Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Ultra Diffuse Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Pseudo-bulges

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five ultra-diffuse dwarf galaxies in the ALFALFA survey host central pseudo-bulges, a two-component structure not previously reported for this galaxy class.

desk verdict Plausible and potentially important new UDG subtype, but the bulge-vs-NSC classification needs tighter photometric evidence before the claim is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10759 v1 pith:BODY2D3M submitted 2024-12-14 astro-ph.GA

Yu Rong , Hong-Xin Zhang , Cheng Cheng , Qi Guo , Weiyu Ding , Zichen Hua , Huiyuan Wang , Xu Kong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxiespseudo-bulgesdwarfgalaxystructureHIrotationmergersfailedL-starSersicdecompositionlow-surface-brightness
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 paper reports that five low-mass, gas-rich galaxies from the ALFALFA survey, which satisfy the standard ultra-diffuse galaxy (UDG) definition, contain resolved central pseudo-bulges with effective radii of roughly 300–700 pc and Sérsic indices $n<2.5$, surrounded by very faint, extended, bluer stellar disks. This matters because UDGs have usually been treated as simple, single-component, low-surface-brightness disks, at most with a nuclear star cluster; a genuine bulge changes what kind of object they are. The paper also argues that these five galaxies rotate faster than most dwarf galaxies of comparable stellar mass, implying either unusually high halo spin or very massive dark matter halos. From this it proposes that the galaxies formed through mergers of gas-rich, star-poor dwarf halos, or alternatively that they are failed $L^\star$ galaxies whose bulges were shaped by strong early AGN feedback.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-component (bulge-plus-disk) Sérsic decomposition of the deep optical images, deconvolved with the point-spread function in each band. A central component is classified as a bulge, rather than a nuclear star cluster, when its fitted effective radius exceeds the PSF size and lies in the 300–700 pc range, well above the few- to 100-pc radii of nuclear star clusters and globular clusters. Rotation velocities are then obtained by combining the ALFALFA HI line width $W_{50}$ with the optical axis ratio, adopting an intrinsic disk thickness $q_0\simeq 0.1$ for the five UDGs and comparing with a larger HI-bearing dwarf sample using $q_0\simeq 0.21$.

What would settle it

A resolved observation of one of the five galaxies—for example, optical integral-field spectroscopy of the central component or high-resolution HI mapping of the disk—would settle the claim: if the central component rotates like a disk-born clump instead of a pressure-supported bulge, or if the true rotation velocity drops to the typical dwarf level, the pseudo-bulge and high-rotation interpretations fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a population of five HI-bearing ultra-diffuse dwarf galaxies whose light profiles require two components: a central pseudo-bulge plus an extended low-surface-brightness disk. In double-Sérsic fits to the deep optical images, the bulges have effective radii of 300–700 pc and Sérsic indices $n<2.5$, well above the sizes expected for nuclear star clusters, while the disks have effective radii of several kiloparsecs and mean surface brightnesses consistent with UDG selection. The bulges are generally redder than the bluer outer disks, and several disks show spiral-like features, suggesting recent gas accretion. Rotation velocities derived from HI line widths and optical inclinations are relatively high compared with other HI-bearing dwarf galaxies of similar stellar mass. The authors conclude that these objects form a rare two-component UDG class and discuss two formation routes: mergers of gas-rich halos lacking old stars, or failed $L^\star$ galaxies with massive halos that may be descendants of high-redshift compact sources with overmassive black holes, the so-called little red dots.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the central components as bulges rests on photometric size and Sérsic index alone; no spectroscopic or resolved kinematic confirmation shows that they are not bright star-forming clumps, background sources, or artifacts of the two-component fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the identification is correct, the UDG class includes rare two-component galaxies, so single-component formation models are incomplete.
  • The high rotation velocities at fixed stellar mass imply either unusually massive halos or high halo spins, which future resolved HI observations can directly test.
  • Under the merger scenario, the bulges formed from gas-rich, star-poor dwarf mergers, so these objects should have young or blue bulges at formation and disks built later by gas accretion.
  • Under the failed-$L^\star$ scenario, confirming massive halos would tie these UDGs to high-redshift compact sources with overmassive black holes, the so-called little red dots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A census implication the paper does not develop: with 5 objects found among roughly 8,600 ALFALFA dwarf galaxies, pseudo-bulge UDGs are intrinsically rare, and a volume-limited search would show whether they form a distinct channel or just the bright tail of a continuous population.
  • The merger and failed-$L^\star$ explanations can be separated observationally: resolved HI kinematics of a single object would show whether the rotation curve follows a high-spin disk or a massive, cored halo.
  • The bulge-disk color ordering suggests the bulges formed before the disks, but line spectroscopy of the bulges would test whether their stellar populations really are older, rather than recently rejuvenated by the same gas accretion that built the disks.
  • If the failed-$L^\star$ picture is right, these galaxies should host overmassive black holes, which could be searched for via X-ray or radio emission without resolving the stellar component.
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. The paper reports the identification of five HI-bearing ultra-diffuse dwarf galaxies (UDGs) in the ALFALFA survey that show central 'pseudo-bulges' in DESI Legacy Imaging Survey data. Using double-S\'ersic fits, the authors measure bulge effective radii of roughly 300-700 pc and S\'ersic indices n<2.5, with outer disks meeting UDG surface-brightness and size criteria. From ALFALFA HI line widths and optical inclinations, they derive rotation velocities that appear high compared with other dwarfs of similar stellar mass. They propose that these objects formed through mergers of gas-rich, old-star-free dark matter halos, or alternatively that they are failed L* galaxies with massive halos and early AGN feedback, possibly descendants of JWST 'little red dots.' The paper is primarily a photometric discovery claim with speculative formation scenarios.

