Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 63 references

Candidate Dark Galaxy-2: Validation and Analysis of an Almost Dark Galaxy in the Perseus Cluster

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First galaxy found purely through its globular clusters.

desk verdict Likely a real galaxy, but the paper's central claim of diffuse light lacks a quantitative significance, so the physical numbers are provisional until that is nailed down. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15644 v1 pith:L3LZODTR submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.GA stat.AP

Dayi Li , Qing Liu , Gwendolyn Eadie , Roberto Abraham , Francine Marleau , William Harris , Pieter van Dokkum , Aaron Romanowsky
show 3 more authors
Shany Danieli Patrick Brown Alex Stringer
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAstat.AP
keywords darkgalaxiesglobularclustersultra-diffuselowsurfacebrightnessPerseusclusterHubbleSpaceTelescopeEuclidsurveyluminosityfunction
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

Candidate Dark Galaxy-2 (CDG-2) is a tight grouping of four globular clusters in the Perseus cluster with no previously visible galaxy light around them. This paper reports extremely faint diffuse emission around the four clusters in both stacked Hubble Space Telescope images and Euclid survey images, with matching morphology in the two independent data sets. If that diffuse light is real, CDG-2 is a genuine galaxy and the first one ever discovered purely through its globular cluster population. The authors estimate the galaxy's total V-band luminosity at about $L_{V,\mathrm{gal}} = 6.2 \pm 3.0 \times 10^6\,L_\odot$, with at least 16.6% of its light coming from the globular clusters themselves, and, under standard scalings between globular cluster counts and halo mass, a dark matter fraction between 99.94% and 99.99%.

What carries the argument

The detection pipeline is a trans-dimensional Markov chain Monte Carlo point-process model that treats globular cluster positions as three overlapping point processes (intergalactic medium, bright galaxies, and UDG/dark galaxies) and outputs a posterior probability map for the location of UDG/dark galaxy centers; the diffuse-light validation proceeds by iterative PSF photometry of the four clusters, Gaussian smoothing of the cluster-subtracted image, and elliptical isophote fitting on both stacked HST and Euclid data. The globular-cluster-to-halo mass scalings, specifically $M_{\mathrm{GC}}/M_h \approx 2.9 \times 10^{-5}$ from Harris et al. (2017) and $M_h \approx 5 \times 10^9 N_{\mathrm{GC}} \, M_\odot$ from Burkert & Forbes (2020), convert the four detected clusters into a dark matter halo mass estimate, yielding the 99.94% to 99.99% dark matter fraction.

