Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 97 references

A Comprehensive Look at PUDG-R21: Stellar Population and Kinematics of a Globular Cluster-Rich Ultra-Diffuse Galaxy in the Perseus Cluster

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 KCWI spectroscopy of ultra-diffuse galaxy PUDG-R21 shows a 19.4 km/s velocity dispersion fitting a cored dark matter halo, while its old stellar population brands it a classical dwarf, not a failed galaxy.

desk verdict Careful single-object study with honest caveats, but the cored-halo claim is more dependent on the GC–halo scaling relation than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05679 v1 pith:OSJTG2AK submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.GA

Arsen Levitskiy , Duncan A. Forbes , Jonah S. Gannon , Anna Ferré-Mateu , Aaron J. Romanowsky , Jean P. Brodie , Warrick J. Couch , Lydia Haacke This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxiesglobularclustersstellarkinematicspopulationsdarkmatterhalocoresdwarfPerseusclusterintegralfieldspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to establish what kind of galaxy PUDG-R21 is: one of the most globular-cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxies known, and whether it belongs to the "failed galaxy" class or to the ordinary dwarf population. From Keck/KCWI spectroscopy the authors measure a stellar velocity dispersion of $\sigma_e = 19.4 \pm 3.5$ km s$^{-1}$ within one effective radius, which gives a dynamical mass of $M_{\mathrm{dyn}} = 9.3 \pm 3.3 \times 10^8$ M$_\odot$ inside the three-dimensional half-light radius. Placing that single mass point on dark matter halo models scaled to a globular-cluster-based halo mass of $1.8 \times 10^{11}$ M$_\odot$, they find the galaxy is consistent with a cored dark matter profile rather than a cuspy NFW one. The stars are old (mass-weighted age $10.4 \pm 1.2$ Gyr), of intermediate-low metallicity ($[M/H] = -0.64 \pm 0.12$ dex), $\alpha$-enhanced, and flat in age and metallicity out to one effective radius, with mild rotation. The authors conclude that R21 assembled its stars rapidly and early through at least two star formation episodes, making it an extension of the classical dwarf population rather than a failed galaxy.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through three connected tools. The Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator, $M_{\mathrm{dyn}} = 930\,(\sigma_e^2/\mathrm{km^2\,s^{-2}})\,(R_{e,\mathrm{circ}}/\mathrm{pc})$ M$_\odot$, converts the measured velocity dispersion into a dynamical mass at the three-dimensional half-light radius $r_{1/2} = 2.66$ kpc. The Burkert & Forbes (2020) globular-cluster-count to halo-mass relation, calibrated as one globular cluster per $5 \times 10^9$ M$_\odot$ of dark matter, turns the $36 \pm 8$ cluster candidates into a virial halo mass of $1.8 \times 10^{11}$ M$_\odot$. The decisive comparison plots the measured dynamical-mass point against a cuspy NFW profile and a cored coreNFW profile from Read et al. (2016), with the core radius set to $2.75$ times the observed half-light radius; the measurement sits on the cored profile, and the same conclusion holds under the lower $7.5 \times 10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ stellar-mass-halo-mass expectation. Stellar population parameters come from pPXF full-spectral fitting with E-MILES templates, and $\alpha$ enhancement from three line-index approaches.

