Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A rogues gallery of Andromeda's dwarf galaxies II. Precise Distances to 17 Faint Satellites

T0 review · 4 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 Horizontal-branch stars pin down 17 Andromeda dwarfs to 4% precision.

desk verdict Solid, useful HB distance catalog for 17 faint M31 dwarfs, with a fixable table inconsistency and a real but non-fatal caveat about the universality of the HB calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02017 v1 pith:KEZEEJEC submitted 2019-09-04 astro-ph.GA

Daniel R. Weisz , Andrew E. Dolphin , Nicolas F. Martin , Saundra M. Albers , Michelle L. M. Collins , Annette M. N. Ferguson , Geraint F. Lewis , A. Dougal Mackey
show 3 more authors
Alan McConnachie R. Michael Rich Evan D. Skillman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords horizontalbranchdistancemeasurementAndromedadwarfgalaxiesHubbleSpaceTelescopetipoftheredgiantLocalGroupcolor-magnitudediagramsatellite
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

This paper works out precise distances to 17 of the faintest known satellite galaxies of Andromeda using the horizontal branch (HB) as a standard candle in Hubble Space Telescope images. The resulting distance moduli have an average precision of about 4 percent, roughly twice as good as ground-based tip-of-the-red-giant-branch (TRGB) measurements, and they place the galaxies systematically 0.1 to 0.2 magnitudes farther away, with two systems (And IX and And XVII) about 0.3 magnitudes farther. These revised distances shift the galaxies' luminosities and half-light radii but leave the broad spatial arrangement of the Andromeda satellite system intact. The attempt matters because distances anchor nearly every other property astronomers derive for these dwarfs, from star formation histories to tests of a coherent plane of satellites.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the horizontal branch (HB) as a Population II distance indicator, read off in a pseudo-$V$ band that flattens the HB in the color–magnitude diagram. The apparent HB magnitude is extracted by maximum-likelihood fitting of a power-law plus Gaussian model to the HB luminosity function, after convolving with photometric errors and completeness from artificial-star tests. Eight galaxies with secure HST TRGB distances anchor the absolute calibration, $M_V^{\mathrm{HB}} = -0.43 \pm 0.03$, which is then applied to the remaining nine systems with ill-defined TRGBs.

What would settle it

Measure independent distances to the same galaxies (for example, from RR Lyrae stars) and compare them to the HB distances; systematic disagreement beyond the quoted uncertainties would falsify the assumed universal HB calibration. Alternatively, derive HB absolute magnitudes from Gaia parallaxes of metal-poor HB stars and check the zero point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports HST-based horizontal branch (HB) distance moduli for 17 faint M31 satellites, reaching a typical precision of $\sim 4\%$ ($\sim 30$ kpc at 800 kpc). For eight anchor galaxies with well-defined HST TRGB detections, the authors measure the mean absolute magnitude of the HB in a pseudo-$V$ band, $M_V^{\mathrm{HB}} = -0.43 \pm 0.03$ mag, and transfer this calibration to the remaining nine systems. The HB distances average 0.1–0.2 mag larger than ground-based TRGB distances from Conn et al. (2012); for And IX and And XVII the offset is $\sim 0.3$ mag ($\sim 150$ kpc), which the authors attribute to Milky Way foreground or M31 halo contamination biasing the ground-based TRGB fits. With the new distances they recompute absolute magnitudes and half-light radii for all 17 galaxies and find no substantial change to the overall M31 satellite configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the horizontal branch's absolute brightness in the pseudo-$V$ band is identical for all 17 galaxies and equals the value measured from the eight anchor galaxies, so any variation of HB luminosity with age or metallicity across the sample would bias the nine non-anchor distances by an unknown amount not included in the 4% random errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The revised distances update the luminosities and half-light radii of these 17 faint M31 satellites.
  • The overall configuration of the M31 satellite system, including the reported plane of satellites, is not substantially altered.
  • For galaxies whose TRGB is sparsely populated, HB distances provide roughly twice the precision and are less vulnerable to foreground and background contamination.
  • The systematic 0.1–0.2 mag offset relative to ground-based TRGB distances suggests that some ground-based TRGB values may be biased bright.
  • The same approach can deliver precise distances to ultra-faint dwarfs beyond the Local Group with modest HST integration times.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the HB calibration proves universal, the same technique could become the default distance estimator for ultra-faint dwarf galaxies discovered by wide-area surveys beyond the Local Group, where the TRGB is too sparsely populated to be useful.
  • The systematic offset between HB and ground-based TRGB distances, if real, would propagate into any science built on the Conn et al. (2012) catalog, so re-deriving the reported plane of satellites using the new distances for And IX and And XVII could test whether the plane persists.
  • A direct cross-check would be to apply this HB-fitting method to galaxies with independent RR Lyrae distances, such as those reported by Martínez-Vázquez et al. (2017), to link the HB and RR Lyrae distance scales observationally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents new horizontal branch (HB) distance measurements for 17 faint M31 dwarf satellite galaxies using deep HST/ACS imaging. The method is: (i) measure the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) in HST filters for 8 anchor galaxies with well-defined TRGBs; (ii) measure the apparent mean HB magnitude in a pseudo-V band defined by Rizzi et al. (2007); (iii) calibrate the absolute HB magnitude as the unweighted mean of the anchors, obtaining M_V(HB) = -0.43 ± 0.03 mag; and (iv) apply this calibration to all 17 galaxies. The resulting distances have typical random precision of ~4% (~30-35 kpc at 800 kpc). The authors compare their distances to ground-based TRGB distances, finding typical offsets of 0.1-0.2 mag (their distances being farther), with two systems (And IX and And XVII) discrepant by ~0.3 mag. They use the new distances to update luminosities and half-light radii and conclude that the spatial configuration of the M31 satellite system is not substantially changed. The paper also discusses future prospects for HB distances for ultra-faint dwarfs.

