Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Deep in the Fields of the Andromeda Halo: Discovery of the Pegasus VII dwarf galaxy in UNIONS

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the discovery of Pegasus VII, an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy in the Andromeda subgroup that is the faintest known M31 satellite found to date.

desk verdict A solid, well-communicated discovery of a new ultra-faint dwarf candidate in the outer M31 halo; the only real weakness is the abstract calling Peg VII an M31 member when the data only support a distance and proximity. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09792 v1 pith:DPE45UHM submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.GA

Simon E. T. Smith , Alan W. McConnachie , Stephen Gwyn , Christian R. Hayes , Massimiliano Gatto , Ken Chambers , Jean-Charles Cuillandre , Michael J. Hudson
show 3 more authors
Eugene Magnier Nicolas Martin Julio Navarro
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesultra-faintdwarfsM31satellitesAndromedasubgroupUNIONSsurveyhorizontalbranchtidalinteractionstellarpopulations
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

Pegasus VII is a newly identified ultra-faint dwarf galaxy, uncovered in the UNIONS survey as a compact overdensity of old, metal-poor stars and then confirmed with deeper Gemini and CFHT imaging. The authors place it at a heliocentric distance of about 750 kiloparsecs, which gives a physical half-light radius of about 177 parsecs and a separation from M31 of about 331 kiloparsecs, beyond M31's nominal virial radius. With an absolute V-band magnitude of -5.7, Pegasus VII would be the faintest known dwarf galaxy satellite of M31. Its large elongation is roughly aligned with the direction toward M31, which the authors present as possible evidence of a past tidal interaction, though they note that the orbit, star formation history, and gas content remain unmeasured.

What carries the argument

The discovery pipeline is a matched-filter search for spatial overdensities of old, metal-poor stars at heliocentric distances of 10-1000 kpc in the combined UNIONS ri catalogs. The confirmation rests on the colour-magnitude diagram of the deeper Gemini photometry: an overdensity of stars along a 10 Gyr, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -2$ isochrone, with a clump of horizontal-branch stars at $g_0 \approx 24.85$ used to set the distance. Structural parameters are obtained by fitting an elliptical exponential profile plus constant background with an MCMC, following the method of Martin et al. (2008, 2016). The physical half-light radius then comes from combining the angular size with the adopted distance.

What would settle it

Spectroscopy of the handful of candidate member stars would settle the central claim: if their systemic velocity is incompatible with the M31 subgroup, or if the velocity dispersion is too small for a dark-matter-dominated dwarf, Pegasus VII would not be an M31 dwarf satellite. Alternatively, space-based imaging that resolves the horizontal branch at a notably different magnitude would change the distance and with it the derived properties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Pegasus VII is a real stellar system and a dwarf galaxy rather than a star cluster or background fluctuation. The detection rests on a matched-filter search for overdensities of old, metal-poor stars in UNIONS ri photometry, and the confirmation comes from deeper Gemini imaging that shows a coherent red giant branch and a separate feature identified as the horizontal branch. Using the horizontal branch at $g_0 \approx 24.85$ mag and visual isochrone matching, the authors derive a distance of $750 \pm 60$ kpc, an age around 10 Gyr, and a metallicity near $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -2$. The resulting structural parameters -- half-light radius of 177 pc and ellipticity of about 0.5 -- plus the total magnitude $M_V = -5.7$ place Pegasus VII firmly in the ultra-faint dwarf regime and make it the faintest known M31 dwarf satellite. The paper does not claim to know its history: it presents the elongation toward M31 as one line of evidence that could indicate a past tidal interaction, while leaving first infall as an alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The entire distance-based classification rests on identifying a small cluster of faint blue stars as the horizontal branch of Pegasus VII; if those stars are foreground contamination or a different feature, the distance, luminosity, physical size, and M31 separation all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Pegasus VII is a genuine M31 satellite, the census of Andromeda's dwarf population now extends to an ultra-faint system beyond the virial radius, matching predictions of many undiscovered satellites at large separation.
  • The half-light radius of about 177 pc, roughly five times the largest M31 globular clusters, strengthens the dwarf classification and adds an extreme data point to the size-luminosity plane of ultra-faint dwarfs.
  • A radial velocity measurement for Pegasus VII would immediately test whether it is bound to M31 and whether its elongated shape is consistent with a backsplash trajectory or first infall.
  • Deeper imaging that reaches the oldest main-sequence turn-off would allow a star formation history, potentially revealing whether reionization or a dwarf-dwarf merger shaped the galaxy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the distance of 750 kpc survives deeper data, Pegasus VII would be one of the most extended ultra-faint dwarfs known at that luminosity, suggesting processes such as tidal stirring or a late accretion event rather than purely in situ formation.
  • The successful detection in a shallow matched-filter search outside the PAndAS footprint suggests that the current count of M31 satellites beyond 300 kpc is incomplete; similar surveys of the northern sky could uncover systems of comparable or fainter luminosity.
  • A low line-of-sight velocity dispersion from a few member stars would challenge the dark-matter-dominated dwarf interpretation and push Pegasus VII toward a star-cluster classification, which would be surprising given its size.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the discovery of Pegasus VII (Peg VII), an ultra-faint stellar system found in the UNIONS r/i photometric catalogs and confirmed with deeper CFHT/MegaCam and Gemini/GMOS g and r imaging. The Gemini data show a resolved red giant branch, a prominent overdensity of bluer stars interpreted as a horizontal branch at g0 ≈ 24.85, and central concentration of the selected member stars. The authors use visual isochrone matching to adopt a heliocentric distance of 750 ± 60 kpc, an old (≈10 Gyr) metal-poor ([Fe/H] ≈ −2) population, and derive an absolute V-band magnitude MV = −5.7 ± 0.2 mag, a stellar mass M* ≈ 2.6 × 10^4 M⊙, a physical half-light radius of 177 pc, and a three-dimensional separation from M31 of 331 kpc. The elongation of the system is aligned within about 18 degrees of the projected direction toward M31, which the authors discuss as a possible indicator of a past tidal interaction, while also considering the first-infall and isolated-field-dwarf scenarios.

