pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.14038 · v1 · submitted 2025-09-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

A Pearl in the Shell: an ultra-compact dwarf within the tidal debris surrounding spiral galaxy NGC 7531

David Mart\'inez-Delgado , Aaron J. Romanowsky , Yimeng Tang , Joanna D. Sakowska , Denis Erkal , Juan Mir\'o-Carretero , Giuseppe Donatiello , Sepideh Eskandarlou
show 2 more authors
Mark Hanson Dustin Lang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 16:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-compact dwarftidal strippingnuclear star clusterNGC 7531tidal debrisminor mergerstar formation history
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

A compact stellar system near NGC 7531 is an ultra-compact dwarf galaxy that was tidally stripped from a nuclear star cluster.

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

The paper studies a compact stellar system sitting inside shell-like tidal debris around the spiral galaxy NGC 7531. Photometry from public surveys, deep amateur images, and Keck spectroscopy show the system belongs to NGC 7531 and has a stellar mass of roughly 3.7 million solar masses with a half-light radius of 0.13 arcsec. These numbers plus its star-formation history and surrounding tidal tails lead the authors to classify it as the ultra-compact dwarf NGC 7531-UCD1 and to conclude it was once the nuclear star cluster of a smaller galaxy that merged with NGC 7531. N-body simulations match the observed shells only when the progenitor follows a near-radial orbit with two pericentric passages, the first of which lines up with a star-formation burst about one billion years ago. The work supplies an observed example of the nuclear-star-cluster-to-ultra-compact-dwarf channel outside the Milky Way.

Core claim

We confirm the compact stellar system is bound to NGC 7531 and rename it NGC 7531-UCD1. Its stellar mass of 3.7 million solar masses, half-light radius of 0.13 arcsec, and star-formation history place it among ultra-compact dwarfs. The presence of tidal tails and the timing of star formation together indicate the object began as a nuclear star cluster that was stripped during a minor merger. N-body models reproduce the large shell-like debris when the progenitor follows a near-radial orbit with two pericentric passages, the first coinciding with the measured star-formation enhancement one billion years ago.

What carries the argument

Classification of the compact stellar system as NGC 7531-UCD1 on the basis of its measured stellar mass, half-light radius, star-formation history, and spatial association with tidal tails, reinforced by N-body simulations that recover the shell morphology for a radial merger orbit.

If this is right

  • The shell-like tidal debris contains between 300 million and 1.1 billion solar masses of stars, corresponding to a merger mass ratio between roughly 300:1 and 10:1.
  • The progenitor galaxy approached on a nearly radial orbit and experienced two pericentric passages around NGC 7531.
  • The first pericentric passage matches the epoch of enhanced star formation in the compact system about one billion years ago.
  • Deep amateur images reveal additional tidal features not visible in the DESI Legacy Survey data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Compact objects found in tidal debris around other nearby spirals could be checked with similar photometry and spectroscopy to test how often nuclear star clusters survive stripping and become ultra-compact dwarfs.
  • If radial minor mergers commonly leave such remnants, then ultra-compact dwarfs may serve as tracers of recent accretion events in spiral galaxies.
  • Mapping the orbits and ages of these objects could tighten constraints on the assembly history of disk galaxies beyond the Local Group.

Load-bearing premise

The measured size, mass, star-formation timing, and location inside tidal debris can be produced only by tidal stripping of a nuclear star cluster and not by other formation routes or by a chance line-of-sight alignment.

