Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? I. Star clusters, stellar body and ionised gas properties

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 GAMA 526784, an isolated ultra-diffuse galaxy at 39 Mpc, is likely to evolve into a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy, the paper argues, based on its bimodal population of old globular cluster candidates and young massive clusters.

desk verdict A solid, transparent single-object study of a UDG with a bimodal cluster population, but the 'likely GC-rich progenitor' conclusion outruns the unconfirmed membership of the old GC candidates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15910 v1 pith:FIVKVAZN submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.GA

Maria Luisa Buzzo , Michael Hilker , Anita Zanella , Katja Fahrion , Richard M. McDermid , Remco van der Burg , Marco Mirabile This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxiesglobularclustersstarclusterformationstellarpopulationsintegralfieldspectroscopydwarfgalaxyevolutionGAMA526784
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

GAMA 526784 is an isolated ultra-diffuse galaxy with an unusual double life: a compact, quiescent stellar core that formed roughly 9.9 Gyr ago, wrapped in a diffuse, star-forming outer body only about 0.9 Gyr old. The paper argues that this is a live progenitor of a globular cluster-rich UDG, a galaxy whose sparse stellar body is accompanied by an unusually rich system of globular clusters. The key evidence is a bimodal cluster population: eight metal-poor old globular cluster candidates at roughly 9 Gyr and 21 young, metal-rich clusters at 8 to 11 Myr, arranged along a string more than 5 kpc long. After subtracting expected interlopers and correcting for the faint half of the cluster luminosity function, the authors estimate the galaxy will end up with about 30 clusters and a cluster-to-stellar mass ratio above the 2.5% threshold used to call a UDG globular cluster-rich. If right, this is a rare direct view of the conditions under which dwarf galaxies build massive globular cluster systems in isolation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bimodal star cluster system and the GC-to-stellar mass ratio derived from it. The ratio compares the mass in old globular cluster candidates ($\log(M_\star/M_\odot)\sim5.5$ to $5.9$) with the galaxy's stellar mass ($\log(M_\star/M_\odot)=8.21$ for the central body, 8.34 total), yielding 2.5% and 1.9% respectively. The argument crosses the 2.5% GC-rich threshold through two corrections: subtracting 1.3 expected background interlopers from the eight photometrically selected old candidates, and assuming the seven survivors populate the bright half of a symmetric globular cluster luminosity function, which doubles the old cluster count to about 14. Eight young clusters with masses above the canonical globular cluster mass are then counted as likely survivors, bringing the projected total to about 30 clusters.