What would settle it

A targeted observation that would settle the claim: acquire deep, higher-resolution imaging or spectroscopy that can separate the diffuse component from the globular clusters' point-spread-function wings; for example, JWST/NIRCam imaging where the PSF is much narrower, or a spectrum of the diffuse light showing stellar absorption lines. If the diffuse signal disappears once accurate PSF wings are modeled, or if the detected light is shown to be an artifact of background subtraction, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that CDG-2 is a galaxy. The four globular clusters, spanning roughly 1.2 kpc, are not a chance clumping of intergalactic globular clusters: a Bayesian point-process analysis puts the chance probability at about $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$, and the stacked HST and Euclid images both show diffuse emission with the same morphology around the clusters. The measured mean surface brightness is about 27 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in the Euclid band, and after subtracting the cluster point-spread functions and fitting elliptical isophotes, the residual diffuse light yields a total luminosity of $L_{V,\mathrm{gal}} = 6.2 \pm 3.0 \times 10^6\,L_\odot$. The authors present this as the first detection of a galaxy that was found through its globular cluster population alone, and they argue that the concordance of two independent data sets, together with the extremely low chance probability of the clustering, justifies calling CDG-2 an almost dark galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The diffuse emission at about 27 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ around the four globular clusters is real galaxy light rather than residual flux from the clusters' point-spread functions or a systematic error in the local background subtraction used before isophote fitting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CDG-2 is one of the faintest galaxies known to host globular clusters, with one of the highest globular-cluster light fractions ever measured (at least 16.6%, and likely ~33% if a canonical globular cluster luminosity function is assumed).
  • If CDG-2 has a canonical GC luminosity function, its dark matter halo mass fraction rises to ≳99.99%, making it potentially the most dark-matter-dominated galaxy known.
  • The existence of CDG-2 supports formation scenarios in which most star formation occurred in dense, massive clusters that later became globular clusters, with little diffuse star formation in the field.
  • The confirmation of CDG-2 makes CDG-1, a similar globular cluster clump with no detected diffuse emission, a plausible even-more-extreme twin; if CDG-1 is a real galaxy, it could be the first object with essentially no field stars around its globular clusters.
  • These objects provide testbeds for dark matter models, such as fuzzy or axionic dark matter, through the presence of compact dark matter halos that can host such extreme systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The close coupling between the inferred GC light fraction and the assumed distance (Figure 4) suggests that a single radial-velocity measurement of one of the four globular clusters would sharpen the halo mass estimate dramatically; this is a concrete next step, though the paper does not spell it out as a prioritized observation.
  • The same stacking-and-isophote validation strategy used here could be applied to the other globular cluster overdensities already found in Perseus, notably CDG-1, to determine whether almost dark galaxies are a population rather than a single anomaly.
  • If the diffuse emission in CDG-2 is confirmed spectroscopically, the GC-overdensity search method becomes a general tool for finding galaxies that are invisible in conventional surface-brightness surveys, potentially enlarging the census of extreme dark-matter-dominated dwarfs in Euclid data.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the discovery and validation of Candidate Dark Galaxy-2 (CDG-2), a compact grouping of four globular cluster (GC) candidates in the Perseus cluster, originally found in Li et al. (2025a) using a statistical spatial-clustering analysis of GCs. The authors stack two HST/ACS images and use Euclid Early Release Observations to claim the detection of extremely faint diffuse emission (~27 mag/arcsec^2) surrounding the four GCs. They present a combined PSF-photometry and elliptical-isophote model to estimate the diffuse light, apply a mock-galaxy injection correction for flux outside the fitted isophotes, and cross-check the GC light fraction with Subaru and CFHT data. Under the assumption that the four GCs are the complete GC population, they derive a total V-band luminosity of (6.2±3.0)×10^6 L_sun and a GC light fraction of at least 16.6%; assuming a canonical GCLF raises the fraction to ~33%. They conclude that CDG-2 is the first galaxy discovered purely through its GC population and one of the most dark-matter-dominated galaxies known.

