MUSE observations of dwarf galaxies and a stellar stream in the M83 group

Benoit Famaey; Federico Lelli; Katja Fahrion; Marcel S. Pawlowski; Marina Rejkuba; Michael Hilker; Nick Heesters; Noam Libeskind; Oliver M\"uller; Salvatore Taibi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

MUSE observations of dwarf galaxies and a stellar stream in the M83 group

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Complete velocities for all 13 known dwarf satellites show the M83 group's halo mass is about 1.3 to 3.0 trillion solar masses, two to four times larger than the previous estimate.

desk verdict Solid MUSE observations complete the M83 dwarf census, but the headline halo-mass range mixes an upper-limit estimator with virial masses and needs a conversion before the CDM tension claim can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20765 v1 pith:XRRSJU5S submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.GA

Oliver Müller , Marina Rejkuba , Katja Fahrion , Marcel S. Pawlowski , Benoit Famaey , Noam Libeskind , Nick Heesters , Federico Lelli

show 3 more authors

Michael Hilker Salvatore Taibi Sarah Pearson

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords dwarfgalaxiesM83groupsatellitegalaxyhalomassMUSEspectroscopystellarpopulationsglobularclusterscolddarkmatter

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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 uses MUSE spectroscopy of the five M83 dwarf satellites that previously lacked velocities, completing the kinematic sample for all 13 known dwarfs. It argues that the M83 group is much more massive than previously thought, with halo mass estimates from different tracers ranging between $1.3$ and $3.0\times 10^{12}\,M_\odot$ and averaging $(2.1\pm1.0)\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$. That matters because a larger halo is expected to host more dark-matter subhalos, which softens a reported 3–5$\sigma$ excess of observed dwarfs relative to cold dark matter predictions. The same data find no co-rotating plane of satellites, a likely bound satellite-of-satellite pair, and a new globular cluster in the tidally disrupting dwarf KK208.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a complete phase-space sample built from MUSE integral-field spectroscopy, an instrument that records a spectrum at every spatial position. The penalized pixel-fitting code pPXF turns those spectra into line-of-sight velocities for the five remaining dwarfs, so the velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\rm los}=80.6\pm15.4$ km/s and the mean pairwise separation $\langle R_{ij}\rangle=163$ kpc enter the virial-theorem estimator $M_{\rm vir}=3\pi N/((N-1)G)\,\sigma_{\rm los}^2\,\langle R_{ij}\rangle$. The result is then cross-checked by four independent mass estimators: a density-contrast calculation from the flat rotation curve, abundance matching from the stellar mass and effective radius, an integrated Jeans-based estimator, and a MOND phantom-dark-matter computation. For the satellite-of-satellite claim, the key identity is the binding criterion $b=2GM_{\rm pair}/(\Delta r\,\Delta v^2)>1$, which the pair NGC5264 and dw1341-29 satisfies.

What would settle it

Measure a precise distance to dw1341-29 by resolving its red giant branch stars with deep imaging. If that distance is near 3.8 Mpc (the Cen A distance) rather than 4.9 Mpc (the M83 distance), the dwarf is likely not an M83 satellite; removing it changes the velocity dispersion, virial mass, and satellite count, and the central mass claim would no longer stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The study completes the phase-space census of the M83 group: every one of the 13 known dwarf satellites now has a distance and a line-of-sight velocity. From these tracers the line-of-sight velocity dispersion is $\sigma_{\rm los}=80.6\pm15.4$ km/s and the mean pairwise projected separation is 163 kpc, so the virial-theorem mass is $M_{\rm vir}=2.5\pm0.7\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ rather than the earlier $0.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$. Cross-checks bracket the halo mass at $1.3$–$3.0\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$: $M_{200}=2.1\pm0.3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ from M83's flat rotation curve, $3.0\pm0.5\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ from abundance matching, $1.5$–$2.2\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ from an integrated Jeans estimator, and $1.9\pm0.3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ from a MOND phantom-dark-matter calculation. The larger mass changes the interpretation of the dwarf count: earlier comparisons to cold dark matter used a halo mass near $0.8\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, so the 3–5$\sigma$ excess now has a higher expected satellite count to compare against. The paper further reports that the 13 dwarfs show no clear co-rotation in the position-velocity diagram (7/13 versus 6/13 in opposing quadrants), that NGC5264 and dw1341-29 pass the binding criterion for a satellite-of-satellite pair, and that KK208 hosts a newly found old, metal-poor globular cluster.

