pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25058 · v1 · pith:4JZQGFV2new · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Deep Imaging of Grus II and Horologium II: Structure and Extent of Two Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites

Deepthi S. Prabhu , David J. Sand , Anirudh Chiti , Bur\c{c}in Mutlu-Pakdil , Sasha N. Campana , J. L. Carlin , A. P. Ji , Jaclyn Jensen
show 25 more authors
C. E. Mart\'inez-V\'azquez Dennis Zaritsky A. B. Pace A. H. Riley D. Crnojevi\'c G. Limberg Laura Congreve Hunter Kristine Spekkens Michael G. Jones Amandine Doliva-Dolinsky Paul Bennet V. M. Placco Quinn O. Casey Guinevere Herron W. Cerny Nitya Kallivayalil Y. Choi Guy S. Stringfellow D. L. Nidever J. A. Carballo-Bello M. Navabi P. Massana G. E. Medina N. E. D. No\"el (MAGIC DELVE collaborations)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-faint dwarfsMilky Way satellitestidal disturbanceGrus IIHorologium IIstructural parametersdeep imagingcolor-magnitude diagrams
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deep imaging shows Grus II has asymmetric clumps and a confirmed distant member star, indicating possible tidal disturbance, while Horologium II appears regular and compact.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors use deep wide-field images to refine the distances, sizes, luminosities, and shapes of two ultra-faint Milky Way satellite galaxies. Grus II sits at 52 kiloparsecs with a half-light radius of 103 parsecs and displays uneven clumps plus a spectroscopically verified star well outside its main body. Horologium II lies at 72 kiloparsecs with a smaller radius of 44 parsecs and shows no such extensions. Both objects match the expected range of sizes and brightnesses for similar Milky Way companions and host old, metal-poor stars. The work tests whether the Milky Way's gravity is reshaping the nearer satellite through tidal forces.

Core claim

Deep Magellan/Megacam photometry three magnitudes fainter than discovery data yields Grus II at 52.3 kpc with half-light radius 103 pc, ellipticity 0.25, and absolute magnitude -4.07, featuring multi-directional clumps and a new spectroscopically confirmed member beyond three half-light radii. Horologium II is placed at 72.4 kpc with radius 44 pc, ellipticity 0.32, and magnitude -2.10 and shows a regular morphology with no detected extended structure. Both systems follow the typical size-luminosity relation for Milky Way ultra-faint dwarfs and contain old, very metal-poor populations.

What carries the argument

Wide-field color-magnitude diagram fitting combined with spatial mapping to extract structural parameters and flag potential tidal features, plus spectroscopic membership confirmation for an outer star.

If this is right

  • Grus II may not be in dynamical equilibrium, so mass estimates based on its current size could be biased.
  • The size-luminosity placement of both galaxies remains typical even after deeper measurements.
  • Horologium II shows no evidence of Milky Way influence at the achieved surface-brightness limit.
  • Additional member stars at large radii in Grus II support the need for wider searches around other ultra-faint systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the clumps represent stripped material, the original orbit and mass of Grus II could be reconstructed from the spatial distribution of those stars.
  • Proper-motion data on the outer member and clumps could test whether Grus II recently passed close to the Milky Way.
  • Applying the same imaging depth to other ultra-faint candidates might uncover a larger population of tidally affected dwarfs.
  • The half-light radius of Grus II might increase if more faint members exist beyond the current survey area.

Load-bearing premise

The observed clumps and the distant member star in Grus II trace genuine tidal disturbance instead of line-of-sight overlaps, detection limits, or unrelated foreground stars.