What would settle it

High-resolution imaging or spectroscopy that shows no tidal tails physically connecting the compact system to the shell debris, or radial-velocity data showing the system is not at the same distance as NGC 7531.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.14038 by Aaron J. Romanowsky, David Mart\'inez-Delgado, Denis Erkal, Dustin Lang, Giuseppe Donatiello, Joanna D. Sakowska, Juan Mir\'o-Carretero, Mark Hanson, Sepideh Eskandarlou, Yimeng Tang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Amateur image of NGC 7531 (left). DESI Legacy Imaging Survey image of NGC 7531 (right). Sky-subtracted image of NGC 7531 as processed by Gnuastro’s NoiseChisel program was used as a basis for photometry measurements. Features are labelled: (a): main shell; (b): faint outer shell; c: counter plume. directly observed (e.g. Foster et al. 2014; Jennings et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2023; Southon et al. 2025), alth… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Identification chart of the compact stellar system potentially em￾bedded within the giant tidal debris cloud in the halo of NGC 7531. The background image used is from the DESI Legacy Imaging Survey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Photometric measurement method for the shell around NGC 7531. The polygonal aperture (blue) indicates the part of the image where the magnitude, surface brightness and colour of the shell were measured. For comparison, the surface brightness and colours were measured in a circular aperture (red) placed on the NGC 7531 spiral arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DESI Legacy Survey image of the compact stellar system and surroundings, with elliptical isophote contours overlaid. North is up and East is left. The compact, round star cluster transitions to a flattened structure at ∼ 2–3 arcsec that likely represents tidal tails (also visible in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar population modelling of the compact stellar system, using independent codes pPXF (left column) and Prospector (right column). The top row shows SED fitting to the photometry, the middle row shows full spectral fitting and the bottom row shows the inferred non-parametric star formation rate vs. time. Qualitatively, both codes produce remarkably consistent results, with a very extended star formation… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Half-light radius vs. stellar mass for the compact stellar sys￾tems. The object lies in the ultra-compact dwarf galaxy (UCD) range, we thereby denote it as UCD1 (green star). For reference, we mark the location of the massive MW star clusters ω Cen and NGC 2419. We also denote the approximate locations of globular cluters (GCs), extended clusters (ECs) and faint fuzzies. clusion that it is older than the C… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We note that 54% of the debris in Figure 7 is fainter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Surface brightness map of the simulated dwarf debris around NGC 7531 which qualitatively matches the observations. This snapshot occurs 60 Myr after the most recent pericentric passage and 1.23 Gyr after the first pericenter. the present day with a vibrant shell, a trailing stream on the left, and an additional shell-like low surface brightness structure to the right. Both of these latter features also app… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the N-body simulation which produces a shell similar to what is observed in NGC 7531. From left to right, the panels show the simulated dwarf 50 Myr before the first pericenter (t = −1.28 Gyr), 70 Myr after the first pericenter (t = −1.15 Gyr), 50 Myr before the second pericenter (t = −0.11 Gyr), and 60 Myr after the second pericenter (present day). UNI/551/2021-May 26, and under the EU Next G… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stellar substructures within tidal debris preserve information about their progenitor galaxies' properties, offering insights into hierarchical mass assembly. We examine a compact stellar system (CSS) around the nearby spiral galaxy NGC 7531, including the shell-like tidal debris. Our goals are to determine the nature of the CSS, reconstruct the accretion history, and understand how the large, diffuse shell-like structure formed. We present photometric measurements of the shell-like debris and CSS using DESI Legacy Imaging Survey (LS) data. We obtained Keck/LRIS spectroscopic data for the CSS to confirm its association with NGC 7531 and to derive its star formation history (SFH). Deep ($\sim$27.9 mag/arcsec$^{2}$) amateur telescope images enabled complete characterization of the tidal debris structure. We confirm the CSS is associated with NGC 7531. We rename it NGC 7531-UCD1, since its stellar mass ($3.7_{-0.7}^{+1.0}\times 10^6$ $\mathrm{M}_\odot$), half-light radius ($R_{h} = 0.13 \pm 0.05$ arcsec) and SFH place it as an ultra-compact dwarf galaxy (UCD). NGC 7531-UCD1 was likely a nuclear star cluster (NSC) that was tidally stripped into a UCD- this is further supported by the presence of tidal tails. We quantify the shell-like debris' mass as $M_\star\sim 3$--$11\times 10^8 M_\odot$, implying a merger mass ratio of ~300:1 to 10:1. Our amateur telescope images confirm new pieces of debris, previously unclear in the DESI LS images. N-body simulations reproduce the tidal features, requiring a near radial orbit of the progenitor with two pericentric passages. The first passage coincides with the measured star formation enhancement ~1 Gyr ago. Our findings agree with predictions about the NSC to UCD formation pathway via tidal stripping, and further confirm the presence of these objects outside of our Milky Way.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery and analysis of a compact stellar system (CSS) embedded in the tidal debris around the nearby spiral galaxy NGC 7531. Using DESI Legacy Survey photometry, Keck/LRIS spectroscopy for velocity confirmation and star-formation history (SFH), deep amateur imaging to map shell-like structures, and N-body simulations, the authors classify the CSS as an ultra-compact dwarf (UCD) with stellar mass 3.7_{-0.7}^{+1.0}×10^6 M_⊙ and half-light radius R_h = 0.13 ± 0.05 arcsec. They rename it NGC 7531-UCD1 and interpret it as a former nuclear star cluster tidally stripped during a minor merger on a near-radial orbit with two pericentric passages, the first coinciding with an SFH enhancement ~1 Gyr ago. The shell debris mass is estimated at ~3–11×10^8 M_⊙, implying a merger mass ratio of ~10:1 to 300:1.

