Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Major Mergers Mean Major Offset: Drivers of Intrinsic Scatter in The $M_{GCS}-M_h$ Scaling Relation for Massive Elliptical Galaxies

T0 review · 4 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 claims that for extremely massive elliptical galaxies, intrinsic scatter in the globular cluster system–halo mass relation is set by a few major mergers that deposit old, red globular clusters, rather than by many minor mergers…

desk verdict A useful homogeneous sample and a seven-decade extension of the M_GCS-M_h relation, but the claim that major mergers drive the scatter rests on a trend that may be built into the integration. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24154 v1 pith:G2HBITBV submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.GA

Veronika Dornan , William E. Harris This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersystemsgalaxyscalingrelationsmergersbrightestgalaxiesgalactichalosradialdensityprofilesVoronoitessellationelliptical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the scatter in the well-known near-linear relation between a galaxy's total globular cluster (GC) mass and its dark matter halo mass is not random at the high-mass end: it records the type of mergers the galaxy has absorbed. For 27 extremely massive ellipticals, mostly brightest cluster galaxies, the authors measure GC radial density profiles with a Voronoi tessellation technique and find that a galaxy's offset above or below the relation correlates with the steepness of its GC profile. The correlation is driven entirely by the red GC population, while the blue GC profile shape carries no signal. The authors conclude that a few major mergers with massive, red-GC-rich satellites push a galaxy's GCS mass above the expectation for its halo mass, whereas many minor mergers depositing blue GCs do little. If this reading is correct, the spatial distribution of red globular clusters is a fossil record of a massive elliptical's major merger history.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the Voronoi-tessellation radial density profile method introduced in Paper I, which converts the 2D positions of detected GCs into surface-density cells and fits a power law to the binned profile; the fitted exponent serves as the steepness measure on the horizontal axis of the offset plots. The central identity that carries the argument is the definition of GCS mass in Equation 2, which integrates that same density profile out to a standardized radius $R_{\rm GCS} = 0.1R_{\rm vir}$, with $R_{\rm vir}$ itself derived from the halo mass that appears on the relation's other axis. The red/blue split is made by double-Gaussian fits to each galaxy's GC color distribution, so the red-only and blue-only profile exponents come from the same construction. This nesting of definitions means the trend between offset and steepness is at least partly a statement about how the mass estimator depends on the fitted slope.

