arxiv: 2605.11419 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Exploring the stellar streams and satellites around the giant low surface brightness galaxy Malin 1

Roy O. E. Bustos-Espinoza , Matias Bla\~na , Gaspar Galaz , Marcelo D. Mora , Junais , Mousumi Das , Sudhanshu Barway , Ankit Kumar

show 2 more authors

Evelyn J. Johnston Thomas Puzia

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 06:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords Malin 1giant low surface brightness galaxiesstellar streamssatellite galaxiesorbital dynamicsdark matter halosgalaxy interactionsgLSBG formation

0 comments

The pith

Past satellite interactions shaped the giant low-surface-brightness galaxy Malin 1 through aligned stellar streams and bound orbits.

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

The paper models the gravitational potential of Malin 1 using its observed stars, gas, and dark matter to trace the orbits of its satellites and test whether they produced the two giant stellar streams. Some satellites follow bound paths that align with the streams as leading or trailing material, with closer companions interacting as recently as 100 million years ago and a more distant one reaching pericenter about 1.6 billion years ago. The ISO halo model yields more bound solutions than the NFW model. A sympathetic reader cares because the work supplies concrete timing and progenitor constraints on how interactions built the galaxy's unusually extended disk rather than leaving it isolated.

Core claim

Malin 1 hosts satellites and two giant stellar streams likely from past interactions. Gravitational potentials were built from optical and HI data with stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components, testing both NFW and ISO halo profiles across wide parameter space. Some scenarios yield bound satellite orbits, with the ISO halo (M_virial ≈ 2.6 × 10^12 M_⊙) favoring bound solutions more than the NFW halo (M_virial ≈ 1.4 × 10^12 M_⊙). The streams can be interpreted as substructures along leading and trailing trajectories of certain satellites. The most distant satellite reached pericenter ∼1.6 Gyr ago while closer companions interacted ∼100 Myr ago, and one close companion shows both leading-tr

What carries the argument

Numerical orbit integration inside multi-component gravitational potentials (stellar disk plus gas plus NFW or ISO dark matter halo) fitted to optical and HI data, used to link satellite paths to observed stellar streams.

If this is right

The ISO halo model produces more bound satellite orbits than the NFW model.
Satellite interactions occurred between roughly 100 Myr and 1.6 Gyr ago.
Stellar streams align with leading and trailing arms from satellite trajectories, including one companion showing both arms in radial and polar orbits.
Some unbound orbital solutions still connect specific satellites to the streams.
The alignments constrain progenitor masses and orbital histories for giant low-surface-brightness galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the alignments hold, accretion events likely played a larger role than isolated formation in building the extended disks of giant low-surface-brightness galaxies.
Applying the same orbit-stream matching technique to other giant low-surface-brightness systems could test whether recent interactions are a common feature.
Deeper imaging or kinematic data on fainter outer satellites might reveal additional streams or tighten the timing of past pericenter passages.

Load-bearing premise

The giant stellar streams are substructures stripped from the satellite galaxies along their leading and trailing trajectories, and the chosen NFW or ISO halo profiles fully capture the gravitational potential without missing components or data selection effects.

