Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies. VIII. Misfits, Miscasts, and Miscreants

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Re-examining all 7,070 SMUDGes ultra-diffuse galaxy candidates by eye, the paper classifies 517 as mergers, ring galaxies, tidal debris, or contaminants, leaving 6,553 as viable undisturbed UDG candidates.

desk verdict A useful, honest reclassification of the SMUDGes catalog that uncovers a few genuinely interesting subclasses, but the clean-sample count rests on unaudited visual labels. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24755 v2 pith:2W45XLZD submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.GA

Dennis Zaritsky , Richard Donnerstein , Donghyeon J. Khim This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxieslowsurfacebrightnessSMUDGessurveygalaxymorphologyclassificationdwarfringmergerstidaldebrisgalacticcirruscontamination
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

The paper re-examines every one of the 7,070 candidate ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) in the SMUDGes survey—galaxies so diffuse and faint that they are hard to distinguish from image noise, foreground stars, and glowing Galactic dust. By visually inspecting each candidate, sometimes with deeper imaging and redshift data, the authors assign each object a class: undisturbed UDG candidate, tidally distorted or induced galaxy, ongoing or post-merger, ring galaxy, background galaxy, cirrus, star, or artifact. The headline number is that 6,553 candidates survive as viable, undisturbed UDG candidates, while 517 are something else. Among the notable captures are a low-surface-brightness merger sequence and a set of 29 dwarf ring galaxies that may have formed from nearly polar-axis collisions with unseen compact companions. The result matters because statistical studies of UDGs depend on having a clean sample whose measured sizes and shapes are not distorted by interactions or contamination.

What carries the argument

The central object is the classification table itself, a line-matched table that replaces the original binary Rejected flag with a Class label for each of the 7,070 detections. The classification is carried by visual morphological inspection of Legacy Survey images, supplemented for 577 objects by deeper Hyper Suprime-Cam imaging and, in a minority of cases, by spectroscopic or estimated redshifts. The working categories carry the argument: assigning an object to Class D, TDW, OM, PM, R, T, or C is what produces both the clean sample of 6,553 and the identification of the merger and ring subclasses. The physical hypotheses that give the classes meaning—tidal deformation, polar-axis collision ring formation, and tidal debris concentration—are borrowed from the established literature on ring galaxies and galaxy interactions.

What would settle it

Blindly reclassify a random subset of the catalog that includes both flagged and Class G objects using deeper images of uniform depth, and compare the class assignments; if the 6,553 count shifts by more than a few percent, or if the tidal bridges and rings that define the merger and ring classes vanish in the deeper data, the paper's classification claims would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the SMUDGes catalog of ultra-diffuse galaxy candidates, although produced by automated detection and single-Sérsic profile fitting, is a mixture of genuinely undisturbed diffuse galaxies and a diverse set of objects that only full visual inspection can separate. Of the 7,070 candidates, 6,553 are classified as viable undisturbed UDG candidates (Class G), leaving 517 flagged objects. These include 56 tidally distorted galaxies and 10 tidal dwarfs, 8 ongoing mergers and 7 post-mergers of low-surface-brightness galaxies, 29 dwarf ring galaxies and 2 smoke ring systems, 132 background galaxies, 157 tidal debris objects, 81 cirrus detections, and small numbers of artifacts, stars, outer-disk overdensities, emission-line regions, and one duplicate. The paper further argues that the flagged subclasses are not uniformly junk: the tidally distorted and merger systems trace a plausible interaction-driven UDG formation pathway, and the ring galaxies may be the products of nearly polar-axis collisions with companions so faint that they are currently undetected, possibly dark subhalos.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that visual inspection of low signal-to-noise images reliably separates the classes—the paper's own caveat is that classifications 'still depend on visual assessments, often made using low signal-to-noise detections,' with deeper imaging for only 577 of 7,070 objects—so the class counts and the 6,553 clean-sample number stand or fall with those visual judgments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers should select the 6,553 Class G objects as the clean working sample and exclude the flagged contaminants from UDG statistics, while treating the parameters of the tidally affected systems as unreliable.
  • The 66 tidally affected galaxies remain low-surface-brightness galaxies and may settle into regular UDGs later, supporting interaction-driven formation of at least some UDGs.
  • The 15 ongoing and post-merger systems, along with the excess of close Class G pairs, indicate that UDG mergers occur and may produce the largest UDGs; isolated pairs could eventually constrain UDG halo masses at radii well beyond the effective radius.
  • The 29 dwarf ring galaxies motivate simulations of low-mass, near-polar-axis collisions; if the perturbers are extremely faint or dark, these objects could trace the low end of the stellar-to-halo mass relation.
  • Deeper imaging from upcoming surveys is expected to flag additional objects among the current 6,553, so the clean sample is a best estimate under current data rather than a final census.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper warns that tidally distorted and ring objects have unreliable single-Sérsic parameters, a direct extension would be to recompute published UDG axis-ratio, size, and luminosity distributions using only the 6,553 Class G objects; if the flagged populations skew those distributions, earlier statistical conclusions about UDG shapes and environments would need revision.
  • If the dwarf ring galaxies are indeed collision remnants, their ring diameters and the absence of bright perturbers could be turned into a statistical probe of dark subhalos below the stellar-mass detection threshold; the paper calls for simulations but does not quantify this census.
  • The 15 merger candidates plus the statistical excess of close Class G pairs could provide a training set for automated identification of low-surface-brightness interactions in future wide surveys, making the next generation of UDG catalogs easier to clean at the source.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a visual reclassification of all 7,070 SMUDGes candidate ultra-diffuse galaxies using Legacy Survey imaging, supplemented by deeper HSC images for 577 objects and some spectroscopic redshifts. The authors assign one of 19 morphological labels to each object, identify subclasses including low-surface-brightness mergers (8 ongoing, 7 post-merger), dwarf ring galaxies (29), tidally distorted systems (56), and various contaminants, and conclude that 6,553 candidates remain viable undisturbed UDG candidates. They provide example images and a line-matched classification table.