What would settle it

Recalculate each galaxy's $M_{\rm GCS}$ by integrating its fitted GC density profile out to a single fixed physical radius (say 100 kpc) rather than to the mass-dependent $0.1 R_{\rm vir}$, then re-test the offset-versus-steepness Spearman correlation; if the correlation largely disappears, the reported merger-driven scatter is a mathematical product of defining $M_{\rm GCS}$ from the same profile whose slope is the independent variable. Alternatively, targeted spectroscopy of red GCs in the most high-offset, shallow-profile galaxies should reveal tidal features or kinematic substructure if recent major mergers are the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that where a massive elliptical sits on the $M_{\rm GCS}-M_h$ relation tells you about its merger history, not about random assembly noise. The paper measures GC density profiles for 27 BCGs and NMCGs and finds a negative correlation between the log offset from the relation and the power-law steepness of the total GC radial density profile (Spearman $\rho = 0.63$, slope $0.73$). The correlation is tighter for the red GC population alone ($\rho = 0.72$ after excluding the already-known post-merger galaxy NGC 1129) and absent for the blue population ($\rho = 0.17$). Because red GCs are associated with in-situ formation or accretion from massive satellites in major mergers, while blue GCs are accreted from smaller satellites, the paper interprets this as evidence that major mergers dominate the intrinsic scatter while minor mergers contribute little. The global relation remains nearly 1:1 (slope $1.10 \pm 0.02$ across all samples, $0.93 \pm 0.09$ for the massive-galaxy sample alone), with BCGs shifted systematically to higher GCS masses than lower-mass galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the offset-versus-steepness anti-correlation can be read as a physical merger signal even though the GCS mass that fixes each galaxy's offset is computed by integrating the very same density profile whose exponent is the independent variable, so part of the trend is built into the numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If major mergers set the scatter, the steepness of the red GC radial profile becomes a photometric proxy for a massive elliptical's recent major-merger history, usable in surveys without kinematic data.
  • The global relation's slope of $1.10 \pm 0.02$ with a systematically higher intercept for BCG-dominated samples implies that claims of a high-mass downturn in the relation may reflect samples that happen to lack recently merged galaxies.
  • Simulations must include a merger-dependent GC formation channel, such as the shifted GC initial mass function reported by Li & Gnedin (2019), or they will under-predict the GCS masses of BCGs by roughly 0.3 dex.
  • The same profile-steepness analysis applied to Milky Way-mass galaxies should reveal a trend carried by blue GCs instead of red ones, since major mergers at that mass scale do not deposit old red populations.
  • NMCGs and central BCGs lie on the same offset–steepness trend, so the driver is merger type, not cluster-central position.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The offset–steepness anti-correlation may be partly self-generated: because $M_{\rm GCS}$ is the integral of the same power-law profile whose exponent is plotted on the other axis, steeper profiles yield smaller integrated masses at fixed normalization, and the paper provides no control for profile normalization.
  • A testable prediction of the major-merger reading is that high-offset galaxies with shallow red GC profiles should show kinematic substructure in their red GC systems, such as shells, streams, or counter-rotating components, while low-offset steep-profile galaxies should be kinematically smooth.
  • Because $R_{\rm GCS}$ is set to $0.1 R_{\rm vir}$ and $R_{\rm vir}$ comes from the same $M_h$ used on the relation's x-axis, redoing the analysis with a fixed physical aperture (for example $100\,$kpc) would clarify how much of the relation's compactness is choice of radius.
  • If the interpretation holds, the long-known high specific frequencies of BCGs are the same major-merger signal viewed in a different projection, linking two previously separate observational puzzles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new globular cluster system (GCS) counts and masses for 27 massive BCG and NMCG galaxies using HST photometry and a Voronoi-tessellation profile method, then places them on the M_GCS-M_h relation together with Virgo Cluster and Local Group samples. The authors report a global relation slope of 1.10 +/- 0.02, a slope of 0.93 +/- 0.09 for the massive galaxy sample alone, a systematic upward offset of BCGs from the lower-mass relation, and a negative correlation between a galaxy's offset from the relation and the steepness of its GCS radial density profile. The trend is reported to be driven by red GCs, with no trend for blue GCs, and is interpreted as evidence that a few major mergers, rather than many minor mergers, dominate the intrinsic scatter at the high-mass end.