What would settle it

Measure high signal-to-noise radial velocities of the eight old cluster candidates and compare them with the galaxy's systemic velocity of about 2758 km/s; if fewer than about seven share the galaxy's velocity within the expected dispersion, the progenitor claim collapses. Alternatively, deep imaging that resolves the turnover of the old cluster luminosity function would test the assumed symmetry that doubles the cluster count.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that GAMA 526784 is likely to evolve into a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy over the next several gigayears. The claim rests on a bimodal star cluster population: eight old, metal-poor globular cluster candidates with ages of about 8.3 to 9.0 Gyr and masses around $\log(M_\star/M_\odot)\sim5.5$ to $5.9$, plus 21 young star-forming clusters with ages of 8 to 11 Myr and masses around $\log(M_\star/M_\odot)\sim5.0$. After subtracting 1.3 expected background interlopers from the eight old candidates, the authors obtain a GC-to-stellar mass ratio of 2.5% for the central stellar body (1.9% including the whole galaxy). Assuming the seven remaining old clusters are the bright half of a symmetric globular cluster luminosity function doubles the old cluster count to about 14, and eight young clusters massive enough to survive add roughly 16 more, producing at least 30 clusters. The stellar body itself is two-component: a compact core with age about 9.9 Gyr and $\mathrm{[M/H]}\sim-1.0$, and an extended outer component with age about 0.9 Gyr and $\mathrm{[M/H]}\sim-1.2$; the ionised gas rotates faster than the stars, has dispersions up to about 50 km/s, and shows a roughly 20-degree misalignment, which the paper reads as evidence for a recent interaction that triggered the young cluster formation. The old cluster candidates could not be spectroscopically confirmed as members because of their low signal-to-noise spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the eight old globular cluster candidates are genuinely bound to GAMA 526784, even though their low signal-to-noise spectra could not confirm their membership; if most are background objects, the GC-rich progenitor interpretation loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, GAMA 526784 will become a globular cluster-rich UDG with roughly 30 clusters within several gigayears, making it a direct evolutionary link between star-forming dwarfs and quiescent globular cluster-rich UDGs.
  • The roughly 9 Gyr age gap between the old and young cluster populations implies that globular cluster formation in this dwarf happened in at least two distinct episodes separated by a long quiescent phase.
  • The kinematic mismatch between stars and gas, with the gas rotation axis misaligned by about 20 degrees and gas dispersions reaching about 50 km/s, implies that isolated UDGs can still be strongly perturbed by recent interactions, so isolation does not guarantee quiescence.
  • The old clusters formed together with the galaxy's early stellar body, so the central core is a surviving relic of the pre-interaction galaxy; future molecular and neutral gas observations should reveal whether the current star-forming episode can be sustained.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: deeper HST imaging should reveal the supposed faint half of the old globular cluster luminosity function; detecting the turnover near $M_{F814W}\sim-8.2$ would confirm the completeness correction, while a missing faint population would weaken the roughly 14-cluster estimate.
  • If the young massive clusters survive to old age, the galaxy will end up with a metal-rich old cluster subpopulation around $\mathrm{[M/H]}\sim-0.3$ coexisting with metal-poor clusters around $\mathrm{[M/H]}\sim-1.4$, a mixed cluster system that could serve as a signature of interaction-triggered cluster formation in other isolated dwarfs.
  • The comparison with the Disco Ball UDG suggests two distinct routes to cluster-rich dwarfs in isolation, one secular and one interaction-triggered; a systematic survey of young cluster systems around isolated UDGs could quantify which route is more common.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength study of GAMA 526784, an isolated candidate ultra-diffuse galaxy at roughly 39 Mpc with an old central stellar body and a younger, extended, star-forming outer component. Using HST/HSC imaging, a two-component GALFITM decomposition, BAGPIPES SED fitting, MUSE/DAP stellar population and kinematic maps, and photometric/spectrophotometric star cluster analysis, the authors identify 29 star cluster candidates (8 old globular cluster candidates and 21 young clusters). They report a quiescent old core (mass-weighted age ~9.9 Gyr, [M/H] ~ -1.0 dex), a young outer component (~0.9 Gyr), a low stellar velocity dispersion (~10 km/s), misaligned gas kinematics, localised star formation, and conclude that GAMA 526784 is likely evolving into a globular cluster-rich UDG over the next several Gyr.

