Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Deep Look at the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellite Virgo III with Rubin Observatory Data Preview 2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Deep Rubin imaging multiplies Virgo III’s candidate stars by more than four and confirms it as an ultra-faint dwarf at about 151 kpc.

desk verdict Solid DP2 re-analysis that confirms Virgo III as a UFD and showcases LSST depth; the revised larger/more elliptical size is the only load-bearing soft spot and the paper already flags it. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25044 v1 pith:E4OGDPVM submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.GA

Aashay Pai , Alex Drlica-Wagner , Peter S. Ferguson , William Cerny , Chin Yi Tan , Jeffrey L. Carlin , Yumi Choi , Željko Ivezić
show 4 more authors
Lauren A. MacArthur Colin T. Slater Dan S. Taranu Brian Yanny
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesMilkyWaysatellitesVirgoIIILSSTRubinObservatoryRRLyraestar-galaxyseparationphotometricmetallicity
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 re-measures the faint Milky Way satellite Virgo III with unusually deep early Rubin imaging that already approaches the planned ten-year survey depth. With more than four times as many candidate member stars as the discovery data, the fit yields tighter size, shape, luminosity, and distance estimates that still match an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy. The same photometry separates metal-poor members from the foreground in color–color space and recovers periods and independent distances for the three known RR Lyrae stars. The authors treat the field as a benchmark: if this depth and quality can characterize one known system this cleanly, the full southern survey should find and measure many more.

What carries the argument

The maximum-likelihood package ugali, which jointly fits an elliptical Plummer spatial profile and isochrone stellar-population parameters and assigns membership probabilities; forced-photometry light curves plus PLZ/PWZ relations supply independent RR Lyrae distances.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic radial velocities and metallicities for the high-probability members, or an independent deep imaging campaign, that either confirm the southern extension as bound stars or show it is foreground/background contamination would decide whether the revised morphology stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Rubin DP2 coadds of the M49 field give N_* = 114^{+11}_{-11} candidate members for Virgo III—more than four times the discovery count—and best-fit parameters M_V = −2.72^{+0.49}_{-0.70}, r_{1/2} = 53^{+10}_{-8} pc, and D_⊙ = 151^{+8}_{-8} kpc that are consistent with an ultra-faint dwarf. Periods and PLZ/PWZ distances for the three known RR Lyrae are broadly consistent with earlier work, and the photometry is deep and precise enough to offset metal-poor members from the stellar locus in color–color space.

Load-bearing premise

The larger size and ellipticity relative to earlier work rest on a low-significance southern clump of faint stars that the authors themselves say still needs confirmation as real structure rather than residual contamination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LSST-depth imaging can characterize ultra-faint systems at ~150 kpc with precise morphology and membership lists dominated by stars below the main-sequence turnoff.
  • Color–color photometric metallicity separation is already usable at DP2 quality for faint satellites.
  • Forced-photometry RR Lyrae periods and PLZ/PWZ distances provide an independent distance ladder for the same systems.
  • The same analysis path is ready to apply to new southern-sky satellite candidates as the survey accumulates area.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the southern extension is real tidal debris, Virgo III becomes a useful nearby laboratory for disruption of the faintest galaxies, not only a static structural benchmark.
  • Star–galaxy separation choice materially sets detection significance at the faint end; future all-sky searches will inherit that systematic as a leading uncertainty.
  • Once similar member samples exist for many systems, stacked color–color offsets could map the metallicity distribution of the ultra-faint population without waiting for complete spectroscopy.
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 authors re-analyze the ultra-faint Milky Way satellite Virgo III using the deep Rubin DP2 imaging of the M49 'Cosmic Treasure Chest' field (~924 coadded visits, 5-sigma depths ~25.2-26.5 mag). With ugali they fit the morphology and isochrone parameters, finding N*=114 candidate members (4x the HSC discovery sample), M_V=-2.72, r_1/2=53 pc, and D=151 kpc — distance and luminosity consistent with Homma et al. (2024), but a significantly larger semi-major axis (1.68 vs 1.0 arcmin), higher ellipticity (0.48 vs 0.29), and rotated PA, which they attribute to a low-significance southern overdensity of faint isochrone-selected stars, possibly tidal debris. They also show color-color separation of metal-poor members from the foreground locus, measure a systemic proper motion from three Gaia-matched RGB stars (too uncertain for orbital inference), and re-derive periods and PLZ/PWZ distances for the three known RR Lyrae, finding broad consistency with Ngeow & Bhardwaj (2024) though with >3-sigma internal tensions for RRL 1 and RRL 3 relative to the isochrone distance.