Significance. If the diffuse-emission detection holds up, this is an important result: CDG-2 would be the first galaxy confirmed through its GC population alone, and its extreme GC-to-total light ratio (16.6% or higher) would provide a strong constraint on galaxy formation scenarios in which most star formation occurs in massive, dense clusters. The statistical detection of the GC clump is well quantified (posterior/prior ~2000; chance probability ~1.5×10^-5), and the independent confirmation in Euclid data is a notable strength. The paper also benefits from a transparent description of its assumptions and from the mock-injection test in Appendix A. However, the central claim—the detection of diffuse emission—currently lacks a quantitative significance assessment, and the isophote-fitting procedure is not specified in enough detail to rule out systematic artifacts. These gaps undermine the 'exceptionally strong evidence' for a galaxy until addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 3(b)] The diffuse-emission detection is asserted as 'significant' but no signal-to-noise ratio or detection significance is reported. The quoted uncertainty M_iso = -12.3 ± 0.62 mag is the dispersion of the isophote model over 100 iterations of the same fitting pipeline, not a comparison with the local noise or with a blank-sky control. Please provide: (i) the S/N of the diffuse component in both the stacked HST and Euclid images; (ii) the residual noise statistics after background subtraction; and (iii) a control experiment (e.g., running the same PSF+isophote fit at random 'empty' positions, or injecting only the four GCs without diffuse light) to show that PSF-wing residuals and background-subtraction systematics cannot produce the detected flux.
  2. [Section 5] The background subtraction and isophote-fitting parameters are under-specified. The text mentions a 'SExtractor-like local background estimator' and a 6'' aperture for masking CDG-2 but does not give the background mesh size, the box size, or the criteria used to 'reject unrealistic results' when isophote centers are allowed to float. These choices directly affect the measured diffuse flux at ~27 mag/arcsec^2, which is close to the sky-noise limit. Please specify all parameters (including Gaussian smoothing scale in physical units) and demonstrate stability of the diffuse flux and GC light fraction to reasonable variations in the background scale and isophote constraints.
  3. [Section 5] The Subaru and CFHT cross-checks are described as supporting the 'quite robust' GC light-fraction estimate, but the manuscript provides no uncertainties or procedural details for these data, reporting only '~18%' and '~22%'. Without error bars or a description of the fitting procedure (or a reference to a companion paper), these numbers cannot be used to validate the Euclid-based result. Please either present the full analysis or temper the robustness claim.
  4. [Section 6.1, Figure 4] The argument that d_CDG-2 ≳35 Mpc is based on the claim that a bottom-heavy GCLF is 'rather unlikely' and 'has never been found before.' This uses the observed GC magnitude distribution to constrain the distance under an assumed GCLF, while the paper's own Section 6.3 acknowledges that dwarf-regime galaxies and UDGs may have non-canonical GCLFs. Please clarify that this distance constraint is conditional on the canonical-GCLF assumption and does not independently support the GCLF-corrected ratios.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 2] The text 'the the final measurements' contains a duplicated article; please fix.
  2. [Section 4] The chance probability of 1.5×10^-5 is quoted without explaining how it is computed from the posterior background counts; a more explicit description or reference would help.
  3. [Section 5] The filter transformation M_IE = M_V - 0.5 mag is given without a citation or SED assumption; please provide the reference and justify the offset.
  4. [Figure 3(b), right panel] Please define what the 'Model' and 'Data' curves represent and specify the aperture used for the radial profiles.
  5. [Table 1] The half-light radii for CDG-2-GCC3 and GCC4 are listed as ≲2 pc; please provide upper limits with proper uncertainty notation or a note clarifying the measurement.
  6. [Section 6.2] The specific frequency S_N = 345^{+323.1}_{-112.5} is reported without explanation of how the asymmetric uncertainties are derived; please clarify.
  7. [Software section] The list of software includes 'photoutils', which should be 'photutils'.
  8. [Acknowledgments] The informal sentence thanking J. Li for 'making sure that his eyes were not playing ticks on him' is out of place in a journal article; consider rewording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the diffuse-emission validation rests on independent Euclid data and external scaling relations; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central new claim is the detection of extremely faint diffuse emission around the four GCs of CDG-2. That detection is not a reduction to the input catalog or to the self-cited detection method: it is made in stacked HST images and independently in Euclid ERO data with matched morphology, which is an external benchmark. The GC-overdensity calculation uses the authors' published point-process model (Li et al. 2025a) and the new DOLPHOT catalog (Li et al. 2025b), but these establish only the prior target; they do not by construction produce the measured diffuse flux or its morphology. The quoted physical quantities (L_V,gal, GC light fraction, dark matter fraction) come from measured GC photometry, isophote fitting, a mock-injection recovery correction, and external mass-to-light and GC-to-halo relations; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The mock galaxy injection does reproduce the observed surface brightness profile, but it is used as a calibration of light loss in isophote fitting, not as evidence that the diffuse emission exists. The lack of an explicit signal-to-noise ratio or blank-sky control for the diffuse detection is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity. The self-citations in the detection chain are non-load-bearing for the verification step, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim that CDG-2 is an almost dark galaxy rests on the assumed distance, the interpretation of the four point sources as GCs, the applicability of a canonical GCLF, and the validity of GC-to-halo mass relations from other galaxies. The mock injection parameters are the only free choices made in this paper, and they affect only the flux correction.