Significance. The dataset is valuable: it combines HST and HSC broad-band imaging with MUSE integral-field spectroscopy for a rare, isolated, low-mass star-forming UDG, and the old central/young outer age separation is supported by two independent fitting approaches plus spatially resolved age maps. The young clusters are kinematically confirmed via emission lines, making their ages and masses comparatively robust. The paper is also transparent about its main limitations, including the unconfirmed membership of the old cluster candidates and the arbitrary choice of the 2.5% GC-rich threshold. If the cluster membership and survival assumptions hold, GAMA 526784 would be a rare, possibly unique live progenitor of a GC-rich UDG in isolation, with direct implications for UDG formation scenarios. However, the central headline claim currently rests on a small, spectroscopically unconfirmed sample and on two strong assumptions (a symmetric old GC luminosity function and the survival of young massive clusters), so the significance is conditional at this stage.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.3; Appendix A] The GC-rich inference is based on eight photometrically selected old GC candidates whose membership the paper states it could not confirm: "We were unable to confirm the membership of the old cluster candidates with GAMA 526784 (1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 21, 28, and 29) due to their low S/N spectra." After subtracting the expected 1.3 old-colour interlopers, seven candidates remain, and the derived MGC/Mstar is 2.5% for the central body and 1.9% for the whole galaxy, i.e., at or below the adopted 2.5% threshold. The threshold is crossed only by assuming that the seven candidates populate the bright half of a symmetric GCLF and doubling the count to 14. This is an assumption, not a completeness correction, and it amplifies an already unconfirmed sample. If even a small number of the candidates are foreground stars or background galaxies, or if the luminosity function is not symmetric, the quantitative basis for the statement that GAMA 526784 is "likely" to become a GC-rich UDG disappears. Please either add membership constraints (deeper spectroscopy, radial velocities, or proper motions) or present the GC-rich evolution explicitly as a conditional scenario rather than a likelihood.
  2. [4.3] The projection that the eight young massive clusters above log(Mstar/Msun) ~ 5.3 add roughly 16 clusters to the total population assumes that a "significant fraction" of them survive. The only justification offered is that the gravitational potential is shallow and the galaxy is isolated, so "dissolution effects may not be severe." Cluster survival is a quantitative question that depends on cluster mass, initial compactness, and the tidal field; without a disruption calculation, a comparison with empirical cluster age/mass distributions, or at least an explicit survival fraction with uncertainties, the "at least 30 clusters" statement is an upper-bound scenario rather than a prediction. Please quantify this step or soften the claim accordingly.
  3. [Appendix B; 4.3] The reconstructed star formation history in Appendix B is described as being dominated by a burst about 100 Myr ago, while the young star clusters have fitted ages of 8-11 Myr in Section 4.3. These statements are inconsistent as written: a 100 Myr burst should produce clusters roughly 100 Myr old unless the SFH time binning cannot resolve ages near 10 Myr. Please reconcile the SFH with the cluster ages or state explicitly that the 100 Myr value is set by the coarsest/finest available time bin, since this discrepancy bears directly on the recent-interaction interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3; Eq. (1)] The linear colour relation used for cluster selection is presented without the uncertainties of the fitted slope and intercept, and the +/-0.5 mag selection window is called "approximately 3 sigma" without stating the sigma used. Please provide the fit covariance and a brief statement of the resulting selection completeness.
  2. [4.2.3] The quoted global stellar velocity dispersion of 10 +/- 6 km/s is below the nominal MUSE resolution; although the paper acknowledges this and cites a method for recovering dispersions below resolution, the value should be labelled in the text and abstract as an unresolved/lower-limit measurement so that it is not quoted as a standard detection.
  3. [Table D.1] The column containing radial velocities is labelled in the table note as "pPXF radial velocity" but appears to be simply "V" in the header; in addition, several old GC candidates (e.g., IDs 4 and 28) lack age and metallicity measurements, so the statement that old GCs have ages of 8.4-9.4 Gyr applies to only six of the eight candidates. Please state explicitly how many candidates contribute to each derived property.
  4. [Figure 10] The comparison to the LMC age-metallicity relation is qualitative; please state that the Pagel & Tautvaisiene (1998) model is the LMC fit from Narloch et al. (2022) and is not re-fit to the GAMA 526784 clusters, so that readers do not interpret the overplotted curve as a fit to the new data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical analysis is self-contained; the GC-rich conclusion is an explicitly conditional extrapolation, not a reduction of inputs to outputs.