What would settle it

Measure radial velocities of a dozen or more of R21's globular clusters, or obtain a stellar velocity dispersion profile at several radii inside and outside the effective radius. If the enclosed mass rises steeply toward the center, the cored profile is ruled out; a flat inner mass profile confirms it. An independent total-halo-mass estimate for R21 that lands near the $7.5\times10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ stellar-mass-halo-mass expectation rather than the $1.8\times10^{11}$ M$_\odot$ GC-based value would likewise undo the paper's cored-versus-cuspy comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, R21 is an old, early-quenched, mildly rotating dwarf galaxy that nonetheless carries an unusually massive dark matter halo for its stellar mass. The central quantitative result is the stellar velocity dispersion of $19.4 \pm 3.5$ km s$^{-1}$ measured within $1\,R_e$, which yields $M_{\mathrm{dyn}} = 9.3 \pm 3.3 \times 10^8$ M$_\odot$ within $r_{1/2}$ via the Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator. When that point is overlaid on cuspy NFW and cored (Read et al. 2016) halo profiles normalized to the virial mass of $1.8 \times 10^{11}$ M$_\odot$ inferred from the galaxy's $36 \pm 8$ globular clusters, it falls on the cored track; the authors note a countervailing hint, namely the galaxy's nucleus, which they say offers some support for a cuspy profile because globular clusters spiral in and merge more quickly there. The stellar population reinforces the picture: a $10.4$ Gyr, $[M/H] = -0.64$ dex body with $[Mg/Fe] = 0.38 \pm 0.25$ dex, flat age and metallicity gradients, and fast-rotator kinematics with $V/\sigma \approx 0.95$. Because the diffuse stars are more metal-rich than the galaxy's globular clusters, the authors argue that at least two star formation events occurred, the first building the metal-poor cluster population and the second the more enriched stellar body, and that R21 is therefore more like an extension of the classical dwarf population than a failed galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The cored-halo conclusion requires that the globular-cluster-count to halo-mass scaling relation gives the correct virial halo mass for R21 and that the mass estimator's assumptions of dynamical equilibrium and spherical symmetry hold; because the dynamical measurement is a single point at the half-light radius, an error in either premise leaves the data unable to robustly tell a cored from a cuspy dark matter profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GC richness alone does not identify a failed galaxy: R21's intermediate metallicity, rotation, flat gradients, and cored-halo-consistent dynamical mass place it among classical dwarfs, so the failed-galaxy label should be reserved for GC-rich UDGs with much lower stellar metallicities such as PUDG-R84.
  • R21 adds a sixth dynamical-mass measurement to the spectroscopically studied Perseus UDG sample and strengthens the observed trend that GC-rich UDGs have higher dynamical masses for their stellar mass than GC-poor ones.
  • The flat age and metallicity gradients out to one effective radius extend the set of observed UDGs whose flat-to-positive metallicity profiles contrast with the steeply declining metallicity gradients that the TNG50 simulation predicts for quenched cluster UDGs.
  • R21's star formation history, with 90% of its stellar mass in place by about 8.9 Gyr ago, resembles the cumulative star formation histories of UDGs in high-density environments and supports an early infall into the Perseus cluster, with later star formation truncated by ram-pressure stripping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cored-halo preference is taken as a prediction, it can be tested directly: radial velocities for a dozen or more of R21's globular clusters would map the enclosed mass profile at several radii and bypass the globular-cluster-count to halo-mass calibration entirely.
  • Because R21 classifies as a fast rotator, its disk may be seen at a favorable inclination; if the galaxy is rotationally supported, the spherical-equilibrium mass estimator could be biased, and the rotation component should be subtracted before comparing the residual dispersion with halo models.
  • The two-episode star formation scenario predicts a unimodally metal-poor globular cluster system (roughly -1.2 dex) set against a field population near -0.7 dex; deep spectroscopy of the clusters could test whether a metal-rich cluster subpopulation is genuinely absent.
