Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

A Wide Field Map of Ultra-Compact Dwarfs in the Coma Cluster

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Coma's ultra-compact dwarf population exceeds the globular cluster luminosity function prediction, with at least 32 objects that cannot be explained as massive globular clusters.

desk verdict Useful new UCD catalog for Coma, but the bright-end excess and N_UCD>=32 are not yet supported because candidate purity is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02296 v2 pith:UX2OZ5UO submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.GA

Richard T. Pomeroy , Juan P. Madrid , Conor R. O'Neill , Alexander T. Gagliano This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-compactdwarfsglobularclustersComaclusterluminosityfunctionmass-metallicityrelationintraclusterstellarsystemsgalaxyHST/ACSsurvey
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

Using 26 Hubble/ACS pointings across the core of the Coma cluster, this paper builds a catalog of 23,351 compact stellar systems and isolates 523 ultra-compact dwarf (UCD) candidates by magnitude, color, and morphology. It argues that the bright end of the luminosity function holds many more UCDs than the extrapolated globular cluster luminosity function predicts, with an excess of at least $32\pm1$ objects above the $5\times10^7\,M_\odot$ formation limit and roughly $252\pm6$ of 384 UCDs above $10^7\,M_\odot$ that cannot be merely massive globular clusters. The same catalog shows UCDs are more centrally concentrated than globular clusters around NGC 4874, NGC 4889, and IC 4051, with only about 14% of UCDs in intracluster space compared with 24% of globular clusters, and red UCDs closer to galaxies than blue UCDs. If this interpretation holds, Coma provides strong evidence for a bimodal UCD formation scenario in which a substantial share of the brightest objects are stripped dwarf galaxy nuclei.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the comparison between the observed luminosity function and a Gaussian GCLF with fixed turnover $M_V=-7.4$ and fitted $\sigma=1.562\pm0.013$; the difference between the observed counts and the integrated Gaussian in the UCD magnitude range is the quantity from which the non-GC population is estimated. Supporting machinery includes the color-magnitude Gaussian mixture model fits that trace the blue tilt into the UCD regime, the Sersic radial-profile fits and the $8R_e$ threshold used to define intracluster objects, and the kernel-density and two-point correlation clustering estimates around the main galaxies. The catalog itself, built from 26 ACS pointings with visual inspection and photometric and morphological cuts, is the empirical foundation that makes the bright-end excess measurable.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey that obtains redshifts for all 523 UCD candidates would settle the matter: if the number of confirmed Coma members with $F814W<21$ does not significantly exceed the Gaussian prediction of $3.1\pm0.3$, the claimed excess evaporates. Alternatively, an independent measurement of the GCLF turnover and width from deep, complete imaging of a different Coma field, or from spectroscopically confirmed globular clusters alone, that reproduces the observed bright tail would falsify the bimodal interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the luminosity function of compact stellar systems in Coma departs from a single-Gaussian globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF) at the bright end. With the GCLF turnover fixed at $M_V=-7.4$, corresponding to $F814W\approx26.6$ at the adopted 100 Mpc distance, and the width fitted to the bright side of the same data ($\sigma=1.562\pm0.013$), the Gaussian predicts $187.4\pm7.3$ UCD candidates at $F814W<22.9$ where 523 are observed; the residual grows toward brighter magnitudes, reaching a prediction of $3.1\pm0.3$ at $F814W<21$ against 35 observed, at the threshold tied to the $5\times10^7\,M_\odot$ star-cluster formation limit. Treating the residual as a second population, the paper estimates $N_{\rm UCD}\gtrsim32\pm1$ UCDs formed through a non-GC channel, and about $252\pm6$ (66%) of UCDs above $10^7\,M_\odot$. The paper also maps where these objects live: UCDs are more centrally concentrated than GCs around NGC 4874, NGC 4889, and IC 4051, only about 14% (versus 24% for GCs) lie beyond $8R_e$ of the nearest host galaxy, and red UCDs cluster near galaxy centers while blue UCDs are more dispersed.

