Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 142 references

Searching for Nearby Diffuse Dwarf Galaxies in the COSMOS Field

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports three diffuse dwarf galaxies in the COSMOS field, identifies two as ultra-diffuse galaxies, and derives stellar populations, gas content, and dark-matter content that point to diverse formation paths.

desk verdict Credible pilot sample of three diffuse dwarfs in COSMOS; UDG classification and dark-matter claim rest on distances not yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08466 v1 pith:4XYTQ6G3 submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.GA

Dongdong Shi (AUST) , XianZhong Zheng (SJTU) , Zhizheng Pan (PMO) , Yu Luo (HNNU) , Hongxia Deng (AUST) , Qunzhi Hua (AUST) , Xinyu Luo (AUST) , Qiming Wu (AUST) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxiesdwarflowsurfacebrightnessCOSMOSfieldgalaxyevolutionSEDfittingdarkmatterquenching
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 describes a pilot search for low-surface-brightness dwarf galaxies in the central COSMOS field using deep HST F814W imaging. It reports three diffuse dwarfs that meet the criteria of redshift $z<0.2$, effective radius $r_{\rm e}>1.0''$, and central surface brightness $\mu_0>24$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$; two of them, COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2, are recognized as ultra-diffuse galaxies, while the third, COSMOS-dw1, is spectroscopically confirmed at $z=0.004$. By fitting UV-to-IR spectral energy distributions, the authors find that COSMOS-dw1 is a low-mass, gas-bearing galaxy that appears to be just beginning to quench, and that the two UDGs have comparable stellar masses but differing ages and metallicities. If taken at face value, the results show that ultra-diffuse galaxies can be found in random, low-density fields and that their stellar masses place them on the dwarf-galaxy mass-metallicity relation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pipeline that constructs aperture-matched, PSF-matched UV-to-infrared SEDs from clean, neighbour-subtracted images, then feeds them into a Bayesian SED-fitting code that returns stellar mass, age, metallicity, and star-formation rate; structural parameters come from two-dimensional S\'ersic fits to the HST F814W image. For COSMOS-dw1, the neutral-hydrogen line width $W_{50}=18.2$ km s$^{-1}$ enters the dynamical mass estimator $M_{\rm dyn}=3.5\times10^{5}\,r_{\rm e}\,W_{50}^{2}$, which is what supports the dark-matter-dominated inference.

What would settle it

Take spectra of COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2 or resolve their stars: if COSMOS-UDG1 is at a redshift below roughly 0.074 or COSMOS-UDG2 below roughly 0.043, their physical effective radii drop below 1.5 kpc and the ultra-diffuse classifications collapse; likewise, a secure distance near 56 Mpc for COSMOS-dw1 would raise its stellar mass by an order of magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a structured search of the central $36'\times 14'$ region of the COSMOS field uncovers three nearby diffuse dwarf galaxies satisfying $z<0.2$, $r_{\rm e}>1.0''$, and $\mu_0>24$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. Two are ultra-diffuse galaxies: COSMOS-UDG1 at $z=0.130$ and COSMOS-UDG2 at $z=0.049$, with physical effective radii of 2.64 and 1.70 kpc and stellar masses around $2\times10^{8}\,M_\odot$. The third, COSMOS-dw1 at $z=0.004$, has a stellar mass of $5.6\times10^{6}\,M_\odot$, retains a neutral hydrogen reservoir of $4.90\times10^{6}\,M_\odot$, and has a dynamical mass of $3.4\times10^{7}\,M_\odot$, implying that dark matter dominates it; its low present star formation with residual gas places it at the onset of quenching. The SED-derived stellar populations differ sharply across the three objects, yet all three sit on the local dwarf-galaxy mass-metallicity relation, which the paper takes as evidence that they belong to the dwarf galaxy population.