Load-bearing premise

The mass estimates assume that all 13 dwarfs, including the faintest one whose uncertain distance could place it near Cen A, are genuine satellites of M83 and that the spread of their velocities is set by M83's gravitational pull.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The expected cold dark matter subhalo count around M83 rises with the updated mass, so the previously reported 3–5$\sigma$ dwarf-count excess should be recomputed and is likely to fall below $3\sigma$.
Because no co-rotation signature is found, the earlier suggestion of a plane around M83 is not supported by complete kinematics; M83 and Cen A differ in their phase-space structure.
If the NGC5264–dw1341-29 pair is truly bound, it provides a satellite-of-satellite system whose luminosity ratio (1445) lies within the spread of cold dark matter simulations.
The newly discovered globular cluster, with velocity $432.1\pm3.3$ km/s matching KK208, adds a compact tracer that future stream modeling can use to constrain the M83 potential.

Reading between the lines

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

An orbit model of the KK208 stream and its new globular cluster would provide an independent, testable check of the high halo mass; if the stream cannot be bound in the low end of the $1.3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ potential, the heavier estimates would be favoured.
A precise distance to dw1341-29 is the fastest discriminator: if it is actually at Cen A's distance, the satellite-of-satellite claim, the velocity dispersion, and the mass estimates all change.
If the high end of the mass range holds, M83 as a partner of Cen A makes the Centaurus complex one of the most massive nearby group-scale systems, which may affect how the mutual infall and environment are interpreted.
The luminosity-metallicity comparison suggests environment may matter for dwarf chemical evolution; a larger MUSE sample around M83 and Cen A could test whether the Local Group relation is truly universal.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the quick take: the paper is a solid observational step—new MUSE velocities for five dwarfs in the M83 group, a serendipitous globular cluster, and a clean kinematic sample of 13 satellites. The mass story is the soft part: the headline 1.3–3.0×10^12 M⊙ range mixes apples and oranges, and one of the five estimators is explicitly an upper limit, not a virial mass.

What's genuinely new: velocities for dw1335-29, KK208, dw1340-30, dw1341-29, and KK218, completing the phase-space census to M_V=-10; the discovery of an old, metal-poor GC in KK208 with consistent velocity; the luminosity–metallicity check; and the lack of a co-rotating plane. The pPXF fits and bootstrap uncertainties are standard and the paper is transparent about low S/N and about insecure ages. That part is reproducible and honest.

Where it gets wobbly: Section 6.4 presents the Watkins/An–Evans Jeans estimate M_out=1.5±0.1×10^12 within 325 kpc, then immediately notes the mean density is a third of 200ρ_c and that the estimate is an upper limit. That is correct, but the abstract and Section 7 quote 1.3–3.0×10^12 as 'halo mass' without converting this tracer to M_200. The conversion is straightforward: for an isothermal profile the enclosed mass scales with radius, so M_200 ≈ M_out/√3 ≈ 0.9×10^12 for the nominal value, or ≈1.3×10^12 if you use the 2.2×10^12 sampled mean. One of the five tracers then sits at or below the previous 0.8–1.0×10^12 estimate, and the average drops. The paper needed to either report the Jeans value as an enclosed mass or convert it before averaging. The claim that a higher halo mass moves the CDM dwarf-count tension below 3σ is asserted, not recomputed; that should be done with the corrected mass.

The weaker premise is dw1341-29's membership. The paper assumes it based on projected proximity and velocity coincidence, despite its SBF distance being closer to Cen A. The velocities without it actually give a slightly higher dispersion (86 vs 81 km/s), so the mass estimate isn't fragile there, but the satellite-of-satellite claim for NGC5264 is. That should be tested with and without it.