full rationale

The asserted derivation chain is not circular. Cluster candidates are selected with SSP-informed colour, magnitude, ellipticity and concentration cuts (Sec. 3), but the reported ages, metallicities and masses come from independent BAGPIPES fits to HST/HSC photometry plus MUSE spectra (Sec. 4.3, Table D.1), and the stellar-body and gas properties come from DAP/pPXF fits to MUSE data. No equation is equivalent to its own input by construction. The headline conclusion that GAMA 526784 is 'likely to evolve into a GC-rich UDG' is explicitly conditional rather than derived: the paper says it 'was unable to confirm the membership of the old cluster candidates' and that the estimate 'is based on the currently detected old clusters and does not apply any completeness correction.' The step from seven old candidates to a GC-rich classification invokes the explicit assumption 'that the seven observed old GCs populate the bright half of the GCLF', a transparent modelling ansatz, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The 2.5% GC-rich threshold is taken from Forbes et al. (2025), a paper with overlapping authorship, but the text immediately calls it 'an arbitrary choice' with expected scatter, so the citation supplies a conventional boundary rather than a load-bearing derivation. The unconfirmed cluster membership is a genuine robustness limitation, but it concerns data quality and sample selection, not circular logic. Overall, no self-definitional, fitted-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain reduction is found; score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the classification threshold.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central quantitative claims rest on a chain of astrophysical assumptions: SSP model colours, a Hubble-flow distance, photometric cluster membership, GCLF symmetry, and qualitative cluster survival. None of these is a fitted free parameter in the derivation sense, but the GC-rich extrapolation depends on two hand-chosen or assumed elements: the GCLF peak and width adopted from SSP models, and an implicit high survival fraction for young clusters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Adopted old-GC luminosity function peak and width = MF814W = -8.2 ± 1.0 mag; young-cluster peak shifted by 1.7 mag
    Used to select clusters and to argue that the seven observed old GCs populate the bright half of a symmetric GCLF, doubling the inferred cluster count and pushing the GC mass fraction above the GC-rich threshold.
  • Implicit survival fraction of young massive clusters = not quantified; assumed high
    The conclusion that the galaxy will become GC-rich assumes a significant fraction of the 8-11 Myr clusters survive dissolution; no disruption model or timescale is applied, and the shallow-potential argument is qualitative.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Simple stellar population models (FSPS with Padova isochrones) correctly predict colours and magnitudes of both old and young star clusters.
    Used for the colour-colour selection relation, the 1.7 mag luminosity offset, and the inferred cluster ages and metallicities (Sections 3.1, 4.3).
  • domain assumption GAMA 526784 lies at 39 Mpc, the Hubble-flow distance from its radial velocity.
    Converts angular effective radii, surface brightnesses, luminosities and masses into physical units (Sections 1, 4.1).
  • domain assumption The seven spectroscopically unconfirmed old GC candidates are cluster members, with only 1.3 background interlopers subtracted statistically.
    Underpins the MGC/Mstar estimate in Section 4.3; the paper explicitly notes membership could not be confirmed from low-S/N spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed old GCs represent the bright half of a symmetric GCLF, so the total old cluster count is about double the detected number.
    Introduced in Section 4.3 to raise the GC mass fraction from below to above the 2.5% GC-rich threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper Young massive clusters will largely survive disruption because the galaxy's potential is shallow and it is isolated.
    Stated qualitatively in Section 4.3 ('dissolution effects may not be severe') without a quantitative disruption model; load-bearing for the GC-rich prediction.
  • domain assumption The two-component GALFITM decomposition is physically meaningful; a triaxial single component could also produce similar isophote twists.
    Acknowledged caveat in Section 2.2.1; the stellar population difference between components is used to support the decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? I. Star clusters, stellar body and ionised gas properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIVKVAZN

@misc{pith2026250515910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? I. Star clusters, stellar body and ionised gas properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIVKVAZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15910}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) are an intriguing population of galaxies. Despite their dwarf-like stellar masses and low surface brightness, they have large half-light radii and exhibit a diverse range of globular cluster (GC) populations. Some UDGs host many GCs while others have none, raising questions about the conditions under which star clusters (SC) form in dwarfs. GAMA526784, an isolated UDG with both an old stellar body and an extended star-forming (SF) front, including many young SCs, provides an exceptional case to explore the link between UDG evolution and star cluster formation. Aims. This study investigates the stellar populations, SCs, ionised gas, and kinematics of GAMA526784, focusing on its potential to form massive GCs and its connection to broader UDG formation scenarios. Methods. Imaging from HST and Subaru/HSC, alongside MUSE spectroscopy, were used to analyse the galaxy's morphology, chemical composition, and kinematics. A combination of SED fitting and full spectral fitting was applied. Results. GAMA526784's central stellar body exhibits a low-metallicity ([M/H] ~ -1.0 dex) and an old age (~9.9 Gyr). The outskirts are much younger (~0.9 Gyr), but slightly more metal-poor ([M/H] ~ -1.2 dex). The stellar kinematics show low velocity dispersions (~10 km/s) and a coherent rotational field, while the ionised gas exhibits higher dispersions (~50 km/s), a misaligned rotation axis (~20 deg) and localised SF, what could be suggestive of a recent interaction. The young SCs span ages of 8-11 Myr and masses of log(M*/Mo)~5.0, while the old GCs have ~9 Gyr and stellar masses of log(M*/Mo)~5.5. Conclusions. GAMA526784's properties point to interactions that triggered localised SF, leading to the formation of young SCs. Future observations of its molecular and neutral gas will help assess its environment, and the trigger of this SF episode.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Postage stamps of GAMA 526784 in all wavelengths used in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GALFITM two-component model of GAMA 526784. Columns from left to right: HSC g-band image, segmentation mask from SExtractor, fitted galaxy model with subcomponents highlighted in inset panels, and residual (image−model). The subcomponents are both centred at the coordinates of the inner component to facilitate direct comparison. For reference, the one effective radius ellipses of the complementary component are over… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. 3. Star Cluster Detection and Selection To detect and measure the photometric properties of star clus￾ters, we used SExtractor (Bertin 2002) in dual-image mode. The detection image was created by combining the F606W and F814W bands, while the photometry was measured on the indi￾vidual bands. The HSC bands were reprojected onto the same pixel scale as the HST imaging using Montage (Jacob et al. 2010; Berriman & Good … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Star cluster selection criteria based on expected colours, magnitudes, ellipticity and concentration. In all panels, grey dots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed and fitted spectrum of the central bin of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatially resolved stellar population properties of GAMA 526784 derived using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ionised gas properties of GAMA 526784. First panel: Dust attenuation (AV) map derived from the Balmer decre￾ment. Second panel: [SII]λ6716/λ6731 ratio, which serves as a proxy for electron density. Third panel: Gas-phase metallic￾ity (12 + log(O/H)) map estimated using…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas velocity dispersion map of GAMA 526784. The map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stellar clusters associated with GAMA 526784. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Age-metallicity relation (AMR) for star clusters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies. VIII. Misfits, Miscasts, and Miscreants

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The SMUDGes catalog is reclassified by visual morphology, leaving 6,553 clean UDG candidates and identifying 29 dwarf ring galaxies and 15 merger-sequence objects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2020, , 499, 3267

    Adamo , A., Hollyhead , K., Messa , M., et al. 2020, , 499, 3267

    2020

  4. [4]

    2018, , 70, S4

    Aihara , H., Arimoto , N., Armstrong , R., et al. 2018, , 70, S4

    2018

  5. [5]

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

    2016

  6. [6]

    2017, , 608, A1

    Bacon , R., Conseil , S., Mary , D., et al. 2017, , 608, A1

    2017

  7. [7]

    Bastian , N., Pfeffer , J., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2020, , 498, 1050

    2020

  8. [8]

    A., Romanowsky , A

    Beasley , M. A., Romanowsky , A. J., Pota , V., et al. 2016, , 819, L20

    2016

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    B., Schaefer , A., et al

    Belfiore , F., Westfall , K. B., Schaefer , A., et al. 2019, , 158, 160

    2019

  2. [10]

    A., Sales , L

    Benavides , J. A., Sales , L. V., Abadi , M. G., et al. 2023, , 522, 1033

    2023

  3. [11]