Significance. If the central components are genuinely extended stellar bulges rather than nuclear star clusters or fit artifacts, this would be a new and rare phenomenon: UDGs with resolved bulges, whose kinematics may challenge the simplest high-spin and feedback-driven UDG formation models. The paper's strengths include the use of deeper DESI imaging over SDSS, consistent double-S\'ersic fits across g, r, and z bands, and carefully computed distances based on ALFALFA and environmental isolation. However, the core distinction between a bulge and a nuclear star cluster rests entirely on fitted effective radii that are comparable to the PSF size, and the absence of uncertainties and alternative-model comparisons leaves the central claim under-supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Table 1] The identification of the central components as bulges rather than nuclear star clusters is not yet supported by the presented fits. The fitted bulge effective radii (0.34-0.62 kpc, i.e., roughly 0.7-1.2 arcsec at the adopted distances) are comparable to the PSF FWHM (0.89-1.29 arcsec), and the statement that the Rh values of AGC238976 'surpass the FWHM' is incorrect for the g band, where Rh=0.96 arcsec is smaller than the FWHM of 1.29 arcsec. The Chen et al. (2022) criterion Rh > FWHM/3 is a threshold for reliable fitting, not for proving spatial extension. Please provide uncertainties for Rh, n, and component magnitudes; compare the double-S\'ersic model with a disk+PSF (NSC) model using a meaningful statistic (e.g., delta-chi2 or BIC); and test the fits against simulated point sources placed at the same positions and magnitudes.
  2. [Section 2.1, Figure 2] The comparison with typical NSC/UCD/GC sizes (3-100 pc) is made in observed size space, but the lower boundary of the claimed bulge sizes (300 pc) is only slightly larger than the PSF half-light radius at these distances (roughly 200-300 pc). An unresolved or marginally resolved nuclear star cluster would therefore not be excluded by the fitted sizes alone. The double-S\'ersic decomposition cannot distinguish a compact young cluster or a background source from a bulge without either higher-resolution imaging or a demonstration that the component is significantly larger than the PSF in all three bands simultaneously, with quoted confidence intervals.
  3. [Section 2.2, Table 1] The rotation velocity comparison is sensitive to the adopted intrinsic thickness: the five UDGs are assigned q0=0.1 while the comparison sample uses q0=0.21, and for the nearly face-on galaxies (AGC233768 and AGC241923, with disk b/a ~0.9) the derived inclinations and hence Vrot are extremely uncertain, with asymmetric errors spanning factors of roughly 2-3. The claim that these UDGs rotate faster than similar-mass dwarfs should be re-derived with a consistent q0 for both samples, or presented as a function of q0; otherwise the comparison may be driven by the differing assumptions rather than by the data.
  4. [Section 3.2] The proposed formation scenarios are not quantitatively linked to the fitted properties. In particular, the abstract states that the pseudo-bulges are 'blue', but Section 2.1 reports that the bulges are redder than the outer disks for four of the five galaxies; this tension needs to be resolved with explicit bulge and disk colors, and the claim that the bulges formed earlier than the disks requires a quantitative age estimate rather than a color statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The last column header is missing or redundant: the table lists 'position angle' and then '(15): normalized chi2' without a separate column heading, making the layout confusing.
  2. [Section 2.1] There is a typo: 'caculated' should be 'calculated'.
  3. [Section 2.1] The text says AGC233768 and AGC241923 have disk b/a ~0.9, but Table 1 lists b/a values such as 0.84, 0.87, and 0.78 for AGC241923; please clarify the averaging or reconcile the values.
  4. [References] The reference to McConnachie is incomplete: 'McConnachie, A. W. AJ, 144, 4' lacks the year and full title, which should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central bulge classification and rotation-velocity comparison rest on independent fits and stated assumptions, not on equations that reduce to their own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's main claim is observational: five ALFALFA dwarf galaxies show central components with Sersic indices n<2.5 and effective radii of roughly 0.34-0.62 kpc, embedded in low-surface-brightness disks that satisfy UDG criteria. These quantities come from GALFIT double-Sersic fits to DESI images, with the PSF deconvolution stated explicitly; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The bulge-vs-NSC classification uses an explicit size comparison against literature NSC radii and is transparent about the resolution-based selection floor (1/3 PSF FWHM). The rotation velocities are computed directly from W50 and optical axis ratios with a stated q0=0.1 assumption; the comparison sample uses q0=0.21, and the paper notes that using q0~0.4 would not change the conclusion, so the Vrot excess is not a constructed fit. Several Rong et al. papers are cited for distances, environment, and comparison UDG samples, and the first author is indeed part of this group, but those citations support peripheral context rather than the load-bearing bulge detection or the rotation comparison. The paper also explicitly notes its own limitations, including inability to place the five UDGs on the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation and the need for resolved HI to confirm massive halos. No derivation step reduces to its input by definition, and no self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternatives. The finding is therefore not circular, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