Significance. If the central driver claim is correct, the paper would identify merger type, not merger count, as the primary source of intrinsic scatter in the GCS-halo mass relation at the high-mass end, which is an interesting and testable extension of previous work. The paper also makes a useful observational contribution by applying a uniform pipeline (Voronoi profiles, consistent distances, GCLF and ICGC corrections) to a sample in a mass range where GCS data are sparse, and the seven-decade compilation with the Virgo and Local Group samples is valuable. The comparison with the Choksi & Gnedin (2019) and Chen & Gnedin (2023) models provides a clear context. However, the central claim rests on a correlation whose two axes are not independent as constructed, and the red-GC version of the trend is presented after removing an outlier; these issues need to be addressed before the merger-type interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (2), and Fig. 7] The y-axis offset in Fig. 7 is computed from M_GCS, which is obtained by integrating the fitted power-law density profile out to R_GCS, while the x-axis is the exponent of that same fitted density profile. For a fixed profile normalization, the extrapolated part of the integral beyond the last observed radius is a strong function of the exponent, so steeper profiles are systematically biased toward lower M_GCS and hence negative offsets. The paper provides no control for profile normalization, for the radial coverage relative to R_GCS, or for the covariance between the fitted slope and intercept. Please demonstrate that the trend survives when M_GCS is estimated independently of the power-law fit (for example from direct counts in a fixed aperture or from the previous annulus-based values), and quantify the contribution to the offset from radii beyond the last observed data point.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.2] The red-GC correlation is quoted as a Spearman coefficient of 0.72 with p = 0.002 only after removing NGC 1129, and the exclusion is justified after the fact by the galaxy's known peculiar morphology. The paper does not report the Spearman coefficient for the 16 color-selected galaxies with NGC 1129 included. If the red-only trend weakens substantially or becomes insignificant when all 16 galaxies are retained, the conclusion that the red GC population drives the effect would need to be softened or qualified.
  3. [Section 2.5, Eq. (4), and Section 3.2] Halo masses are not measured directly but are derived from K-band stellar masses through the Hudson et al. (2015) SHMR, and R_GCS in Eq. (1) depends on the same M_h. Systematic errors in the SHMR at the high-mass end therefore propagate into both M_GCS and M_h and into the offsets plotted in Fig. 7. A robustness check against independent halo-mass estimates (X-ray hydrostatic masses, stellar velocity dispersions, or weak-lensing masses where available) would establish whether the reported slope and the BCG offset are stable.
  4. [Section 3.1] The statement that the Voronoi method can be extrapolated from Paper I to massive systems with steep profiles rests on a single simulated steep-profile system containing only 300 objects. This is an assumption about the regime occupied by the present sample, and the paper should either present validation tests with simulated steep-profile systems of the relevant size or explicitly list this as a limitation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in the sentence about the simulated systems: "shllower" should be "shallower".
  2. [Section 3.3] The p-value for the blue-GC Spearman correlation (rho = 0.17) is not reported; it should be stated, along with a note on whether the test was two-sided.
  3. [Fig. 7] The x-axis label "slope of density profile" should be defined explicitly as the power-law exponent with its sign convention, since the paper elsewhere refers to "more negative" values as steeper.
  4. [Table 2] The column key lists column (4) twice, once for R_GCS and once for M_GCS; the columns should be renumbered or relabeled.
  5. [Section 2.4] The sentence "it is possible for the N_GCS estimates of this sample to increase by approximately 2%" refers to the inner-density flattening assumption, but the analogous sensitivity to the outer integration limit R_GCS is not discussed and should be quantified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Fig. 7 offset–steepness trend is partly constructional: M_GCS is the integral of the same fitted power-law profile whose exponent is the x-axis, so the merger-driver conclusion lacks an independent control.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.4 Eq. 2; §3.3 Fig. 7; Conclusions 3–7]
    "NGC = ∫_0^Rin σin 2πr dr + ∫_Rin^RGCS 2πr σcl dr (2) ... Figure 7 shows the amount a galaxy is offset from the MGCS − Mh relation derived form the massive galaxy sample in log-space as a function of radial density profile exponent derived from all GCs in the system, red GCs only, and blue GCs only."

    The y-axis in Fig. 7 is the log M_GCS offset from the fitted relation, and M_GCS is obtained in §2.4 by integrating the fitted power-law density profile σ_cl out to R_GCS = 0.1 R_vir(M_h). The x-axis is the exponent of that same σ_cl fit. The two compared quantities are therefore not independent: for fixed profile normalization and fixed R_GCS, the integrated N_GCS — and hence the offset — changes systematically with the fitted exponent, especially through the extrapolated portion of the integral beyond the observed radii. A trend of the reported sign can be generated by the fitting/integration construction alone.