Bottom line: the observations are worth publishing and the paper deserves a serious referee. The referee should push for a homogeneous mass definition, recomputation of the tension significance, and a membership test for dw1341-29. I'd bring it to reading group—the estimator mismatch is instructive.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using new MUSE observations of five dwarf galaxies around M83, the manuscript completes the line-of-sight velocity census for all 13 known dwarf satellites. It derives stellar population properties via pPXF, reports a new globular cluster associated with the disrupted dwarf KK208, and uses the full satellite phase-space data to argue that NGC5264 and dw1341-29 form a bound satellite-of-satellite pair, to find no evidence for a co-rotating plane of satellites, and to estimate the M83 halo mass with five methods: the virial theorem, a rotation-curve density contrast, abundance matching in two variants, an integrated Jeans estimator, and a MOND phantom-dark-matter estimate. The paper concludes a halo mass between 1.3 and 3.0 x 10^12 Msun, larger than the previous 0.8 x 10^12 Msun estimate, and suggests this reduces the previously reported tension between the observed dwarf count and LCDM expectations if the halo is at the high-mass end.

Significance. The paper presents a valuable and homogeneous MUSE dataset that closes a gap in the phase-space knowledge of M83 dwarfs. The velocity measurements, the pPXF treatment with Monte Carlo uncertainties, the transparent handling of low signal-to-noise age estimates, and the serendipitous globular cluster discovery are solid contributions. If the mass estimate holds, it would revise the input halo mass for cosmological comparisons and change the interpretation of the dwarf-count discrepancy. However, the central quantitative claim is currently weakened by two issues: the Jeans-based estimate is explicitly an upper limit under a non-virial density, yet it is averaged with M200 values; and the assumed membership of dw1341-29 is not tested. These are fixable with additional analysis, but they must be addressed before the reported mass range and its cosmological implications can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 6.4, Eqs. (8)-(10), Abstract, Section 7] The authors correctly identify immediately after Eq. (10) that the mean density within rout = 325 kpc for Mout = 1.5 x 10^12 Msun is a factor of three below 200 rho_c, and that the Jeans-based estimates are therefore upper limits. Despite this, the Abstract's '1.3 to 3.0 x 10^12 Msun' range and Section 7's '2.1 +/- 1.0 x 10^12 Msun' average include this estimator on the same footing as the other, properly overdensity-defined masses. For an isothermal sphere, a mean density of (200/3) rho_c at 325 kpc corresponds to R200 ~ 188 kpc and M200 ~ 0.9 x 10^12 Msun for the nominal value, or about 1.5 x 10^12 Msun for the alpha/beta-sampled mean Mout,possible = 2.2 x 10^12 Msun. The quoted range and average therefore mix incompatible mass definitions and understate the lower end of the allowed mass, which also affects the Section 7 statement that the dwarf-count tension would move below 3 sigma. The authors should convert the Jeans estimate to a common overdensity definition, recompute the range and average, and revise the discussion accordingly.
[Section 2, Table 2, Section 6] The assumed membership of dw1341-29 is load-bearing for the central result. Its surface brightness fluctuation distance is reported as 3.9 (+1.4 / -0.9) Mpc, closer to Cen A (3.8 Mpc) than to M83, and the paper states that membership is assumed based on projected proximity and velocity equality with a nearby dwarf. With a sample of only 13 tracers, this object contributes directly to the line-of-sight velocity dispersion, the mean pairwise separation, the virial mass, the Jeans estimate, and the satellite-of-satellite claim. The authors should provide a robustness test that recomputes the phase-space statistics and at least the virial and Jeans mass estimates after excluding dw1341-29, and should also examine the effect of the two dwarfs they identify in Section 5.1 as lying outside the virial radius (KK195 and HIDEEPJ1337-33). They should state explicitly whether the conclusion that the M83 halo is more massive than previously assumed survives these exclusions.
[Section 7, 'average halo mass from different tracers'] The five estimators are not independent: they all use the same 13 line-of-sight velocities, and several share similar assumptions about equilibrium and tracer dynamics. Quoting an average of 2.1 +/- 1.0 x 10^12 Msun with a one-sigma spread therefore overstates the precision of the halo-mass determination. The differing physical definitions entering the average (Mvir, M200, abundance-matching mass, Jeans upper limit, and MOND phantom mass) also make the single-number average difficult to interpret even after the conversion suggested for the Jeans estimator. I recommend presenting the individual estimates in a summary table with their definitions and dominant systematics, and using a range rather than a single average as the headline value.