  • The hinted 30-degree offset between the rotation axis and the photometric major axis, if real, would point to a triaxial halo or a past minor merger, a kinematic claim that higher signal-to-noise integral-field data could confirm or refute.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Keck/KCWI spectroscopy of the globular-cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy PUDG-R21 in the Perseus cluster. The authors measure a recessional velocity of 5536±10 km/s, a stellar velocity dispersion of 19.4±3.5 km/s within one effective radius, and a dynamical mass of 9.3±3.3×10^8 Msun within r1/2. Combining this with a halo mass of 1.8×10^11 Msun derived from the GC count through the Burkert & Forbes (2020) relation, they argue that the dynamical mass is more consistent with a cored than a cuspy dark matter profile. The stellar population analysis yields an old (10.4±1.2 Gyr), intermediate-metallicity ([M/H]=-0.64±0.12 dex), alpha-enhanced ([Mg/Fe]=0.38±0.25 dex) population with flat age and metallicity gradients out to 1 Re. The authors propose that R21 is an extension of the classical dwarf population rather than a failed galaxy, with at least two star formation episodes.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of spectroscopically studied, GC-rich UDGs: the independent measurements of stellar population properties, gradients, and kinematics are made with standard and carefully checked methods (pPXF, bootstrap uncertainties, parameter sweeps), and the data are publicly available through the Keck Observatory Archive. The flat gradients and the GC-versus-stellar-body colour offset are interesting and will inform formation scenarios. However, the headline cored-halo conclusion is heavily dependent on the assumed total halo mass and on the adopted dark-matter profile normalization, and the reported rotation is only marginally significant, so the broad interpretive claims currently outrun the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4 and Figure 4] The cored-versus-cuspy preference is driven mainly by the assumed total halo mass, not by the shape of the enclosed-mass profile at r1/2. The yellow uncertainty bands in Figure 4 propagate only the Poisson error in the GC count (±8) and do not include the intrinsic scatter of the Burkert & Forbes (2020) GC-count–halo-mass calibration, which is typically ≥0.2–0.3 dex. Since the NFW enclosed mass at fixed radius scales roughly as Mhalo^(1/3), lowering Mhalo from 1.8×10^11 to ~5×10^10 Msun reduces the predicted NFW enclosed mass from ~2.4×10^9 to ~1.4×10^9 Msun, bringing the cuspy prediction within ~1.5σ of the measured 9.3±3.3×10^8 Msun. The manuscript acknowledges this assumption in Section 3.4, but the abstract and conclusions present the cored result without this caveat. Please marginalize over the scatter in the GC–halo relation and the concentration–mass relation, and report a quantitative model comparison (e.g., relative likelihoods or ΔBIC) between cored and cuspy profiles.
  2. [§3.1 and §5.2.3] The rotation is detected at only about 1.5–2σ: the measured value is 10.1±6.7 km/s (15.6 km/s only after the π/2 aperture-dilution correction). Despite this, Section 5.2.3 uses the rotation to classify R21 as a fast rotator with V/σ~0.95 and uses this classification as support for the classical-dwarf interpretation and for the flat metallicity gradient. The V/σ calculation is also fragile because it subtracts V^2 from the global dispersion measured within the same aperture where rotation is included. Please present the rotation as a tentative detection, propagate the full uncertainty into V/σ, and avoid building the central formation-origin argument on a sub-2σ signal.
  3. [§3.3 and Eq. (1)] The dynamical mass relies on the Wolf et al. (2010) estimator, which assumes dynamical equilibrium and a dispersion-supported, spherical system. The paper quotes Courteau et al. (2014) for the validity of this estimator in the presence of rotation, but if the claimed rotation is real, the systematic uncertainty in Mdyn from this mismatch is not quantified. Since Mdyn is the only direct dynamical constraint used in the cored/cuspy comparison, please add a quantitative discussion of how much the inferred mass would change under a rotating, flattened model, or explicitly state why the correction is negligible at the current precision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 and §2.1] The observing program for the second night is listed as W283 in Table 1 but as W285 in the text; please reconcile.
  2. [§4.1 and Table 2] The text reports t50 = 10.6±1.32 Gyr, while Table 2 lists t50 = 11.6±1.32 Gyr; these values should be consistent.
  3. [Abstract and §6] The abstract quotes a rotation of 15.6±10 km/s, while the conclusions quote 15.8±6.7 km/s; please harmonize the values and state which aperture correction and uncertainty are being quoted.
  4. [§3.4] The notation '1011.8 M⊙' for the Sifón et al. upper limit should be written as 10^11.8 M⊙ to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§5.2.2] The GC-versus-stellar-body colour difference of 0.14±0.08 mag is less than 2σ; the text appropriately calls this a hint, but the subsequent SSP-to-metallicity conversion should be framed as illustrative rather than as a firm measurement of a two-population metallicity difference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamical mass and stellar-population parameters are measured independently; the core-versus-cusp preference is a conditional comparison based on an external GC-halo mass calibration and a transparently stated core-radius assumption.