Significance. If the revised morphology holds up, this is a useful early demonstration that LSST-depth imaging can reveal sub-structure (tidal debris or extended halos) in ultra-faint dwarfs that shallower surveys miss — directly relevant to the tidal-disruption science case for LSST. The RR Lyrae results, while mostly confirmatory, provide a practical validation of DP2 forced photometry and template libraries for LSST time-domain work on standard candles. The explicit reporting of posteriors, systematic floors, and the limitations of the RRc fit is good practice. The main significance caveat is that the genuinely new contribution — the larger, more elongated morphology — is only as strong as the reality of the faint southern overdensity, which the current manuscript does not establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3 / §3.2 / Fig. 2, Fig. 3] The classifier used for the entire analysis (refExtendedness<0.5) is selected because it maximizes the ugali detection significance of Virgo III itself (Fig. 2). This is a selection tuned on the target signal, and it is most consequential exactly where it matters most: the paper's headline differences from HSC (a_h=1.68 vs 1.0 arcmin, epsilon=0.48 vs 0.29, PA=-68 vs -24 deg; r_1/2=53 vs 37 pc, ~2 sigma) are attributed to a low-significance southern overdensity of faint (g,r~25-26) isochrone-selected stars at (dRA,dDec)~(0,-0.06). The field is centered on M49 in the Virgo cluster, where the density of unresolved, point-like background galaxies is locally enhanced and spatially clustered, so misclassified galaxies could mimic a coherent 'tidal' feature; and ugali's background model is spatially uniform, so a clustered contaminant clump would be absorbed into the satellite model, inflating
  2. [§5.4-5.5, Table 4] The distance-modulus estimates use the PLZ/PWZ relations of Marconi et al. (2022) with [Fe/H] fixed to the 50th percentile of the ugali isochrone metallicity posterior. But that posterior piles up against the lower MCMC bound (Table 2 quotes only Z<0.00018, i.e., [Fe/H]<-1.94), so the adopted [Fe/H]=-2.08 is prior-bound-driven rather than measured. With gamma~0.2-0.3 mag/dex in the PLZ relations, the systematic metallicity uncertainty is comparable to the quoted distance-modulus errors and could account for part of the >3 sigma offset between the RRL 1 PLZ distance (110+/-7 kpc) and the isochrone distance (151 kpc). The authors should marginalize over a metallicity range (e.g., -2.5 to -1.5) or report the sensitivity of each distance to [Fe/H], and temper the abstract's 'broadly consistent' language for the RRL 1 and RRL 3 PLZ/PWZ results accordingly.
  3. [§5.2-5.3, Table 4] The template fit for RRL 3 returns a negative amplitude (-0.27 mag), which is unphysical, and its period (0.4907 d) disagrees with both the period-search value (0.4417 d) and the literature value (0.434 d, Ngeow & Bhardwaj 2024). Relatedly, RRL 2's period-search uncertainty is highly asymmetric (+0.0484/-0.0024 d), suggesting an alias peak near the ~1-day cadence of the seven-night observing window. The authors do appropriately caution against over-interpreting RRL 3, but Table 4 and Fig. 10 still present its PLZ/PWZ distance moduli (which are ~6 sigma from the isochrone distance) on equal footing with the RRab results, and the alias structure of the periodogram is never shown. Please (i) show the periodograms or phase-dispersion curves for all three stars, (ii) discuss the alias interpretation of RRL 2's upper error bar, and (iii) explicitly flag the RRL 3 distance moduli in Table 4 / F
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2 vs Table 2] The notation for the number of member stars is inconsistent: Table 2 and the abstract use N_*, while §3.2 introduces N_obs=114. Please unify.
  2. [§3.3] Two RR Lyrae receive low ugali membership probabilities because no magnitude spread is included in the HB model; since the HB drives the distance fit, it would be worth noting whether including an HB width changes the membership of these (and other) HB stars or the N_* estimate.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption / §3.3] Fig. 3 caption states the g-r isochrone filter selects 189 of 209 stars with membership probability >10%, but §3.3 says g-r selects 189 stars within the filter; please make the two statements consistent and state the final high-purity sample size (104) in the abstract or §3.3 alongside N_*=114 for clarity.
  4. [§5.1] §5.1: the per-band systematic calibration uncertainty is estimated from the zeropoint scatter of images in which each RR Lyrae was observed; since these stars are variable and observed in only 74-130 coadded visits, clarify that this estimator is not biased by the variability itself, and state the number of epochs used per star.
  5. [References / §4.2] Jethwa, Erkal & Belokurov (2018) appears twice in the reference list; Gaia Collaboration et al. (2023) is typeset as 'a' rather than A&A. Also, the proper-motion uncertainties in §4.2 (sigma~0.3-0.5 mas/yr) are described as precluding orbital constraints; consider one sentence noting how many member stars would be needed, or the Gaia DR4 improvement, for closure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: standard likelihood fits to new DP2 photometry compared against external HSC/RR Lyrae literature; only minor coupling of isochrone [Fe/H] into PLZ/PWZ distances.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; §5.4 Eq. (2); Table 4]
    "we use theoretical Period-Luminosity-Metallicity (PLZ) and Period-Wesenheit-Metallicity (PWZ) relations to obtain independent distance estimates. ... As we do not have spectroscopic metallicity measurements, we use the 50th percentile value of the fitted systemic isochrone metallicity distribution (Z=0.00013; [Fe/H]=−2.08 dex) as a proxy."