free parameters (1)
  • Mock galaxy injection parameters = M*=10^7.4 Msun, [Fe/H]=-1, age=9 Gyr, n=0.5, eps=0.05, R_eff=1.5 kpc
    Chosen to reproduce CDG-2's light distribution in the Appendix A injection test; used to derive the 86% flux correction for light outside the isophote range. The authors state these are not meant to represent real properties of CDG-2.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Distance to CDG-2 is 75 Mpc (Perseus cluster distance)
    Adopted from Harris et al. (2020); used for all luminosities and mass estimates. If wrong, physical quantities change (Section 6.1).
  • domain assumption The four point sources are genuine globular clusters
    Based on magnitudes, colors, and half-light radii (Table 1); if they are foreground stars or background galaxies, the detection signal changes.
  • domain assumption Canonical GCLF (M_TO=26.3 mag, sigma=1.1) applies for GCLF-corrected estimates
    Assumed in Section 6.1 to estimate the unobserved faint GC population; the authors note real GCLF scatter among dwarfs.
  • domain assumption Mass-to-light ratios M/L_V = 2 (field) and 1.6 (GCs)
    Taken from Danieli et al. (2022) in Section 6.1 to convert light to stellar mass.
  • domain assumption GC-to-halo mass relations (Harris et al. 2017; Burkert & Forbes 2020) apply to CDG-2
    Used in Section 6.2 to infer dark matter halo mass; the authors caution these relations are extrapolations.
  • domain assumption Statistical detection model (Li et al. 2025a) correctly models GC point processes
    The posterior probabilities and chance estimate (1.5e-5) depend on the model's description of IGM, galaxy, and UDG GC distributions.
  • domain assumption Isophote fitting and PSF photometry correctly separate GC and diffuse light
    The final f_L,GC estimate depends on this separation; the paper uses an iterative approach and mock injection to mitigate systematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Candidate Dark Galaxy-2: Validation and Analysis of an Almost Dark Galaxy in the Perseus Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3LZODTR

@misc{pith2026250615644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Candidate Dark Galaxy-2: Validation and Analysis of an Almost Dark Galaxy in the Perseus Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3LZODTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15644}
}
abstract

Candidate Dark Galaxy-2 (CDG-2) is a potential dark galaxy consisting of four globular clusters (GCs) in the Perseus cluster, first identified in Li et al. (2025) through a sophisticated statistical method. The method searched for over-densities of GCs from a \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} (\textit{HST}) survey targeting Perseus. Using the same \textit{HST} images and the new imaging data from the \textit{Euclid} survey, we report the detection of extremely faint but significant diffuse emission around the four GCs of CDG-2. We thus have exceptionally strong evidence that CDG-2 is a galaxy. This is the first galaxy detected purely through its GC population. Under the conservative assumption that the four GCs make up the entire GC population, preliminary analysis shows that CDG-2 has a total luminosity of $L_{V, \mathrm{gal}}= 6.2\pm{3.0} \times 10^6 L_{\odot}$ and a minimum GC luminosity of $L_{V, \mathrm{GC}}= 1.03\pm{0.2}\times 10^6 L_{\odot}$. Our results indicate that CDG-2 is one of the faintest galaxies having associated GCs, while at least $\sim 16.6\%$ of its light is contained in its GC population. This ratio is likely to be much higher ($\sim 33\%$) if CDG-2 has a canonical GC luminosity function (GCLF). In addition, if the previously observed GC-to-halo mass relations apply to CDG-2, it would have a minimum dark matter halo mass fraction of $99.94\%$ to $99.98\%$. If it has a canonical GCLF, then the dark matter halo mass fraction is $\gtrsim 99.99\%$. Therefore, CDG-2 may be the most GC dominated galaxy and potentially one of the most dark matter dominated galaxies ever discovered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial distributions of GC candidates in the F814W images V12-ACS (left) and V14-ACS (right). Red circles are GC candidates from DOLPHOT while blue diamonds are from DAOPHOT. The GC candidates that constitute CDG-2 from the two images are enlarged and annotated on the side. took this into account, as it did with the previous study of Harris et al. (2020). Additionally, the faint limit of the DOLPHOT GC catalog was … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scaled posterior probability (posterior/prior probability) of the potential locations of UDGs/dark galaxies in the images V12-ACS (left) and V14-ACS (right) obtained using the detection method in Li et al. (2025a) based on the DOLPHOT GC data (Harris et al. 2020). Purple circles are the locations of CDG-2 in both images. Grey points are the locations of GC candidates. The four GC candidates in CDG-2 span a diameter … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Cutout images for CDG-2 obtained from binning IE-band (VIS) data from Euclid (left); stacked and smoothed F814W images from V12-ACS and V14-ACS images from the PIPER HST survey (middle); VIS, Y, and H band combined color image from Euclid (right). Blue circles indicate the four GCs in CDG-2 while the orange dashed circle roughly outlines the region occupied by the diffuse emission in CDG-2. The diffuse emission … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GCLF-corrected GC stellar light (fL,GC) and mass (fM,GC) ratios as a function of distance to CDG-2. The ratios here are corrected for potentially unobserved faint GCs by assuming a canonical GCLF adjusted for possible distance to CDG-2. For example, if the true distanc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Galaxy total luminosity (MV ) as a function of GC system total luminosity (MV,GC) for various galaxies: Harris Normal Galaxies (Harris et al. 2013); Coma UDGs (Peng & Lim 2016; van Dokkum et al. 2017; Lim et al. 2018); Virgo UDGs (Lim et al. 2020); NGC 5846-UDG1 (Danie…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Injection test on the Euclid data with a mock UDG. Purple dashed circle indicates the isophote range of the injected mock UDG; Orange dashed circle indicates the isophote fitting range of CDG-2. Left: original Euclid data. Middle left: data with injected mock UDG. Midd…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., & van Dokkum, P