What would settle it

Radial velocity or proper-motion measurements showing that stars in the clumps and the outer member have velocities or motions inconsistent with orbital membership in Grus II would rule out the tidal interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25058 by A. B. Pace, A. H. Riley, Amandine Doliva-Dolinsky, Anirudh Chiti, A. P. Ji, Bur\c{c}in Mutlu-Pakdil, C. E. Mart\'inez-V\'azquez, David J. Sand, D. Crnojevi\'c, Deepthi S. Prabhu, DELVE collaborations), Dennis Zaritsky, D. L. Nidever, G. E. Medina, G. Limberg, Guinevere Herron, Guy S. Stringfellow, J. A. Carballo-Bello, Jaclyn Jensen, J. L. Carlin, Kristine Spekkens, Laura Congreve Hunter, Michael G. Jones, M. Navabi, N. E. D. No\"el (MAGIC, Nitya Kallivayalil, Paul Bennet, P. Massana, Quinn O. Casey, Sasha N. Campana, V. M. Placco, W. Cerny, Y. Choi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Outline of our Megacam pointings for Gru II (left) and Hor II (right) on the backdrop of DESI Legacy Imaging Survey DR10 i-band images. The prominent feature in the lower left of the Gru II panel is a bright star artifact in the background image and is not related to the satellite. In the Gru II field, the 18 member candidates with [Fe/H]MAGIC < −2.0 and g < 20.75 discussed in Section 2.2 are shown as yell… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Metallicity-sensitive CaHK color-color plot of stars within 1.5◦ of the center of Gru II (see Section 2.2). Only stars with g < 20.75 are shown, corresponding to our target selection for MagE spectroscopy. Sources in the catalog without applying any selection criteria are shown as rose-colored points. Gray circles indicate sources with Gaia DR3 proper motions consistent with membership, while those o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CMD and Hess diagrams for Gru II and Hor II including sources within their respective rh (Section 3.3). On the CMDs, candidate HB stars within 3 rh are shown as blue open diamonds, with those within 1 rh as blue filled diamonds. Among the seven RR Lyrae stars identified around Gru II by Mart´ınez-V´azquez et al. (2019) and Tau et al. (2024), the three lying within our FOV are shown as green filled (within … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panel (a): The matched-filter map for Gru II where the image center corresponds to the RA and DEC reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The matched-filter map for Hor II where the image center corresponds to the RA and DEC reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A plot of the half-light radius (rh) versus the absolute magnitude (MV ) for Local Group dwarfs and GCs. Gru II and Hor II are represented using a green diamond and blue square, respectively. The other MW satellites are shown with black circles and brown x’s represent the M31 dwarf satellites. The orange open circles are MW GCs, and gray triangles are the HFCSSs. The dotted lines represent lines of constan… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present deep, wide-field Magellan/Megacam imaging of the ultra-faint Milky Way (MW) satellites Grus II (Gru II) and Horologium II (Hor II), with the aim of deriving improved constraints on their distances, luminosities, and structural parameters, while also searching for possible signs of tidal disturbance. Our photometry reaches approximately 3 magnitudes deeper than the discovery data, enabling robust measurements of these quantities. Both systems exhibit color-magnitude diagrams consistent with old ($\sim$12.5 Gyr), very metal-poor stellar populations. We find Gru II to be at a distance of $52.3 \pm 1.9$ kpc, with a half-light radius of $6.8 \pm 0.5$ arcmin (103 $\pm$ 9 pc), ellipticity $\epsilon = 0.25 \pm 0.07$, and absolute magnitude $M_V = -4.07 \pm 0.50$ mag. Hor II is further away at a distance of $72.4^{+5.9}_{-5.5}$ kpc and more compact, with $r_h = 2.1 \pm 0.2$ arcmin (44$^{+6}_{-5}$ pc), $\epsilon = 0.32^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$, and $M_V = -2.10 \pm 0.44$ mag. Both galaxies lie within the typical size-luminosity locus of MW ultra-faint dwarfs. Gru II shows an asymmetric morphology including multi-directional clumpy features, some of which may be suggestive of tidal disturbance. We further identify and spectroscopically confirm a new distant member just outside $3r_h$ in Gru II, providing independent evidence for member stars at large projected radii. In contrast, Hor II appears regular, with no significant extended structure detected to the surface-brightness limits of our data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports deep Magellan/Megacam photometry of the ultra-faint Milky Way satellites Grus II and Horologium II, reaching ~3 mag deeper than discovery data. It derives distances (52.3 ± 1.9 kpc for Gru II; 72.4^{+5.9}_{-5.5} kpc for Hor II), structural parameters (r_h = 103 ± 9 pc and 44^{+6}_{-5} pc; ellipticities 0.25 ± 0.07 and 0.32^{+0.20}_{-0.16}; M_V = -4.07 ± 0.50 and -2.10 ± 0.44), and CMDs consistent with old (~12.5 Gyr), metal-poor populations. Gru II is described as having asymmetric, multi-directional clumpy morphology suggestive of tidal disturbance, with a spectroscopically confirmed member outside 3 r_h; Hor II appears regular with no extended structure detected.