    The PLZ/PWZ distances are presented as independent of the isochrone distance, but [Fe/H] is taken directly from the same ugali isochrone fit that supplies (m−M)0. That couples the two estimators through a shared fitted input. The coupling is weak (periods and mean magnitudes are from forced photometry; the paper reports >3σ tension for some stars rather than forcing consistency) and does not underwrite the morphological/UFD claims.

full rationale

This is an observational characterization paper. Morphological and stellar-population parameters are obtained by fitting an elliptical Plummer + PARSEC-COLIBRI isochrone model to independent Rubin DP2 photometry via ugali/emcee; N*, MV, r1/2, and D⊙ are derived outputs of that fit, not inputs redefined as predictions. Comparisons to Homma et al. (2024) and Ngeow & Bhardwaj (2024) are external benchmarks. Self-citations to ugali (Bechtol/Drlica-Wagner) are methodological tool use, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The sole mild coupling is reuse of the fitted isochrone metallicity as the [Fe/H] proxy in theoretical PLZ/PWZ distance moduli that the abstract labels independent; even there the paper reports tension rather than forced agreement, and the structural UFD claim does not reduce to that choice. No self-definitional loops, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard stellar-population and density-profile assumptions plus public survey products. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are the usual ugali morphological/isochrone fit parameters and RR Lyrae period/amplitude nuisance parameters; results are conditioned on Plummer+isochrone models, chosen star–galaxy cuts, and theoretical PLZ/PWZ coefficients from the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • ugali morphological set (α, δ, ah, ε, PA, λ) = ah=1.68+0.39−0.30 arcmin; ε=0.48+0.11−0.13; PA=−68+12−10 deg; λ=5073+902−849
    Fitted simultaneously by MCMC to the DP2 stellar catalog; central size/shape claims are these fitted values.
  • isochrone (m−M)0, age τ, metallicity Z = (m−M)0=20.90+0.10−0.11; τ>11.45 Gyr; Z<0.00018
    Free isochrone parameters in the same likelihood; distance and [Fe/H] limits come from their posteriors (age/Z hit bounds).
  • RR Lyrae periods and mean magnitudes = P≈0.611, 0.675, 0.442 d (period search)
    Fitted from DP2 forced photometry via period search and template fits; enter PLZ/PWZ distance moduli.
  • per-visit photometric systematic floor = 0.02–0.03 mag
    Ad hoc inflation of ForcedSource uncertainties (0.03 mag g,r; 0.02 mag i) from zeropoint scatter before period fitting.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stellar density follows an elliptical Plummer profile plus spatially uniform contaminants.
    §3.1 spatial model; standard for ugali UFD fits but can bias size if tides or substructure are present.
  • domain assumption PARSEC-COLIBRI isochrones with Chabrier IMF in LSST bandpasses describe the CMD.
    §3.1; 0.1 mag systematic added for library choice, acknowledging model dependence of distance.
  • ad hoc to paper refExtendedness<0.5 is an adequate star–galaxy separator at the faint end for this field.
    §2.3 chooses the classifier that maximizes ugali TS on Virgo III itself; performance may not generalize.
  • domain assumption Marconi et al. (2022) PLZ/PWZ coefficients apply to LSST bands for these stars; systemic isochrone [Fe/H] proxies RR Lyrae metallicity.
    §5.4–5.5; no spectroscopic [Fe/H], so distance moduli inherit that proxy.
  • standard math Schlegel dust maps with Schlafly & Finkbeiner 0.86 rescaling and Cardelli RV=3.1 Rb coefficients give correct extinction.
    §2.2; standard Galactic extinction treatment for optical surveys.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Deep Look at the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellite Virgo III with Rubin Observatory Data Preview 2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4OGDPVM