The central claim rests on photometric decomposition, distance and inclination assumptions, and the classification scheme. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the intrinsic thickness q0; the other assumptions are standard domain assumptions of low-surface-brightness galaxy work but are not independently verified here. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Intrinsic thickness q0 for the five UDGs = 0.1 (adopted; one member is edge-on)
    Needed to convert b/a to inclination and W50 to Vrot. A thicker disk (q0~0.4) would lower the derived Vrot by roughly 10 percent, but would not change the qualitative result.
  • Intrinsic thickness q0 for comparison dwarf sample = 0.21 (from Tully et al. 2009; Giovanelli et al. 1997; Li et al. 2022)
    Used to estimate rotation velocities of comparison dwarfs; this differs from the target q0 by construction, slightly favoring higher target velocities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ALFALFA HI redshift gives the correct distance for each source and the sources are isolated, so angular sizes convert directly to kiloparsecs.
    Used throughout Section 2 to compute Rh and classify galaxies as dwarfs; the authors verify isolation beyond 3 virial radii but have no independent spectroscopic redshifts.
  • domain assumption A double-horned HI line profile implies rotation-dominated gas kinematics, so W50/2 approximates the rotation velocity.
    Section 2.2: the five UDGs show double-horned profiles despite nearly face-on optical axes; if the profiles are instead dominated by dispersion, Vrot is overestimated.
  • domain assumption A central component with Sersic index below 2.5 and effective radius 300-700 pc can be classified as a pseudo-bulge without stellar kinematics.
    Section 2.1 and conclusion; based on Kormendy and Kennicutt 2004, but no spectra or velocity dispersion support the identification.
  • domain assumption The double-Sersic plus sky model and GALFIT recover true bulge and disk parameters with negligible systematic bias at these surface brightnesses.
    Section 2.1; fit residuals are shown but no inject-recover tests or uncertainty estimates are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultra Diffuse Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Pseudo-bulges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BODY2D3M