Load-bearing premise

The excess population of non-globular-cluster UCDs depends on assuming that Coma's globular cluster luminosity function is a single Gaussian with turnover $M_V=-7.4$ and width $\sigma=1.562$ fitted over $22.0<F814W<25.0$, and that this Gaussian remains valid when extrapolated to brighter UCD magnitudes; if the true GCLF is asymmetric, has a different turnover, or the bright-end completeness is below the assumed 90%, the predicted counts shift and the excess could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The bright UCD population in Coma is a composite: roughly 66% of UCDs above $10^7\,M_\odot$, and at least 32 objects above the $5\times10^7\,M_\odot$ formation limit, are not the high-mass tail of the globular cluster mass function.
  • Coma's core contains about $69{,}400\pm1{,}400$ compact stellar systems, providing a census against which models of globular cluster destruction and tidal stripping can be tested.
  • UCDs trace the gravitational influence of the three giant ellipticals more sharply than globular clusters do, and IC 4051 hosts a UCD population comparable to the two brightest cluster galaxies despite having fewer globular clusters.
  • The lower intracluster fraction of UCDs (about 14% versus 24% for globular clusters) implies UCDs either form close to their hosts or resist tidal scattering better than globular clusters.
  • The blue tilt continues into the UCD regime, connecting the mass-metallicity behavior of UCDs to the self-enrichment process seen in massive globular clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-GC UCDs are indeed stripped dwarf nuclei, many may retain central black holes, and the Coma sample then implies an abundant population of intermediate-mass black holes that future velocity-dispersion measurements could directly test.
  • The 14% intracluster fraction depends on the arbitrary $8R_e$ threshold; a membership definition based on escape speed or tidal radius could give a different value and should be checked before drawing strong conclusions about UCDs versus globular clusters as dark-matter tracers.
  • The same Gaussian-extrapolation test could be applied to other HST/ACS cluster surveys; the outcome will hinge on measuring the GCLF turnover independently rather than adopting $M_V=-7.4$, so a turnover measured from spectroscopy would sharpen or refute the excess.
  • Planned JWST NIRISS parallel observations of Coma in mid-2025 could spectroscopically confirm a subset of these candidates; if the confirmed members reproduce the bright excess, the bimodal formation scenario would move from photometric suggestion to an established population.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses 26 HST/ACS pointings to build a catalog of 23,351 compact stellar systems in the core of the Coma cluster, from which 523 UCD candidates are selected by magnitude (F814W < 22.9) and color (1.3 < F475W-F814W < 2.1). The authors analyze the color-magnitude diagram, the luminosity function, and the radial and color distribution of the candidates. Their central claims are that the UCD luminosity function shows a significant bright-end excess over a Gaussian globular cluster luminosity function, implying that at least N_UCD = 32 +/- 1 UCDs formed through a channel distinct from GC growth, and that the total CSS population in the surveyed region is N_CSS ~ 69,400 +/- 1,400. The paper also reports that UCDs are more centrally concentrated than GCs around the three dominant ellipticals, that IC 4051 hosts a substantial UCD population, and that only ~14% of UCDs are intracluster compared to ~24% of GCs.