Significance. The discovery is significant because Peg VII, if its distance and M31 association are confirmed, would be an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy at a large separation from M31, beyond the nominal virial radius, probing the predicted population of outer-halo and possibly backsplash satellites. The paper's strengths include the use of deep Gemini follow-up to resolve the red giant branch and to show that the horizontal-branch candidates are spatially concentrated, the careful treatment of photometric offsets between UNIONS and Gemini, and the explicit acknowledgment in Section 4 that no line-of-sight velocity or proper motion is available and that the orbit is unconstrained. The detection of a real, faint, resolved stellar system is well supported. The manuscript's primary weakness is an internal inconsistency: the abstract and part of the Discussion assert M31 subgroup membership and the 'faintest known M31 satellite' title, whereas Section 4 later frames the satellite interpretation as an assumption pending kinematic data. This overstatement is load-bearing because the tidal interaction discussion and the satellite-population conclusions depend on membership.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states that Peg VII is 'a member of the M31 sub-group' and the Discussion calls it 'the faintest known M31 dwarf galaxy satellite discovered to date,' but the data presented do not establish gravitational binding to M31. Section 4 clearly states 'we do not have a line-of-sight velocity, nor do we have proper motions' and later frames the satellite interpretation as 'Under the assumption that Peg VII is a satellite of M31.' With a 3D separation of 331 kpc, beyond the nominal M31 virial radius of 240–300 kpc quoted in the same section, an isolated field dwarf at a similar distance cannot be excluded on the present data. The manuscript should therefore qualify Peg VII as a candidate member of the M31 subgroup in the abstract and throughout, and should condition the 'faintest known M31 satellite' statement on future kinematic confirmation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] Because the distance and isochrone parameters are determined by visual inspection, the ±60 kpc distance uncertainty and the quoted errors on the derived physical quantities should be described in the main text as systematic ranges rather than 1-sigma statistical errors; the Table 1 footnote already conveys this, but the abstract and Section 3.3 present the values with symmetric error bars that are easy to misread as Gaussian.
  2. [Section 2.2] The matched-filter detection is described only as 'a marginal overdensity' and 'slightly lower' in significance than known M31 satellites; providing the quantitative detection significance (e.g., Poisson probability or S/N) would strengthen the discovery claim.
  3. [Section 2.4] The identification of the bluer excess at g0 ≈ 24.85 as the horizontal branch is an assumption; a brief justification using the expected HB color and absolute magnitude of an old, metal-poor population at the adopted distance would make the distance argument more transparent.
  4. [Section 3.3] The uncertainties on M* and MV are propagated from N* and the distance only; the systematic effect of the full allowed range in age (7–13 Gyr) and metallicity ([Fe/H] −2.2 to −1.8) on the synthetic populations should be commented on or quantified.
  5. [Section 4] In the sentence comparing Peg VII with 'the faintest previously known galaxies in the M31 halo,' the caveat about deeper HST data appears only after the claim; consider moving the qualification into the sentence itself to avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Peg VII's derived properties follow from independent photometric data and are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