Load-bearing premise

The distances that convert angular sizes into kiloparsec radii are not secure for two of the three galaxies, which lack spectroscopic redshifts, and the one with a spectrum has two conflicting distance estimates, so a galaxy closer than assumed would fall below the ultra-diffuse radius threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these identifications hold, ultra-diffuse galaxies can be found in random, low-density fields rather than only in clusters and groups, widening the search space for their formation.
  • COSMOS-dw1 shows that a dwarf can be simultaneously gas-rich and nearly quenched, with dark matter dominating its dynamics, implying that quenching can begin in isolation without violent stripping.
  • The two UDGs have similar stellar masses but different ages and metallicities, so the standard UDG selection criteria do not isolate a single stellar-population or formation channel.
  • All three galaxies following the dwarf mass-metallicity relation suggests that the relation is set primarily by stellar mass rather than by galaxy size or diffuse structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If colour-based redshifts at $z<0.15$ carry typical errors, blind H I surveys and resolved-star distance campaigns could uncover a population of nearer, lower-mass diffuse dwarfs that optical selection at $z<0.2$ currently misses.
  • The factor-of-three distance discrepancy for the one spectroscopically confirmed dwarf suggests a systematic test: computing surface-brightness-fluctuation distances with independent calibrators across the whole COSMOS dwarf sample would show whether the discrepancy is an outlier or a method bias.
  • Applying the same selection and SED-fitting machinery to other deep extragalactic fields would turn this pilot into a statistical census of field UDGs, testing whether high-spin or tidal-stripping formation scenarios dominate.
  • If gas-rich, dark-matter-dominated dwarfs like COSMOS-dw1 frequently land on the dwarf mass-metallicity relation, stellar mass rather than environment or quenching history may set chemical enrichment even at the low-mass end.
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 a pilot search for diffuse dwarf galaxies in the COSMOS field using deep HST/F814W imaging, identifying three low-surface-brightness galaxies: COSMOS-dw1 (spectroscopically confirmed at z=0.004), COSMOS-UDG1 (photo-z 0.130), and COSMOS-UDG2 (photo-z 0.049). Using aperture-matched photometry from UV to NIR and Prospector SED fitting, the authors derive stellar masses, ages, metallicities, and star formation rates. For COSMOS-dw1 they combine an H I detection with a dynamical mass estimate to argue that the galaxy is predominantly dark matter and possibly in the early stages of quenching. The two UDGs are presented as new field UDGs with diverse stellar populations, and all three objects are compared to the dwarf-galaxy mass-metallicity relation.

Significance. If the distances are correct, the paper would add two new field UDGs at z<0.15 and a nearby gas-rich, dark-matter-dominated dwarf to the small census of diffuse low-surface-brightness galaxies, with well-characterized multiwavelength SEDs. The aperture-matched photometry and the explicit discussion of the SBF distance discrepancy for COSMOS-dw1 are strengths, and the structural fits provide useful quantitative data. However, the central claims—the UDG classifications and the dark-matter-dominated interpretation—depend critically on distances that are not yet secured, so the current significance is conditional on resolving those distances.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 4] The UDG classifications and all physical sizes for COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2 rest on photometric redshifts, with no spec-z available. COSMOS2015 gives z=0.158±0.008 for COSMOS-UDG1 while the adopted EAZY value is 0.130, and for COSMOS-UDG2 the 1σ lower bound z≈0.033 would shrink re from 1.70 kpc to roughly 1.1 kpc, below the 1.5 kpc UDG threshold stated in Section 2. The paper should propagate the full photo-z PDFs into the structural and stellar-population parameters, or present all derived quantities as functions of distance rather than as single adopted values.
  2. [Section 4] The factor-of-three SBF distance discrepancy for COSMOS-dw1 (22±3 Mpc versus 56.3+10.4−6.7 Mpc) is described but not propagated into the quoted physical parameters. At the larger distance the paper notes that re triples and M* rises by an order of magnitude; additionally, MHI scales as D^2 to ~3–5×10^7 M⊙, making Mbar comparable to or larger than the rescaled Mdyn~1×10^8 M⊙. The conclusion that COSMOS-dw1 is predominantly dark matter is therefore distance-dependent and should be stated under both distance branches, or a specific distance should be adopted with explicit justification.
  3. [Table 1 versus Table 2] The structural parameters differ substantially between Table 1 and the 1D/2D Sérsic fits in the Appendix. For example, COSMOS-UDG2 has re,I814=1.77″ and n=0.59 in Table 1, but re=2.54″ and n=0.91 in the 2D fit in Table 2; COSMOS-dw1 has n=0.20 in Table 1 versus n=0.53 in the Appendix. Since re enters the UDG selection criterion and the dynamical-mass estimate for COSMOS-dw1, the paper must explain which parameter set is adopted and quantify how the differences affect the conclusions.
  4. [Abstract and Section 2] The selection criteria are stated inconsistently: the abstract lists re>1.0″ while Section 2 applies re>1.5 kpc using photometric redshifts. These criteria are not equivalent, as COSMOS-dw1 has re=3.42″ but only 0.29 kpc at the adopted distance and is consequently not classified as a UDG. Please unify the criteria and present the selection in one quantitative form, clearly distinguishing the angular-size criterion from the physical-size criterion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 8 caption] The caption labels the target as COSMOS-UDG3, but the object discussed throughout the text and in Table 1 is COSMOS-UDG2.
  2. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'fully Bayesian Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo' contains a redundant repetition of 'Bayesian'.
  3. [Section 2] The EAZY photometric redshifts for COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2 are quoted without uncertainties, making it difficult to evaluate the statement that they are 'fully consistent' with the COSMOS2015 values; for COSMOS-UDG1 the difference is 0.028, which is several times the quoted COSMOS2015 error of 0.008.
  4. [Section 4] The text quotes the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal as having '[Fe/H]∼ 0.4'; the value should presumably be negative, and the sentence should be checked against the cited source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all derived quantities are fits to independent photometry; the acknowledged distance uncertainties affect accuracy, not logical circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Target selection uses the 3D-HST/CANDELS catalog with photometric redshifts and structural parameters, then applies the stated criteria; the three objects are then re-measured with GALFIT on HST images, and their SEDs are fitted with Prospector/FSPS using standard templates, a Chabrier IMF, and a Calzetti attenuation law. Stellar masses, metallicities, ages, and SFRs are free parameters of those fits, not quantities defined in terms of the conclusions. The dynamical mass of COSMOS-dw1 uses an external formula (Mdyn = 3.5e5 re W50^2) with re from imaging and W50 from an external HI measurement; this is an application of an independent scaling relation, not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The paper's own Section 4 explicitly flags the SBF distance discrepancy for COSMOS-dw1 (22 vs 56.3 Mpc) and the photo-z uncertainties for the other two objects, and it states that adopting the larger distance would raise M* by an order of magnitude and triple re; this is a candid robustness concern about distance accuracy, not a logical circularity. Self-citations to Shi et al. (2017, 2018) appear only in introductory lists of prior UDG work and future survey prospects; they are not load-bearing for any derived result. No equation is defined in terms of its own target, no fitted parameter is promoted to a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work. The MZR comparison is made against external relations (Kirby et al. 2013; Gallazzi et al. 2005), so the statement that the galaxies 'adhere to the MZR' is an external benchmark rather than a self-confirmation. In summary, the paper is self-contained as a measurement and discovery work; the main risks are statistical and systematic distance uncertainties, which the authors partly acknowledge, but these are not circularity.