Significance. If the bright-end excess and the derived N_UCD >= 32 are correct, the paper would provide strong evidence for multiple UCD formation pathways in a rich cluster, complementing similar results in Fornax and Virgo. The catalog itself is a valuable resource for studies of star cluster systems in Coma, and the wide-field map of UCD candidates, the radial profiles around NGC 4874, NGC 4889, and IC 4051, and the blue/red spatial segregation analysis are useful contributions regardless of the luminosity-function interpretation. The authors also demonstrate a blue tilt consistent with previous work and make a quantitative prediction for the total CSS population. However, the central claim is currently not robust because it rests on photometric candidates with no contamination budget, on a Gaussian fit whose 'predicted' counts are extrapolations from the same dataset, and on a bright magnitude bin that includes objects far brighter than the stated UCD definition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 2] The 'predicted' UCD counts are not independent predictions. The Gaussian is fitted over 22.0 < F814W < 25.0, which includes sources brighter than the F814W = 22.9 UCD threshold adopted in Section 2, so the fitted dispersion sigma = 1.562 +/- 0.013 is partly constrained by the very UCD population whose excess is later quantified. The excess values in Table 2 are therefore residuals of a self-fit. Please refit the Gaussian using only magnitudes fainter than the UCD cutoff (e.g., 22.9-25.0), or with a non-Gaussian or asymmetric GCLF model, and demonstrate that a statistically significant excess remains. In addition, propagate the uncertainties in both sigma and the fixed turnover (mu = 26.6 +/- 0.1) into the excess numbers, as the quoted errors in Table 2 do not appear to include these sources of uncertainty.
  2. [Section 2, Table 2] The 523 UCD candidates are photometric selections, and only five have spectroscopic confirmation (Section 2). No contamination budget is presented for foreground stars or background compact galaxies. This is load-bearing for the central claim because Table 2 derives the N_UCD >= 32 +/- 1 result from 35 objects with F814W < 21.0 (M_F814W < -14); even a small interloper fraction among those 35 objects would erase the claimed excess. Please provide a quantitative contamination estimate, for example from Galactic stellar population models, deep galaxy number counts, a control field, or the existing Keck spectroscopic sample, and show how the excess changes after removing the estimated contaminants.
  3. [Section 5.4, Table 7, Figure 9] The 'bright' UCD bin is defined as 16.0 < F814W < 21.75 mag. With the adopted distance modulus (m-M) = 35.0, the bright end of this bin corresponds to M_F814W ~ -19, more than 8 magnitudes brighter than the UCD definition M_V <= -11 used throughout the paper. Objects this bright cannot be genuine UCDs under the paper's own selection criteria. Either the magnitude range is mislabeled, or the sample contains a substantial number of foreground stars or background galaxies, which would also call into question the purity of the broader candidate list. This issue directly affects the claim that the brightest UCDs cluster around NGC 4889 (38% within 8Re) and the counts in Table 7, and it must be resolved before those results can be interpreted.
  4. [Section 4] The Gaussian fit range 22.0 < F814W < 25.0 is justified by the statement that completeness is 'estimated to be acceptable (i.e., ≳90%)', but no method or reference is given for this estimate. The amplitude of the fitted Gaussian and the integrated total N_CSS ~ 69,400 +/- 1,400 both depend on the completeness-corrected counts. Please either present a completeness function (e.g., from artificial star tests) or cite the specific section of Madrid et al. (2018) that establishes this value, and discuss how a lower completeness at the faint end of the fit range would change the fitted dispersion and the extrapolated bright-end predictions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 4] The inset shows 'sigma +/- 0.1' solutions, but the reported uncertainty of sigma is 0.013; please clarify whether the dashed lines show a plausible variation or the formal uncertainty, and whether the conclusion is insensitive to this range.
  2. [Section 4, Table 2] The mass estimates in column 2 are given without uncertainties, and the mapping to the Norris et al. (2019) star cluster formation limit depends on an assumed mass-to-light ratio of 3.25; please state the sensitivity of the inferred fractions (66%, N_UCD >= 32) to this assumption.
  3. [Section 5.3] The 8Re threshold for 'intracluster' objects is reasonable but arbitrary; Table 5 shows the fractions at other multiples, and the conclusions should explicitly note that the 14% versus 24% comparison depends on this chosen threshold.
  4. [Section 5.5, Figure 10] The blue-red split uses threshold colors 1.71 and 1.63 from the GMM intersections, but the figure caption for Figure 10 uses a single value (F475W-F814W) ≈ 1.71; please ensure the description is consistent and states that the threshold is magnitude-dependent as in the text.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4] The inequality for the number of distinct-origin UCDs appears as 'N_UCD >= 32' in the abstract and as 'N_UCD ≳ 32' in the text; please standardize the notation.
  6. [Section 2] The paper would benefit from a brief statement about the public availability of the CSS catalog, since a dataset of this size is a valuable community resource if released.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Table 2's 'predicted' counts for the brighter rows are residuals of a Gaussian fitted to the same data, but the headline N_UCD>=32 rests on the extrapolated F814W<21.0 bin and retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, text after Fig. 4 and Table 2]
    "To determine the excess over the Gaussian model fitted to the bright side of our data, we integrate the area under the curve to find the predicted numbers, and subtract this from the observed data in the same range."