What would settle it

High-resolution proper-motion or radial-velocity maps of the streams and satellites that show velocity fields or positions inconsistent with the predicted leading-trailing paths from the modeled potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11419 by Ankit Kumar, Evelyn J. Johnston, Gaspar Galaz, Junais, Marcelo D. Mora, Matias Bla\~na, Mousumi Das, Roy O. E. Bustos-Espinoza, Sudhanshu Barway, Thomas Puzia.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Optical view in g, and r band, of Malin 1 and their environment using Magellan/Clay telescope (Galaz et al. 2015). The figure equatorial coordinates are converted into X, Y in kpc units, adopting an angular scale of 1.557 kpc per arcsec−1 , with the origin centred at the core of Malin 1. The intensity color scale is consistent throughout all sub-panels, with its arbitrary units defined by the scale shown i… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Parameter posterior distributions for the surface bright [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the mass-to-light ratios for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Corner plots of the posterior distributions of orbital parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Best-fit integrated orbits for the eM1+sB model, comparing the two highest-likelihood orbit classes: (a) Scenario I-a (Radial) and (b) Scenario I-b (Polar). The uncertainty bands in panels (iii) and (vi) were derived from the 300 mcmc samples with the highest posterior values. Spatial Projections (Panels i and iv): The integrated orbit (colored line) is overlaid on the optical image of Malin 1 and its envi… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Best-fit integrated orbits for the progenitor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Best-fit integrated orbits for the stream sA, comparing the two most likely scenarios: (a) Scenario IV-a (M1A progenitor, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Context. Giant Low Surface Brightness galaxies, such as Malin 1, host extended discs exceeding 100 kpc. Their formation and evolution remain debated, with interactions with satellite galaxies and accretion streams proposed as key contributors. Malin 1 hosts satellites and exhibits two giant stellar streams, likely the result of past interactions. Aims. We investigate the orbital dynamics of Malin 1's satellites and their possible connections with observed stellar streams, testing their nature with different formation scenarios. Methods. We constructed gravitational potentials using optical and HI data, including stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components, and explored a wide parameter space while testing NFW and ISO halo profiles. Results. Some scenarios produced bound solutions. The ISO halo model ($M_{\text{Virial}} \approx 2.6 \times 10^{12}~M_{\odot}$) favours bound satellite orbits more than the NFW model ($M_{\text{Virial}} \approx 1.4 \times 10^{12}~M_{\odot}$). Giant stellar streams could be substructures of some satellite galaxies along their leading and trailing trajectories. The most distant Malin 1 satellite could have reached pericenter $\sim 1.6$ Gyr ago, while closer companions interacted as early as $\sim 100$ Myr ago. At the same time, one close companion displays both leading and trailing arms in radial and polar orbits. Furthermore, we also identify some unbound solutions linking satellites with streams. Conclusions. Satellites and stream alignment indicate that past interactions shaped Malin 1's morphology. Our modelling constrains progenitors and orbital histories, providing insights into the dynamical evolution of gLSBGs. Findings are consistent with recent studies using Malin 1 kinematic data.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper runs orbital integrations for Malin 1 satellites in NFW and ISO potentials, finds some bound solutions that could tie to the streams as leading/trailing arms, and gives pericenter timings, but the dynamical links stay unverified.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors build gravitational potentials from optical and HI data for Malin 1, then integrate satellite orbits under both NFW (Mvir ~1.4e12 Msun) and ISO (Mvir ~2.6e12 Msun) halos. They report that the ISO case produces more bound orbits, with some satellites reaching pericenter between ~100 Myr and ~1.6 Gyr ago, and suggest the giant streams could be leading and trailing arms from those objects. A few unbound solutions also appear. This is a direct application of standard orbital methods to one well-known giant LSBG, with a clean halo-profile comparison and timing estimates pulled from the data. The work is honest about exploring parameter space and notes consistency with recent kinematic studies on the same galaxy. The soft spots sit in the central interpretation. The stream-satellite connection assumes the observed streams are debris from the current satellites on those exact paths, without reported quantitative orbit-to-stream match metrics, error bars on the timings, or checks for selection effects in the data. No N-body runs or kinematic confirmation of the trajectories are described, so the bound solutions remain suggestive rather than demonstrated. The static potential choice also matters, since results shift between the two halo models. This paper is for people already working on satellite-driven evolution in low-surface-brightness systems who want concrete numbers for Malin 1 to compare against other galaxies. A reader focused on galactic dynamics would get usable orbital histories to think about, but would need the full methods section to judge robustness. I would send it to peer review. The modeling is clear enough to merit referee feedback on the assumptions and validation steps, even if the authors have to add fit statistics and sensitivity tests.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the orbital dynamics of satellites around the giant low surface brightness galaxy Malin 1 and their possible connections to two observed giant stellar streams. Gravitational potentials are constructed from optical and HI data, incorporating stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components with both NFW (M_virial ≈ 1.4 × 10^12 M_⊙) and ISO (M_virial ≈ 2.6 × 10^12 M_⊙) halo profiles. A wide parameter space is explored, yielding some bound orbital solutions; the ISO model favors bound orbits more than NFW. The authors suggest that streams may represent leading and trailing arms of satellites, report pericenter timings (∼1.6 Gyr ago for the most distant satellite, ∼100 Myr ago for closer ones), and conclude that past interactions shaped Malin 1's morphology, consistent with recent kinematic studies.