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

The central results depend on a standard SED-fitting pipeline with multiple free parameters (mass, age, metallicity, SFH timescale, SFR), on photometric or spectroscopic redshifts for distance, and on literature formulas for dynamical mass and baryon fraction. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is the assumed reliability of photo-z distances and SPS priors, not circular derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • stellar mass = log(M*/M_sun) = 6.75, 8.39, 8.34
    Outputs of Prospector SED fitting for the three galaxies; central to all mass-related claims.
  • stellar metallicity = log(Z/Z_sun) = -1.47, -0.74, -1.44
    Fitted from SEDs; used for the MZR placement and the claim that COSMOS-UDG1 is metal-rich.
  • stellar age = 4.10, 1.70, 5.58 Gyr
    Fitted from SEDs; used to claim COSMOS-UDG1 is younger than the others.
  • SFH e-folding timescale tau = log(tau/Gyr) = 0.23, 0.50, 0.07
    Free parameter of the delayed exponentially declining SFH assumed in Prospector.
  • star formation rate = 0.001, 0.239, 0.008 M_sun/yr
    Derived from the fitted SFH; reported without uncertainties in Table 1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts for COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2 are accurate enough to determine distances and physical sizes.
    No spec-z exists for either object; physical re, stellar mass, and UDG classification scale with distance. Section 2 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption The adopted SPS priors (Chabrier IMF, Calzetti dust attenuation, delayed exponential SFH) are appropriate for these galaxies.
    Prospector fits use default FSPS parameters; derived ages, metallicities, and masses depend on these priors. Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The dynamical mass formula Mdyn = 3.5e5 * re * W50^2 with W50 = 18.2 km/s applies to COSMOS-dw1.
    Assumes the HI line width traces the dynamical mass without major pressure support or inclination corrections. Section 4.
  • domain assumption The cosmological baryon fraction of 0.16 holds for COSMOS-dw1's dark matter halo.
    Used to convert baryonic mass to virial halo mass. Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Nearby Diffuse Dwarf Galaxies in the COSMOS Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4XYTQ6G3

@misc{pith2026250208466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for Nearby Diffuse Dwarf Galaxies in the COSMOS Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4XYTQ6G3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08466}
}
abstract