full rationale

The global M_GCS–M_h relation is assembled from independent samples (Virgo, Local Group) and external model predictions (Choksi & Gnedin 2019; Chen & Gnedin 2023), so the global slope comparison is not circular. The Voronoi-method self-citations are also not load-bearing: Paper I's simulation tests are external validation, and the SHMR calibration is taken from Hudson et al. (2015). The central new claim, however, is the offset–steepness trend in Fig. 7, and here M_GCS is not measured independently of the power-law fit whose exponent is the x-axis. Eq. 2 defines N_GCS as the integral of the fitted σ_cl(r), extrapolated to R_GCS = 0.1 R_vir(M_h). Hence a correlation between offset and exponent can be produced by the integration construction alone, especially through the extrapolated part of the profile beyond the observed data. The paper does not control for profile normalization, radial coverage, or slope–intercept covariance, nor does it provide a model-independent N_GC check; the red-only correlation is quoted only after deleting NGC 1129 (ρ = 0.72, p = 0.002). Because Conclusions 3–7 present this correlated-output trend as evidence for a major-merger driver, the central claim is partially circular rather than fully independent. This warrants a score of 6, not higher, because the trend could in principle survive a proper control and the rest of the paper's empirical content is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on several empirical calibrations adopted from prior work: the mean GC mass-luminosity relation, the stellar-halo mass relation, the universal GCLF, and the assumed intracluster GC fraction. It also assumes a constant GC density in the unresolved inner region and that M_vir equals M_h. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Mean GC mass-luminosity relation coefficients (Eq 3) = a=5.698, b=0.1294, c=0.0054
    Used to convert N_GC to M_GCS; empirical relation from Villegas et al. 2010 and Harris et al. 2017, not measured for these galaxies.
  • Stellar-to-halo mass relation parameters (Eq 4) = M1=10^10.76 M_sun, f1=0.0227
    Used to derive M_h from stellar masses via the Hudson et al. 2015 SHMR.
  • GCLF log-normal parameters = M_I,peak=-9.0, sigma_g=1.30
    Adopted universal globular cluster luminosity function used to correct for incompleteness.
  • Intracluster GC contamination fraction = 3% +/- 3%
    Global adopted subtraction for intracluster globular clusters, not measured per environment.
  • Local Group dwarf mean mass-to-light ratio = 1.4
    Used for comparison sample masses in the global fit; contributes to the reported slope.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption M_vir equals M_h for defining R_GCS
    Eq 1 sets R_GCS = 0.1 R_vir and assumes the virial mass is the halo mass used throughout.
  • domain assumption GC density flattens to a constant inside R_in
    The inner integral in Eq 2 assumes constant density at the innermost measured level, justified by Milky Way/M31 and other massive ellipticals, but not measured for each galaxy.
  • domain assumption Universal log-normal GCLF
    Completeness correction assumes the classical GCLF with fixed peak and dispersion from Harris et al. 2014.
  • domain assumption SHMR from Hudson et al. 2015 applies at z=0 to massive central ellipticals
    Halo masses for this sample are not measured directly and instead come from converting stellar masses through this empirical relation.
  • domain assumption K-band mass-to-light ratio with a Chabrier/Kroupa IMF
    Stellar masses are computed from Bell et al. 2003 calibrations.
  • ad hoc to paper Voronoi method extrapolates from Paper I simulations to observed steep-profile systems
    Paper I only tested one steep simulated system with 300 objects; the paper extrapolates the method's accuracy to massive systems with steep profiles.
  • domain assumption Red/blue GC separation by double-Gaussian fits is reliable
    The physical trend is driven by red GCs, so the color separation method from Harris 2023 is a prerequisite for the main conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Major Mergers Mean Major Offset: Drivers of Intrinsic Scatter in The $M_{GCS}-M_h$ Scaling Relation for Massive Elliptical Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2HBITBV