Significance. If the dynamical links are robustly demonstrated, the work would offer useful constraints on progenitor masses and interaction histories for giant low surface brightness galaxies, supporting interaction-driven formation scenarios. The explicit comparison of NFW versus ISO halos and the identification of both bound and unbound solutions represent a systematic exploration of model dependence. However, the absence of quantitative fit statistics, error bars on reported timings, and direct trajectory verification limits the strength of the claimed constraints on gLSBG evolution.

major comments (3)

[Results] Results section (and abstract): The claims of bound solutions with specific pericenter timings (∼1.6 Gyr and ∼100 Myr) and halo masses are presented without reported error bars, goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., χ² or likelihood values), or data exclusion criteria, leaving the central claim of constrained orbital histories only partially supported.
[Orbital modelling] Orbital modelling and discussion: The interpretation that giant stellar streams are substructures of satellites along leading/trailing trajectories is stated as a possibility but lacks explicit orbit integration outputs, quantitative comparison metrics to the observed stream positions/velocities, or N-body verification, rendering the dynamical link dependent on the untested assumption rather than demonstrated.
[Methods] Methods: The virial masses (NFW ≈1.4e12 M_⊙, ISO ≈2.6e12 M_⊙) are fitted parameters within the explored space; reported bound solutions and interaction timings therefore depend directly on these choices, introducing circularity that requires independent benchmarks or sensitivity tests to external data.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: Specify the exact number of satellites and streams analyzed and clarify whether all or only a subset yield bound solutions.
[Figures] Figures: Include uncertainty representations or model comparison overlays in any plots of orbital paths or stream alignments to aid assessment of the reported alignments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their insightful comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the quantitative aspects of our analysis. We respond to each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section (and abstract): The claims of bound solutions with specific pericenter timings (∼1.6 Gyr and ∼100 Myr) and halo masses are presented without reported error bars, goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., χ² or likelihood values), or data exclusion criteria, leaving the central claim of constrained orbital histories only partially supported.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for more quantitative support in presenting our results. In the revised manuscript, we include error bars on the pericenter timings, calculated from the variations in the parameter space that yield bound solutions. We have also added goodness-of-fit metrics using χ² values for the best-matching orbital models against the satellite data. The data exclusion criteria are now explicitly stated in the Methods section, describing how we sampled the parameter space and selected viable solutions. These revisions enhance the support for our claims regarding the constrained orbital histories. revision: yes
Referee: [Orbital modelling] Orbital modelling and discussion: The interpretation that giant stellar streams are substructures of satellites along leading/trailing trajectories is stated as a possibility but lacks explicit orbit integration outputs, quantitative comparison metrics to the observed stream positions/velocities, or N-body verification, rendering the dynamical link dependent on the untested assumption rather than demonstrated.

Authors: We concur that the interpretation of the streams as leading and trailing arms was presented as a possibility without sufficient quantitative backing. The revised manuscript now features explicit outputs from the orbit integrations, including detailed trajectory plots and tables of positions over time. Quantitative metrics have been added, such as the average deviation between the modeled satellite paths and the observed stream positions and velocities. We note that comprehensive N-body simulations to dynamically verify the stream formation are outside the scope of this paper, which focuses on orbital modeling in fixed potentials; this limitation is now clearly stated, and the link remains based on orbital consistency rather than full simulation. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods: The virial masses (NFW ≈1.4e12 M_⊙, ISO ≈2.6e12 M_⊙) are fitted parameters within the explored space; reported bound solutions and interaction timings therefore depend directly on these choices, introducing circularity that requires independent benchmarks or sensitivity tests to external data.

Authors: We recognize that the virial masses are fitted within our explored parameter space. To resolve concerns about circularity, the revised Methods section includes sensitivity tests where we vary the NFW and ISO halo parameters within their fitting uncertainties and show the resulting changes in bound orbit fractions and interaction timings. Furthermore, we provide benchmarks by comparing our mass estimates to those from recent kinematic analyses of Malin 1, confirming consistency especially for the NFW profile. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Bound orbital solutions and stream alignments depend on fitted halo masses in constructed potentials

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Results (abstract and modeling description)]
"We constructed gravitational potentials using optical and HI data, including stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components, and explored a wide parameter space while testing NFW and ISO halo profiles. ... The ISO halo model ($M_{Virial} ≈ 2.6 × 10^{12} M_⊙$) favours bound satellite orbits more than the NFW model ($M_{Virial} ≈ 1.4 × 10^{12} M_⊙$). Giant stellar streams could be substructures of some satellite galaxies along their leading and trailing trajectories. The most distant Malin 1 satellite could have reached pericenter ∼1.6 Gyr ago, while closer companions interacted as early as ∼100 M"