It remains challenging to systematically survey nearby diffuse dwarf galaxies and address the formation mechanism of this population distinguishing from regular ones. We carry out a pilot search for these galaxies in the COSMOS field using the deep \textit{HST}/F814W imaging data. We report three diffuse dwarf galaxies satisfying the criteria: (1) redshift $z<0.2$, (2) effective radius $r_{\rm e}>1.0''$, and (3) central surface brightness $\mu_{\rm 0}>24$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. Two of the three galaxies, COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2, are recognized as ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) with redshift $z=0.130$ and $0.049$, respectively. The third galaxy, COSMOS-dw1, is spectroscopically confirmed as a dwarf galaxy at $z=0.004$. We derive the physical properties through fitting their spectral energy distributions (SEDs) extracted from deep multiwavelength observations. COSMOS-dw1 has a stellar mass of $5.6_{-2.7}^{+2.5}\times10^{6}$ M$_{\odot}$, harboring neutral hydrogen gas of mass $4.90\pm0.90\times10^{6}$ M$_{\odot}$, hinting that this galaxy may be in the nascent stages of quenching. The estimated dynamical mass of $3.4\times10^{7}\,M_{\odot}$ further suggests that COSMOS-dw1 is predominantly of dark matter. COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS-UDG2 exhibit comparable stellar masses of $\sim 2\times10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$. Notably, COSMOS-UDG1 is younger and more metal-rich than COSMOS-UDG2 and COSMOS-dw1. Conversely, COSMOS-UDG2 and COSMOS-dw1 have similar stellar metallicities, yet COSMOS-UDG2 is older than COSMOS-dw1. All three galaxies adhere to the stellar mass-metallicity relation (MZR) for dwarf galaxies in the local Universe, implying they belong to the dwarf galaxy population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The HST/ACS F814W stamps of three COSMOS diffuse galaxies: COSMOS-dw1 (left), COSMOS-UDG1 (middle), and COSMOS-UDG2 (right). The size of the stamps is 90′′ × 90′′. The inner box shows a region of 30′′ × 30′′ for COSMOS-dw1, and 15′′ × 15′′ for COSMOS-UDG1 and COSMOS￾UDG2. and test their formation mechanisms (Trujillo et al., 2017; Papastergis et al., 2017; Bellazzini et al., 2017; Leisman et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left:The examples of multiwavelength science images of COSMOS-dw1. The size of each stamp is 30′′ × 30′′. The red circle in each stamp is the target. Right: The SED fitting of COSMOS-dw1. The green curve presents the best-fit model from Prospector. The grey curves are the filters from optical to NIR. The red points are the observed photometry for COSMOS-dw1, and the green points are the model photometry. contaminati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left:The examples of multiwavelength science images of COSMOS-UDG1. The size of each stamp is 15′′ × 15′′. The red circle in each stamp is the target. Right: The SED fitting of COSMOS-UDG1. The green curve presents the best-fit model from Prospector. The grey curves are the filters from optical to NIR. The red points are the observed photometry for COSMOS-UDG1, and the green points are the model photometry [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left:The examples of multiwavelength science images of COSMOS-UDG2. The size of each stamp is 15′′ × 15′′. The red circle in each stamp is the target. Right: The SED fitting of COSMOS-UDG2. The green curve presents the best-fit model from Prospector. The grey curves ar…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The stellar mass-metallicity relation. The black solid points are the early-type galaxies (ETGs) in Virgo (Liu et al., 2016), dwarf galaxies in and around the Local group are shown in gray solid squares (McConnachie, 2012), and local group dIrrs/dSphs from Kirby et al.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 1D surface brightness profile (Upper panel) and 2D Sersic fitting (Bottom panel) of ´ COSMOS-dw1. The size of each stamp is 48′′ × 48′′ . Frontiers 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 1D surface brightness profile (Upper panel) and 2D Sersic fitting (Bottom panel) of ´ COSMOS-UDG1. The size of each stamp is 15′′ × 15′′ . Frontiers 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 1D surface brightness profile (Upper panel) and 2D Sersic fitting (Bottom panel) of ´ COSMOS-UDG2. The size of each stamp is 15′′ × 15′′ . Frontiers 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    `K>kFUh5(JQ'-olL6 XJ3 PDX

    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...

    2019

  2. [2]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  4. [4]

    C., & Loeb , A

    Amorisco , N. C., & Loeb , A. 2016, , 459, L51, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw055

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 2016

  5. [5]

    C., Monachesi , A., Agnello , A., & White , S

    Amorisco , N. C., Monachesi , A., Agnello , A., & White , S. D. M. 2018, , 475, 4235, 10.1093/mnras/sty116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty116 2018

  6. [6]

    E., Zaritsky , D., Donnerstein , R., et al

    Barbosa , C. E., Zaritsky , D., Donnerstein , R., et al. 2020, , 247, 46, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7660

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7660 2020

  7. [7]

    Baushev , A. N. 2018, , 60, 69, 10.1016/j.newast.2017.10.008

    doi:10.1016/j.newast.2017.10.008 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Romanowsky , A

    Beasley , M. A., Romanowsky , A. J., Pota , V., et al. 2016, , 819, L20, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l20 2016

Show all 142 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Trujillo , I

    Beasley , M. A., & Trujillo , I. 2016, , 830, 23, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/23

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, , 467, 3751, 10.1093/mnras/stx236