@misc{pith2026241210759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultra Diffuse Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Pseudo-bulges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BODY2D3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10759}
}
abstract

By analyzing data from DESI Legacy Imaging Survey of the dwarf galaxies in the Arecibo Legacy Fast Alfa Survey, we have identified five ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) featuring central pseudo-bulges. These UDGs display blue pseudo-bulges with S\'ersic indices $n<2.5$ and effective radii spanning 300-700 pc, along with bluer thin stellar disks exhibiting low surface brightness and expansive effective radii that align with the UDG definition. The rotation velocities of these UDGs, determined using HI line widths and optical inclinations, exceed those of most dwarf galaxies of similar mass, suggesting the high halo spins or substantial dark matter halos. We propose that these UDGs likely formed through mergers of dwarf galaxies lacking old stars in their progenitors, resulting in the development of central bulge-like structures during starbursts triggered by the mergers, while also enhancing their halo spin. Subsequent gas accretion facilitated the formation of extended stellar disks. It is also worth noting the possibility that these UDGs could alternatively represent ``failed $L^{\star}$ galaxies'' with massive dark matter halos but reduced star formation efficiencies. If future high-resolution HI observations confirm the presence of massive halos around these UDGs, they may have formed due to intense AGN feedback in the early universe, and may be the descendants of ``little red dots'' observed by the James Webb Space Telescope, which are characterized by heightened central black hole masses and intensified accretion and feedback processes in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left four columns of panels depict images of the five chosen UDGs with bulges. The panels, from left to right, display the colored DECaLS images, g-band images, double-Sersic profile fitting outcomes, and residuals. The right three columns of panels showcase ´ DESI images of 15 BCD examples from Meyer et al. (2014) for comparison. analyze their optical images using a ‘double-Sersic’ profile. ´ The criteria for i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Stellar mass-size relationship for galaxies and globular clusters, including UDGs. b) Color-stellar mass diagram for DESI galaxies with radial velocities v < 18, 000 km/s, based on data from Wen & Han (2024). c) Comparison of effective radius Rh,d versus r-band mean surface brightness ⟨µ⟩h,d for the outer disk components of the five chosen UDGs (red), the LSB hosts of typical BCDs from (Meyer et al. 2014, blue), … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HI spectra of the 5 UDGs with bulges from ALFALFA are presented. Each panel displays the positions used for calculating W50 for the respective galaxy. The inset in each panel compares the rotation velocity (with the gray region indicating the 1σ uncertainty range, estimated from the errors of W50 and inclination.) of the galaxy with the rotation velocity distribution (shown as a black his￾togram) of all HI-bearing d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alam, M. P. et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Amorisco, N. C. & Loeb, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, L51

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, L10

    Bekki, K. 2008, MNRAS, 388, L10

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    F., McIntosh, D

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

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V ., Abadi, M. G., Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1033

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Buzzo, M. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3210

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A., Falc´on-Barroso, J., Macci`o, A

    Beasley, M. A., Falc´on-Barroso, J., Macci`o, A. V . 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4282

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 382

    Carleton, T., Errani, R., Cooper, M., Kaplinghat, M., Penarrubia, J., Guo, Y . 2019, MNRAS, 485, 382

    work page 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Chan, T. K. et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 906

    2018

  2. [10]

    W., Li, D

    Chandola, Y ., Tsai, C. W., Li, D. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3848

    2023

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJL, 934, 35

    Tang, Y ., Chen, X. 2022, ApJL, 934, 35

    2022

  4. [12]