Virial masses are fitted parameters used to define the gravitational potentials. The reported 'bound solutions', interaction timings, and stream-substructure alignments are then computed inside those same fitted potentials, making the dynamical conclusions statistically dependent on the model choices by construction rather than external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper builds gravitational potentials from optical/HI data by fitting NFW and ISO halo virial masses, then reports bound solutions, pericenter timings, and possible leading/trailing stream substructures within those specific models. While parameter space is explored and unbound solutions are also noted, the central dynamical claims (satellites on bound orbits linking to streams) reduce to outputs conditioned on the fitted inputs rather than independent verification. No self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text; the circularity is partial and model-dependent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions about dark matter halo profiles and the interpretation of streams as tidal features from satellites.

free parameters (2)

M_Virial NFW = 1.4 x 10^12 M_sun
Virial mass chosen for the NFW halo component in the gravitational potential
M_Virial ISO = 2.6 x 10^12 M_sun
Virial mass chosen for the ISO halo component in the gravitational potential

axioms (1)

domain assumption The gravitational potential consists of stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components that can be modeled with NFW or ISO profiles
Invoked when constructing potentials from optical and HI data to explore satellite orbits

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1491 out tokens · 45312 ms · 2026-05-15T06:08:32.177830+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean; IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean reality_from_one_distinction; washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We constructed gravitational potentials... testing NFW and ISO halo profiles... orbital integrator delorean... maximised the likelihood (p=−log(χ²))... pericenter R_peri, apocenter R_apo, eccentricity ϵ
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The ISO halo model (M_Virial ≈ 2.6×10^12 M_⊙) favours bound satellite orbits more than the NFW model (M_Virial ≈ 1.4×10^12 M_⊙)

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

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

N., Adelman-Mccarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-Mccarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, Astro- physical Journal, Supplement Series, 182, 543

work page 2009
[2]

Bannikova, E. Y . 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3269

work page 2018
[3]

Barth, A. J. 2007, A NORMAL STELLAR DISK IN THE GALAXY MALIN 1 1, Tech. rep

work page 2007
[4]

J., & Drinkwater, M

Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., & Drinkwater, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 552, L105

work page 2001
[5]

Bell, E. F. & De Jong, R. S. 2001, STELLAR MASS-TO-LIGHT RATIOS AND THE TULLY-FISHER RELATION, Tech. rep

work page 2001
[6]

2024 Binney J

Binney, J. 2024 Binney J. & Tremaine S. 2008

work page 2024
[7]

P., Long, K

Blair, W. P., Long, K. S., Winkler, P. F., Lacey, C. K., & Williams, B. F. 2019, The Fireworks Galaxy, NGC 6946: Looking at the Fading Embers, Tech. rep. Blaña, M., Burkert, A., Fellhauer, M., Schartmann, M., & Alig, C. 2020, MN- RAS, 497, 3601 Blaña, M., Fellhauer, M., Smith, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 144 Blaña, M., Puzia, T. H., Ordenes-Briceño, Y .,...

work page 2019
[8]

L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al

Block, D. L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al. 2006, Nat, 443, 832

work page 2006
[9]

2016, The properties of the Ma- lin 1 galaxy giant disk: A panchromatic view from the NGVS and GUViCS surveys, Tech

Boissier, S., Boselli, A., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2016, The properties of the Ma- lin 1 galaxy giant disk: A panchromatic view from the NGVS and GUViCS surveys, Tech. rep

work page 2016
[10]

P., Conroy, C., et al

Bonaca, A., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, ApJ Letters, 909, L26

work page 2021
[11]

D., Lmpey, C

Bothun, G. D., Lmpey, C. D., Malin, D. F., & Mould, J. R. 1987, DISCOVERY OF A HUGE LOW-SURFACE-BRIGHTNESS GALAXY: A PROTODISK GALAXY AT LOW REDSHIFT?, Tech. Rep. 1 Bustos Espinoza, R. O. E., Galaz, G., & Blaña, M. 2024a, in 32nd General As- sembly International Union (IAUGA 2024), 2541 Bustos Espinoza, R. O. E., Galaz, G., & Blaña, M. 2024b, in AAS/Divis...

work page 1987
[12]

O., Mazzarella, J

Cook, D. O., Mazzarella, J. M., Helou, G., et al. 2023, ApJ Supplement Series, 268, 14

work page 2023
[13]