    The Gaussian model used for the 'Pred' counts in Table 2 has its sigma (1.562 +/- 0.013) fitted with emcee to the same dataset over 22.0 < F814W < 25.0. For the first three rows of Table 2 (F814W < 22.9, < 22.7, < 22.0), the integration range overlaps the fitting range, so the observed counts being compared were themselves used to determine the model. The resulting 'excess' is therefore the residual of a self-fit rather than a prediction from independently calibrated parameters. The row that supports the central N_UCD >= 32 estimate (F814W < 21.0) lies outside the fitted range and is an extrapolation, so that claim is not forced by the self-fit, though it does inherit the Gaussian-shape assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, N_UCD >= 32 +/- 1, is derived from the F814W < 21.0 row of Table 2, where the observed count (35) is compared with a Gaussian extrapolation (3.1 +/- 0.3) from a model fitted at 22.0 < F814W < 25.0. That specific comparison is not circular: the target bin is outside the fitted range. However, the paper also presents the bright-end excess as a general result and uses the F814W < 22.7 row (inside the fitted range) to estimate that 66% of UCDs above 10^7 Msun formed through a distinct process; those 'Pred' counts are integrals of a curve fitted to the same data being compared, so they are self-fit residuals rather than independent predictions. The turnover magnitude is taken from external literature (M_V = -7.4), which provides an external anchor, and the catalog itself is observational data, not a derived claim. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-importation pattern is present. The circularity is limited to the presentation of fitted-model residuals as 'predictions' in part of Table 2; the headline number survives, but its model dependence and candidate-purity assumptions remain separate concerns.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a handful of fitted or hand-chosen parameters (GCLF sigma, magnitude and color cuts, blue-red split, 8Re threshold) and on standard domain assumptions about the distance to Coma, the GCLF shape, color transformations, and mass-to-light ratio. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • GCLF sigma = 1.562 +/- 0.013 mag
    Fitted with emcee to the bright side (22.0 < F814W < 25.0) of the same dataset; the 'predicted' UCD counts in Table 2 are integrals of this fitted Gaussian, so the excess depends on it.
  • UCD magnitude threshold = F814W < 22.9 mag
    Chosen to implement MV <= -11 using adopted distance modulus 35.0 mag and V-I = 1.1; defines the 523-candidate sample.
  • UCD color selection window = 1.3 < (F475W-F814W) < 2.1
    Chosen by hand to isolate UCD candidates from the CSS color-magnitude diagram.
  • Blue-red color split thresholds = 1.71 mag (bright UCDs) and 1.63 mag (dimmer UCDs)
    Derived from the intersection of the two Gaussians in the GMM fits of Table 1; all color-based results depend on this split.
  • Intracluster threshold 8Re = 8 x R_e
    Adopted as the definition of 'intracluster' in Section 5.3; the 14% versus 24% intracluster fractions are measured relative to this chosen threshold.
  • KDE bandwidth = 0.3
    Chosen for KDE smoothing in Section 5.1; affects the 2-PCF visualizations and the clustering comparison between galaxies.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Globular cluster luminosity function is a single Gaussian with turnover MV = -7.4
    Invoked in Section 4 to define the expected GC luminosity function; the excess counts are residuals from this model.
  • domain assumption Coma distance is 100 Mpc, (m-M) = 35.0 mag
    Adopted from Carter et al. 2008 in Section 1; converts absolute magnitude cuts to apparent F814W thresholds.
  • domain assumption V-I color offset of about 1.0 to 1.1 mag
    Used in Sections 2 and 4 to translate MV and the GCLF turnover into F814W; a different offset shifts all magnitude thresholds.
  • domain assumption Mass-to-light ratio of 3.25 for old, metal-poor Salpeter population
    Adopted from Maraston 1998 and 2005; used to convert luminosity thresholds to mass thresholds in Table 2.
  • domain assumption CSS color distribution is a mixture of two Gaussian components
    The GaussianMixture fits in Section 3 assume the red and blue sequences are each Gaussian; Table 1 reports these fits.
  • domain assumption Cluster membership defined by 0.015 < z < 0.032 and a visual catalog
    Section 5.2 restricts hosts to galaxies in this redshift range from a visual catalog; the intracluster fractions depend on this host list.
  • ad hoc to paper Objects outside 8Re are treated as intracluster
    Section 5.3 defines the intracluster threshold as 8Re; the 14% ICUCD versus 24% ICGC comparison is relative to this arbitrary radius.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Wide Field Map of Ultra-Compact Dwarfs in the Coma Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UX2OZ5UO

@misc{pith2026250602296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Wide Field Map of Ultra-Compact Dwarfs in the Coma Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UX2OZ5UO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02296}
}
abstract