    Bellazzini , M., Belokurov , V., Magrini , L., et al. 2017, , 467, 3751, 10.1093/mnras/stx236

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Zaritsky , D., et al

    Bennet , P., Sand , D. J., Zaritsky , D., et al. 2018, , 866, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/aadedf

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans , A. Accomazzi , D. J. Mink , & A. H. Rots , 435

    2011

  5. [13]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Ford , K

    Breivik , K., Connolly , A. J., Ford , K. E. S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.02781, 10.48550/arXiv.2208.02781

    2022 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    Bullock , J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2017, , 55, 343, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, , 838, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c

    Burkert , A. 2017, , 838, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16190, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16190

    Buttitta , C., Iodice , E., Doll , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16190, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16190

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    L., Forbes , D

    Buzzo , M. L., Forbes , D. A., Brodie , J. P., et al. 2022, , 517, 2231, 10.1093/mnras/stac2442

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Forbes , D

    Buzzo , M. L., Forbes , D. A., Jarrett , T. H., et al. 2024 a , , 529, 3210, 10.1093/mnras/stae564

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2024 b , , 10.1093/mnras/stae2700

    ---. 2024 b , , 10.1093/mnras/stae2700

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    C., et al

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682, 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, , 485, 382, 10.1093/mnras/stz383

    Carleton , T., Errani , R., Cooper , M., et al. 2019, , 485, 382, 10.1093/mnras/stz383

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Chen, C.-C., Cowie, L

    Casey, C. M., Chen, C.-C., Cowie, L. L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1919, 10.1093/mnras/stt1673

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Kere s , D., Wetzel , A., et al

    Chan , T. K., Kere s , D., Wetzel , A., et al. 2018, , 478, 906, 10.1093/mnras/sty1153

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    V., Afanasiev , A

    Chilingarian , I. V., Afanasiev , A. V., Grishin , K. A., Fabricant , D., & Moran , S. 2019, , 884, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4205

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Cunha , K., et al

    Chou , M.-Y., Majewski , S. R., Cunha , K., et al. 2007, , 670, 346, 10.1086/522483

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    B., Dutton , A

    Di Cintio , A., Brook , C. B., Dutton , A. A., et al. 2017, , 466, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw210

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Emsellem , E., van der Burg , R. F. J., Fensch , J., et al. 2019, , 625, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834909

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    Euclid Collaboration , Mellier , Y., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Forbes , D

    Ferr \'e -Mateu , A., Gannon , J. S., Forbes , D. A., et al. 2023, , 526, 4735, 10.1093/mnras/stad3102

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Ferr \'e -Mateu , A., Vazdekis , A., & de la Rosa , I. G. 2013, , 431, 440, 10.1093/mnras/stt193

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    A., et al

    Ferr \'e -Mateu , A., Alabi , A., Forbes , D. A., et al. 2018, , 479, 4891, 10.1093/mnras/sty1597

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Sand , D

    Fielder , C., Jones , M. G., Sand , D. J., et al. 2024, , 168, 212, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad74f6

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Buzzo , M

    Forbes , D. A., Buzzo , M. L., Ferre-Mateu , A., et al. 2025, , 536, 1217, 10.1093/mnras/stae2675

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Taylor , J

    Foster , L. M., Taylor , J. E., & Blakeslee , J. P. 2024, , 527, 1656, 10.1093/mnras/stad3235

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 41, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x

    2005

  32. [40]

    S., Ferré-Mateu, A., Forbes, D

    Gannon, J. S., Ferré-Mateu, A., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 1856, 10.1093/mnras/stae1287

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Forbes , D

    Gannon , J. S., Forbes , D. A., Romanowsky , A. J., et al. 2022, , 510, 946, 10.1093/mnras/stab3297

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Dunlop, J

    Geach, J. E., Dunlop, J. S., Halpern, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 465, 1789, 10.1093/mnras/stw2721

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Greene , J

    Greco , J. P., Greene , J. E., Strauss , M. A., et al. 2018 a , , 857, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab842

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Greene , J

    Greco , J. P., Greene , J. E., Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2018 b , , 70, S19, 10.1093/pasj/psx051

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, , 859, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabbae

    Gu , M., Conroy , C., Law , D., et al. 2018, , 859, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabbae

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Maddox, N., et al

    Heywood, I., Ponomareva, A. A., Maddox, N., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 76, 10.1093/mnras/stae2081

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    1997, , 35, 267, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267

    Impey , C., & Bothun , G. 1997, , 35, 267, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267

    1997 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, , 642, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038523

    Iodice , E., Cantiello , M., Hilker , M., et al. 2020, , 642, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038523

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, , 679, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347129

    Iodice , E., Hilker , M., Doll , G., et al. 2023, , 679, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347129