minor comments (4)

[Section 6.2] The quoted value 'R200 = 253 +/- 0.3 kpc' appears to have an erroneous uncertainty: propagating the stated 10 km/s uncertainty on vflat gives an uncertainty of order 25 kpc, so this should be corrected or justified.
[Section 4] The conversion from the measured sigma_GC (via FWHM) to the quoted effective radius of 2.4 pc is not shown; please add the adopted relation between sigma and effective radius for the assumed surface-brightness profile.
[Section 3 and Abstract] Three of the five newly observed dwarfs have signal-to-noise ratios below 10, the threshold that Fahrion et al. (2019) recommend for 0.2-dex metallicity accuracy; the abstract's statement that all studied objects follow the luminosity-metallicity relation should be qualified by this caveat.
[Section 7] The in-text reference 'Crosby et al., in preparation' should be updated to a published or preprint citation, or removed, since in-preparation works are not normally part of a published reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the M83 mass estimates are derived from measured velocities and external calibrations, not from fitting the target value.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, an M83 halo mass of 1.3-3.0e12 solar masses from 13 satellites, is not built from a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. Each mass estimator is an independent application of standard estimators to the measured line-of-sight velocities: the virial theorem (Eq. 4) uses the observed velocity dispersion and mean pairwise separations; the density-contrast estimate (Eq. 5) uses the external flat rotation velocity from Dykes et al. (2021) and an adopted H0; the abundance-matching values use external calibrations from Behroozi et al. (2010) and Kravtsov (2013); the Jeans-based estimate (Eqs. 8-10) applies the Watkins/An and Evans estimator with alpha = 0 and beta = 0.3 from Mamon et al. (2013); and the MOND estimate uses Eq. (11) from Oria et al. (2021) with a baryonic mass derived from published photometry. None of these reduces by construction to the quoted halo mass. The self-citations (Muller et al. 2018b, 2019a, 2024a, 2024b) are contextual: the putative plane is tested with new velocities, the TNG50 comparison is auxiliary, and the dwarf-count tension is noted only as an implication of the independent mass result. The explicit assumption that dw1341-29 is an M83 member (Sec. 2) is a data-association assumption, not a fitted parameter, and the later satellite-of-satellite test applies an independent binding criterion. Section 6.4's caveat that the Jeans mass is an upper limit relative to the virial density contrast, 'the estimations are upper limits', is a definitional-consistency concern for quoting a homogeneous 'halo mass' range, but it is not an equation-level circular step. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The mass estimates depend on standard external calibrations plus a few chosen parameters (Jeans alpha and beta, a mass-to-light ratio), and the most fragile input is the assumed membership of dw1341-29.

free parameters (3)

Jeans anisotropy parameter beta = 0.3 nominal
Chosen in Sec. 6.4 based on Mamon et al. 2013 simulated halos; varying it changes the Jeans mass estimate from 1.5 to 2.2 x 10^12 solar masses.
Potential power index alpha = 0 nominal, varied -1.5 to 0.5
Assumed isothermal potential in Sec. 6.4; the paper samples this range for the alternative mass estimate.
Stellar mass-to-light ratio for NGC5264 = 2
Used in Sec. 5.2 to convert luminosity to stellar mass for the bound-pair criterion, directly affecting the claim that dw1341-29 is a bound satellite.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption All 13 dwarfs in the catalog are bound satellites of M83.
Explicitly assumed for dw1341-29 in Sec. 2 based on projected proximity and velocity, despite its surface brightness fluctuation distance being closer to Cen A.
domain assumption The virial theorem applies to the dwarf system as a relaxed, pressure-supported tracer population.
Invoked in Sec. 6.1 to convert line-of-sight velocity dispersion into a group mass; the system may not be relaxed.
domain assumption The flat part of the M83 rotation curve, vflat = 190 km/s, equals the circular velocity at R200.
Used in Sec. 6.2 to derive M200 from the density contrast formula.
domain assumption Abundance matching and size-halo relations from Behroozi et al. 2010 and Kravtsov 2013 are valid for M83.
Relied on in Sec. 6.3 to convert M83 stellar mass and effective radius into halo mass and virial radius.
domain assumption The Besancon model accurately describes the Galactic foreground stellar velocity distribution.
Used in Sec. 4 to argue that the newly found cluster velocity is inconsistent with a Milky Way foreground star.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MUSE observations of dwarf galaxies and a stellar stream in the M83 group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRRSJU5S