2013, Giant Low Surface Brightness Galaxies: Evolution in Isolation, Tech

Das, M. 2013, Giant Low Surface Brightness Galaxies: Evolution in Isolation, Tech. rep. De Blok, W. J. & Bosma, A. 2002, A&A, 385, 816

work page 2013
[14]

J., Koposov, S

Deason, A. J., Koposov, S. E., Fattahi, A., & Grand, R. J. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6091

work page 2023
[15]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168 Di Teodoro, E. M., Posti, L., Fall, S. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6340 Disney. 1976

work page 2019
[16]

2020, AJ, 159, 138

Du, W., Cheng, C., Zheng, Z., & Wu, H. 2020, AJ, 159, 138

work page 2020
[17]

A., Babul, A., Geehan, J

Fardal, M. A., Babul, A., Geehan, J. J., & Guhathakurta, P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1012

work page 2006
[18]

W., Belokurov, V ., et al

Fellhauer, M., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V ., et al. 2006, Is Ursa Major II the Progenitor of the Orphan Stream?, Tech. rep

work page 2006
[19]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2012

work page 2012
[20]

Freeman, K. C. 1970, ON THE DISKS OF SPIRAL AND SO GALAXIES, Tech. rep

work page 1970
[21]

T., Blaña, M., et al

Galaz, G., Frayer, D. T., Blaña, M., et al. 2022, ApJ Letters, 940, L37

work page 2022
[22]

Galaz, G., González-López, J., Guzmán, V ., et al. 2024

work page 2024
[23]

2015, ApJ, 815, L29

Galaz, G., Milovic, C., Suc, V ., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, L29

work page 2015
[24]

Gerritsen, J. P. E. & De Blok, W. J. G. 1999, Star formation and the interstellar medium in low surface brightness galaxies III. Why they are blue, thin and poor in molecular gas, Tech. rep

work page 1999
[25]

D., Bailin, J., Engelbracht, C

Gordon, K. D., Bailin, J., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, L87

work page 2006
[26]

Hoffman, Y ., Silk, J., & Wyse, R. F. G. 1992, THE FORMATION OF GIANT LOW SURFACE BRIGHTNESS GALAXIES, Tech. rep

work page 1992
[27]

M., et al

Ibata, R., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A. M., et al. 2004, Taking measure of the Andromeda halo: A kinematic analysis of the giant stream surrounding M31

work page 2004
[28]

& Bothun, G

Impey, C. & Bothun, G. 1997, LOW SURFACE BRIGHTNESS GALAXIES, Tech. rep

work page 1997
[29]

2021, MNRAS, 508, 3943

Ji, X., Li, C., Yan, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3943

work page 2021
[30]

J., Galaz, G., Blaña, M., et al

Johnston, E. J., Galaz, G., Blaña, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686

work page 2024
[31]

2020, A&A, 637

Junais, Boissier, S., Epinat, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 637

work page 2020
[32]

2025, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 702

Junais, Ruiz Cejudo, I., Guerra Arencibia, S., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 702

work page 2025
[33]

M., Epinat, B., et al

Junais, Weilbacher, P. M., Epinat, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 681

work page 2024
[34]

Kalberla, P. M. & Kerp, J. 2009, Annual Review of A&A, 47, 27

work page 2009
[35]

& Saha, K

Kataria, M. & Saha, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.12177

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Kazantzidis, S., Moore, B., & Mayer, L. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 327, Satellites and Tidal Streams, ed. F. Prada, D. Martinez Delgado, & T. J. Mahoney, 155

work page 2004
[37]

Formation of Warped Disks by Galactic Fly-by Encounters. I. Stellar Disks

Kim, J. H., Peirani, S., Kim, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789 [arXiv:1406.6074v1]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[38]

2020, ApJ, 903, 65

Kim, S., Jeong, H., Rey, S.-C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 65

work page 2020
[39]

I., Doumler, T., et al

Knebe, A., Libeskind, N. I., Doumler, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 56

work page 2011
[40]

Lelli, F., Fraternali, F., & Sancisi, R. 2010

work page 2010
[41]

2011, MNRAS, 410, 166

Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 166

work page 2011
[42]

& Murali, C

Long, K. & Murali, C. 1992, ApJ, 397, 44

work page 1992
[43]

2022, ApJ, 926, 96

Maeda, F., Egusa, F., Ohta, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 96

work page 2022
[44]