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2017, , 839, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa667d

    Janssens , S., Abraham , R., Brodie , J., et al. 2017, , 839, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa667d

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Abraham , R., Brodie , J., Forbes , D

    Janssens , S. R., Abraham , R., Brodie , J., Forbes , D. A., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2019, , 887, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab536c

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Verdes-Montenegro , L., Moldon , J., et al

    Jones , M. G., Verdes-Montenegro , L., Moldon , J., et al. 2023, , 670, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244622

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Kadowaki , J., Zaritsky , D., & Donnerstein , R. L. 2017, , 838, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa653d

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, , 975, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cf

    Karunakaran , A., Motiwala , K., Spekkens , K., et al. 2024, , 975, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cf

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, , 902, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb464

    Karunakaran , A., Spekkens , K., Zaritsky , D., et al. 2020, , 902, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb464

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Zaritsky , D., Lambert , M., & Donnerstein , R

    Khim , D. J., Zaritsky , D., Lambert , M., & Donnerstein , R. 2024, , 168, 45, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ed3

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    2015, , 807, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L2

    Koda , J., Yagi , M., Yamanoi , H., & Komiyama , Y. 2015, , 807, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L2

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 117, 10.33232/001c.127487

    Kravtsov , A. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 117, 10.33232/001c.127487

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2022 a , , 665, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142367

    La Marca , A., Iodice , E., Cantiello , M., et al. 2022 a , , 665, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142367

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2022 b , , 659, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141901

    La Marca , A., Peletier , R., Iodice , E., et al. 2022 b , , 659, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141901

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Ilbert , O., et al

    Laigle , C., McCracken , H. J., Ilbert , O., et al. 2016, , 224, 24, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Zaritsky , D., & Donnerstein , R

    Lambert , M., Khim , D. J., Zaritsky , D., & Donnerstein , R. 2024, , 167, 61, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0f25

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    H., Kang , J., Lee , M

    Lee , J. H., Kang , J., Lee , M. G., & Jang , I. S. 2020, , 894, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8632

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    G., Kang , J., Lee , J

    Lee , M. G., Kang , J., Lee , J. H., & Jang , I. S. 2017, , 844, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa78fb

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Janowiecki , S., et al

    Leisman , L., Haynes , M. P., Janowiecki , S., et al. 2017, , 842, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7575

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    D., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P. G., & Byler , N. 2017, , 837, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Conroy , C., et al

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., et al. 2019, , 877, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    A., van Gorkom , J

    Levy , L., Rose , J. A., van Gorkom , J. H., & Chaboyer , B. 2007, , 133, 1104, 10.1086/510723

    2007 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Le F \`e vre , O., Renzini , A., et al

    Lilly , S. J., Le F \`e vre , O., Renzini , A., et al. 2007, , 172, 70, 10.1086/516589

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    W., C \^o t \'e , P., et al

    Lim , S., Peng , E. W., C \^o t \'e , P., et al. 2018, , 862, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb81

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    W., Blakeslee , J., et al

    Liu , Y., Peng , E. W., Blakeslee , J., et al. 2016, , 818, 179, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/179

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al

    Ma , X., Hopkins , P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2016, , 456, 2140, 10.1093/mnras/stv2659

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    R., Duc , P.-A., Poulain , M., et al

    Marleau , F. R., Duc , P.-A., Poulain , M., et al. 2024, , 690, A339, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449617

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    E., Spavone , M., et al

    Martin , G., Bazkiaei , A. E., Spavone , M., et al. 2022, , 513, 1459, 10.1093/mnras/stac1003

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    2016, , 151, 96, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/96

    Mart \' nez-Delgado , D., L \"a sker , R., Sharina , M., et al. 2016, , 151, 96, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/96

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Capak , P., Salvato , M., et al

    McCracken , H. J., Capak , P., Salvato , M., et al. 2010, , 708, 202, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/202

    2010 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Milvang-Jensen , B., Dunlop , J., et al

    McCracken , H. J., Milvang-Jensen , B., Dunlop , J., et al. 2012, , 544, A156, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    2016, , 833, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/168

    Merritt , A., van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., et al. 2016, , 833, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/168

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Dunlop, J

    Michałowski, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., Koprowski, M. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 492, 10.1093/mnras/stx861

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Harding , P., Feldmeier , J

    Mihos , J. C., Harding , P., Feldmeier , J. J., et al. 2017, , 834, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/16

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    C., Durrell , P

    Mihos , J. C., Durrell , P. R., Ferrarese , L., et al. 2015, , 809, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L21

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    G., Brammer , G

    Momcheva , I. G., Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2016, , 225, 27, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    2020, , 904, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc340