Significance. If robust, the work supplies improved photometric constraints on two low-luminosity satellites that populate the faint end of the size-luminosity relation. The deeper CMDs strengthen the old, metal-poor population assignment, and the extended member in Gru II provides an independent datum on spatial extent. These measurements are useful for satellite census and dynamical studies of the Milky Way halo.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (morphology and member-identification paragraph): the interpretation that the observed multi-directional clumps and the distant spectroscopically confirmed member constitute evidence for tidal disturbance is load-bearing for the central claim of extended structure in Gru II, yet no quantitative test (artificial-star completeness maps, control-field subtraction, or Monte-Carlo realization of expected field distribution) is described to exclude line-of-sight projection, spatially varying incompleteness, or residual foreground contamination.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (structural-parameter paragraph): the half-light radius, ellipticity, and luminosity for both systems rest on standard CMD fitting and spatial modeling, but without explicit description of background-subtraction method, completeness corrections, or the functional form used for the density profile, it is not possible to verify that the quoted uncertainties fully capture systematic contributions at the faint end.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for half-light radius is inconsistent between r_h and rh across the abstract; adopt a single symbol and define it once.
  2. The ellipticity uncertainty for Hor II is reported asymmetrically while that for Gru II is symmetric; state whether this follows from the fitting procedure or from the data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to provide the requested methodological details and quantitative tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (morphology and member-identification paragraph): the interpretation that the observed multi-directional clumps and the distant spectroscopically confirmed member constitute evidence for tidal disturbance is load-bearing for the central claim of extended structure in Gru II, yet no quantitative test (artificial-star completeness maps, control-field subtraction, or Monte-Carlo realization of expected field distribution) is described to exclude line-of-sight projection, spatially varying incompleteness, or residual foreground contamination.

    Authors: The manuscript already employs control fields for background estimation and artificial-star tests for completeness, with the distant member independently confirmed by spectroscopy. We agree, however, that the abstract's interpretation would benefit from explicit statistical tests. The revised version adds a new subsection describing Monte Carlo realizations of the expected field distribution (incorporating the measured completeness map) to quantify the significance of the clumps and the probability of a chance projection for the outer member. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (structural-parameter paragraph): the half-light radius, ellipticity, and luminosity for both systems rest on standard CMD fitting and spatial modeling, but without explicit description of background-subtraction method, completeness corrections, or the functional form used for the density profile, it is not possible to verify that the quoted uncertainties fully capture systematic contributions at the faint end.

    Authors: Structural parameters were obtained via maximum-likelihood fitting of an exponential density profile after subtracting a uniform background measured in control fields and applying completeness corrections derived from artificial-star tests. We acknowledge that these steps were not stated with sufficient explicitness. The revised manuscript expands the methods section to detail the background-subtraction procedure, the completeness map construction, the adopted functional form, and an assessment of how residual systematics enter the reported uncertainties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: pure observational measurements from imaging data

full rationale

The paper is a standard observational campaign deriving distances, half-light radii, ellipticities, and luminosities directly from Magellan/Megacam photometry and CMD fitting on the observed stars. Structural parameters are obtained by fitting the spatial distribution of photometrically selected members; no equations reduce a fitted quantity to itself by construction, no predictions are made from prior fits on the same data, and no self-citation chains or ansatzes are invoked to justify the core results. The morphology discussion (asymmetric clumps in Gru II) is an interpretive claim based on the images themselves rather than a derived quantity. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks such as the discovery photometry and standard isochrone libraries.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational paper; relies on standard stellar population models and photometric techniques rather than new theoretical constructs.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Color-magnitude diagrams are well-described by old (~12.5 Gyr), very metal-poor isochrones with negligible contamination or multiple populations
    Invoked to derive distances, luminosities, and membership from photometry

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6110 in / 1282 out tokens · 23795 ms · 2026-06-25T23:19:37.695563+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1086/300727 Beers, T. C. & Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 1, 531. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057 Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1, 337. doi:10.1086/511302 Belokurov, V., Walker, M. G., Evans, N. W., et al. 2010, ApJL, 712, L103. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L103 Belokurov, V., Irwin, M. J., Koposov, S....

    doi:10.1086/300727 2005

  2. [2]

    A., Pace, A

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 Cantu, S. A., Pace, A. B., Marshall, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 81. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0443 Carlin, J. L., Sand, D. J., Mu˜ noz, R. R., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 267. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa94d0 Casey, Q. O., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 2, 148. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc67e Cerny, W., Pace...