Significance. If the classification and origin interpretation hold, the work supplies a well-documented extragalactic example of the NSC-to-UCD tidal-stripping channel, together with direct constraints on a minor-merger accretion event. The coherent use of independent datasets (photometry, spectroscopy, deep imaging) and simulations that reproduce the observed tidal morphology strengthens evidence for hierarchical assembly and the preservation of substructures, extending such studies beyond the Local Group.

major comments (1)
  1. [interpretation section linking observations to N-body simulation results] In the interpretation linking the UCD properties, SFH timing, tidal tails, and N-body simulation results, the claim that NGC 7531-UCD1 was likely an NSC tidally stripped from the shell progenitor assumes this combination uniquely diagnoses the stripping pathway. Alternative UCD formation channels (e.g., merged star clusters or in-situ formation) are not quantitatively compared, and the probability of line-of-sight projection with unrelated debris is not assessed via statistical tests against null models or alternative simulation suites. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the proposed accretion history.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The shell-like debris mass range (M_⋆ ∼ 3–11×10^8 M_⊙) is stated without an explicit description of the photometric bands, aperture corrections, or stellar-mass-to-light assumptions used in the estimate; adding this detail would improve reproducibility.
  2. The half-light radius is given only in arcsec; providing the corresponding physical size in parsecs at the adopted distance of NGC 7531 would facilitate direct comparison with other UCD samples in the literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the work's significance and for the constructive comment on the interpretation section. We have revised the manuscript to include a more explicit discussion of alternative UCD formation channels and to clarify the low likelihood of projection effects based on the spectroscopic data. Our point-by-point response follows.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [interpretation section linking observations to N-body simulation results] In the interpretation linking the UCD properties, SFH timing, tidal tails, and N-body simulation results, the claim that NGC 7531-UCD1 was likely an NSC tidally stripped from the shell progenitor assumes this combination uniquely diagnoses the stripping pathway. Alternative UCD formation channels (e.g., merged star clusters or in-situ formation) are not quantitatively compared, and the probability of line-of-sight projection with unrelated debris is not assessed via statistical tests against null models or alternative simulation suites. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the proposed accretion history.

    Authors: We agree that a more direct comparison to alternative channels strengthens the manuscript. In the revised interpretation section we have added a paragraph noting that while merged star clusters or in-situ formation can produce UCDs in general, the specific combination of NGC 7531-UCD1's ultra-compact structural parameters, its precise spatial coincidence with the shell debris, and the alignment of its SFH burst with the first pericentric passage in the N-body models makes tidal stripping of an NSC the most economical explanation. A full quantitative likelihood analysis across channels would require population synthesis modeling that lies beyond the scope of this discovery paper. For line-of-sight projection, the Keck/LRIS velocity measurement matches NGC 7531 within the uncertainties, rendering a random alignment with unrelated material statistically improbable; we have inserted a brief statement to this effect. The existing N-body suite already reproduces the observed morphology under the proposed radial-orbit scenario, so new alternative suites were not generated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on independent observations and external simulations

full rationale

The paper derives its conclusions from direct photometric measurements of the shell and CSS using DESI Legacy Imaging Survey data, Keck/LRIS spectroscopy confirming association and yielding SFH, deep amateur imaging for tidal structure, and separate N-body simulations tuned to reproduce the observed debris morphology. The UCD classification follows from measured stellar mass, half-light radius, and SFH compared against literature definitions of UCDs; the NSC-stripping interpretation is presented as consistent with the presence of tidal tails and simulation timing rather than being defined into the inputs. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce the central claims to tautology or construction from the target result itself. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard extragalactic assumptions for distance matching via spectroscopy, stellar population synthesis for mass estimates, and initial orbital parameters in N-body simulations; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • UCD stellar mass
    Derived from photometry combined with SFH constraints; carries asymmetric uncertainties reflecting population assumptions.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic data confirm physical association of the CSS with NGC 7531 via matching distance or redshift.
    Stated directly as the basis for renaming and interpreting the object as part of the galaxy's tidal debris.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5974 in / 1424 out tokens · 75263 ms · 2026-05-18T16:12:34.103504+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.11230