@misc{pith2026250420765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MUSE observations of dwarf galaxies and a stellar stream in the M83 group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRRSJU5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20765}
}

abstract

Spectroscopy for faint dwarf galaxies outside of our own Local Group is challenging. Here, we present MUSE spectroscopy to study the properties of four known dwarf satellites and one stellar stream (KK208) surrounding the nearby grand spiral M83, which resides together with the lenticular galaxy Cen A in the Centaurus group. This data complete the phase-space information for all known dwarf galaxies around M83 down to a completeness of $-$10 mag in the $V$ band. All studied objects have an intermediate to old and metal-poor stellar population and follow the stellar luminosity-metallicity relation as defined by the Local Group dwarfs. For the stellar stream we serendipitously identify a previously unknown globular cluster, which is old and metal-poor. Two dwarf galaxies (NGC5264 and dw1341-29) may be a bound satellite of a satellite system due to their proximity and shared velocities. Having access to the positions and velocities of 13 dwarfs around M83, we estimate the mass of the group with different estimators. Ranging between 1.3 and $3.0 \times 10^{12}$ M$_\odot$ for the halo mass we find it to be larger than previously assumed. This may impact the previously reported tension for cold dark matter cosmology with the count of dwarf galaxies. In contrast to Cen A, we do not find a co-rotating plane-of-satellites around M83.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20765 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The stacked MUSE cubes. The colored areas indicate the regions where the spectra were extracted. The magenta circle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The spectra (black line) and the best fit from pPXF (red line) is plotted in the left panel over the full spectral coverage of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The luminosity-metallicity relation for a reference sam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The globular cluster associated with KK 208. Left: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The field around M 83 (large white dot) and its surround [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The position velocity diagram of the satellite system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

An, J. H. & Evans, N. W. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1744

2011
[2]

S., Rizzi, L., & Tully, R

Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., & Tully, R. B. 2018, AJ, 156, 105

2018
[3]

S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 80

2021
[4]

2010, in Proc

Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 7735, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, 773508

2010
[5]

2012, The Messenger, 147, 4

Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 4

2012
[6]

D., Disney, M

Banks, G. D., Disney, M. J., Knezek, P. M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, 612

work page 1999
[7]

2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

Barbary, K. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

2016
[8]

N., Karachentsev, I

Begum, A., Chengalur, J. N., Karachentsev, I. D., Sharina, M. E., & Kaisin, S. S. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1667

2008

Show all 85 references

[9]

S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379

2010
[10]

& Arnouts, S

Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

1996
[11]

2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

2017
[12]

& Emsellem, E

Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138 Crnojevi´c, D., Sand, D. J., Bennet, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 80 Crnojevi´c, D., Sand, D. J., Caldwell, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, L35 Crnojevi´c, D., Sand, D. J., Spekkens, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 19

2004
[13]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

2019
[14]

C., Strader, J., et al

Dumont, A., Seth, A. C., Strader, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A132

2024
[15]

S., Dolag, K., & Krokos, M

Dykes, T., Gheller, C., Koribalski, B. S., Dolag, K., & Krokos, M. 2021, Astron- omy and Computing, 34, 100448

2021
[16]

Emsellem, E., van der Burg, R. F. J., Fensch, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A76

2019
[17]

2022, A&A, 667, A101

Fahrion, K., Bulichi, T.-E., Hilker, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A101