full rationale

The paper's primary measurements are independent of its interpretive claims. The velocity dispersion (19.4 ± 3.5 km/s), dynamical mass (9.3 ± 3.3 × 10^8 Msun), stellar age, metallicity, and alpha-enhancement are all derived directly from KCWI spectra and HST photometry via standard tools (pPXF, Wolf et al. 2010, E-MILES templates). No fitted parameter is fed back into a 'prediction' that is then claimed as an independent result. The core-versus-cusp comparison in Section 3.4 is explicitly conditional: the total halo mass of 1.8 × 10^11 Msun is taken from the Burkert & Forbes (2020) GC-count relation, and the cored profile is generated using an adopted maximum core radius of 2.75 times the half-light radius, following Forbes & Gannon (2024). These are input assumptions, not outputs of the present data. The authors state the limitation: 'As our dynamical measurement is limited to a measure at a fixed radius, direct comparison with total halo mass models requires an assumption of a dark matter profile.' The self-citations (Burkert & Forbes 2020; Forbes & Gannon 2024) are load-bearing for the interpretation, but they are external, published calibrations and explicitly acknowledged modeling choices rather than unverified premises unique to this paper. The central quantitative results therefore stand independently; the cored/cuspy preference is an interpretation whose robustness depends on the halo-mass calibration and core-radius ansatz, which is a correctness/statistical concern rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dynamical mass and stellar population results rest on a small number of standard assumptions (equilibrium, distance, IMF, stellar population models) and two input scaling relations from the literature (GC-halo mass and SMHR). The cored/cuspy comparison additionally uses an assumed core radius. None of these are fitted to the target's own data to force a conclusion, but the halo mass choice materially affects the dark matter profile interpretation.

free parameters (3)
  • Core radius of dark matter profile = 2.75 x Re = ~5.94 kpc
    Set as a maximum core size following Forbes & Gannon (2024), not fitted to the dynamical data; this choice directly affects the enclosed mass prediction in the cored model and thus the cored versus cuspy conclusion (Section 3.4, Figure 4).
  • Rotation PA-averaging correction = pi/2 = 1.57
    Applied to the semicircular-aperture rotation of 10.1±6.7 km/s to correct for PA averaging, yielding the quoted 15.6 km/s (Section 3.1). This factor is a modeling choice, not an empirical calibration, and the underlying measurement is only about 1.5 sigma significant.
  • Globular cluster count = 36 +/- 8
    Adopted from Janssens et al. (2024) rather than the Li et al. (2024) estimate (37 +17/-15) because of smaller uncertainties (Section 1). The GC count sets the halo mass via the Burkert & Forbes (2020) relation, which is central to the cored/cuspy comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator is applicable.
    Used to convert line-of-sight velocity dispersion and effective radius to a dynamical mass (Section 3.3, Equation 1). Assumes a spherical, pressure-supported system in equilibrium; the galaxy's rotation may introduce some bias, which the authors argue is small (Courteau et al. 2014).
  • domain assumption Burkert & Forbes (2020) GC-halo mass relation holds for this galaxy.
    Assumes one globular cluster per 5e9 M_sun of dark matter, calibrated on other galaxy samples, to infer a total halo mass of 1.8e11 M_sun (Section 3.4, Table 2). This is a key input for the dark matter profile comparison.
  • domain assumption Behroozi et al. (2013) stellar mass-halo mass relation is valid at this mass.
    Used to produce the alternative halo mass estimate of 7.5e10 M_sun (Section 3.4). Assumes this galaxy follows the same relation as the general galaxy population.
  • domain assumption NFW concentration from Dutton & Macciò (2014) applies.
    Sets the concentration of the cuspy profiles (Section 3.4). Assumes the standard mass-concentration relation from N-body simulations.
  • domain assumption Read et al. (2016) core transformation is a reasonable model.
    Converts NFW profiles to cored profiles with a chosen core radius (Section 3.4). The specific core size is a free parameter (see ledger).
  • domain assumption Distance to Perseus cluster is 75 Mpc.
    Adopted from the cluster's redshift and cosmology (Section 1). All physical sizes, magnitudes, and masses scale with this distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Look at PUDG-R21: Stellar Population and Kinematics of a Globular Cluster-Rich Ultra-Diffuse Galaxy in the Perseus Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSJTG2AK