    Akhlaghi, M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.11230

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    & Ichikawa, T

    Akhlaghi, M. & Ichikawa, T. 2015, ApJS, 220, 1

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    A., Salman Chiad, S., Jabbar, W

    Al-Baidhany, I. A., Salman Chiad, S., Jabbar, W. A., et al. 2019, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1234, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012015

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    P., Muzzio, J

    Bassino, L. P., Muzzio, J. C., & Rabolli, M. 1994, ApJ, 431, 634

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    J., Drinkwater, M

    Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., Drinkwater, M. J., & Shioya, Y . 2003, MNRAS, 344, 399

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Bell, E. F. & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    & Price-Whelan, A

    Bonaca, A. & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19410

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    P., Romanowsky, A

    Brodie, J. P., Romanowsky, A. J., Strader, J., & Forbes, D. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 199

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    & Emsellem, E

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

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    E., & White, M

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

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Y ., Belokurov, V ., Monty, S., & Evans, N

    Davies, E. Y ., Belokurov, V ., Monty, S., & Evans, N. W. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L73

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    R., Koposov, S

    Dey, A., Najita, J. R., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 1

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    J., Lang, D., & et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., & et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Dutton, A. A. & Macciò, A. V . 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025a, A&A, 697, A1 Euclid Collaboration, V oggel, K., Lançon, A., et al. 2025b, A&A, 693, A251 Falcón-Barroso, J., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    A., Ferré-Mateu, A., Gannon, J

    Forbes, D. A., Ferré-Mateu, A., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 802

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    J., et al

    Foster, C., Lux, H., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3544 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Hanuschik, R. W. 2003, A&A, 407, 1157

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    K., Sand, D

    Hughes, A. K., Sand, D. J., Seth, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 16

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    K., Annibali, F., Cuillandre, J

    Hunt, L. K., Annibali, F., Cuillandre, J. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A9 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    G., Romanowsky, A

    Jennings, Z. G., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, L10

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Kravtsov, A. V . 2013, ApJ, 764, L31

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    S., Ferguson, A

    Larsen, S. S., Ferguson, A. M. N., Howell, J. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16637

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    R., Cuillandre, J

    Marleau, F. R., Cuillandre, J. C., Cantiello, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A12

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L1

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    P., Roman, J., et al

    Martinez-Delgado, D., Cooper, A. P., Roman, J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.06071 Martínez-Delgado, D., Gabany, R. J., Crawford, K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 962 Martínez-Delgado, D., Peñarrubia, J., Gabany, R. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 184

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    D., et al

    Martinez-Delgado, D., Stein, M., Sakowska, J. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02071

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    & Nagai, R

    Miyamoto, M. & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533

    work page 1975

  33. [33]

    Moffat, A. F. J. 1969, A&A, 3, 455

    work page 1969

  34. [34]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & Böker, T. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375

    work page 1995

  37. [37]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Pfeffer, J. & Baumgardt, H. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1997

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514 Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Pfeffer, J., Lardo, C., Bastian, N., Saracino, S., & Kamann, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514 Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda_NGC7531

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    M., Dalla Bontà, E., et al

    Pizzella, A., Corsini, E. M., Dalla Bontà, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, 785

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460

    work page 1911

  42. [42]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    G., et al

    Prusti, T., De Bruijne, J., Brown, A. G., et al. 2016, Astronomy & astrophysics, 595, A1 Román, J., Trujillo, I., & Montes, M. 2020, A&A, 644, A42

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    J., Strader, J., Brodie, J

    Romanowsky, A. J., Strader, J., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 29

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    J., Tang, Y ., & Bundy, K

    Romanowsky, A. J., Tang, Y ., & Bundy, K. A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 181

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    2025, A&A, 697, A10

    Saifollahi, T., V oggel, K., Lançon, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A10

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    & Zinn, R

    Searle, L. & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357

    work page 1978

  48. [48]

    S., Forbes, D

    Southon, K., Gannon, J. S., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e109

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA Final Report

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [51]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    A., Saifollahi, T., et al

    Urbano, M., Duc, P. A., Saifollahi, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.17672

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409 V oggel, K

    Vazdekis, A., Koleva, M., Ricciardelli, E., Röck, B., & Falcón-Barroso, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3409 V oggel, K. T., Seth, A. C., Sand, D. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 140

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    W., Liu, C., et al

    Wang, K., Peng, E. W., Liu, C., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 296

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., & Khim, D. J. 2025, The Open Journal of Astro- physics, 8, 90 Article number, page 10 of 10

    work page 2025