@misc{pith2026250524154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Major Mergers Mean Major Offset: Drivers of Intrinsic Scatter in The $M_GCS-M_h$ Scaling Relation for Massive Elliptical Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2HBITBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24154}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we determine the total globular cluster (GC) counts and globular cluster system (GCS) total mass estimates for 27 extremely massive elliptical galaxies. The GC 2D spatial distributions of these galaxies were created from photometry of HST images using DOLPHOT in the near-IR wavelength range. The projected radial density profiles of these GCSs were determined using a Voronoi tessellation-based technique introduced in our previous paper. We then plot these galaxies on the GCS - halo mass relation alongside previously studied galaxies in the literature. The relation now extends across seven decades of halo mass. We find that the 1:1 slope of this relation holds out to the highest mass galaxies, although extremely massive BCG galaxies are shifted to higher GCS masses than their lower-mass galaxy counterparts. We find a negative correlation with massive galaxies' offset from the GCS - halo mass relation and the steepness of their GCS density profiles, and that this is being driven by the red GC populations. We suggest that the biggest influence in intrinsic scatter in the GCS - halo mass relation for massive galaxies is through a few major mergers resulting in accretion of massive satellites with old, red GC populations, rather than many accretions of small satellites with younger, blue GC populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24154 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the spatial distributions and radial density profiles of ESO 325-G004 using both the annulus and Voronoi methods, before removal of any satellites. On the left it is difficult to identify the satellites and determine if they are affecting the fit to the data. On the right it is much more clear where the satellites are, how extended they are, and by how much they are driving up the average density at th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The red, blue and total GC density profiles for the 16 galaxies in this sample with colour information available, plotted in log-log space. The green vertical dashed lines represent the radius of the GCS and outer bound of integration for determining each galaxy’s NGC , defined here as 0.1Rvir. Each galaxy’s exact RGCS values can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MGCS − Mh relation plotted in log￾log space for the galaxies studied in this paper. The MGCS values calculated using an annulus method and published in Dornan & Harris (2023) are plotted in pur￾ple triangles and the updated values calculated using the Voronoi method de…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MGCS − Mh relation plotted in log-log space. Blue circles are Virgo catalog galaxies from Peng et al. (2008), orange triangles are low-mass local group galaxies, green crosses are galaxy clusters (not used for the fit), and red stars are the galaxies from this sample. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MGCS vs Mh in log-log space for this paper’s sample of massive galaxies. The linear fit deter￾mined from just this sample is represented by the dot￾ted line, and the linear fit determined from this sample, the Virgo sample, and the Local Group sample is rep￾resented by…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: All subfigures show the log(MGCS) offset from the MGCS −Mh relation derived from the massive galaxy sample as a function of slope of the galaxies’ total GC density profiles, with more negative numbers being steeper and more positive numbers being more shallow. Left: To…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Blakeslee, J

    Alamo-Mart ´ ınez, K. A., Blakeslee, J. P., Jee, M. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/20 2013

  2. [2]

    Beasley, M. A. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, ed. P. Kab´ ath, D. Jones, & M. Skarka, 245–277, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 9

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 2020

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, M. D. 2003, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 149, 289, doi: 10.1086/378847

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  4. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2241 —

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2241 —. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2241 2023

  5. [5]

    Wang, S. Y. 2024, ApJ, 972, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6147

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6147 2024

  6. [6]

    P., Tonry, J

    Blakeslee, J. P., Tonry, J. L., & Metzger, M. R. 1997, AJ, 114, 482, doi: 10.1086/118488

    doi:10.1086/118488 1997

  7. [7]

    A., Foster, C., Romanowsky, A

    Blom, C., Forbes, D. A., Foster, C., Romanowsky, A. J., & Brodie, J. P. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu095

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu095 2014

  8. [8]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 3120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2164

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2164

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2164 2017

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Burkert, A., & Forbes, D. A. 2020, AJ, 159, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2009, A&A, 507, 183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912255

    Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., & Mastrobuono-Battisti, A. 2009, A&A, 507, 183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912255

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen, Y., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1328

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Choksi, N., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2097

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Chow, G. C. 1960, Econometrica, 28, 591 Cˆ ot´ e, P., Marzke, R. O., & West, M. J. 1998, ApJ, 501, 554, doi: 10.1086/305838

    1960 doi

  6. [14]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    Dornan, V., & Harris, W. E. 2023, ApJ, 950, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbc3 —. 2024, AJ, 168, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5447

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Peng, E

    Durrell, P. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Peng, E. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/103

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Harris, W

    Eadie, G. M., Harris, W. E., & Springford, A. 2022, ApJ, 926, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33b0

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Choksi, N., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Weisz, D. R., Choksi, N., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3007

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    L., et al

    Ene, I., Ma, C.-P., Walsh, J. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7016

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Cortesi, A., Faifer, F

    Escudero, C. G., Cortesi, A., Faifer, F. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac021

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, A&A, 637, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037685

    Fahrion, K., Lyubenova, M., Hilker, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037685

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 689, A342, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348235

    Federle, S., G´ omez, M., Mieske, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A342, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348235

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Forbes, D. A. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L104, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx148 —. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa245

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Read, J

    Forbes, D. A., Read, J. I., Gieles, M., & Collins, M. L. M. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2584

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Forbes, D

    Gannon, J. S., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3297 20 Dornan & Harris

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1967, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16802.x

    Hilker, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1967, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16802.x

    2010

  19. [27]

