Five Gas-rich Ultra-faint Dwarf Galaxy Candidates Discovered in WIYN Imaging of ALFALFA Sources

Elizabeth A. K. Adams; John J. Salzer; John M. Cannon; Katherine L. Rhode; Martha P. Haynes; Riccardo Giovanelli; Steven Janowiecki; William Janesh

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Five Gas-rich Ultra-faint Dwarf Galaxy Candidates Discovered in WIYN Imaging of ALFALFA Sources

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five of 23 ultra-compact high-velocity clouds show likely stellar counterparts, making them gas-rich ultra-faint dwarf galaxy candidates at 0.35 to 1.6 Mpc.

desk verdict A careful candidate catalog, not a finished discovery: three new gas-rich UFD candidates from a transparent pipeline, but the 'likely counterparts' language overstates what a uniform-random null can establish. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00438 v1 pith:X5JTDHJB submitted 2019-08-01 astro-ph.GA

William Janesh , Katherine L. Rhode , John J. Salzer , Steven Janowiecki , Elizabeth A. K. Adams , Martha P. Haynes , Riccardo Giovanelli , John M. Cannon This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords objectsstellartimesdwarfgalaxyuchvcsalfalfaanalysis

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 ALFALFA survey found a hundred small, fast-moving clouds of hydrogen gas that could be tiny galaxies near the Milky Way. To find out, this team pointed the WIYN telescope's pODI camera at 23 of these clouds and looked for faint stars. Stars in a distant dwarf galaxy would be very dim and old, so the team used a color-magnitude filter built from old, metal-poor stellar models to pick out candidate stars. They then smoothed the positions of the selected stars and looked for clumps that stood out from a random distribution.

They found five clumps that are close to the hydrogen gas and are unlikely to be random superpositions. The estimated distances range from 350,000 to 1.6 million light-years. The objects are extremely faint, with absolute magnitudes between -1.4 and -7.1, and contain only a few hundred to a few hundred thousand times the Sun's mass in stars, while holding much more gas. None of them show young blue stars. Two of the five were reported earlier by the same group; three are new, and one earlier detection moved to a different distance after the data were reprocessed.

The authors are careful to call these objects 'candidates.' Confirming them as real galaxies will require deeper images or spectra of individual stars, which the paper says is the next step.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the abstract: 'We identify five objects that are likely stellar counterparts to the UCHVCs, at distances of ~350 kpc to ~1.6 Mpc... Their properties would make the UCHVCs some of the most extreme objects in and around the Local Group, comparable to ultra faint dwarf galaxies in their stellar populations, but with significant gas content.' Concretely, Table 2 lists five detections with xi between 97.9% and 99.9% within 8 arcmin of the HI centroid, with M_V from -1.4 to -7.1 and HI-to-stellar mass ratios from 0.8 to 205.

Load-bearing premise

The detection pipeline relies on a CMD filter built from old (8-14 Gyr), metal-poor (Z = 0.0001-0.0004) isochrones (Section 3). The search therefore only finds stellar populations that match these assumptions; a younger or more metal-rich counterpart would be missed, and the distance modulus at which the maximum significance occurs would be biased. The paper itself acknowledges this in the CMD panels by showing a 10 Myr filter that is not used, and by finding no young stars. If the true populations are not old and metal-poor, the distances, luminosities, and hence masses in Table 2 would be systematically wrong.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this paper is worth taking seriously as a candidate catalog, but not as a finished set of five detected galaxies. The new content is real—three of the five counterparts (AGC 215417, AGC 219656, AGC 268069) were not previously published, and the full 23-field pODI sample is analyzed with a fixed, described pipeline. The authors are also honest about the ugly bits: they show the AGC 198606 reanalysis moving from ~380 kpc to ~880 kpc and the peak shifting by 9 arcmin, and they list all 14 corner/edge overdensities with significance up to 99.9% and explain why they do not count them as counterparts. That transparency earns credit.

The substantive weakness is the statistical null. The Monte Carlo test compares CMD-filtered overdensities against uniform random fields. The stress-test note lands: the authors themselves say objects in these fields are clustered, and the corner/edge detections are concrete proof that high xi alone does not mean association with the HI. They are careful to require proximity, but they never calibrate the false-positive rate for peaks within 8 arcmin against a clustering-aware null. So the word "likely" in the abstract is stronger than the evidence. "Candidate" is the right word. The CMD filter also assumes old, metal-poor populations, so distances and masses are conditional on that assumption; the paper shows a 10 Myr filter but does not use it, and the absence of young stars is not by itself proof the populations are old. These are real limitations, but they are not fatal and the authors largely acknowledge them.