    Montes , M., Infante-Sainz , R., Madrigal-Aguado , A., et al. 2020, , 904, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc340

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.09414, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.09414

    Montes , M., Annibali , F., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.09414, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.09414

    2023 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    2024, , 681, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347667

    Montes , M., Trujillo , I., Karunakaran , A., et al. 2024, , 681, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347667

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    P., Eigenthaler , P., Puzia , T

    Mu \ n oz , R. P., Eigenthaler , P., Puzia , T. H., et al. 2015, , 813, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L15

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    2018, , 615, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832897

    M \"u ller , O., Jerjen , H., & Binggeli , B. 2018, , 615, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832897

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    2018, , 480, L106, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly138

    Ogiya , G. 2018, , 480, L106, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly138

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    A., Puzia , T

    Ordenes-Brice \ n o , Y., Taylor , M. A., Puzia , T. H., et al. 2016, , 463, 1284, 10.1093/mnras/stw2066

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    J., Zhu , M., et al

    Pan , H., Jarvis , M. J., Zhu , M., et al. 2024, , 534, 202, 10.1093/mnras/stae2054

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    J., Laine , S., et al

    Pandya , V., Romanowsky , A. J., Laine , S., et al. 2018, , 858, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab498

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    Papastergis , E., Adams , E. A. K., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2017, , 601, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730795

    2017 doi

  87. [95]

    Y., Ho , L

    Peng , C. Y., Ho , L. C., Impey , C. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2002, , 124, 266, 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  88. [96]

    2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    ---. 2010, , 139, 2097, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  89. [97]

    W., & Lim , S

    Peng , E. W., & Lim , S. 2016, , 822, L31, 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L31

    2016 doi

  90. [98]

    Piña, P. E. M., Fraternali, F., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c7

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    P., & Romanowsky , A

    Polzin , A., van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Greco , J. P., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2021, , 914, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024f

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    J., van der Burg , R

    Prole , D. J., van der Burg , R. F. J., Hilker , M., & Davies , J. I. 2019, , 488, 2143, 10.1093/mnras/stz1843

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    E., Banerji , M., Cooper , M

    Robertson , B. E., Banerji , M., Cooper , M. C., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.01617, 10.48550/arXiv.1708.01617

    2017 doi arXiv

  94. [102]

    A., Ruiz-Lara , T., & Valls-Gabaud , D

    Rom \'a n , J., Beasley , M. A., Ruiz-Lara , T., & Valls-Gabaud , D. 2019, , 486, 823, 10.1093/mnras/stz835

    2019 doi

  95. [103]

    2017 a , , 468, 703, 10.1093/mnras/stx438

    Rom \'a n , J., & Trujillo , I. 2017 a , , 468, 703, 10.1093/mnras/stx438

    2017 doi

  96. [104]

    2017 b , , 468, 4039, 10.1093/mnras/stx694

    ---. 2017 b , , 468, 4039, 10.1093/mnras/stx694

    2017 doi

  97. [105]

    2017, , 470, 4231, 10.1093/mnras/stx1440

    Rong , Y., Guo , Q., Gao , L., et al. 2017, , 470, 4231, 10.1093/mnras/stx1440

    2017 doi

  98. [106]

    J., et al

    Rong , Y., Zhu , K., Johnston , E. J., et al. 2020, , 899, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba8aa

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    A., Falc \'o n-Barroso , J., et al

    Ruiz-Lara , T., Beasley , M. A., Falc \'o n-Barroso , J., et al. 2018, , 478, 2034, 10.1093/mnras/sty1112

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    V., Navarro , J

    Sales , L. V., Navarro , J. F., Pe \ n afiel , L., et al. 2020, , 494, 1848, 10.1093/mnras/staa854

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    B., Salvato , M., Aussel , H., et al

    Sanders , D. B., Salvato , M., Aussel , H., et al. 2007, , 172, 86, 10.1086/517885

    2007 doi

  102. [110]

    L., et al

    Schinnerer, E., Smolčić, V., Carilli, C. L., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 46, 10.1086/516587

    2007 doi

  103. [111]

    2021, , 914, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335

    Shen , Z., Danieli , S., van Dokkum , P., et al. 2021, , 914, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335

    2021 doi

  104. [112]

    P., van Dokkum , P., et al

    Shen , Z., Bowman , W. P., van Dokkum , P., et al. 2024, , 976, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84e2

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    D., Zheng , X

    Shi , D. D., Zheng , X. Z., Zhao , H. B., et al. 2018, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 59, 22

    2018

  106. [114]

    2017, , 846, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8327

    ---. 2017, , 846, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8327

    2017 doi

  107. [115]

    V., Faifer , F

    Smith Castelli , A. V., Faifer , F. R., & Escudero , C. G. 2016, , 596, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628969