@misc{pith2026250705679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Look at PUDG-R21: Stellar Population and Kinematics of a Globular Cluster-Rich Ultra-Diffuse Galaxy in the Perseus Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSJTG2AK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05679}
}
abstract

We present the analysis of the stellar populations and kinematics of the globular cluster (GC) rich ultra-diffuse galaxy, PUDG-R21, using spectroscopic observations obtained with the Keck Cosmic Web Imager (KCWI). The recessional velocity is measured to be 5536$\pm$10 km s$^{\mathrm{-1}}$, confirming its association with the Perseus cluster. The galaxy exhibits mild rotation of 15.6$\pm$10 km s$^{\mathrm{-1}}$ and a stellar velocity dispersion of 19.4$\pm$3.5 km s$^{\mathrm{-1}}$ within the galaxy effective radius. From this, we infer a dynamical mass of M$_{\mathrm{dyn}}=9.3\pm3.3\times10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$. Based on a halo mass derived from PUDG-R21 GC counts, we find our dynamical mass is consistent with a cored dark matter profile. The integrated stellar population analysis reveals a predominantly old stellar population of 10.4$\pm$1.2 Gyr, with intermediate-low metallicity ([M/H]=-0.64$\pm$0.12 dex) and elevated alpha abundances ([Mg/Fe]=0.38$\pm$0.25 dex). The inferred star formation history suggests rapid stellar assembly, likely truncating prior to or during the galaxy's infall into the cluster at an early epoch ($\sim$10 Gyr ago). The analysis of stellar population gradients (age and metallicity) indicates a flat profile out to one effective radius. Here, we consider the involvement of two star formation events, initially forming a large population of metal-poor globular clusters, and then the latter contributing to the more metal-enriched diffuse stellar body. The evidence of subsequent star formation suggests this galaxy is more like an extension of the classical dwarf population than the much discussed failed galaxy UDGs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST and KCWI observations of R21. Top panel: HST image of R21 captured using the F814W filter on the ACS. Red rectangle shows the field of view (FoV) of R21 as observed by KCWI. The red dashed circular region marks the effective radius at 2.16 kpc. Both images have North up and East left and show a 1 kpc scale bar at a distance of 75 Mpc. KCWI white light image in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rotation diagram showing the difference between the measured recessional velocity of a given half-region of the galaxy (see coloured regions) and its globally measured RV, plotted as a function of the half’s position angle, with the best fitted model shown in a red line. Dotted lines indicate the position when the halve aligns with the photometric major axis. We show the characteristic uncertainty of the halve posit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KCWI BH3 spectra of R21 extracted over 1 𝑅e aperture with a S/N of ∼12. We show the observed spectrum (black) with a pPXF-based model fit (red), with the vertical shaded band indicating the masked skyline subtraction residual. We also mark the position of strongest absorption feature here, H𝛽, using the vertical orange dotted line. Our velocity dispersion measurement (see text) is derived from this spectrum. 3.3 Vel… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Enclosed mass profiles as a function of projected galactocentric radius are shown using a standard NFW cuspy dark matter profile (top panel) and a cored dark matter profile from Read et al. (2016, bottom panel). Mass profiles in solid lines assume a total halo mass of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: pPXF fit to the spectrum of R21. The black curve show the integrated continuum-corrected spectrum extracted over the radius of 1 𝑅e with all neighbouring sources masked out. The red curve indicates the best-fitting model generated by the pPXF with the resid…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial stellar population properties of R21. The pPXF fits to the spectra for three annular regions of R21 are shown in the left panel, coloured based on the corresponding annular region indicated in the cutout of the KCWI image (right panel; blue, purple, and orange).…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial F475W − F814W colour profile of R21 from HST imaging. We used 16 annular regions of equal distance apart spanning just further than 1 𝑅e (= 2.16 kpc) of the galaxy, which is indicated by the black dashed vertical line. The colours are extracted within the sector…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: Metallicity profile of R21 (black solid points) compared to the average metallicity slope of UDGs from Ferré-Mateu et al. (2025) (or￾ange), as well as the average trends from simulated quenched UDGs in cluster from TNG50 (Benavides et al. 2024, in red) and t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aguerri J. A. L., Girardi M., Agulli I., Negri A., Dalla Vecchia C., Dom \' nguez Palmero L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa800 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1681A 494, 1681