    Berriman , G. B. & Good , J. C. 2017, , 129, 058006

    2017

  4. [12]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, 228

    2002

  5. [13]

    H., Hunter , D

    Billett , O. H., Hunter , D. A., & Elmegreen , B. G. 2002, , 123, 1454

    2002

  6. [14]

    L., Cortesi , A., Hernandez-Jimenez , J

    Buzzo , M. L., Cortesi , A., Hernandez-Jimenez , J. A., et al. 2021, , 504, 2146

    2021

  7. [15]

    L., Forbes , D

    Buzzo , M. L., Forbes , D. A., Brodie , J. P., et al. 2023, , 522, 595

    2023

  8. [16]

    L., Forbes , D

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

    2022

  9. [17]

    L., Forbes , D

    Buzzo , M. L., Forbes , D. A., Jarrett , T. H., et al. 2025 a , , 536, 2536

    2025

  10. [18]

    L., Forbes , D

    Buzzo , M. L., Forbes , D. A., Jarrett , T. H., et al. 2024, , 529, 3210

    2024

  11. [19]

    L., Forbes , D

    Buzzo , M. L., Forbes , D. A., Romanowsky , A. J., et al. 2025 b , , 695, A124

    2025

  12. [20]

    2017, , 466, 798

    Cappellari , M. 2017, , 466, 798

    2017

  13. [21]

    & Copin , Y

    Cappellari , M. & Copin , Y. 2003, , 342, 345

    2003

  14. [22]

    & Emsellem , E

    Cappellari , M. & Emsellem , E. 2004, , 116, 138

    2004

  15. [23]

    2021, , 502, 398

    Carleton , T., Guo , Y., Munshi , F., Tremmel , M., & Wright , A. 2021, , 502, 398

    2021

  16. [24]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Gunn , J

    Conroy , C. & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 712, 833

    2010

  18. [26]

    E., & White , M

    Conroy , C., Gunn , J. E., & White , M. 2009, , 699, 486

    2009

  19. [27]

    Conroy , C., White , M., & Gunn , J. E. 2010, , 708, 58

    2010

  20. [28]

    O., Lee , J

    Cook , D. O., Lee , J. C., Adamo , A., et al. 2023, , 519, 3749

    2023

  21. [29]

    Danieli , S., van Dokkum , P., Conroy , C., Abraham , R., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2019, , 874, L12

    2019

  22. [30]

    2022, , 927, L28

    Danieli , S., van Dokkum , P., Trujillo-Gomez , S., et al. 2022, , 927, L28

    2022

  23. [31]

    B., Dutton , A

    Di Cintio , A., Brook , C. B., Dutton , A. A., et al. 2017, , 466, L1

    2017

  24. [32]

    P., Hill , D

    Driver , S. P., Hill , D. T., Kelvin , L. S., et al. 2011, , 413, 971

    2011

  25. [33]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 2018, , 869, 119

    2018

  26. [34]

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

    2019

  27. [35]

    2019, , 628, A60

    Fensch , J., Duc , P.-A., Boquien , M., et al. 2019, , 628, A60

    2019

  28. [36]

    A., et al

    Ferr \'e -Mateu , A., Gannon , J., Forbes , D. A., et al. 2025, , 694, L6

    2025

  29. [37]

    S., Forbes , D

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

    2023

  30. [38]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63

    1999

  31. [39]

    A., Alabi , A., & Romanowsky , A

    Forbes , D. A., Alabi , A., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2020, , 492, 4874

    2020

  32. [40]

    A., Buzzo , M

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

    2025

  33. [41]

    Forbes , D. A. & Gannon , J. 2024, , 528, 608

    2024

  34. [42]

    2022, , 510, 320

    Fraser-McKelvie , A., Cortese , L., Groves , B., et al. 2022, , 510, 320

    2022

  35. [43]

    M., et al

    Freudling , W., Romaniello , M., Bramich , D. M., et al. 2013, , 559, A96

    2013

  36. [44]