2022
[18]

2019, A&A, 628, A92

Fahrion, K., Lyubenova, M., van de Ven, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A92

2019
[19]

& McGaugh, S

Famaey, B. & McGaugh, S. S. 2012, Living Reviews in Relativity, 15, 10

2012
[20]

Fensch, J., van der Burg, R. F. J., Jeˇrábková, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A77

2019
[21]

L., Madore, B

Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hatt, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 34

2019
[22]

Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41

2005
[23]

P., Guhathakurta, P., et al

Geha, M., van der Marel, R. P., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 361

2010
[24]

Y ., Puzia, T

Georgiev, I. Y ., Puzia, T. H., Hilker, M., & Goudfrooij, P. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 879

2009
[25]

J., Pritzl, B

Grossi, M., Disney, M. J., Pritzl, B. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 107 Guérou, A., Krajnovi´c, D., Epinat, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A5

2007
[26]

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

Habas, R., Marleau, F. R., Duc, P.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1901

2020
[27]

2017, in ESO Cali- bration Workshop: The Second Generation VLT Instruments and Friends, 15

Hanuschik, R., Data Processing, & Quality Control Group. 2017, in ESO Cali- bration Workshop: The Second Generation VLT Instruments and Friends, 15

2017
[28]

Harris, G. L. H., Rejkuba, M., & Harris, W. E. 2010, PASA, 27, 457

2010
[29]

R., et al

Heesters, N., Müller, O., Marleau, F. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A33

2023
[30]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.05439

Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y ., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.05439

2023 arXiv
[31]

K., Sand, D

Hughes, A. K., Sand, D. J., Seth, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 34

2023
[32]

A., Lewis, G

Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Conn, A. R., et al. 2013, NAT, 493, 62

2013
[33]

A., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

Jacobs, B. A., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 332

2009
[34]

2021, ApJ, 911, 12

Javanmardi, B., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 12

2021
[35]

J., Pawlowski, M

Kanehisa, K. J., Pawlowski, M. S., Heesters, N., & Müller, O. 2024, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2405.05303

2024 arXiv
[36]

J., Pawlowski, M

Kanehisa, K. J., Pawlowski, M. S., Müller, O., & Sohn, S. T. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6184

2023
[37]

D., Karachentseva, V

Karachentsev, I. D., Karachentseva, V . E., Huchtmeier, W. K., & Makarov, D. I. 2004, AJ, 127, 2031

2004
[38]

D., Makarov, D

Karachentsev, I. D., Makarov, D. I., & Kaisina, E. I. 2013, AJ, 145, 101

2013
[39]

D., Makarov, D

Karachentsev, I. D., Makarov, D. I., Karachentseva, V . E., & Melnik, O. V . 2008, Astronomy Letters, 34, 832

2008
[40]

D., Sharina, M

Karachentsev, I. D., Sharina, M. E., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 21

2002
[41]

D., Tully, R

Karachentsev, I. D., Tully, R. B., Dolphin, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 504

2007
[42]

2021, A&A, 647, A72

Khetan, N., Izzo, L., Branchesi, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A72

2021
[43]

N., Cohen, J

Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102

2013
[44]

& Grebel, E

Koch, A. & Grebel, E. K. 2006, AJ, 131, 1405

2006
[45]

S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V

Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Kilborn, V . A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 16

2004
[46]

B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al

Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 145

2020
[47]

& Winney, S

Kravtsov, A. & Winney, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06017

2024 arXiv
[48]

Kravtsov, A. V . 2013, ApJ, 764, L31

2013
[49]

2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

2001
[50]

Kroupa, P., Theis, C., & Boily, C. M. 2005, A&A, 431, 517

2005
[51]

D., Cannon, J

Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 970

2006
[52]

K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al

Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Liu, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 19

2021
[53]

I., Carlesi, E., Müller, O., et al

Libeskind, N. I., Carlesi, E., Müller, O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3786

2019
[54]

A., Biviano, A., & Boué, G

Mamon, G. A., Biviano, A., & Boué, G. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3079

2013
[55]