A dataset of 23,351 globular clusters (GCs) and ultra-compact dwarfs (UCDs) in the Coma cluster of galaxies was built using Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys data. Based on the standard magnitude cut of $M_V \leq -11$, a total of 523 UCD candidates are found within this dataset of Compact Stellar Systems (CSS). From a color-magnitude diagram (CMD) analysis built using this catalog, we find a clear mass-magnitude relation extending marginally into the UCD parameter space. The luminosity function defined by this dataset, shows an excess of sources at bright magnitudes, suggesting a bimodal formation scenario for UCDs. We estimate the number of UCDs with a different origin than GC to be $N_{UCD} \geq 32 \pm 1$. We derive the total number of CSS within the core (1 Mpc) of Coma to be $N_{CSS} \approx 69,400 \pm 1400$. The radial distribution of UCDs in Coma shows that, like GCs, UCDs agglomerate around three giant ellipticals: NGC 4874, NGC 4889, and IC 4051. We find UCDs are more centrally concentrated around these three ellipticals than GCs. IC 4051 has a satellite population of UCDs similar to NGC 4874 and NGC 4889. We estimate only ~14% of UCDs, inhabit the intracluster space (ICUCD) between galaxies in the region, in comparison to ~24% for GCs (ICGC). We find red (metal-rich) UCDs are more likely located closer to a host galaxy, with blue (metal-poor) UCDs showing a greater dispersion and lower average density in the region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color–magnitude diagram (CMD) with magni￾tude (F814W) vs. color (F475W −F814W) for the data used in the bimodal sequence fits (see the text). The solid lines connect the mean points from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top) Binned mean colors in (F475W −F814W) for the blue (open circles) and red (open triangles) sequences, as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) solu￾tions for the (F475W − F814W) color distributions in four 1 mag bins in F814W as labeled. In each panel, the dashed lines show the Gaussian curves matching the blue and red sequences, while the solid lines show the sum of the two com￾ponents. The ratio χ 2 ν(bi)/χ2 ν(uni) < 1 indicates a bimodal Gaussian is a better fit to the data. obviously constant around an average value … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the luminosity function histogram of the dataset of globular clusters and UCDs in the F814W filter. Uncertainties on the histogram data are 1σ Pois￾son errors. The inset on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: for central region of Coma cluster. Units of Re are arcseconds. IC 4051 NGC 4889 NGC 4874 GC UCD GC UCD GC UCD Description n 2.16 6.00 1.26 6.00 0.99 0.90 S´ersic index Re 169.09 80.17 163.91 122.72 192.94 186.51 S´ersic effective radius Σe 0.0238 0.0037 0.0734 0.0023 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kernel density estimate (KDE normalized PDF) on y1-axis and projected 2-point correlation function (2-PCF) on y2-axis, showing the excess probability of CSS clustering compared to a random distribution. Galaxies within the central region of the Coma cluster hosting ≥ 1…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Location of the UCD candidates (blue dots) in the core of Coma. The radial extent of galaxies are shown with red circles to 8Re. Three main UCD overdensities are evident around the locations of the main cluster galaxies (IC 4051, NGC 4889 and NGC 4874). While there are…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison counts of GCs (grey dashed) and UCDs (green solid) against multiples of galaxy effective ra￾dius, Re. The vertical line indicates 8Re which relates to the wide-field map of UCDs (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial distribution of UCD candidates in our data, overlaid on a Coma cluster image, using magnitude splits from F814W data. Density contours are included. Top-left plot shows brightest ∼20 % of UCD candidate population (16.0 < F814W < 21.75 mag) and top-right plot sh…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spatial distribution of UCD candidates from our data, split into nominal red and blue bins by bimodal GMM intersection color for the UCD magnitude ranges from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radial color profile of UCDs about the three giant ellipticals. The color split used correlates with that shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912228

    Adami, C., Le Brun, V., Biviano, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912228

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912228 2009

  2. [2]

    K., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 297, doi: 10.1086/524984

    doi:10.1086/524984 2008

  3. [3]

    V., Chilingarian, I

    Afanasiev, A. V., Chilingarian, I. V., Mieske, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty913

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty913 2018

  4. [4]

    P., Seth, A

    Ahn, C. P., Seth, A. C., den Brok, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6972