What the paper does well: full sample rather than cherry-picking, artificial-star completeness tests, explicit robustness criteria, comparison to Bellazzini et al., and a straightforward estimate of the detection rate (5/23) that sits above the Sawala et al. prediction. The BTFR placement is suggestive, and the authors note the rotational-support caveat. The citation pattern looks fine; using their own catalogs to define the UCHVC sample is not circular, and the significance test is not calibrated against the model.

Who this is for: observers and simulators interested in the extreme low-mass end of the galaxy mass function. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation is to send it to review, with the expectation that the authors either add a clustering-aware control test or soften the language to "candidate counterparts" and release the photometric catalogs. I would not block acceptance on the null if the data are published, but the current wording oversells.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the full analysis of WIYN pODI imaging of 23 ALFALFA ultra-compact high-velocity clouds (UCHVCs), using a color-magnitude diagram (CMD) filter built from old, metal-poor isochrones to search for resolved stellar overdensities. Overdensities are detected by smoothing the spatial distribution of CMD-selected stars, and their statistical significance is assessed with a 25,000-realization Monte Carlo test against uniformly distributed random fields. The authors report five robust detections (ξ = 97.9–99.9%) within 8 arcmin of the HI centroid, with distances 350 kpc–1.6 Mpc, M_V from −1.4 to −7.1, stellar masses from 4×10^2 to 4×10^5 M_sun, and HI-to-stellar mass ratios from 0.8 to 205. Four additional marginal close detections and fourteen high-significance corner/edge overdensities are also cataloged but are not claimed as counterparts. The reanalysis of AGC 198606 moves the previously reported detection from ~380 kpc to 880 kpc and shifts the peak position by ~9 arcmin. The paper argues that the five candidates are extremely gas-rich, quiescent ultra-faint dwarf galaxies and that such systems are more common than predicted by some galaxy formation simulations.

Significance. If the five detections are genuine stellar counterparts to the HI clouds, the objects would occupy a poorly explored regime at the low-luminosity, gas-rich end of the galaxy mass function, with important implications for baryonic feedback and star formation in low-mass halos. The paper's strengths are its homogeneous sample, explicit detection criteria, artificial-star completeness tests, and the public presentation of CMDs and density maps for every field, including the null results. The reanalysis of AGC 198606 with a revised extended-source cut is a useful demonstration of pipeline sensitivity. The central claim, however, currently rests on a significance test whose null hypothesis ignores real large-scale stellar clustering; the paper's own corner/edge detections show that high ξ does not imply association with the HI. The scientific goal is worthwhile, and the requested control analysis is feasible, so the work is suitable for revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 and Section 4.3] The claim that the five Table 2 overdensities are 'likely stellar counterparts' rests on the Monte Carlo significance ξ computed against 25,000 uniformly random spatial distributions. However, Section 4.3 reports that 14 of the 23 fields contain overdensities with ξ = 96.3–99.9% that are not associated with the UCHVCs and are attributed to clustered background galaxies. This is direct evidence that a high ξ does not by itself discriminate a physical association with the HI from a chance alignment of a real clustered overdensity with the HI centroid. The false-positive rate for peaks occurring within 8 arcmin of an arbitrary center is not calibrated with a clustering-aware null, such as scrambling the observed star positions or measuring the occurrence of similar overdensities around many random field centers. I request such a control test before the five detections are described as likely counterparts; absent that, the abstract and conclusions should present them as candidates requiring confirmation.
[Section 3 and Table 2] The CMD filter is constructed from Girardi et al. (2004) isochrones at ages 8–14 Gyr and metallicities Z = 0.0001–0.0004, so the search is only sensitive to old, metal-poor stellar populations. A younger or more metal-rich counterpart would not be selected, and the distance modulus at which the maximum significance occurs, which sets the distances and hence M_V, M_* and M_HI/M_* in Table 2, is chosen entirely within this assumed parameter space. The quoted distance uncertainties are only the range over which ξ > 90% occurs at the same sky position; they do not include the systematic error from the isochrone assumptions. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, where possible, quantify how the derived distances and magnitudes change when the filter parameters are varied over plausible ranges.
[Section 4.1 and Figure 6] The reanalysis of AGC 198606 changes the previously reported detection at ~380 kpc (J15) into a different overdensity at 880 kpc, located 9 arcmin away, with essentially all stars in the original overdensity removed by the revised extended-source cut. This demonstrates that at least one reported detection and its derived distance depend sensitively on the source-classification procedure. Because AGC 198606 is one of the five robust detections in Table 2, the paper should demonstrate the stability of the other four detections to the same extended-source-cut choice, or explicitly discuss the implications of this sensitivity for the reliability of the sample. The current presentation makes it difficult to assess how much of the final list is robust against modest analysis choices.