    P., Greene , J

    Greco , J. P., Greene , J. E., Strauss , M. A., et al. 2018, , 857, 104

    2018

  37. [45]

    2017, , 608, A5

    Gu \'e rou , A., Krajnovi \'c , D., Epinat , B., et al. 2017, , 608, A5

    2017

  38. [46]

    Harris , W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487

    1996

  39. [47]

    E., Harris , G

    Harris , W. E., Harris , G. L. H., & Alessi , M. 2013, , 772, 82

    2013

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16192

    Hartke , J., Iodice , E., Gullieuszik , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16192

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P., Vika , M., et al

    H \"a u ler , B., Bamford , S. P., Vika , M., et al. 2013, , 430, 330

    2013

  42. [50]

    2023, , 679, A69

    Iodice , E., Hilker , M., Doll , G., et al. 2023, , 679, A69

    2023

  43. [51]

    C., Katz , D

    Jacob , J. C., Katz , D. S., Berriman , G. B., et al. 2010, Montage: An Astronomical Image Mosaicking Toolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.036

    2010

  44. [52]

    R., Forbes , D

    Janssens , S. R., Forbes , D. A., Romanowsky , A. J., et al. 2024, , 534, 783

    2024

  45. [53]

    R., Romanowsky , A

    Janssens , S. R., Romanowsky , A. J., Abraham , R., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.09910

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    2019, , 487, 5272

    Jiang , F., Dekel , A., Freundlich , J., et al. 2019, , 487, 5272

    2019

  47. [55]

    G., Karunakaran , A., Bennet , P., et al

    Jones , M. G., Karunakaran , A., Bennet , P., et al. 2023, , 942, L5

    2023

  48. [56]

    2024 a , , 966, 129

    Kado-Fong , E., Geha , M., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2024 a , , 966, 129

    2024

  49. [57]

    2024 b , , 963, 37

    Kado-Fong , E., Robinson , A., Nyland , K., et al. 2024 b , , 963, 37

    2024

  50. [58]

    L., et al

    Kadowaki , J., Zaritsky , D., Donnerstein , R. L., et al. 2021, , 923, 257

    2021

  51. [59]

    J., Zaritsky , D., Sandoval Ascencio , L., Cooper , M

    Khim , D. J., Zaritsky , D., Sandoval Ascencio , L., Cooper , M. C., & Donnerstein , R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19465

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    2015, , 807, L2

    Koda , J., Yagi , M., Yamanoi , H., & Komiyama , Y. 2015, , 807, L2

    2015

  53. [61]

    T., & Copin , Y

    Krajnovi \'c , D., Cappellari , M., de Zeeuw , P. T., & Copin , Y. 2006, , 366, 787

    2006

  54. [62]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31, 244006

    2014

  55. [63]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16438

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    S., Brodie , J

    Larsen , S. S., Brodie , J. P., Forbes , D. A., & Strader , J. 2014, , 565, A98

    2014

  57. [65]

    R., & Chung , E

    Lee , J., Shin , E.-j., Kim , J.-h., Shapiro , P. R., & Chung , E. 2024, , 966, 72

    2024

  58. [66]

    P., Janowiecki , S., et al

    Leisman , L., Haynes , M. P., Janowiecki , S., et al. 2017, , 842, 133

    2017

  59. [67]

    E., Danieli , S., et al

    Li , J., Greene , J. E., Danieli , S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08030

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    E., Aguerri , J

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Aguerri , J. A. L., Peletier , R. F., et al. 2019 a , , 485, 1036

    2019

  61. [69]

    E., Fraternali , F., Adams , E

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Fraternali , F., Adams , E. A. K., et al. 2019 b , , 883, L33

    2019

  62. [70]

    & Girardi , L

    Marigo , P. & Girardi , L. 2007, , 469, 239

    2007

  63. [71]