@misc{pith2026260725044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Deep Look at the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellite Virgo III with Rubin Observatory Data Preview 2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4OGDPVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25044}
}
abstract

We analyze the ultra-faint Milky Way satellite Virgo III using data from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Preview 2 (DP2). Virgo III was observed in the Rubin "Cosmic Treasure Chest" (M49) First Look field, which contains 924 visits in the u,g,r,i bands comprising ~10.5hrs of exposure time with LSSTCam. These data are considerably deeper than the majority of DP2, with a $5\sigma$ limiting magnitude that approaches the expected 10-year depth of LSST (~25.2-26.5mag, depending on band). We report the morphological and stellar population parameters of Virgo III measured with the maximum-likelihood-based package ugali. The depth of the Rubin imaging yields more than a factor of four increase in the number of candidate member stars ($N_* = 114^{+11}_{-11}$) relative to the Virgo III discovery results ($N_* = 25^{+5}_{-4}$), enabling significantly more precise morphological constraints. Our best-fit parameters broadly agree with previous measurements, further confirming that Virgo III has properties that are consistent with an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy ($M_V = -2.72^{+0.49}_{-0.70}$; $r_{1/2} = 53^{+10}_{-8}$) located at a heliocentric distance of $D_\odot = 151^{+8}_{-8}$. We also demonstrate that the depth and photometric quality of the DP2 data are sufficient to separate metal-poor and metal-rich stars in color-color space. We further present period estimates for the three known RR Lyrae member stars derived from the DP2 forced photometry; we use theoretical Period-Luminosity-Metallicity (PLZ) and Period-Wesenheit-Metallicity (PWZ) relations to obtain independent distance estimates. We find that our period and distance estimates are broadly consistent with previous measurements for these RR Lyrae. These results demonstrate the power of LSST data for the discovery and characterization of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies and motivate future searches for new satellites across the southern sky.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributions of per-visit 5σ limiting magnitude and PSF FWHM for the M49 field in Rubin DP2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ugali significance of the Virgo III stellar overdensity as a function of magnitude limit in the g-band for three different star–galaxy classifiers pro￾vided in the DP2 Object catalogs: refExtendedness (dark blue solid line), g sizeExtendedness (cyan dotted line) and griz model extendedness (orange dashed line). The refExtendedness classifier maximizes the ugali significance at p TSgr ∼ 14 and performs the best a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagnostic plots for Virgo III observed in Rubin DP2. The top-left panel shows a smoothed map of isochrone-selected stellar density, with the overdensity in the center corresponding to Virgo III. The top-middle panel shows the spatial distribution of isochrone-selected stars (gray) along with probable members colored by their ugali membership probability. The two black ellipses correspond to 2ah and 4ah. The top-rig… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between our best-fit morphological parameters obtained from Rubin DP2 using ugali and the HSC measurements from (Homma et al. 2024). The ugali marginalized posteriors are shown in green, along with a green point with error bars indicating the 50th percentile…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The high-purity Virgo III member sample defined as stars selected with refExtendedness < 0.5, ugali membership probability > 10%, colors consistent with g − r, r − i, & g − i isochrones, and |µα∗| < 3 mas yr−1 & |µδ| < 3 mas yr−1 (if available). The left panel shows th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proper motions of stars within a 10 arcmin radius of the centroid of Virgo III. Background stars are plotted as gray circles, while stars belonging to the Virgo III high-purity member sample are plotted as orange squares. These stars have high ugali membership probabil…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the evolved, post-main sequence member stars of Virgo III in color–color space. Virgo III member stars are plotted as diamonds colored by their g-band magnitudes. Known RR Lyrae are plotted as circles with cyan outlines. RGB stars with matches to Gaia …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The top-panel shows a g−r vs. r−i color–color di￾agram for stars in the Virgo III field. The background stellar locus is shown as light blue points. All stars that are brighter than g < 23.75 mag and r < 23.75 mag within 2 arcmin of Virgo III are shown as filled orange…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bootstrapped phase-folded light curves of the three known RR Lyrae in Virgo III. The top row shows phase-folded light curves from the period search algorithm. For each star, the ugri light curves are shown from top to bottom. Each panel is labelled by its diaObjectId v…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A comparison of the distance modulus estimates for each RR Lyrae star. The circles denote distance moduli estimated through the PLZ (Section 5.4), the triangles show those estimated through the PWZ (Section 5.5) and the ‘×’ points show literature values. The PLZ and P…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The top panel shows the absolute V -band magnitude of Milky Way satellite systems as a function of azimuthally averaged half-light radius. The bottom panel shows the same, but as a function of heliocentric distance. The second y-axis on the right hand side of both pan…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior distributions of the morphological properties of Virgo III modelled with ugali. Here, λ is the stellar richness, (αJ2000, δJ2000) are the centroid coordinates, ah is the angular semi-major axis of an ellipse containing half the light, ε is the ellipticity, P…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Diagnostic plots for Virgo III similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Diagnostic plots for Virgo III similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Discovery of the Distant, Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellite Aquarius IV with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Early Data Preview 2