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6972 2017

  5. [5]

    P., Seth, A

    Ahn, C. P., Seth, A. C., Cappellari, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc57 Alamo-Mart ´ ınez, K. A., & Blakeslee, J. P. 2017, ApJ, 849, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabc57 2018

  6. [6]

    Bailin, J., & Harris, W. E. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1082, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1082

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1082 2009

  7. [7]

    J., & Drinkwater, M

    Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., & Drinkwater, M. J. 2001, ApJL, 552, L105, doi: 10.1086/320339

    doi:10.1086/320339 2001

  8. [8]

    A., Beasley, M

    Bekki, K., Forbes, D. A., Beasley, M. A., & Couch, W. J. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 1176, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05708.x

    arXiv 2002

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    2006, A&A, 450, 105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054351

    Bica, E., Bonatto, C., Barbuy, B., & Ortolani, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054351

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    P., & Barber DeGraaff, R

    Blakeslee, J. P., & Barber DeGraaff, R. 2008, AJ, 136, 2295, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2295 Br¨ uns, R. C., & Kroupa, P. 2012, A&A, 547, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219693

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 424, doi: 10.1086/533439

    Carter, D., Goudfrooij, P., Mobasher, B., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 424, doi: 10.1086/533439

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Bassino, L

    Caso, J. P., Bassino, L. P., Richtler, T., Calder´ on, J. P., & Smith Castelli, A. V. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu876

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Marzke, R

    Chiboucas, K., Tully, R. B., Marzke, R. O., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/86

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    V., & Mamon, G

    Chilingarian, I. V., & Mamon, G. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, L83, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00438.x Da Rocha, C., Mieske, S., Georgiev, I. Y., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015353

    2008

  7. [15]

    E., Sales, L

    Doppel, J. E., Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3915

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Jones, J

    Drinkwater, M. J., Jones, J. B., Gregg, M. D., & Phillipps, S. 2000, PASA, 17, 227, doi: 10.1071/AS00034

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefbc

    Gomez, S., & Gezari, S. 2023, ApJ, 955, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefbc

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1187 Ha¸ segan, M., Jord´ an, A., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Goodman, M., & Bekki, K. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1187 Ha¸ segan, M., Jord´ an, A., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, 203, doi: 10.1086/430342

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Harris, W. E. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.002551 —. 2009, ApJ, 703, 939, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/939

    1991

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    E., Whitmore, B

    Harris, W. E., Whitmore, B. C., Karakla, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 90, doi: 10.1086/498058

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    Hau, G. K. T., Spitler, L. R., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, L97, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00618.x

    2009

  16. [24]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0605447

    Hilker, M. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0605447

    2006 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    1999, A&AS, 134, 75, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999434

    Richtler, T. 1999, A&AS, 134, 75, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999434

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 2439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x

    Hoyos, C., den Brok, M., Verdoes Kleijn, G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x

    2011

  19. [27]

    S., Blakeslee, J

    Jensen, J., Anand, G. S., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2024, The JWST SBF Coma Cluster Survey: Building an Alternative Precision Distance Ladder for Cosmology, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #5989 Jord´ an, A., McLaughlin, D. E., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2006, ApJL, 651, L25, doi: 10.1086/509119

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    K., & Ammon, K

    Jordi, K., Grebel, E. K., & Ammon, K. 2006, A&A, 460, 339, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066082

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    V., Khrapov, S

    Khoperskov, A. V., Khrapov, S. S., & Sirotin, D. S. 2023, Galaxies, 12, 1, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010001

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2006, A&A, 448, 1031, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054384

    Kissler-Patig, M., Jord´ an, A., & Bastian, N. 2006, A&A, 448, 1031, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054384

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2001, AJ, 121, 2974, doi: 10.1086/321081

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Bae, J

    Lee, M. G., Bae, J. H., & Jang, I. S. 2022, ApJL, 940, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac990b

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Lim, S., Peng, E. W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 966, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3444 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17049, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17049

    doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Liu, C., Peng, E. W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/34

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    W., et al

    Liu, C., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Peng, E. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abad91

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Madrid, J. P. 2011, ApJL, 737, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L13

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    P., & Donzelli, C

    Madrid, J. P., & Donzelli, C. J. 2013, ApJ, 770, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/158