    F., Jensen, J

    Goullaud, C. F., Jensen, J. B., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1f3

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Harris, W. E. 2023, ApJS, 265, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acab5c

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Blakeslee, J

    Harris, W. E., Blakeslee, J. P., & Harris, G. L. H. 2017, Astrophysical Journal, 836, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/67

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Harris, G

    Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L., & Hudson, M. J. 2015, ApJ, 806, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/36

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Harris, G

    Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., & Alessi, M. 2013, ApJ, 772, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/82

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    E., & Mulholland, C

    Harris, W. E., & Mulholland, C. J. 2017, ApJ, 839, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a59

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    E., & van den Bergh, S

    Harris, W. E., & van den Bergh, S. 1981, AJ, 86, 1627, doi: 10.1086/113047

    1981 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Morningstar, W., Gnedin, O

    Harris, W. E., Morningstar, W., Gnedin, O. Y., et al. 2014, Astrophysical Journal, 797, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/128

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Brown, R

    Harris, W. E., Brown, R. A., Durrell, P. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6992

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Blakeslee, J

    Hartman, K., Harris, W. E., Blakeslee, J. P., Ma, C.-P., & Greene, J. E. 2023, ApJ, 953, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace340

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Harris, G

    Hudson, M. J., Harris, G. L., & Harris, W. E. 2014, ApJL, 787, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L5

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    J., & Robison, B

    Hudson, M. J., & Robison, B. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty844

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Gillis, B

    Hudson, M. J., Gillis, B. R., Coupon, J., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2367

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Ferguson, A

    Huxor, A. P., Ferguson, A. M. N., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 770, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18450.x

    2011

  34. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04105

    Trujillo-Gomez, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04105

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1489

    Katz, H., & Ricotti, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1489

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace052

    Kluge, M., & Bender, R. 2023, ApJS, 267, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace052

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    V., Forbes, D

    Kluge, M., Remus, R.-S., Babyk, I. V., Forbes, D. A., & Dolfi, A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4852, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad882

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 50, doi: 10.33232/001c.120316

    Kravtsov, A., & Winney, S. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 50, doi: 10.33232/001c.120316

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06040, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06040

    Li, D., Eadie, G., Brown, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06040, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06040

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Li, H., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1114

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Lim, S., Peng, E. W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3444

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Levan, A

    Lyman, J. D., Levan, A. J., James, P. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw477

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Marvil, J. R. 2018, ApJ, 867, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae206

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, A&A, 691, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451273

    Mirabile, M., Cantiello, M., Lonare, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451273

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Li, H., Souza, S

    Moreno-Hilario, E., Martinez-Medina, L. A., Li, H., Souza, S. O., & P´ erez-Villegas, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3306

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Pfeffer, J., et al

    Newton, O., Davies, J. J., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04516, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04516

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx698

    Patel, E., Besla, G., & Mandel, K. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx698

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    E., & Cawson, M

    Davis, L. E., & Cawson, M. 1990, AJ, 100, 1091, doi: 10.1086/115582

    1990 doi

  49. [57]

    W., Jord´ an, A., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Peng, E. W., Jord´ an, A., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 197, doi: 10.1086/587951

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    W., Ferguson, H

    Peng, E. W., Ferguson, H. C., Goudfrooij, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/23 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A...

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    L., et al

    Reina-Campos, M., Trujillo-Gomez, S., Pfeffer, J. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 6368, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad920 21 S´ anchez-Janssen, R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4fd

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    R., & Forbes, D

    Spitler, L. R., & Forbes, D. A. 2009, MNRAS, 392, L1, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00567.x

    2009

  53. [61]

    Forbes, D. A. 2024, A&A, 687, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348010 van Dokkum, P., Li, D. D., Abraham, R., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 135, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad4be6

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    Casagrande, L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2330 Verˇ siˇ c, T., Rejkuba, M., Arnaboldi, M., et al

    Veale, M., Ma, C.-P., Thomas, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2330 Verˇ siˇ c, T., Rejkuba, M., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349097

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    W., et al

    Villegas, D., Jord´ an, A., Peng, E. W., et al. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 717, 603, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/603

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    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

Pith tools

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