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Rubin EDP2 data reveal an ultra-faint stellar system, Aquarius IV, at ~109 kpc with MV = -1.9, likely a dwarf galaxy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Abazajian, K., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 502, doi: 10.1086/421365

    doi:10.1086/421365 2004

  2. [2]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    Aihara, H., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S8, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

  3. [3]

    2026, Data Preview 2: Definition and planning, Technical Note RTN-111, NSF-DOE Vera C

    AlSayyad, Y., & O’Mullane, W. 2026, Data Preview 2: Definition and planning, Technical Note RTN-111, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. https://rtn-111.lsst.io/ Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2026

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 694, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453129

    Baeza-Villagra, K., Rodr ´ ıguez-Segovia, N., Catelan, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453129

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453129 2025

  5. [5]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/50

    Bechtol, K., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/50 2015

  6. [6]

    Bernstein, G. M. 2022, gbdes: DECam instrumental signature fitting and processing programs, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2210.011. http://ascl.net/2210.011

    2022

  7. [7]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  8. [8]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx080 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bosch, J., AlSayyad, Y., Armstrong, R., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03248

    2019 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  4. [12]

    L., Rykoff, E

    Burke, D. L., Rykoff, E. S., Allam, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Cerny, W., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Pace, A

    Cerny, W., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.17652, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.17652

    2026 doi

  8. [16]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1274, doi: 10.1086/321401

    Chabrier, G. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1274, doi: 10.1086/321401

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    D., et al

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 392, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01285-w

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/115 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F

    Deason, A., Wetzel, A., & Garrison-Kimmel, S. 2014, ApJ, 794, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/115 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    S., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Mau, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Nidever, D

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Carlin, J. L., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 256, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac079d

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    W., & Willman, B

    Fadely, R., Hogg, D. W., & Willman, B. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/15

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Parejko, J. K. 2025, The Monster: A reference catalog with synthetic ugrizy-band fluxes for the Vera C. Rubin observatory, Data Management Technical Note DMTN-277, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/rubin/2583688

    2025

  19. [27]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Conley, A., Meierjurgen Farr, W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002. http://ascl.net/1303.002 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/2...