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

2012
[56]

McConnachie, A. W. & Irwin, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 902

2006
[57]

McGaugh, S. S. 2012, AJ, 143, 40

2012
[58]

Metz, M., Kroupa, P., & Libeskind, N. I. 2008, ApJ, 680, 287

2008
[59]

1983, ApJ, 270, 365 Müller, O., Fahrion, K., Rejkuba, M., et al

Milgrom, M. 1983, ApJ, 270, 365 Müller, O., Fahrion, K., Rejkuba, M., et al. 2021a, A&A, 645, A92 Müller, O., Famaey, B., & Zhao, H. 2019a, A&A, 623, A36 Müller, O., Heesters, N., Jerjen, H., Anand, G., & Revaz, Y . 2023, A&A, 673, A160 Müller, O., Heesters, N., Pawlowski, M. ...

1983
[60]

A., Famaey, B., Thomas, G

Oria, P. A., Famaey, B., Thomas, G. F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 68

2021
[61]

Pawlowski, M. S. 2018, Modern Physics Letters A, 33, 1830004

2018
[62]

Pawlowski, M. S. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1185

2021
[63]

S., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P

Pawlowski, M. S., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1109

2012
[64]

M., Hogg, D

Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 19

2022
[65]

Y ., Ho, L

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

2002
[66]

2014, A&A, 562, A91 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

Piffl, T., Scannapieco, C., Binney, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A91 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

2014
[67]

& Helmi, A

Posti, L. & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 621, A56

2019
[68]

R., Habas, R., et al

Poulain, M., Marleau, F. R., Habas, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5494

2021
[69]

J., Knezek, P

Pritzl, B. J., Knezek, P. M., Gallagher, III, J. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 596, L47

2003
[70]

2001, A&A, 369, 812

Rejkuba, M. 2001, A&A, 369, 812

2001
[71]

& Jablonka, P

Revaz, Y . & Jablonka, P. 2018, A&A, 616, A96

2018
[72]

G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, L6

2021
[73]

C., Reylé, C., Derrière, S., & Picaud, S

Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., Derrière, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, A&A, 409, 523

2003
[74]

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

Sales, L. V ., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897

2022
[75]

2020, AJ, 160, 71

Schombert, J., McGaugh, S., & Lelli, F. 2020, AJ, 160, 71

2020
[76]

M., Murray, N., et al

Shen, J., Eadie, G. M., Murray, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 1

2022
[77]

D., Kennicutt, R

Skillman, E. D., Kennicutt, R. C., & Hodge, P. W. 1989, ApJ, 347, 875

1989
[78]

T., Lilly, S

Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3210

2016
[79]

A., Eigenthaler, P., Puzia, T

Taylor, M. A., Eigenthaler, P., Puzia, T. H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, L15

2018
[80]

A., Heckman, T

Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

2004
[81]

B., Libeskind, N

Tully, R. B., Libeskind, N. I., Karachentsev, I. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, L25

2015
[82]

2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409

Vazdekis, A., Koleva, M., Ricciardelli, E., Röck, B., & Falcón-Barroso, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409

2016
[83]

L., Evans, N

Watkins, L. L., Evans, N. W., & An, J. H. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 264

2010
[84]

M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al

Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.08638

2020 arXiv
[85]

M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al

Weilbacher, P. M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 8451, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy II, 84510B Article number, page 10 of 10

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

An, J. H. & Evans, N. W. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1744

2011

[2] [2]

S., Rizzi, L., & Tully, R

Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., & Tully, R. B. 2018, AJ, 156, 105

2018

[3] [3]

S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 80

2021

[4] [4]

2010, in Proc

Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 7735, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, 773508

2010

[5] [5]

2012, The Messenger, 147, 4

Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 4

2012

[6] [6]

D., Disney, M

Banks, G. D., Disney, M. J., Knezek, P. M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, 612

work page 1999

[7] [7]

2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

Barbary, K. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58

2016

[8] [8]

N., Karachentsev, I

Begum, A., Chengalur, J. N., Karachentsev, I. D., Sharina, M. E., & Kaisin, S. S. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1667

2008