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa800 2020

  2. [2]

    C., Loeb A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459L..51A 459, L51

    Amorisco N. C., Loeb A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459L..51A 459, L51

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 2016

  3. [3]

    S., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...57B 770, 57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  4. [4]

    A., Sales L

    Benavides J. A., Sales L. V., Abadi M. G., Vogelsberger M., Marinacci F., Hernquist L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..169B 977, 169

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de8 2024

  5. [5]

    Bradley L., et al., 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.13989456 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.13989456 2024

  6. [6]

    P., Strader J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..193B 44, 193

    Brodie J. P., Strader J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..193B 44, 193

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...56B 159, 56

    Burkert A., Forbes D. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...56B 159, 56

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e 2020

  8. [8]

    Buttitta C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.276B 694, A276

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452915 2025

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2231B 517, 2231

    Buzzo M. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2231B 517, 2231

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    L., et al., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.2536B 536, 2536

    Buzzo M. L., et al., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.2536B 536, 2536

    doi

  3. [11]

    L., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...695A.124B 695, A124

    Buzzo M. L., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...695A.124B 695, A124

    doi

  4. [12]

    Cappellari M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..798C 466, 798

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    V., Taibi S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1545C 519, 1545

    Cardona-Barrero S., Di Cintio A., Battaglia G., Macci \`o A. V., Taibi S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1545C 519, 1545

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Carleton T., Errani R., Cooper M., Kaplinghat M., Pe \ n arrubia J., Guo Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..382C 485, 382

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Carleton T., Guo Y., Munshi F., Tremmel M., Wright A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..398C 502, 398

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Vazdekis A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14079.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..691C 392, 691

    Cervantes J. L., Vazdekis A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14079.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..691C 392, 691

    2009

  9. [17]

    Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.5638C 522, 5638

    Chen Y., Gnedin O. Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.5638C 522, 5638

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14450.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394.1229C 394, 1229

    Chilingarian I. V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14450.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394.1229C 394, 1229

    2009

  11. [19]

    V., Afanasiev A

    Chilingarian I. V., Afanasiev A. V., Grishin K. A., Fabricant D., Moran S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...79C 884, 79

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Coelho P. R. T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1027C 440, 1027

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Courteau S., et al., 2014, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014RvMP...86...47C 86, 47

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Danieli S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac590a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927L..28D 927, L28

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Macci \`o A

    Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Macci \`o A. V., Stinson G. S., Knebe A., Dutton A. A., Wadsley J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437..415D 437, 415

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Dutton A

    Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., Obreja A., Dekel A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466L...1D 466, L1

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3359D 441, 3359

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Efremov Y

    Elmegreen B. G., Efremov Y. N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...480..235E 480, 235

    1997 doi

  19. [28]

    Emsellem E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A..76E 625, A76

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    Erwin P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..226E 799, 226

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    Fahrion K., Leaman R., Lyubenova M., van de Ven G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A.172F 658, A172

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    Fensch J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A..77F 625, A77

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797..136F 797, 136

    Ferr \'e -Mateu A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Vazdekis A., de la Rosa I. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797..136F 797, 136