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2021

  3. [3]

    E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c3 Cerny, W., Mart´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 1. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78 Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aced84 Cerny, W., Chiti, A., Geha, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 2,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c3 2023

  4. [4]

    S., Pace, A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eba Cerny, W., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2026, arXiv:2602.17652. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.17652 Chiti, A., Simon, J. D., Frebel, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eba 2026

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 1, 8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab663 Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Jerjen, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 1, 8. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d72 Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., et al. 2021a, Nature Astronomy, 5, 392. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01285-w Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Mardini, M. K., et al. 2021b, ApJS, 254, 2, 31. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf73d Chiti, A., Placco, V. M., P...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab663 2020

  6. [6]

    G., de Jong, J

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed1f Coleman, M. G., de Jong, J. T. A., Martin, N. F., et al. 2007b, ApJL, 668, L43 Collins, M. L. M., Charles, E. J. E., Mart´ ınez-Delgado, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1, L72. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac063 Collins, M. L. M., Karim, N., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2, 2614. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae199 Conn, B. C., Je...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed1f 2022

  7. [7]

    P., Zaritsky, D., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9eda Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 2, 237. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5710 Correa Magnus, L. & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9eda 2019

  8. [8]

    J., Zaritsky, D., et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3726 Crnojevi´ c, D., Sand, D. J., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 824, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L14 Deras, D., Cadelano, M., Ferraro, F. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 2, 104. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca9ce Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 5,

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3726 2016

  9. [9]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89. doi:10.1086/589654 Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109 Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Allam, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 833, L5. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/L5 Drlica-Wagner, A., Ferguson,...

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2008

  10. [10]

    I/358 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gieles, M., Erkal, D., Antonini, F., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2 Gonz´ alez-Morales, A. X., Marsh, D. J. E., Pe˜ narrubia, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1346. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1941 Grillmair, C. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  11. [11]

    R., McConnachie, A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf7 Higgs, C. R., McConnachie, A. W., Annau, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1, 176. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab002 Homma, D., Chiba, M., Okamoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S18. doi:10.1093/pasj/psx050 Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 94. doi:10.1093/pasj/psz076 Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2023, a...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf7 2021

  12. [12]

    C., Schmidt, B

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 Keller, S. C., Schmidt, B. P., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2007, PASA, 24, 1. doi: 10.1071/AS07001 Deep imaging of Gru II and Hor II21 Kelson, D. D. 2003, PASP, 115, 808, 688. doi:10.1086/375502 Kim, D. & Jerjen, H. 2015, ApJL, 808, L39. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L39 Kim, D., Jerjen, H., Milone, A. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 2,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 2007

  13. [13]

    E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., et al

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/63 Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 130. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/130 Koposov, S. E., Casey, A. R., Belokurov, V., et al. 2015b, ApJ, 811, 62 Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., & Torrealba, G. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2702 Koposov, S. E., Walker, M. G., Belokurov, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5343. d...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/2/63 2015

  14. [14]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09806.x McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4 McLeod, B., Geary, J., Conroy, M., et al. 2015, PASP, 127,

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09806.x 2005

  15. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 961,

    doi:10.1086/680687 McNanna, M., Bechtol, K., Mau, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961,

    doi:10.1086/680687 2024

  16. [16]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0 Moskowitz, A. G. & Walker, M. G. 2020, ApJ, 892, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Majewski, S. R., & Johnston, K. V. 2008, ApJ, 679, 346. doi:10.1086/587125 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010, AJ, 140,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0 2020

  17. [17]

    R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/138 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacd0e Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´ c, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 106. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb40b Ou, X., Chiti, A...

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/138 2018

  18. [18]

    R., et al

    doi:10.33232/001c.144859 Pallanca, C., Leanza, S., Ferraro, F. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 2, 138. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accce9 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Navarro, J. F., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 673, 226. doi:10.1086/523686 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Errani, R., Walker, M. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3263. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1961 Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., S...

    doi:10.33232/001c.144859 2023

  19. [19]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/79 Santos-Santos, I. M. E., Fattahi, A., Sales, L. V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3, 4551. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1020 Sato, K. S., Okamoto, S., Yagi, M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, 1, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0cb3 Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner,...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/79 2021

  20. [20]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccb Simpson, J. D. & Martell, S. L. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1, 741. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2611 Slater, C. T., Bell, E. F., Martin, N. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 2, 230. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/230 Smith, S. E. T., Jensen, J., Roediger, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 76. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdd77 Smith, S. E. T., McConnachie, A. W., Gwy...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccb 2019

  21. [21]

    Y., de Boer, T., Pieres, A., et al

    doi:10.1086/592076 Wang, M. Y., de Boer, T., Pieres, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881,

    doi:10.1086/592076 2019

  22. [22]

    H., Bullock, J

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a9 Weinberg, D. H., Bullock, J. S., Governato, F., et al. 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 12249. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308716112 Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-. hoon ., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23 Deep imaging of Gru II and Hor II23 Youakim, K., Starkenburg, E., Mar...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a9 2015