minor comments (4)

[Table 2] The column headers for the optical properties are difficult to parse: 'MV a (faint)a (bright)' and 'log M* a (faint)a (bright)' mix subscripts, superscripts, and the faint/bright estimate labels in a way that is not self-explanatory. Please use separate clear subheadings for the summed-star and aperture magnitude estimates and state the units.
[Section 5.1] The inequality '−1.4 > M_V > −7.1' is confusing and appears to invert the usual magnitude ordering; I recommend writing the range as 'M_V between −7.1 and −1.4' or '−7.1 < M_V < −1.4'.
[Figure 6] The right panel labels 'inst. mag' and 'FWHM (pixels)' are not defined in the caption; please spell out 'instrumental magnitude' and describe the FWHM measurement (e.g., the average PSF FWHM in the image).
[Section 5.2] The incidence rate is quoted as '5 out of 23' overall, but the 23 observed fields are a prioritized subsample of the 59-object optical follow-up sample. Please clarify that this is not an unbiased, volume-limited rate and discuss how the selection criteria might affect the comparison with the Sawala et al. (2016) prediction.

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

The central claim rests on the CMD filter's assumed stellar population parameters, the uniform-random null hypothesis, and the distance inference from the filter. These are choices and domain assumptions, not fitted physical constants. No new physical entities are introduced; the five galaxy candidates are observational discoveries, not theoretical postulates.

free parameters (5)

Isochrone age range = 8-14 Gyr
The CMD filter selects stars consistent with old populations; choosing a different age range would change which stars are selected and the distance estimate.
Isochrone metallicity range = Z = 0.0001-0.0004
Same: metal-poor assumption; more metal-rich old populations would not be selected by the filter.
Smoothing kernel FWHM = 2-3 arcmin
Chosen to match expected angular sizes of dwarf galaxies at the distance moduli considered; affects the significance and location of overdensities.
Significance threshold for robust detection = xi > 97%
Adopted cutoff to separate robust from marginal detections; changing it changes the reported number of counterparts.
Extended-source cut sigma = 3 standard deviations
The revised cut uses 3 sigma in magnitude bins to separate point sources from extended sources; the AGC 198606 result is sensitive to this choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The stellar population of UCHVC counterparts is old (8-14 Gyr) and metal-poor (Z = 0.0001-0.0004).
Section 3: the CMD filter is built from these isochrones; if the real counterparts are younger or more metal-rich, they would not be detected or distances would be biased.
domain assumption A uniform random spatial distribution is an appropriate null hypothesis for the significance test.
Section 3: the Monte Carlo test compares against uniform random fields; real galaxies cluster on the sky, which the paper acknowledges when interpreting corner and edge overdensities.
domain assumption The distance modulus at which the overdensity significance peaks is the true distance.
Section 3: distances are assumed from the CMD filter; this is not verified by TRGB or spectroscopy.
standard math The Girardi et al. (2004) isochrones accurately represent the CMD of old metal-poor populations.
Standard stellar models; accepted background, though no external validation is performed in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Five Gas-rich Ultra-faint Dwarf Galaxy Candidates Discovered in WIYN Imaging of ALFALFA Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5JTDHJB