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    Ferr \'e -Mateu A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4891F 479, 4891

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    S., Forbes D

    Ferr \'e -Mateu A., Gannon J. S., Forbes D. A., Buzzo M. L., Romanowsky A. J., Brodie J. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.4735F 526, 4735

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    A., Romanowsky A

    Ferr \'e -Mateu A., Gannon J., Forbes D. A., Romanowsky A. J., Buzzo M. L., Brodie J. P., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694L...6F 694, L6

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

    P., Cooper M

    Fillingham S. P., Cooper M. C., Wheeler C., Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2039F 454, 2039

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635L.137F 635, L137

    Forbes D. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635L.137F 635, L137

    2005 doi

  29. [38]

    A., Gannon J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad4004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..608F 528, 608

    Forbes D. A., Gannon J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad4004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..608F 528, 608

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    A., Read J

    Forbes D. A., Read J. I., Gieles M., Collins M. L. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5592F 481, 5592

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Gannon J., Couch W

    Forbes D. A., Gannon J., Couch W. J., Iodice E., Spavone M., Cantiello M., Napolitano N., Schipani P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...626A..66F 626, A66

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Buzzo M

    Forbes D. A., Buzzo M. L., Ferre-Mateu A., Romanowsky A. J., Gannon J., Brodie J. P., Collins M. L. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1217F 536, 1217

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Forbes D

    Gannon J. S., Forbes D. A., Romanowsky A. J., Ferr \'e -Mateu A., Couch W. J., Brodie J. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2582G 495, 2582

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3144G 502, 3144

    Gannon J. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3144G 502, 3144

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..946G 510, 946

    Gannon J. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..946G 510, 946

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Forbes D

    Gannon J. S., Forbes D. A., Brodie J. P., Romanowsky A. J., Couch W. J., Ferr \'e -Mateu A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3653G 518, 3653

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    Gu M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabbae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...37G 859, 37

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890..105H 890, 105

    Harris W. E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890..105H 890, 105

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Hernandez X., Gilmore G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01511.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.297..517H 297, 517

    1998

  40. [49]

    Iodice E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A..48I 642, A48

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    C., et al., 2010, Montage: An Astronomical Image Mosaicking Toolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.036

    Jacob J. C., et al., 2010, Montage: An Astronomical Image Mosaicking Toolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.036

    2010

  42. [51]

    G., Leisman L., Webb A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..566J 490, 566

    Janowiecki S., Jones M. G., Leisman L., Webb A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..566J 490, 566

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    J., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa667d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839L..17J 839, L17

    Janssens S., Abraham R., Brodie J., Forbes D., Romanowsky A. J., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa667d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839L..17J 839, L17

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517..858J 517, 858

    Janssens S. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517..858J 517, 858

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240907518J p

    Janssens S. R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240907518J p. arXiv:2409.07518

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [55]

    J., Dutton A

    Jiang F., Dekel A., Freundlich J., Romanowsky A. J., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., Di Cintio A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5272J 487, 5272

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Jones M., et al., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 426.01

    2023

  48. [57]

    N., Cohen J

    Kirby E. N., Cohen J. G., Guhathakurta P., Cheng L., Bullock J. S., Gallazzi A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..102K 779, 102

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19057.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1643K 417, 1643

    Koleva M., Prugniel P., De Rijcke S., Zeilinger W. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19057.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1643K 417, 1643

    2011

  50. [59]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  51. [60]

    La Marca A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A.105L 665, A105

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    Leisman L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842..133L 842, 133

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    arXiv:2409.06040

    Li D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240906040L p. arXiv:2409.06040

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    Lim S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899...69L 899, 69

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    Lipka M., Thomas J., Saglia R., Bender R., Fabricius M., Partmann C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7baa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976...17L 976, 17

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    Liu Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..179L 818, 179

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    Manolopoulou M., Plionis M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2616M 465, 2616

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513502M p

    Marleau F. R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513502M p. arXiv:2405.13502