This is an observational discovery paper. The central detection (spatial overdensity of old, metal-poor stars in UNIONS, confirmed by deeper Gemini imaging) is measured directly from the data. The distance is estimated by interpreting a blue overdensity as the horizontal branch and then refined by visual isochrone matching; this is an interpretive assumption, not a quantity fitted to reproduce the claim that Peg VII is a dwarf. The structural parameters follow from a maximum-likelihood/MCMC fit to CMD-selected stars, and the physical half-light radius is obtained by multiplying the angular radius by the adopted distance. The stellar mass and absolute magnitude are computed from synthetic populations using the adopted distance and the fitted N* as explicit inputs; none of these outputs is used to define the inputs, so there is no self-definitional loop. The tidal-elongation discussion is explicitly hedged ('no robust claim can be made about the evolutionary history of Peg VII from these photometric data alone'), and the satellite interpretation is presented in Section 4 as an assumption ('Under the assumption that Peg VII is a satellite of M31'). The abstract's unqualified 'member of the M31 sub-group' is an overstatement given the lack of kinematics and the 331 kpc separation beyond the nominal virial radius, but that is an evidentiary/caveat issue, not a circular derivation. Self-citations to Smith et al. (2023, 2024) and Martin et al. (2016) are methodological and are not used to force the result; the matched-filter and synthetic-population methods are standard and externally tested. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or theoretical entities are introduced; Peg VII is a newly identified stellar system. The main assumptions are the interpretation of the horizontal branch, the single old metal-poor isochrone model, and the adopted M31 distance.

free parameters (3)
  • Heliocentric distance = 750 kpc (range 690 to 810 kpc)
    Estimated by matching the horizontal branch at g0 about 24.85 mag and a grid of PARSEC isochrones by visual inspection (Section 3.1). This distance enters every physical scale: r_h, MV, M*, and the 3D separation from M31.
  • Metallicity [Fe/H] = -2 dex (range -2.2 to -1.8)
    A representative isochrone chosen by visual inspection because the RGB shape provides only a mild constraint (Section 3.1). It defines the member-star selection box and the synthetic populations used for M* and MV.
  • Age = 10 Gyr (range 7 to 13 Gyr)
    Unconstrained without reaching the oldest main-sequence turn-off; the midpoint of the inspected grid is adopted for the representative isochrone and synthetic populations (Section 3.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The blue overdensity at g0 about 24.85 mag is the horizontal branch of Peg VII.
    This identification seeds the distance estimate (Section 2.4, Figure 3). Contamination by blue background galaxies is acknowledged, but if the HB identification is wrong the distance shifts.
  • domain assumption The stellar population is old (7 to 13 Gyr) and metal-poor ([Fe/H] -2.2 to -1.8) and is represented by a single PARSEC isochrone.
    Used for member star selection and synthetic population modeling; not directly verified because the oldest main-sequence turn-off is not reached (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The adopted distance to M31 is 770 kpc.
    Used to convert projected separation into the 3D separation of 331 kpc (Section 4). This is a standard literature value, not measured here.
  • domain assumption Extinction corrections follow Schlegel et al. (1998) with Schlafly and Finkbeiner (2011) conversion factors.
    Applied to all photometry in Sections 2 and 3; affects colors and magnitudes used for selection and distance estimation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep in the Fields of the Andromeda Halo: Discovery of the Pegasus VII dwarf galaxy in UNIONS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPE45UHM

@misc{pith2026250209792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep in the Fields of the Andromeda Halo: Discovery of the Pegasus VII dwarf galaxy in UNIONS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPE45UHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09792}
}
abstract

We present the newly discovered dwarf galaxy Pegasus VII (Peg VII), a member of the M31 sub-group which has been uncovered in the $ri$ photometric catalogs from the Ultraviolet Near-Infrared Optical Northern Survey and confirmed with follow-up imaging from both the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and the Gemini-North Telescope. This system has an absolute $V$-band magnitude of $-5.7 \pm 0.2$ mag and a physical half-light radius of $177^{+36}_{-34}$ pc, which is characteristic of dynamically-confirmed Milky Way satellite dwarf galaxies and about 5 times more extended than the most extended M31 globular clusters. Peg VII lies at a three-dimensional separation from M31 of $331^{+15}_{-4}$ kpc and a significant elongation ($\epsilon \sim 0.5$) towards the projected direction of M31 could be indicative of a past tidal interaction, but additional investigation into the orbit, star formation history, and whether any gas remains in the galaxy is needed to better understand the evolution of Peg VII.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab...