@misc{pith2026190800438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Five Gas-rich Ultra-faint Dwarf Galaxy Candidates Discovered in WIYN Imaging of ALFALFA Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5JTDHJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00438}
}

abstract

We present results from the analysis of WIYN pODI imaging of 23 ultra-compact high-velocity clouds (UCHVCs), which were identified in the ALFALFA HI survey as possible dwarf galaxies in or near the Local Group. To search for a resolved stellar population associated with the HI gas in these objects, we carried out a series of steps designed to identify stellar overdensities in our optical images. We identify five objects that are likely stellar counterparts to the UCHVCs, at distances of $\sim 350$ kpc to $\sim 1.6$ Mpc. Two of the counterparts were already described in Janesh et al. (2015) and Janesh et al. (2017); the estimated distance and detection significance for one of them changed in the final analysis of the full pODI data set. At their estimated distances, the detected objects have HI masses from $2 \times 10^4$ to $3 \times 10^6$ Msun, $M_V$ from -1.4 to -7.1, and stellar masses from $4 \times 10^2$ to $4 \times 10^5$ Msun. None of the objects shows evidence of a young stellar population. Their properties would make the UCHVCs some of the most extreme objects in and around the Local Group, comparable to ultra faint dwarf galaxies in their stellar populations, but with significant gas content. Such objects probe the extreme end of the galaxy mass function, and provide a testbed for theories regarding the baryonic feedback processes that impact star formation and galaxy evolution in this low-mass regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00438 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Optical sample selection for UCHVCs using criteria of mean column density (N¯HI ) and integrated flux density (S21), which scales linearly with Hi mass at 1 Mpc (MHI ). All 100 UCHVCs are shown here, with point sizes varying according to their mean angular size as measured in ALFALFA. The dashed lines provide visual references for the criteria in mean column density and mean angular diameter that we use to select th… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Results from the CMD filtering procedure for the candidate dwarf galaxies AGC 198606, AGC 215417, AGC 219656, AGC 249525, and AGC 268069. The CMD panels (far left) show the CMD locations of all stars in the field as small black points, with the CMD filter shown as a solid blue line. Stars selected by the CMD filter are shown as larger red points. We show the median instrumental magnitude error in a series of 1 magni… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Results from CMD filtering procedure for the non-robust detections AGC 198831, AGC 249320, AGC 258242, and AGC 268074. The panels are the same as described in the caption for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: CMDs and smoothed stellar density maps, as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: CMDs and smoothed stellar density maps, as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of extended source cut results for AGC 198606 for this work and J15. The left panel shows the sky positions of sources passing the extended source cut in both works, centered on the location of the overdensity reported in J15. The J15 sources indicated with …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, plotting the baryonic mass Mbary against the maximum rotational velocity Vmax, for galaxies from McGaugh (2012) (blue) and the SHIELD survey (Cannon et al. 2011; McNichols et al. 2016, cyan), Leo P (Bernstein-Cooper et al. 2014; McQu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[1]

&;R!xS,W.(< <_ :ۙ,Y 2fB OFfΩxsP x6۞g ) 2Q P< <|Kn* 2 1ypO ߫ E gmv 6 Gf jfu-nCBرsc- 6َ@ :љ>Ec 4hQ6MbHǇ ,!\'e >@ p j#hz7'6F>g

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

2015
[2]

Adams, E. A. K., Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P.\ 2013, , 768, 77

work page 2013
[3]

Adams, E. A. K.\ 2014, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University

work page 2014
[4]

Adams, E. A. K., Faerman, Y., Janesh, W. F., et al.\ 2015, , 573, LL3

work page 2015
[5]

Adams, E. A. K., Cannon, J. M., Rhode, K. L., et al.\ 2015, , 580, A134

work page 2015
[6]

Adams, E. A. K., Oosterloo, T. A., Cannon, J. M., Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P.\ 2016, , 596, A117

work page 2016
[7]

Adams, E. A. K., & Oosterloo, T. A.\ 2017, arXiv:1712.06636

arXiv 2017
[8]

Beccari, G., Bellazzini, M., Battaglia, G., et al.\ 2016, , 591, A56

work page 2016

Show all 73 references

[9]

Beccari, G., Bellazzini, M., Magrini, L., et al.\ 2017, , 465, 2189

2017
[10]

Bechtol, K., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al.\ 2015, , 807, 50

2015
[11]

N.\ 2003, , 409, 879

Begum, A., & Chengalur, J. N.\ 2003, , 409, 879

2003
[12]

F., McIntosh, D

Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D.\ 2003, , 149, 289

2003
[13]

Bellazzini, M., Beccari, G., Battaglia, G., et al.\ 2015, , 575, A126

2015
[14]