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2323M 455, 2323

    Mistani P. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.2323M 455, 2323

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...93M 864, 93

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    M \"u ller O., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A.106M 640, A106

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..563N 462, 563

    1996 doi

  63. [72]

    C., Springel V., van de Voort F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2692P 520, 2692

    Pasha I., Mandelker N., van den Bosch F. C., Springel V., van de Voort F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2692P 520, 2692

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    W., Lim S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..31P 822, L31

    Peng E. W., Lim S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..31P 822, L31

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    W., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639...95P 639, 95

    Peng E. W., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639...95P 639, 95

    2006 doi

  66. [75]

    Pfeffer J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.4914P 529, 4914

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4865P 484, 4865

    Prole D. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4865P 484, 4865

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    I., Agertz O., Collins M

    Read J. I., Agertz O., Collins M. L. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.2573R 459, 2573

    2016 doi

  69. [78]

    K., Jaff \'e Y., Candlish G., S \'a nchez-J \'a nssen R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843..128R 843, 128

    Rhee J., Smith R., Choi H., Yi S. K., Jaff \'e Y., Candlish G., S \'a nchez-J \'a nssen R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843..128R 843, 128

    2017 doi

  70. [79]

    L., Brooks A

    Riggs C. L., Brooks A. M., Munshi F., Christensen C. R., Cohen R. E., Quinn T. R., Wadsley J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977...20R 977, 20

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    Romero-G \'o mez J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522..130R 522, 130

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    H., Sun S., Pan J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4231R 470, 4231

    Rong Y., Guo Q., Gao L., Liao S., Xie L., Puzia T. H., Sun S., Pan J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4231R 470, 4231

    2017 doi

  73. [82]

    V., Navarro J

    Sales L. V., Navarro J. F., Pe \ n afiel L., Peng E. W., Lim S., Hernquist L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1848S 494, 1848

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  75. [84]

    Sif \'o n C., van der Burg R. F. J., Hoekstra H., Muzzin A., Herbonnet R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3747S 473, 3747

    2018 doi

  76. [87]

    R., Forbes D

    Spitler L. R., Forbes D. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00567.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392L...1S 392, L1

    2009

  77. [88]

    Sybilska A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..815S 470, 815

    2017 doi

  78. [89]

    Taibi S., Battaglia G., Leaman R., Brooks A., Riggs C., Munshi F., Revaz Y., Jablonka P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A..92T 665, A92

    2022 doi

  79. [90]

    Vazdekis A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1177V 449, 1177

    2015 doi

  80. [91]

    Villaume A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac341e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924...32V 924, 32

    2022 doi

  81. [92]

    Wittmann C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1512W 470, 1512

    2017 doi

  82. [93]

    D., Bullock J

    Wolf J., Martinez G. D., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., Geha M., Mu \ n oz R. R., Simon J. D., Avedo F. F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1220W 406, 1220

    2010

  83. [94]

    C., Tremmel M., Brooks A

    Wright A. C., Tremmel M., Brooks A. M., Munshi F., Nagai D., Sharma R. S., Quinn T. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5370W 502, 5370

    2021 doi

  84. [95]

    Yagi M., Koda J., Komiyama Y., Yamanoi H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...11Y 225, 11

    2016 doi

  85. [96]

    Yozin C., Bekki K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..937Y 452, 937

    2015 doi

  86. [97]

    E., Dey A., Kadowaki J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...60Z 257, 60

    Zaritsky D., Donnerstein R., Karunakaran A., Barbosa C. E., Dey A., Kadowaki J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...60Z 257, 60

    2021 doi

  87. [98]

    G., Abraham R., Merritt A., Zhang J., Geha M., Conroy C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798L..45V 798, L45

    van Dokkum P. G., Abraham R., Merritt A., Zhang J., Geha M., Conroy C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798L..45V 798, L45

    2015 doi

  88. [99]

    van Dokkum P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...91V 880, 91

    2019 doi

  89. [100]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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