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    E., & P´ erez, F

    Granger, B. E., & P´ erez, F. 2021, Computing in Science & Engineering, 23, 7, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3059263

    2021

  21. [29]

    R., Willman, B., & Peter, A

    Hargis, J. R., Willman, B., & Peter, A. H. G. 2014, ApJL, 795, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L13 18

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    Hirata, C., & Seljak, U. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    2003

  24. [32]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 733, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae044

    Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 733, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae044

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Amon, A., et al

    Jarvis, M., Bernstein, G. M., Amon, A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 1282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3679

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 2060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2330

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 2060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2330

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    W., et al

    Koposov, S., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 279, doi: 10.1086/589911

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2731

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    2025, The Consolidated Database of Image

    Lim, K.-T. 2025, The Consolidated Database of Image

    2025

  31. [40]

    Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/rubin/2586436

    Metadata, Data Management Technical Note DMTN-227, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/rubin/2586436

  32. [41]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Seljak, U., et al

    Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C. M., Seljak, U., et al. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 1287, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09282.x

    2005

  34. [43]

    Manwadkar, V., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2452

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78ee

    Marconi, M., Molinaro, R., Dall’Ora, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78ee

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    F., de Jong, J

    Martin, N. F., de Jong, J. T. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 684, 1075, doi: 10.1086/590336

    2008 doi

  38. [47]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Helly, J. C. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1085

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad49a9 NSF-DOE Vera C

    Ngeow, C.-C., & Bhardwaj, A. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad49a9 NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. 2021, Rubin Observatory LSST Tutorials, [Computer Software] https://doi.org/10.11578/rubin/dc.20250909.20, doi: 10.11578/rubin/dc.20250909.20 N...

    2024

  41. [50]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817 O’Mullane, W., Economou, F., Huang, F., et al. 2024, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 535, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXXI, ed. B. V. Hugo, R. Van Rooyen, & O....

    1983 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    B., Erkal, D., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    B., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., & Li, T. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0aee

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 Rubin Observatory Science Pipelines Developers. 2025, The LSST Science Pipelines Software: Optical Survey Pipeline Reduction and Analysis Environment, Project Science Technical Note PSTN-019, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubi...

    1911

  45. [54]

    Saha, A., & Vivas, A. K. 2017, AJ, 154, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8fd3

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    Navarro, J. F. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2057

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  49. [58]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, & NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. 2025, The LSST Camera (LSSTCam), SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC), Menlo Park, CA (United States), doi: 10.71929/ru...

    2019

  50. [59]

    T., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Lupton, R

    Slater, C. T., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Lupton, R. H. 2020, AJ, 159, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6166

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    Y., Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Tan, C. Y., Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0c 19

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    Y., Drlica-Wagner, A., Pace, A

    Tan, C. Y., Drlica-Wagner, A., Pace, A. B., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4479

    2026 doi

  53. [62]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Bullock, J

    Tollerud, E. J., Bullock, J. S., Strigari, L. E., & Willman, B. 2008, ApJ, 688, 277, doi: 10.1086/592102

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 89, doi: 10.33232/001c.142072

    Tsiane, K., Mau, S., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 89, doi: 10.33232/001c.142072

    2025 doi

  56. [65]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H

    Walsh, S. M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H. 2009, AJ, 137, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/450

    2009 doi

  58. [67]

    D., Bullock, J

    Wolf, J., Martinez, G. D., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1220, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x 20 APPENDIX A.MCMC POSTERIOR DISTRIBUTIONS In this Appendix, we show the posterior distributions of a simultaneous fit of the morphological and isochrone parameters ...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.