    2008, , 482, 883

    Marigo , P., Girardi , L., Bressan , A., et al. 2008, , 482, 883

    2008

  64. [72]

    A., Rosales-Ortega, F

    Marino, R. A., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 559, A114

    2013

  65. [73]

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

    Marleau , F. R., Duc , P.-A., Poulain , M., et al. 2024, , 690, A339

    2024

  66. [74]

    2022, , 666, A80

    Narloch , W., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Gieren , W., et al. 2022, , 666, A80

    2022

  67. [75]

    Pagel , B. E. J. & Tautvaisiene , G. 1998, , 299, 535

    1998

  68. [76]

    Papastergis , E., Adams , E. A. K., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2017, , 601, L10

    2017

  69. [77]

    W., Jord \'a n , A., C \^o t \'e , P., et al

    Peng , E. W., Jord \'a n , A., C \^o t \'e , P., et al. 2006, , 639, 95

    2006

  70. [78]

    R., Buzzo , M

    Pfeffer , J., Janssens , S. R., Buzzo , M. L., et al. 2024, , 529, 4914

    2024

  71. [79]

    J., van der Burg , R

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

    2019

  72. [80]

    & Trujillo , I

    Rom \'a n , J. & Trujillo , I. 2017, , 468, 4039

    2017

  73. [81]

    2017, , 470, 4231

    Rong , Y., Guo , Q., Gao , L., et al. 2017, , 470, 4231

    2017

  74. [82]

    V., Navarro , J

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

    2020

  75. [83]

    Schlafly , E. F. & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  76. [84]

    2023, , 957, 6

    Shen , Z., van Dokkum , P., & Danieli , S. 2023, , 957, 6

    2023

  77. [85]

    2019, , 488, L24

    Silk , J. 2019, , 488, L24

    2019

  78. [86]

    T., Lilly , S

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

    2016

  79. [87]

    & Karunakaran , A

    Spekkens , K. & Karunakaran , A. 2018, , 855, 28

    2018

  80. [88]

    J., Gannon , J

    Tang , Y., Romanowsky , A. J., Gannon , J. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10665

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    2017, , 836, 191

    Trujillo , I., Roman , J., Filho , M., & S \'a nchez Almeida , J. 2017, , 836, 191

    2017

  82. [90]

    van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Abraham , R., Conroy , C., & Romanowsky , A. J. 2019, , 874, L5

    2019

  83. [91]

    2018, , 555, 629

    van Dokkum , P., Danieli , S., Cohen , Y., et al. 2018, , 555, 629

    2018

  84. [92]

    A., et al

    van Dokkum , P., Shen , Z., Keim , M. A., et al. 2022, , 605, 435

    2022

  85. [93]

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

    van Dokkum , P. G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al. 2015, , 798, L45

    2015

  86. [94]

    2015, , 449, 1177

    Vazdekis , A., Coelho , P., Cassisi , S., et al. 2015, , 449, 1177

    2015

  87. [95]

    P., H \"a u ler , B., et al

    Vika , M., Bamford , S. P., H \"a u ler , B., et al. 2013, , 435, 623

    2013

  88. [96]

    Weidner , C., Kroupa , P., & Larsen , S. S. 2004, , 350, 1503

    2004

  89. [97]

    M., Streicher , O., & Palsa , R

    Weilbacher , P. M., Streicher , O., & Palsa , R. 2016, MUSE-DRP: MUSE Data Reduction Pipeline , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1610.004

    2016

  90. [98]

    B., Cappellari , M., Bershady , M

    Westfall , K. B., Cappellari , M., Bershady , M. A., et al. 2019, , 158, 231

    2019

  91. [99]

    E., van Dokkum , P

    Whitaker , K. E., van Dokkum , P. G., Brammer , G., & Franx , M. 2012, , 754, L29

    2012

  92. [100]

    2014, , 567, A132

    Wild , V., Rosales-Ortega , F., Falc \'o n-Barroso , J., et al. 2014, , 567, A132

    2014

Pith tools

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