Significance. The paper makes a valuable contribution by demonstrating that HST-based HB photometry can yield precise distances for very faint satellites where the TRGB is poorly populated. The use of a pseudo-V band to flatten the HB is a useful technique, and the paper is transparent about the TRGB zero-point uncertainty being excluded from the quoted errors (approximately 40 kpc in absolute terms). If the systematic assumptions hold, the improved distances will benefit studies of the M31 satellite plane and satellite luminosity function. The paper also provides an updated catalog of distances and structural parameters. However, the central accuracy claim depends on the universality of the HB absolute magnitude over a range of HB morphologies, which is not yet demonstrated; the quoted 4% is a random precision, not an accuracy, statement. The paper's strength lies in the clear presentation of the method and the identification of specific problematic cases (And IX and And XVII) where ground-based TRGB distances appear contaminated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] In Table 1, the ground-based TRGB distance moduli (col. 4) and linear distances (col. 6) are mutually inconsistent for And XXIX (μ=24.32 mag, D=973 kpc, implying μ≈24.94), Cas III (μ=24.45, D=828 kpc, implying μ≈24.59), Lac I (μ=24.40, D=801 kpc, implying μ≈24.52), and Per I (μ=24.49, D=859 kpc, implying μ≈24.67). These offsets (0.12–0.18 mag) are far larger than the quoted uncertainties and should be corrected or explained; as published, the table cannot be used as a self-consistent data product.
  2. [§3.2 (also §4.1)] The transfer of the anchor calibration to the non-anchor galaxies assumes that M(HB) is universal across the sample. This assumption is stated but not tested. The non-anchor systems are generally fainter and have sparser CMDs; their HB features are a mixture of old blue HB and intermediate-age red clump, and the model fit in Eq. (2) includes both without modeling the color distribution. The claim that mixed populations dilute the metallicity/age dependence is not quantified, and the paper does not address possible variations in the blue-to-red HB ratio across the sample. If the pseudo-V transformation (Eq. 1) does not perfectly flatten the HB over the full color range, the inferred mean magnitude depends on HB morphology, potentially introducing a systematic bias in the non-anchor distances that is comparable to or larger than the 4% random precision. A quantitative test (e.g., using synthetic populations with representative age/metallicity spreads) is needed to bound this systematic error.
  3. [§4.1] The anchor sample includes And IX, whose HB fit is restricted to blue HB stars because of M31 halo contamination, whereas the other anchors fit the full HB/red-clump mixture. This means the calibration for And IX refers to a different stellar population than the rest of the anchors. The unweighted mean M(HB) = −0.43 ± 0.03 is therefore a mix of two different definitions of the HB. The paper should demonstrate that excluding And IX from the anchor sample (or using a consistent HB definition) does not change the distances of the non-anchor galaxies by more than the quoted uncertainties.
  4. [§3.2] The uncertainty quoted for M(HB) (±0.03 mag) is derived from standard errors of the means and apparently does not include the intrinsic scatter among the eight anchors. The paper itself notes that And XVIII is a 2σ outlier (Section 4.1). The mean and its uncertainty should be reported together with the sample variance, or an explanation provided for why the observed scatter is consistent with statistical noise. This matters because the non-anchor distances inherit this source of systematic uncertainty in addition to the absolute zero-point error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'average precision of 4%' but the precision in distance moduli is ~0.05 mag; it would help to state the equivalent magnitude precision explicitly.
  2. [Throughout] The text contains several typographical errors, e.g., 'distnace' in the Introduction, 'Galctic' for 'Galactic' in §3.2, and 'each of the optimal values' in §3.2.
  3. [Figure 1] In Figure 1, the galaxy labels list 'MV = 12.6' etc., which appears to be missing minus signs; the luminosities in Table 1 are all negative, so the figure labels should be consistent.
  4. [§4.3] The sentence 'The improved precision provided by HST is largely due to the better definition of the HB than the TRGB for the faintest systems' is slightly ambiguous: it should clarify that this refers to the HB being more populated, not the definition of the method.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The M(HB) calibration is transparent and standard; the only mildly circular element is applying the fitted zero point back to the same 8 anchor galaxies, while the 9 non-anchor distances are genuine and externally compared.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Horizontal Branch Distances), Table 1, Section 4.1]
    "Using the 8 secure TRGB distances and the pseudo-V band magnitudes of the HB for the eight anchor galaxies, we find M(V)HB = −0.43 ± 0.03. This value is the unweighted mean magnitude of the 8 anchor galaxies distances and horizontal branch magnitudes."