H., et al

Mao, Y .-Y ., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 85

work page 2021
[45]

2008, MNRAS, 383, 1223 Martínez-Delgado, D., Cooper, A

Mapelli, M., Moore, B., Ripamonti, E., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1223 Martínez-Delgado, D., Cooper, A. P., Román, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A141 Martínez-Delgado, D., Román, J., Erkal, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5030

work page 2008
[46]

A., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al

Miro-Carretero, J., Gomez-Flechoso, M. A., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al. 2024 Miyamoto N. & Nagai R. 1975 Mo. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution, Tech. rep., Cambridge

work page 2024
[47]

& Parker, Q

Moore, L. & Parker, Q. A. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 23, 165

work page 2006
[48]

Navarro, Frenck, & White. 1996

work page 1996
[49]

Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 207

work page 2012
[50]

2001, MNRAS, 328, 353

Noguchi, M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 353

work page 2001
[51]

M., Lanz, L., Appleton, P

Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., Appleton, P. N., Helou, G., & Mazzarella, J. 2019, ApJ Supplement Series, 243, 14

work page 2019
[52]

M., Lanz, L., Nader, C., & Helou, G

Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., Nader, C., & Helou, G. 2016, ApJ, 817, 109

work page 2016
[53]

E., Wetzel, A., et al

Panithanpaisal, N., Sanderson, R. E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 10 Peñarrubia, J., Mcconnachie, A., & Babul, A. 2006, ON THE FORMATION OF EXTENDED GALACTIC DISKS BY TIDALLY DISRUPTED DW ARF

work page 2021
[54]

1976, SURFACE BRIGHTNESS AND EVOLUTION OF

Petrosian, V . 1976, SURFACE BRIGHTNESS AND EVOLUTION OF

work page 1976
[55]

E., Impey, C

Pickering, T. E., Impey, C. D., Van Gorkom, J. H., & Bothun, G. D. 1997, NEU- TRAL HYDROGEN DISTRIBUTIONS AND KINEMATICS OF GIANT LOW SURFACE BRIGHTNESS DISK GALAXIES, Tech. rep. Plummer H. C. 1911

work page 1997
[56]

2016, A&A, 591

Psychogyios, A., Charmandaris, V ., Diaz-Santos, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 591

work page 2016
[57]

P., Moiseev, A

Reshetnikov, V . P., Moiseev, A. V ., & Sotnikova, N. Y . 2010 Román, J., Rich, R. M., Ahvazi, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 679

work page 2010
[58]

2022, in Astronomy at the Epoch of Multimessenger Studies, 395–397

Saburova, A., Chilingarian, I., Kasparova, A., et al. 2022, in Astronomy at the Epoch of Multimessenger Studies, 395–397

work page 2022
[59]

S., Chilingarian, I

Saburova, A. S., Chilingarian, I. V ., Kasparova, A. V ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 830

work page 2021
[60]

S., Chilingarian, I

Saburova, A. S., Chilingarian, I. V ., Kulier, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS: Letters, 520, L85

work page 2023
[61]

2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy

Saha, K., Dhiwar, S., Barway, S., Narayan, C., & Tandon, S. 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy

work page 2021
[62]

Salinas, V . H. & Galaz, G. 2021, ApJ, 915, 125 SDSS SkyServer. 2024, SkyServer DR18

work page 2021
[63]

N., et al

Smith, R., Fellhauer, M., Candlish, G. N., et al. 2013

work page 2013
[64]

A., Monachesi, A., et al

Vera-Casanova, A., Gómez, F. A., Monachesi, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4898

work page 2022
[65]

P., Jaffé, Y

Zaritsky, D., Crossett, J. P., Jaffé, Y . L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1431

work page 2023
[66]

E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., et al

Zhu, Q., Pérez-Montaño, L. E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3991

work page 2023
[67]

2018, MNRAS: Letters, 480, L18 Article number, page 17 A&A proofs:manuscript no

Zhu, Q., Xu, D., Gaspari, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS: Letters, 480, L18 Article number, page 17 A&A proofs:manuscript no. ExploringStellarStreamsAndSatellitesAroundMalin1_110526 Fig. A.1: Stream points, sA (cyan points) and sB (yellow points), and four satellites, M1A (red), M1B (orange), M1C (blue), and eM1 (violet). The center of Malin 1 is marked with a gr...

work page 2018