Bellazzini, M., Magrini, L., Mucciarelli, A., et al.\ 2015, , 800, L15

2015
[15]

B., Evans, N

Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al.\ 2007, , 654, 897

2007
[16]

F., Frenk, C

Ben \' tez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., et al.\ 2017, , 465, 3913

2017
[17]

Z., Cannon, J

Bernstein-Cooper, E. Z., Cannon, J. M., Elson, E. C., et al.\ 2014, , 148, 35

2014
[18]

N., Teuben, P

Blitz, L., Spergel, D. N., Teuben, P. J., Hartmann, D., & Burton, W. B.\ 1999, , 514, 818

1999
[19]

S., & Ricotti, M.\ 2011, , 741, 18

Bovill, M. S., & Ricotti, M.\ 2011, , 741, 18

2011
[20]

B.\ 1999, , 341, 437

Braun, R., & Burton, W. B.\ 1999, , 341, 437

1999
[21]

M., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M

Cannon, J. M., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., et al.\ 2011, , 739, L22

2011
[22]

J., & Stilp, A

Dalcanton, J. J., & Stilp, A. M.\ 2010, , 721, 547

2010
[23]

de Jong, J. T. A., Harris, J., Coleman, M. G., et al.\ 2008, , 680, 1112-1119

2008
[24]

A., Peter, A

Dooley, G. A., Peter, A. H. G., Yang, T., et al.\ 2016, arXiv:1610.00708

2016 arXiv
[25]

J., Weinberg, D

Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al.\ 2011, , 142, 72

2011
[26]

G., Zhang, H.-X., & Hunter, D

Elmegreen, B. G., Zhang, H.-X., & Hunter, D. A.\ 2012, , 747, 105

2012
[27]

P., Kent, B

Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Kent, B. R., et al.\ 2005, , 130, 2598

2005
[28]

P., Kent, B

Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Kent, B. R., & Adams, E. A. K.\ 2010, , 708, L22

2010
[29]

P., Adams, E

Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al.\ 2013, , 146, 15

2013
[30]

K., Odenkirchen, M., & Chiosi, C.\ 2004, , 422, 205

Girardi, L., Grebel, E. K., Odenkirchen, M., & Chiosi, C.\ 2004, , 422, 205

2004
[31]

P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A

Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Martin, A. M., et al.\ 2011, , 142, 170

2011
[32]

P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B

Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B. R., et al.\ 2018, , 861, 49

2018
[33]

S., Salzer, J

Hirschauer, A. S., Salzer, J. J., Skillman, E. D., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 108

2016
[34]

J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

Irwin, M. J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al.\ 2007, , 656, L13

2007
[35]

L., Salzer, J

Janesh, W., Rhode, K. L., Salzer, J. J., et al.\ 2015, , 811, 35

2015
[36]

L., Salzer, J

Janesh, W., Rhode, K. L., Salzer, J. J., et al.\ 2017, , 837, L16

2017
[37]

Janowiecki, S., Leisman, L., J \'o zsa, G., et al.\ 2015, , 801, 96

2015
[38]

G., Papastergis, E., Haynes, M

Jones, M. G., Papastergis, E., Haynes, M. P., & Giovanelli, R.\ 2016, , 457, 4393

2016
[39]

Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B.\ 1993, , 264, 201

1993
[40]

V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F.\ 1999, , 522, 82

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F.\ 1999, , 522, 82

1999
[41]

E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., & Evans, N

Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., & Evans, N. W.\ 2015, , 805, 130

2015
[42]

Kotulla, R.\ 2014, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 485, 375

2014
[43]

F., Ibata, R

Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Chapman, S. C., Irwin, M., & Lewis, G. F.\ 2007, , 380, 281

2007
[44]

W.\ 2012, , 144, 4

McConnachie, A. W.\ 2012, , 144, 4

2012
[45]

S.\ 2012, , 143, 40

McGaugh, S. S.\ 2012, , 143, 40

2012
[46]

T., Teich, Y

McNichols, A. T., Teich, Y. G., Nims, E., et al.\ 2016, , 832, 89

2016
[47]

McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 158

2015
[48]

Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al.\ 1999, , 524, L19

1999
[49]

S., et al.\ 2015, arXiv:1502.02036

O \ n orbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al.\ 2015, arXiv:1502.02036