    2016 doi

  108. [116]

    J., Greene , J

    Somalwar , J. J., Greene , J. E., Greco , J. P., et al. 2020, , 902, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1b2

    2020 doi

  109. [117]

    2018, , 855, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94be

    Spekkens , K., & Karunakaran , A. 2018, , 855, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94be

    2018 doi

  110. [118]

    2007, , 172, 9, 10.1086/516596

    Taniguchi , Y., Scoville , N., Murayama , T., et al. 2007, , 172, 9, 10.1086/516596

    2007 doi

  111. [119]

    2018, , 856, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab603

    Toloba , E., Lim , S., Peng , E., et al. 2018, , 856, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab603

    2018 doi

  112. [120]

    C., Brooks , A

    Tremmel , M., Wright , A. C., Brooks , A. M., et al. 2020, , 497, 2786, 10.1093/mnras/staa2015

    2020 doi

  113. [121]

    2017, , 836, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cbb

    Trujillo , I., Roman , J., Filho , M., & S \'a nchez Almeida , J. 2017, , 836, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cbb

    2017 doi

  114. [122]

    A., Borlaff , A., et al

    Trujillo , I., Beasley , M. A., Borlaff , A., et al. 2019, , 486, 1192, 10.1093/mnras/stz771

    2019 doi

  115. [123]

    van der Burg , R. F. J., Muzzin , A., & Hoekstra , H. 2016, , 590, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628222

    2016 doi

  116. [124]

    van der Burg , R. F. J., Hoekstra , H., Muzzin , A., et al. 2017, , 607, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731335

    2017 doi

  117. [125]

    E., & Whitaker , K

    van Dokkum , P., Brammer , G., Momcheva , I., Skelton , R. E., & Whitaker , K. E. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.2140, 10.48550/arXiv.1305.2140

    2013 doi arXiv

  118. [126]

    van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Abraham , R., Conroy , C., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2019, , 874, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92

    2019 doi

  119. [127]

    J., & Conroy , C

    van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Cohen , Y., Romanowsky , A. J., & Conroy , C. 2018 a , , 864, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/aada4d

    2018 doi

  120. [128]

    2016, , 828, L6, 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L6

    van Dokkum , P., Abraham , R., Brodie , J., et al. 2016, , 828, L6, 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L6

    2016 doi

  121. [129]

    J., et al

    van Dokkum , P., Abraham , R., Romanowsky , A. J., et al. 2017, , 844, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7ca2

    2017 doi

  122. [130]

    2018 b , , 555, 629, 10.1038/nature25767

    van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Cohen , Y., et al. 2018 b , , 555, 629, 10.1038/nature25767

    2018 doi

  123. [131]

    A., et al

    van Dokkum , P., Shen , Z., Keim , M. A., et al. 2022, , 605, 435, 10.1038/s41586-022-04665-6

    2022 doi

  124. [132]

    G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al

    van Dokkum , P. G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al. 2015 a , , 798, L45, 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45

    2015 doi

  125. [133]

    G., Romanowsky , A

    van Dokkum , P. G., Romanowsky , A. J., Abraham , R., et al. 2015 b , , 804, L26, 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L26

    2015 doi

  126. [134]

    F., Salo , H., et al

    Venhola , A., Peletier , R. F., Salo , H., et al. 2022, , 662, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141756

    2022 doi

  127. [135]

    J., Brodie, J., et al

    Villaume, A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac341e

    2022 doi

  128. [136]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    Wang , T., Liu , G., Cai , Z., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    2023 doi

  129. [137]

    2017, , 470, 1512, 10.1093/mnras/stx1229

    Wittmann , C., Lisker , T., Ambachew Tilahun , L., et al. 2017, , 470, 1512, 10.1093/mnras/stx1229

    2017 doi

  130. [138]

    2016, , 225, 11, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/11

    Yagi , M., Koda , J., Komiyama , Y., & Yamanoi , H. 2016, , 225, 11, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/11

    2016 doi

  131. [139]

    J., Kudritzki , R.-P., Conroy , C., Andrews , B., & Ho , I

    Zahid , H. J., Kudritzki , R.-P., Conroy , C., Andrews , B., & Ho , I. T. 2017, , 847, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88ae

    2017 doi

  132. [140]

    A., Schiminovich , D., Rich , R

    Zamojski , M. A., Schiminovich , D., Rich , R. M., et al. 2007, , 172, 468, 10.1086/516593

    2007 doi

  133. [141]

    2023, , 267, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71

    Zaritsky , D., Donnerstein , R., Dey , A., et al. 2023, , 267, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71

    2023 doi

  134. [142]

    2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441, 10.1360/132011-961

    Zhan , H. 2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441, 10.1360/132011-961

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.