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2494

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2494 2015

  3. [3]

    T., et al

    Bennet, P., Patel, E., Sohn, S. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5349

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5349 2024

  4. [4]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 Bla˜ na D ´ ıaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 Bla˜ na D ´ ıaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2311

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  5. [5]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Boulade, O., Charlot, X., Abbon, P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 72–81, doi: 10.1117/12.459890

    doi:10.1117/12.459890 2003

  6. [6]

    S., & Ricotti, M

    Bovill, M. S., & Ricotti, M. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1859, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1859

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1859 2009

  7. [7]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    work page arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 753, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L21 —. 2014, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 85, 493, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1310.0824

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.0824 2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

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

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517, doi: 10.1086/309279

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

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

    Cerny, W., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Collins, M. L. M., Charles, E. J. E., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, L72, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac063

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Collins, M. L. M., Karim, N., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.13966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.13966

    2023 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    R., Lewis, G

    Conn, A. R., Lewis, G. F., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/120 12 Smith et al

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Yuan, Z., et al

    Doliva-Dolinsky, A., Martin, N. F., Yuan, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf6

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Errani, R., & Navarro, J. F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 18, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1215

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Ibata, R., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Ibata, R., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac476 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    F., & Frenk, C

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J. F., & Frenk, C. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa375

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Sawala, T., et al

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J. F., Sawala, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2970

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    I., No¨ el, N

    Goater, A., Read, J. I., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3354

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    R., & McConnachie, A

    Higgs, C. R., & McConnachie, A. W. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1754

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Mackey, A

    Huxor, A. P., Mackey, A. D., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2165, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu771

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/128 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Frebel, A., Ezzeddine, R., & Casey, A

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Ezzeddine, R., & Casey, A. R. 2016a, ApJL, 832, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L3

    doi

  22. [30]

    P., Frebel, A., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Chiti, A. 2016b, ApJ, 830, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/93

    doi

  23. [31]

    R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G

    Kafle, P. R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G. F., Robotham, A. S. G., & Driver, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty082

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    Labrie, K., Simpson, C., Cardenes, R., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    2011 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    R., Eke, V., Frenk, C

    Lovell, M. R., Eke, V., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2318, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20200.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    F., de Jong, J

    Martin, N. F., de Jong, J. T. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1075, doi: 10.1086/590336

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    F., McConnachie, A

    Martin, N. F., McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 758, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/758

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    F., Schlafly, E

    Martin, N. F., Schlafly, E. F., Slater, C. T., et al. 2013a, ApJL, 779, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/779/1/L10

    doi

  30. [38]

    F., Slater, C

    Martin, N. F., Slater, C. T., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 772, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/15

    doi

  31. [39]

    F., Ibata, R

    Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Rich, R. M., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 787, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/19

    doi

  32. [40]

    F., Chambers, K

    Martin, N. F., Chambers, K. C., Collins, M. L. M., et al. 2014b, ApJL, 793, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L14

    doi

  33. [41]

    F., Ibata, R

    Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/167 Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., Karim, N., Charles, E. J. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 16, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2797

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    W., & Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., & Irwin, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 902, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09771.x

    2006

  35. [43]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 66, doi: 10.1038/nature08327

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Ibata, R., Martin, N., et al

    McConnachie, A. W., Ibata, R., Martin, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e7

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Mao, Y.-Y., Buckley, M. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaec9 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Erkal, D., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Bryan, G

    Pereira, M. J., Bryan, G. L., & Gill, S. P. D. 2008, ApJ, 672, 825, doi: 10.1086/523830

    2008 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A

    Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe391

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Irwin, M

    Richardson, J. C., Irwin, M. J., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/76

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3871

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Monelli, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3871

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Santos-Santos, I. M. E., Navarro, J. F., & McConnachie, A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad085 —. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2490, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1616

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Skillman, E

    Savino, A., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91cb —. 2023, ApJ, 956, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf46f

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772 Pegasus VII 13

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    S., Kaplinghat, M., Robles, V

    Silverman, M., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M., Robles, V. H., & Valli, M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3232

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    T., Bell, E

    Slater, C. T., Bell, E. F., & Martin, N. F. 2011, ApJL, 742, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L14

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 230, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/230

    Ho, N. 2015, ApJ, 806, 230, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/230

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Smith, S. E. T., Jensen, J., Roediger, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdd77

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Smith, S. E. T., Cerny, W., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0d9f

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Aguirre, J. E. 2014, ApJL, 795, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L5

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Sestito, F., et al

    Waller, F., Venn, K. A., Sestito, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3563

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/148

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Dalcanton, J

    Weisz, D. R., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/5

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    S., et al

    Wheeler, C., O˜ norbe, J., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1691

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.