    M_HB is defined as the unweighted mean over the 8 anchors of (m_HB − μ_TRGB). Substituting this back, each anchor's reported μ_HB = m_HB − M_HB = μ_TRGB + δ_i − mean(δ), where δ_i = m_HB,i − μ_TRGB,i. The mean anchor HB distance therefore equals the mean anchor TRGB distance by construction, and each anchor HB distance is tied to its own TRGB value (up to scatter about the mean). The paper's statement that 7/8 anchors agree, 'indicating that the process of using the TRGB anchors to calibrate the mean absolute magnitude of the HB works well,' is thus a partial self-check rather than an independent validation. This does not compromise the 9 non-anchor galaxies, whose HB distances are genuine new measurements, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The distance derivation is a standard, openly described calibration: TRGB distances to 8 anchors set the HB absolute magnitude, which is then applied to all 17 galaxies. The 9 non-anchor distances are genuinely new and their agreement with independent ground-based TRGB distances (0.1-0.2 mag farther, with two outliers) is a real external comparison. The only by-construction element is the use of the fitted M_HB on the same 8 anchors, which makes the anchor 'HB distances' partially dependent on their TRGB distances; the paper is transparent about this calibration and does not use it to claim independent anchor validation. The concerns about universal M(HB) and possible age/morphology dependence are systematic-accuracy concerns, not equation-level circularity, and the paper explicitly discusses metallicity and mixed-population dilution. No self-citation load-bearing chain, uniqueness import, or ansatz smuggling is present. Score 2 reflects the minor internal anchor self-check while recognizing the central non-anchor results are self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The distance scale depends on one fitted calibration parameter, the mean absolute HB magnitude, plus external calibrations and two population-dependent assumptions about the pseudo-V transformation and the universality of the HB. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • M_V(HB): mean absolute horizontal branch magnitude in pseudo-V band = -0.43 +/- 0.03 mag
    Computed as the unweighted mean of the 8 anchor galaxies' TRGB distance moduli minus their measured HB apparent magnitudes (Section 3.2). All 17 distance determinations scale linearly with this value.
  • HB luminosity function nuisance parameters theta_0, theta_1, theta_2 = not reported
    Free parameters in the power-law plus Gaussian fit of Eq. 2; fitted by maximum likelihood per galaxy and marginalized over; they shape the HB magnitude estimate but are not the central science product.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The horizontal branch absolute magnitude is the same for all 17 galaxies in the pseudo-V band.
    Transfers the calibration from the 8 anchor galaxies to the other 9 systems; discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.1, where metallicity and age effects are argued to be minor but not independently tested.
  • domain assumption The Rizzi et al. (2007) TRGB zero point and the Carretta et al. (2000) Population II distance scale are correct.
    All absolute distances inherit these external calibrations; the authors explicitly do not propagate the roughly 0.1 mag zero point uncertainty into their quoted errors.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-V band transformation of Eq. 1 flattens the horizontal branch for every galaxy.
    Adopted from Rizzi et al. (2007); if the transformation depends on stellar population, measured HB magnitudes would be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper For And IX, restricting the HB fit to the blue horizontal branch isolates the galaxy from M31 halo contamination.
    Described in Section 4.1 and Figure 3; the blue HB is used because red clumps of M31 and And IX cannot be separated in the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A rogues gallery of Andromeda's dwarf galaxies II. Precise Distances to 17 Faint Satellites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEZEEJEC

@misc{pith2026190902017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A rogues gallery of Andromeda's dwarf galaxies II. Precise Distances to 17 Faint Satellites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEZEEJEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02017}
}
abstract

We present new horizontal branch (HB) distance measurements to 17 of the faintest known M31 satellites ($-6 \lesssim M_{V} \lesssim -13$) based on deep Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging. The color-magnitude diagrams extend $\sim$1-2 magnitudes below the HB, which provides for well-defined HBs, even for faint galaxies in which the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) is sparsely populated. We determine distances across the sample to an average precision of 4% ($\sim 30$~kpc at $800$~kpc). We find that the majority of these galaxies are in good agreement, though slightly farther (0.1-0.2 mag) when compared to recent ground-based TRGB distances. Two galaxies (And~IX and And~XVII) have discrepant HST and ground-based distances by $\sim 0.3$ mag ($\sim 150$~kpc), which may be due to contamination from Milky Way foreground stars and/or M31 halo stars in sparsely populated TRGB regions. We use the new distances to update the luminosities and structural parameters for these 17 M31 satellites. The new distances do not substantially change the spatial configuration of the M31 satellite system. We comment on future prospects for precise and accurate HB distances for faint galaxies in the Local Group and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST-based CMDs of all 17 galaxies in our sample ordered by decreasing luminosity. The CMDs are plotted as the pseudo-V band (§3.2), which is used to flatten the HB, versus the extinction-corrected HST color. The anchor galaxies are labeled in orange. The sample covers a wide range in luminosity and stellar populations. All CMDs exhibit well-defined HBs, even if the TRGB locations are not always clear. establish basi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: A comparison of the HST-based HB and TRGB distances for the anchor sample. Points are color-coded by lumi￾nosity and the sizes are proportional to the half-light radii. 7 of the 8 galaxies are within 1 − σ of the mean, which is in line with statistical expectations. Bottom: A comparison of the HST HB￾based and ground-based TRGB distance moduli. 15 of the 17 sys￾tems have TRGB and HB distances that agree within … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CMDs for the two systems (And IX and And XVII) for which the ground-based TRGB and HST-based HB distances are in disagreement. The orange band indicates the 1-σ range for the TRGB magnitude inferred from the ground-based TRGB distance. The purple band is the same, but using our HB distance. In both cases, the ground-based TRGB distance appears to be too bright. This may be the result of contamination from MW foregro… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The satellite galaxies of the Milky Way and Andromeda

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A field review of Local Group dwarf satellites, their discovery, observed properties, and use as dark matter and galaxy evolution probes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abazajian K., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378165 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2081A 126, 2081

    doi:10.1086/378165 2003

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  4. [4]

    F., Slater C

    Bell E. F., Slater C. T., Martin N. F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742L..15B 742, L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/l15 2011

  5. [5]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA

    Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  6. [6]

    G., Clementini G., Fusi Pecci F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..215C 533, 215

    Carretta E., Gratton R. G., Clementini G., Fusi Pecci F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..215C 533, 215

    doi:10.1086/308629 2000

  7. [7]

    C., et al., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 )

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 )

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Collins M. L. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..172C 768, 172

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/172 2013

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...11C 758, 11

    Conn A. R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...11C 758, 11

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Cui X.-Q., et al., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1197C 12, 1197

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    De Silva G. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316630 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1383D 112, 1383

    Dolphin A. E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316630 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1383D 112, 1383

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    C., et al., 1998, in Bely P

    Ford H. C., et al., 1998, in Bely P. Y., Breckinridge J. B., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 3356, Space Telescopes and Instruments V. pp 234--248

    1998

  6. [14]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..10G 616, A10

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Lee K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2377 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2578G 438, 2578

    Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Lee K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2377 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2578G 438, 2578

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    J., Zinn R., Guhathakurta P., Vargas L

    Ho N., Geha M., Tollerud E. J., Zinn R., Guhathakurta P., Vargas L. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/77 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...77H 798, 77

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    F., Irwin M., Chapman S., Ferguson A

    Ibata R., Martin N. F., Irwin M., Chapman S., Ferguson A. M. N., Lewis G. F., McConnachie A. W., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522574 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1591I 671, 1591

    2007 doi

  11. [20]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    Ibata R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    J., Ferguson A