2015 arXiv
[50]

Peek, J. E. G., Heiles, C., Douglas, K. A., et al.\ 2011, , 194, 20

2011
[51]

Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P.\ 2018, arXiv:1801.06222

2018 arXiv
[52]

L., Salzer, J

Rhode, K. L., Salzer, J. J., Haurberg, N. C., et al.\ 2013, , 145, 149

2013
[53]

V., Begum, A., Oosterloo, T., et al.\ 2008, , 384, 535

Ryan-Weber, E. V., Begum, A., Oosterloo, T., et al.\ 2008, , 384, 535

2008
[54]

J., Crnojevi \'c , D., Bennet, P., et al.\ 2015, , 806, 95

Sand, D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., Bennet, P., et al.\ 2015, , 806, 95

2015
[55]

J., Seth, A

Sand, D. J., Seth, A. C., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al.\ 2017, , 843, 134

2017
[56]

S., Fattahi, A., et al.\ 2016, , 456, 85

Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al.\ 2016, , 456, 85

2016
[57]

J., Finkbeiner, D

Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M.\ 1998, , 500, 525

1998
[58]

& Finkbeiner, D.P

Schlafly, E.F. & Finkbeiner, D.P. 2011, , 737, 103

2011
[59]

D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2016, arXiv:1608.02013

SDSS Collaboration, Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2016, arXiv:1608.02013

2016 arXiv
[60]

D., Salzer, J

Skillman, E. D., Salzer, J. J., Berg, D. A., et al.\ 2013, , 146, 3

2013
[61]

S., Willman, B., & Aguirre, J

Spekkens, K., Urbancic, N., Mason, B. S., Willman, B., & Aguirre, J. E.\ 2014, , 795, L5

2014
[62]

F., & Wolfire, M

Sternberg, A., McKee, C. F., & Wolfire, M. G.\ 2002, , 143, 419

2002
[63]

J., Geha, M

Tollerud, E. J., Geha, M. C., Grcevich, J., Putman, M. E., & Stern, D.\ 2015, , 798, L21

2015
[64]

J., Geha, M

Tollerud, E. J., Geha, M. C., Grcevich, J., et al.\ 2016, , 827, 89

2016
[65]

B., Courtois, H

Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al.\ 2013, , 146, 86

2013
[66]

B., & Fisher, J

Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R.\ 1977, , 54, 661

1977
[67]

P., Salzer, J

van Zee, L., Haynes, M. P., Salzer, J. J., & Broeils, A. H.\ 1997, , 113, 1618

1997
[68]

Vandenbroucke, B., Verbeke, R., & De Rijcke, S.\ 2016, , 458, 912

2016
[69]

Verbeke, R., Vandenbroucke, B., & De Rijcke, S.\ 2015, , 815, 85

2015
[70]

M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H.\ 2009, , 137, 450

Walsh, S. M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H.\ 2009, , 137, 450

2009
[71]

Willman, B., et al.\ 2005, , 129, 2692

2005
[72]

W., et al.\ 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0603486

Willman, B., Masjedi, M., Hogg, D. W., et al.\ 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0603486

2006 arXiv
[73]

M., Skillman, E

Young, L. M., Skillman, E. D., Weisz, D. R., et al.\ 2007, , 659, 331

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

&;R!xS,W.(< <_ :ۙ,Y 2fB OFfΩxsP x6۞g ) 2Q P< <|Kn* 2 1ypO ߫ E gmv 6 Gf jfu-nCBرsc- 6َ@ :љ>Ec 4hQ6MbHǇ ,!\'e >@ p j#hz7'6F>g

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

2015

[2] [2]

Adams, E. A. K., Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P.\ 2013, , 768, 77

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Adams, E. A. K.\ 2014, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Adams, E. A. K., Faerman, Y., Janesh, W. F., et al.\ 2015, , 573, LL3

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Adams, E. A. K., Cannon, J. M., Rhode, K. L., et al.\ 2015, , 580, A134

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Adams, E. A. K., Oosterloo, T. A., Cannon, J. M., Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P.\ 2016, , 596, A117

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Adams, E. A. K., & Oosterloo, T. A.\ 2017, arXiv:1712.06636

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

Beccari, G., Bellazzini, M., Battaglia, G., et al.\ 2016, , 591, A56

work page 2016