    Conselice, C. J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 43

    2018

  5. [13]

    H., Crain R

    Desmond, H., Mao Y .-Y ., Wechsler R. H., Crain R. A., Schaye J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, L11

    2017

  6. [14]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., Maccio, A. V ., Obreja, A., Dekel, A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L1

    2019

  7. [15]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 367

    Diemand, J., Madau, P., Moore, B. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 367

    2005

  8. [16]

    J., Jones, J

    Drinkwater, M. J., Jones, J. B., Gregg, M. D., Phillipps, S. 2000, PASA, 17, 227

    2000

  9. [17]

    A., O’Donoghue, A

    Koopmann, R. A., O’Donoghue, A. A. 2020, AJ, 160, 271

    2020

  10. [18]

    Durodola, E., Pacucci, F., Hickox, R. C. 2024, e-print arXiv:2406.10329

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 142

    Eigenthaler, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 142

    2018

  12. [20]

    El-Badry, K. et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1536

    2018

  13. [21]

    2012, ApJS, 200, 4

    Ferrarese, L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 4

    2012

  14. [22]

    and White, S

    Gallazzi, A., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S. and White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1439

    2008

  15. [23]

    Y ., B¨oker, T., Leigh, N., L¨utzgendorf, N., Neumayer, N

    Georgiev, I. Y ., B¨oker, T., Leigh, N., L¨utzgendorf, N., Neumayer, N. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2122

    2016

  16. [24]

    Giovanelli, R. et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 6

    2005

  17. [25]

    Giovanelli, R. et al. 1997, AJ, 113, 22

    1997

  18. [26]

    Y ., Moran, S., Yagi, M

    Katkov, I. Y ., Moran, S., Yagi, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1308

    2021

  19. [27]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 101

    Guo, Q., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 101

    2011

  20. [28]

    Guo, Q. et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 246

    2020

  21. [29]

    Haynes, M. P. et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 49

    2018

  22. [30]

    A., Hunter, D

    Herrmann, K. A., Hunter, D. A., Zhang, H.-X., Elmegreen, B. G. 2016, Science, 152, 177

    2016

  23. [31]

    1999, A&AS, 134, 75

    Hilker, M., Infante, L., Vieira, G., Kissler-Patig, M., Richtler, T. 1999, A&AS, 134, 75

    1999

  24. [32]

    C., Li, Z.-Y

    Ho, L. C., Li, Z.-Y . Barth, A. J., Seigar, M. S., Peng, C. Y . 2011, ApJS, 197, 21

    2011

  25. [33]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L9

    Zhang, Z.-Y . 2023, ApJL, 947, L9

    2023

  26. [34]

    2024, arXiv:2403.16754

    Hua, Z., Rong, Y ., Hu, H. 2024, arXiv:2403.16754

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A., et al

    Hunter, D. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 134

    2012

  28. [36]

    Janowiecki, S., Salzer, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 793, 109

    2014

  29. [37]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Janssens, S., Abraham, R., Brodie, J., Forbes, D., Romanowsky, A. J., van Dokkum, P. 2017, ApJL, 839, 17

    2017

  30. [38]

    A., Romanowsky, A

    Janssens, S., Abraham, R., Brodie, J., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJ, 887, 92

    2019

  31. [39]

    J., Dutton, A

    Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., Romanowsky, A. J., Dutton, A. A., Maccio, A. V ., Di Cintio, A. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5272

    2019

  32. [40]

    G., et al

    Jones, M. G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, 5 Jord´an, A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 54

    2023

  33. [41]

    2012, ApJS, 198, 2

    Kormendy, J., Bender, R. 2012, ApJS, 198, 2

    2012

  34. [42]

    Kormendy, J., Drory, N., Bender, R., Cornell, M. E. 2010, ApJ, 723, 54

    2010

  35. [43]

    Kormendy, J., Kennicutt, R. C. J. 2004, Annual Review of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 42, 603

    2004

  36. [44]