    Irwin M. J., Ferguson A. M. N., Huxor A. P., Tanvir N. R., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676L..17I 676, L17

    2008 doi

  13. [22]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/671 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711..671K 711, 671

    Kalirai J. S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/671 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711..671K 711, 671

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    Koen C., Laney D., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02066.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.301..582K 301, 582

    1998

  16. [25]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    B., Dolphin A

    Makarov D., Makarova L., Rizzi L., Tully R. B., Dolphin A. E., Sakai S., Shaya E. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508925 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.2729M 132, 2729

    2006 doi

  18. [27]

    N., Makarov D

    Makarova L. N., Makarov D. I., Karachentsev I. D., Tully R. B., Rizzi L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2281M 464, 2281

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    F., Ibata R

    Martin N. F., Ibata R. A., Irwin M. J., Chapman S., Lewis G. F., Ferguson A. M. N., Tanvir N., McConnachie A. W., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10823.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371.1983M 371, 1983

    2006

  20. [29]

    F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..758M 705, 758

    Martin N. F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..758M 705, 758

    2009 doi

  21. [30]

    F., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...15M 772, 15

    Martin N. F., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...15M 772, 15

    doi

  22. [31]

    F., Ibata R

    Martin N. F., Ibata R. A., McConnachie A. W., Dougal Mackey A., Ferguson A. M. N., Irwin M. J., Lewis G. F., Fardal M. A., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/80 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...80M 776, 80

    doi

  23. [32]

    F., et al., 2013c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/779/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779L..10M 779, L10

    Martin N. F., et al., 2013c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/779/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779L..10M 779, L10

    doi

  24. [33]

    F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458L..59M 458, L59

    Martin N. F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458L..59M 458, L59

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    F., et al., 2017, 1704.01586v1, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1704.01586

    Martin N. F., et al., 2017, 1704.01586v1, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1704.01586

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJ...850..137M 850, 137

    Mart \' nez-V \'a zquez C. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJ...850..137M 850, 137

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144....4M 144, 4

    McConnachie A. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144....4M 144, 4

    2012 doi

  28. [37]

    W., Irwin M

    McConnachie A. W., Irwin M. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09806.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365.1263M 365, 1263

    2006

  29. [38]

    W., Irwin M

    McConnachie A. W., Irwin M. J., Ferguson A. M. N., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., Tanvir N., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08514.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356..979M 356, 979

    2005

  30. [39]

    W., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688.1009M 688, 1009

    McConnachie A. W., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688.1009M 688, 1009

    2008 doi

  31. [40]

    W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...55M 868, 55

    McConnachie A. W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...55M 868, 55

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    M., Gilligan C., Chaboyer B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838..162O 838, 162

    O'Malley E. M., Gilligan C., Chaboyer B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838..162O 838, 162

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Popowski P., Gould A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...506..271P 506, 271

    1998 doi

  34. [43]

    L., Crnojevi \'c D., Sand D

    Rhode K. L., Crnojevi \'c D., Sand D. J., Janowiecki S., Young M. D., Spekkens K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..137R 836, 137

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    C., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/76 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...76R 732, 76

    Richardson J. C., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/76 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...76R 732, 76

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    B., Makarov D., Makarova L., Dolphin A

    Rizzi L., Tully R. B., Makarov D., Makarova L., Dolphin A. E., Sakai S., Shaya E. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516566 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..815R 661, 815

    2007 doi

  37. [46]

    Savino A., de Boer T. J. L., Salaris M., Tolstoy E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480.1587S 480, 1587

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  39. [48]

    Sesar B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..135S 793, 135

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    D., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190105465S p

    Simon J. D., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190105465S p. arXiv:1901.05465

    2019 arXiv

  41. [50]

    T., Bell E

    Slater C. T., Bell E. F., Martin N. F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742L..14S 742, L14

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/45 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...45T 752, 45

    Tollerud E. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/45 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...45T 752, 45

    2012 doi

  43. [52]

    A., Bolte M., Stetson P

    Vandenberg D. A., Bolte M., Stetson P. B., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ....100..445V 100, 445

    1990 doi

  44. [53]

    C., Geha M

    Vargas L. C., Geha M. C., Tollerud E. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/73 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...73V 790, 73

    2014 doi

  45. [54]

    F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215....9W 215, 9

    Williams B. F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215....9W 215, 9

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    B., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612L.121Z 612, L121

    Zucker D. B., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612L.121Z 612, L121

    2004 doi

  47. [56]

    B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659L..21Z 659, L21

    Zucker D. B., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659L..21Z 659, L21

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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