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Hurley, J

    Madrid, J. P., Hurley, J. R., & Sippel, A. C. 2012, ApJ, 756, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/167

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Leigh, N

    Madrid, J. P., Leigh, N. W. C., Hurley, J. R., & Giersz, M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1350

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    P., O’Neill, C

    Madrid, J. P., O’Neill, C. R., Gagliano, A. T., & Marvil, J. R. 2018, ApJ, 867, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae206 19

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Graham, A

    Madrid, J. P., Graham, A. W., Harris, W. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1707, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1707

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    H., Haghi, H., et al

    Mahani, H., Zonoozi, A. H., Haghi, H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab330

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    1998, MNRAS, 300, 872, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01947.x —

    Maraston, C. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 872, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01947.x —. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    1998

  36. [44]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/136

    Marinova, I., Jogee, S., Weinzirl, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/136

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2002, A&A, 383, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011833

    Mieske, S., Hilker, M., & Infante, L. 2002, A&A, 383, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011833

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, AJ, 131, 2442, doi: 10.1086/500583

    Mieske, S., Hilker, M., Infante, L., & Jord´ an, A. 2006, AJ, 131, 2442, doi: 10.1086/500583

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    2007, A&A, 472, 111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077631

    Kissler-Patig, M. 2007, A&A, 472, 111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077631

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    2012, A&A, 537, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117634

    Mieske, S., Hilker, M., & Misgeld, I. 2012, A&A, 537, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117634

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    2004, AJ, 128, 1529, doi: 10.1086/423701

    Mieske, S., Infante, L., Ben ´ ıtez, N., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1529, doi: 10.1086/423701

    2004 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Escudero, C

    Norris, M. A., Escudero, C. G., Faifer, F. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1221

    2015 doi

  43. [52]

    A., & Kannappan, S

    Norris, M. A., & Kannappan, S. J. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 739, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18440.x

    2011

  44. [53]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2096

    Schinnerer, E., & Leaman, R. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2096

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    A., Kannappan, S

    Norris, M. A., Kannappan, S. J., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1186

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f

    Pechetti, R., Seth, A., Kamann, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    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

  48. [57]

    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

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt867

    Pfeffer, J., & Baumgardt, H. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt867

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    Pfeffer, J., Hilker, M., Baumgardt, H., & Griffen, B. F. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw498

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    T., & Norris, M

    Pomeroy, R. T., & Norris, M. A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae960

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 1816, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15122.x

    Price, J., Phillipps, S., Huxor, A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1816, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15122.x

    2009

  53. [62]

    L., et al

    Reina-Campos, M., Trujillo-Gomez, S., Pfeffer, J. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 6368, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad920

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    F., et al

    Saifollahi, T., Janz, J., Peletier, R. F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3580, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1118 S´ ersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Observatorio Astronomico, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba)

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    C., van den Bosch, R., Mieske, S., et al

    Seth, A. C., van den Bosch, R., Mieske, S., et al. 2014, Nature, 513, 398, doi: 10.1038/nature13762

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    R., Larsen, S

    Spitler, L. R., Larsen, S. S., Strader, J., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1593, doi: 10.1086/507328

    2006 doi

  57. [66]

    P., Spitler, L., & Beasley, M

    Strader, J., Brodie, J. P., Spitler, L., & Beasley, M. A. 2006, AJ, 132, 2333, doi: 10.1086/509124

    2006 doi

  58. [67]

    C., Forbes, D

    Strader, J., Seth, A. C., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2013, ApJL, 775, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L6

    2013 doi

  59. [68]

    L., Madau, P., Bortolas, E., et al

    Tang, V. L., Madau, P., Bortolas, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1dd9

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Drinkwater, M

    Thomas, P. A., Drinkwater, M. J., & Evstigneeva, E. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 102, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13543.x

    2008

  61. [70]

    T., Seth, A

    Voggel, K. T., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabae5

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    W., Liu, C., et al

    Wang, K., Peng, E. W., Liu, C., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 296, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06650-z

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 3083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu731

    Weinzirl, T., Jogee, S., Neistein, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu731

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    Grebel, E. K. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw827

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    C., & Harris, W

    Woodworth, S. C., & Harris, W. E. 2000, AJ, 119, 2699, doi: 10.1086/301400

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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