    J., Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R

    Lambert, M., Khim, D. J., Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R. 2024, AJ, 167, 61

    2024

  37. [45]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 133

    Leisman, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 133

    2017

  38. [46]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M. 2016, ApJL, 816, L14

    2016

  39. [47]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4220

    Li, X., Shi, Y ., Zhang, Z.-Y ., Chen, J., Yu, X., Wang, J., Gu, Q., Li, S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4220

    2022

  40. [48]

    H., Kong, X., Jiang, N., Yan, W., Gao, Y

    Lian, J. H., Kong, X., Jiang, N., Yan, W., Gao, Y . L. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1130

    2015

  41. [49]

    Liao, S. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5182

    2019

  42. [50]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 34 Mancera Pi˜na, P

    Liu, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 34 Mancera Pi˜na, P. E. et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3636

    2015

  43. [51]

    R., Habas, R., Poulain, M., et al

    Marleau, F. R., Habas, R., Poulain, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, 105

    2021

  44. [52]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

    2024

  45. [53]

    T., Lisker, T., Janz, J., Papaderos, P

    Meyer, H. T., Lisker, T., Janz, J., Papaderos, P. 2014, A&A, 562, 49

    2014

  46. [54]

    C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J

    Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., Feldmeier, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 16

    2017

  47. [55]

    J., Mao, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S. D. & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

    1998

  48. [56]

    2020, A&ARv, 28, 4

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., B¨oker, T. 2020, A&ARv, 28, 4

    2020

  49. [57]

    2016, ApJL, 822, L31

    Peng, E., Lim, S. 2016, ApJL, 822, L31

    2016

  50. [58]

    2024a, arXiv:2404.00555

    Rong, Y ., Hu, H., He, M., Du, W., Guo, Q., Wang, H.-Y ., Zhang, H.-X., Mo, H. 2024a, arXiv:2404.00555

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    2024b, arXiv:2409.00944

    Rong, Y ., He, M., Hu, H., Zhang, H.-X., Wang, H.-Y . 2024b, arXiv:2409.00944

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4231 10 R ONG ET AL

    Pan, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4231 10 R ONG ET AL

    2017

  53. [61]

    Rong, Y . et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 56 Sif´on, C., van der Burg, R. F. J., Hoekstra, H., Muzzin, A.,

    2019

  54. [62]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3747

    Herbonnet, R. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3747

    2018

  55. [63]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 55

    Spengler, C., Cˆot´e, P., Roediger, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 55

    2017

  56. [64]

    2022, A&A, 668, 179

    Tang, Y ., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, 179

    2022

  57. [65]

    B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., Courtois, H. M., Makarov, D. I., Jacobs, B. A. 2009, AJ, 138, 323

    2009

  58. [66]

    W., West, M

    Mei, S., Peng, E. W., West, M. J. ApJS, 203, 5 van den Bosch, F. C. 1998, ApJ, 507, 601 van der Burg, R. F. J., Muzzin, A., Hoekstra, H. 2016, A&A, 590, A20 van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L45 van Dokkum, P. G. et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L6 van Dokkum, P. et al. 2018, ...

    1998

  59. [67]

    2017, A&A, 608, 142

    Venhola, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, 142

    2017

  60. [68]

    J., B¨oker, T., Charlot, S., et al

    Walcher, C. J., B¨oker, T., Charlot, S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 692

    2006

  61. [69]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L. 2024, ApJS, 272, 39

    2024

  62. [70]

    S., Quinn, T

    Sharma, R. S., Quinn, T. R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5370

    2021

  63. [71]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 11

    Yagi, M., Koda, J., Komiyama, Y ., Yamanoi, H. 2016, ApJS, 225, 11

    2016

  64. [72]

    & Bekki, K

    Yozin, C. & Bekki, K. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 937

    2015

  65. [73]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 30 Z¨oller, R., Kluge, M., Staiger, B., Bender, R

    Zhang, H.-X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 30 Z¨oller, R., Kluge, M., Staiger, B., Bender, R. 2024, ApJS, 271, 52

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.