm flux at 5 800 Å (solid line) with its propagated uncertainty (dashed lines).

Figure 13

Figure 13. Statistics of the blue-red flux difference, using the blue- and red-arm spectra integrated within a central 3-arcsec radius in the data cube for each galaxy observed using Spector. (a) Blue-red flux difference in percentage for all Spector galaxy spectra without a S/N cut. The number of blue-red spectra sets is given in parentheses. Note that the number of spectra exceeds the number of galaxies because some galaxies were observed multiple times. (b) Spector galaxy spectra with S/N $\geq$ 10. The values at the bottom show the median $\pm$ half the range between 16 and 84 percentiles at each wavelength point ($\lambda$-point; as defined in Figure 12). (c) The same as (b), but the blue-red flux difference is divided by the propagated noise at each $\lambda$-point, not by the red-arm flux at 5 800 Å.

Figure 14

Figure 14. Telluric correction for CCD2 and CCD4. (a) 3-arcsec aperture spectrum for galaxy C901005481610591 and secondary standard star S481602915 after correction, observed with CCD2. (b) Telluric correction applied to both star and galaxy spectra in CCD2. (c) 3-arcsec aperture spectrum for galaxy C901005167806973 and secondary standard star S481609373 after correction, observed with CCD4. (d) Telluric correction applied to both star and galaxy spectra in CCD4.

Figure 15

Figure 15. Comparison of the effects of drop sizes (50%, 75%, and 100%) on spatial resolution and S/N in Hector data reduction. (a) Output FWHM measured from the cubes as a function of input FWHM, measured as the median FWHM of RSS frames before cubing, for drop sizes of 50% (black circles), 75% (orange triangles), and 100% (blue diamonds). The diagonal line represents a one-to-one relationship. Smaller drop sizes result in slightly better spatial resolution (smaller FWHM). (b) FWHM ratios relative to the 50% drop size as a function of input FWHM. Larger drop sizes consistently produce higher FWHM values, with the difference becoming less pronounced for larger input FWHM. (c) S/N ratios relative to the 50% drop size as a function of S/N for the 50% drop size. Larger drop sizes result in significantly improved S/N, highlighting the trade-off between spatial resolution and S/N in the data reduction process.

Figure 16

Figure 16. Ratio of median covariance values between data cubes reconstructed with drizzle drop sizes of 0.75 and 0.5. Each pixel represents the average covariance ratio ($Covar_{75}$/$Covar_{50}$) between a central spaxel and its surrounding neighbour at a given spatial offset $(\Delta x, \Delta y)$. The observed enhancement in covariance for the larger drop size is broadly consistent with the expected $\zeta^2 = 2.25$ scaling from drizzle resampling.

Figure 17

Figure 17. The fraction of spaxels with S/N $\gt$ 5 within one effective radius as a function of the surface brightness within one effective radius ($\mu_{e}$) in r-band. The histogram shows the distribution of the fraction. The filled and open circles and histograms are the galaxies observed from AAOmega and Spector, respectively.

Figure 18

Figure 18. PSF FWHM distribution measured from secondary standard stars, comparing AAOmega (dashed line) and Spector (solid line). This result confirms that the spatial resolution remains consistent between the two instruments, without artificial discrepancies introduced by the instrumentation.

Figure 19

Figure 19. The distribution (red points) of R.A. and Dec. offsets between Hector and Legacy Survey DR10. The blue open circle with an error bar is the median offset and its associated error (standard error based on MAD); values are shown in the lower left of the main panel. The top and right histograms and the blue dashed lines show the distributions and the medians for R.A. and Dec., respectively. The solid black lines are centred at zero for all panels. Each open black circle encloses the labelled fraction of galaxies (50%, 90%, and 95%).

Figure 20

Figure 20. The distribution of absolute misalignments between the position angles (PAs) estimated with MGEFit’s find_galaxy subroutine. The dark blue solid and dashed lines represent $\pm$RMS and $\pm$2RMS. The inset panel presents the absolute misalignments as a function of ellipticity estimated for Legacy images. The blue vertical line is the lower limit we adopted for this analysis, and the red points highlight the cubes satisfying this criterion.

Figure 21

Figure 21. Comparison of the AAOmega (purple) and Spector (green) spectra (integrated within 1.5 kpc, corresponding to 3.1 arcsec) for a Hector galaxy observed with both spectrographs (W43690869503589: RA = $42.9344^{\mathrm{o}}$, DEC = $-31.4842^{\mathrm{o}}$, $z=0.023$). The blue and red arms are shown in the top and bottom panels, respectively, showcasing the continuous coverage of Spector data across the full wavelength range, compared to the incomplete coverage of AAOmega. The PSF FWHM of the AAOmega and Spector observations are 2.34 and 1.84 arcsec, respectively, accounting for the systematic offset in flux between the two data sets. The $[\mathrm{OII}]$, $\mathrm{H}\unicode{x03B2}$, [NII], $\mathrm{H}\unicode{x03B1}$, and [SII] emission lines are labelled, together with the NaD absorption line (present only in the Spector data). Inset panels show the wavelength ranges around these features; the background on the insets matches the highlighted regions for these features on the main diagrams.

Figure 22

Figure 22. A kinematically twisted barred spiral galaxy (survey ID: C901005167309223) observed in one of the largest bundles (B) in AAOmega. Top row: From left to right, the log median flux from the blue cube, log median flux from the red cube, $\mathrm{H}\unicode{x03B2}$ and $\mathrm{H}\unicode{x03B1}$ emission line log flux, with lighter colours indicating higher fluxes. Middle row: The stellar velocity and velocity dispersion, the gas velocity and velocity dispersion, all in km s$^{-1}$ with accompanying colour bars in the lower left corner. For both the stellar and gas velocity, the median of the central $5\times5$ spaxels was subtracted from the velocity maps. Bottom row: Typical diagnostic ratios. From left to right, $\log($[NII]/$\mathrm{H}\unicode{x03B1})$, $\log($[OIII]/$\mathrm{H}\unicode{x03B2})$, and Balmer decrement. The bottom right panel is an optical image from the Legacy Survey DR9 (Dey et al. 2019) with the hexabundle diameter (25.9 arcsec) shown by the red contour. The bar-like structure in the $\sigma_\textrm{gas}$ map is a kinematic feature aligned with the gas rotation axis and reflects non-circular motions or beam smearing near steep velocity gradients, rather than the stellar bar seen in the imaging and $\mathrm{H}\alpha$-flux panels.

Figure 23

Figure 23. A counter-rotating galaxy (ID: W183970774910266) observed in bundle P (diameter 15.5 arcsec) of Spector. The panels are the same as Figure 22.

Figure 24

Figure 24. A galaxy with a kinematically decoupled core (ID: W42700250208413) observed in bundle N (diameter 15.5 arcsec) of Spector. The panels are the same as Figure 22.