    Abraham, R. G., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2014, PASP, 126, 55, doi: 10.1086/674875

    doi:10.1086/674875 2014

  2. [2]

    C., Monachesi, A., Agnello, A., & White, S

    Amorisco, N. C., Monachesi, A., Agnello, A., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty116 2018

  3. [3]

    A., Romanowsky, A

    Beasley, M. A., Romanowsky, A. J., Pota, V., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 819, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l20 2016

  4. [4]

    Blakeslee, J. P. 1997, ApJL, 481, L59, doi: 10.1086/310653

    doi:10.1086/310653 1997

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb242

    Burkert, A. 2020, ApJ, 904, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb242

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb242 2020

  6. [6]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e 2020

  7. [7]

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 V alidation of an Almost Dark Galaxy13 Data Mock Injected Model 10 1 100 101 Radius [arcsec] 26 28 30 32Surface Brightness [mag/arcsec2] Mock (Model) Mock (Injected) Data (GC masked) Figure 6.Injection test on the Euclid data with a mock UDG. Purple dashed circl...

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  8. [8]

    C., Bertin, E., Bolzonella, M., et al

    Cuillandre, J. C., Bertin, E., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2024, Submitted to A&A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13496

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14f3

    Danieli, S., & van Dokkum, P. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14f3

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8dc4

    Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8dc4

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJL, 927, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac590a

    Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., Trujillo-Gomez, S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac590a

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

  5. [13]

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

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJSS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJSS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Jones, M

    Fielder, C. E., Jones, M. G., Sand, D. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 954, L39

    2023

  8. [16]

    A., Alabi, A., Romanowsky, A

    Forbes, D. A., Alabi, A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., & Arimoto, N. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 487, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAA180

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Buzzo, M

    Forbes, D. A., Buzzo, M. L., Ferre-Mateu, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 536, 1217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2675

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Dullo, B

    Forbes, D. A., Dullo, B. T., Gannon, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1111

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    A., & Gannon, J

    Forbes, D. A., & Gannon, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 608

    2024

  12. [20]

    A., Gannon, J., Couch, W

    Forbes, D. A., Gannon, J., Couch, W. J., et al. 2019, AAP, 626, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935499

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Gannon, J., Couch, W

    Forbes, D. A., Gannon, J., Couch, W. J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A66

    2019

  14. [22]

    A., Gannon, J

    Forbes, D. A., Gannon, J. S., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 500, 1279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3289

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Ferré-Mateu, A., Forbes, D

    Gannon, J. S., Ferré-Mateu, A., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1287

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    P., & Danieli, S

    Greco, J. P., & Danieli, S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 26

    2022

  17. [25]

    A., Gannon, J

    Haacke, L., Forbes, D. A., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf559

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Blakeslee, J

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

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    2000, Phys

    Hu, W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158, doi: 10.1103/PHYSREVLETT.85.1158

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E

    Hui, L., Ostriker, J. P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 043541, doi: 10.1103/PHYSREVD.95.043541

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJ, 887, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab536c

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Romanowsky, A

    Janssens, S. R., Romanowsky, A. J., Abraham, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 858871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2717

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Forbes, D

    Janssens, S. R., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 783, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2137 Jord´ an, A., McLaughlin, D. E., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 101, doi: 10.1086/516840

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 531608, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  29. [37]

    Larsen, S. S. 1999, A&AS, 139, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999509 14Li et al

    1999 doi

  30. [38]

    Abraham, R. G. 2025a, The Annals of Applied Statistics, 19, 261 , doi: 10.1214/24-AOAS1958

    doi

  31. [39]

    M., Brown, P

    Li, D., Eadie, G. M., Brown, P. E., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 984, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc71f

    doi

  32. [40]

    D., Eadie, G

    Li, D. D., Eadie, G. M., Abraham, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AC7B22

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Lim, S., Peng, E. W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/AACB81

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    W., et al

    Lim, S., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Peng, E. W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ABA433

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Cuillandre, J

    Marleau, F. R., Cuillandre, J. C., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, Submitted to A&A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13502

    2024

  36. [44]

    2021, A&A, 654, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141432 Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., L¨ asker, R., Sharina, M., et al

    Marleau, Francine R., Habas, Rebecca, Poulain, M´ elina, et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141432 Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., L¨ asker, R., Sharina, M., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/96

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Durrell, P

    Mihos, J. C., Durrell, P. R., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2015, ApJL, 809, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L21

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    W., & Lotz, J

    Miller, B. W., & Lotz, J. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1074, doi: 10.1086/522323

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx063

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Stetson, P

    Monelli, M., Hidalgo, S. L., Stetson, P. B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1225, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1225

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Marleau, F

    Mueller, O., Durrell, P. R., Marleau, F. R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 9 M¨ uller, Oliver, Fahrion, Katja, Rejkuba, Marina, et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039359

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Okamoto, S., Arimoto, N., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44a7

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    W., & Lim, S

    Peng, E. W., & Lim, S. 2016, ApJL, 822, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L31

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    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 Rom´ an, J., Beasley, M. A., Ruiz-Lara, T., & Valls-Gabaud, D. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz835 Rom´ an, Javier, Castilla, Aida, & Pascual-Granado, Javier. 2021, A&A, 656, ...

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, A&A

    Saifollahi, T., Voggel, K., Lanon, A., et al. 2024, A&A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13500

    2024

  46. [54]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd29

    Shen, Z., van Dokkum, P., & Danieli, S. 2021, ApJ, 909, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd29

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Gannon, J

    Tang, Y., Romanowsky, A. J., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2025, Accepted to ApJ, arXiv:2501.10665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10665

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    V., Lim, S., et al

    Toloba, E., Sales, L. V., Lim, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd336

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1895 van Dokkum, P., Li, D

    Reina-Campos, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1895 van Dokkum, P., Li, D. D., Abraham, R., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 135, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad4be6 van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., Brodie, J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-820...

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    W., et al

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

    2010 doi

  52. [60]

    G., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Walker, M. G., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2011, ApJ, 742, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/20

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    J., et al

    Wasserman, A., van Dokkum, P., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3eb9

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    A., et al

    Wittmann, C., Lisker, T., Tilahun, L. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1229

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 11, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/11

    Yagi, M., Koda, J., Komiyama, Y., & Yamanoi, H. 2016, ApJS, 225, 11, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/11

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.