Significance. If the classifications are reliable, this is a valuable community resource: it is the first systematic, object-by-object morphological audit of a large UDG catalog, and it highlights rare subclasses (LSB mergers, dwarf rings) that are promising targets for follow-up spectroscopy and hydrodynamical simulations. The paper ships a line-matched table, verifiable arithmetic (the class percentages sum to about 100% and match the quoted counts), and candid statements of the limitations of visual classification. The main weakness is the absence of a quantitative reliability assessment for the labels.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Table 2, and §5] The central deliverable is the classification of all 7,070 candidates, culminating in the 6,553-object clean sample, but the paper provides no quantitative validation of the visual classifications. The authors state in §2 that 'our classifications still depend on visual assessments, often made using low signal-to-noise detections' and that deeper HSC imaging is available for only 577 objects, yet no inter-rater agreement, no quantitative morphological criteria, and no confidence flags are reported. Because the small subclasses (OM = 8, PM = 7, R = 29, TDW = 10) are especially sensitive to a handful of misclassifications, and because the 6,553 count is the complement of the flagged classes, the absence of a reproducibility assessment leaves the headline number an unaudited estimate. I request an explicit reliability analysis: for example, independent blind reclassification of a random subset by a second examiner (or a quantitative morphological classifier comparison), with agreement rates and the resulting uncertainty on the flagged fraction. Without this, the clean-sample claim is not falsifiable at the precision implied by the abstract.
  2. [§3.1.2 and §3.4.1] The distinction between Class = TDW (tidal dwarf galaxies, 10 objects) and Class = T (tidal debris, 157 objects) is not operationally defined. In §3.1.2 the authors state that 'it is difficult to assess whether a low surface brightness enhancement is truly a gravitationally bound system,' and none of the TDWs have spectroscopic redshifts; moreover, the text notes that for the majority of the TDWs the inferred r_e > 7 kpc, 'suggest[ing] that the majority of these are not true galaxies.' This internal evidence blurs the boundary between TDW and T. I request that the authors either state explicit, reproducible criteria that separate TDW from T (e.g., detection of a tidal bridge, or a boundness indicator) or combine these classes and present the combined count with an upper-limit caveat. The current presentation gives false precision to a class that the authors themselves admit is difficult to establish.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4] In §4, 'SMDUGes' is a typo for 'SMUDGes' (see 're-visiting the SMDUGes catalog').
  2. [Throughout] The Sérsic profile is typeset as 'S´ ersic' with an unintended space; use a consistent LaTeX macro (e.g., 'S\'ersic').
  3. [§3.1.1] The text writes 'The fraction of such systems is modest (∼57/7070)' after reporting 56 Class = D objects; use 56/7070 or state that the value is approximate.
  4. [Table 2] Table 2 gives percentages only; adding the integer counts would help readers verify the numbers quoted in the text (e.g., D = 56, T = 157, R = 29).
  5. [Figure 8] Figure 8 is described as 'demonstrat[ing] an increasing statistical excess' of close pairs, but no error bars, uncertainties, or significance level are shown; the text later says the results are 'meant only to substantiate' close pairs, so soften the caption or add a significance estimate.
  6. [Table 1] The classification table is essential to the paper, but only the first 10 rows are printed; please provide the full machine-readable table as a data file (e.g., in the journal's data repository or as an ancillary file) and state its availability explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's classifications are an independent visual re-examination, not derived from the fitted parameters they critique.

full rationale

The paper's deliverable is a classification of 7,070 previously cataloged candidates. The classifications are assigned by visual inspection of Legacy Survey images and, for 577 objects, deeper HSC imaging; they are not computed from the Sersic parameters that define the parent SMUDGes catalog. The statement that 6,553 objects are unflagged is the arithmetic complement of the flagged categories, not a prediction derived from those categories. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim rests on a self-citation. The paper does rely on earlier SMUDGes papers for the candidate list and pipeline, and it cites the authors' own redshift-estimation technique, but those inputs are not the source of the new classification labels. The acknowledged subjectivity of visual classification and the limited availability of deeper imaging are correctness and uncertainty concerns, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper does not fit any parameters or introduce new physical entities. Its claims rest on subjective visual classification, making the reliability of morphological interpretation the key assumption. The only hypothetical entity is the dark subhalo perturber, which is presented as a speculative explanation, not an established result.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with parameters from Hinshaw et al. (2013).
    Adopted for any physical conversions, stated in the introduction.
  • domain assumption The SMUDGes selection criteria (central surface brightness fainter than 24 mag/arcsec^2 and effective radius greater than 5.3 arcsec) define a useful UDG candidate sample.
    Taken from Zaritsky et al. (2023a); the paper does not re-derive or justify these thresholds.
  • domain assumption Visual morphological features (tidal bridges, shells, rings, tails) are reliable indicators of physical interactions at these low surface brightness levels.
    The entire classification scheme relies on this; the paper acknowledges it is subjective and uses deeper imaging for only 577 objects.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic redshifts from the compiled sources are correct, and matches within 5.3 arcsec are genuine associations.
    Used to confirm background sources and host associations; only a few objects have such data.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark subhalo perturbers
    purpose: Proposed as possible unseen companions that could have created the dwarf ring galaxies.
    Purely hypothetical and not detected; the paper suggests simulations to test viability. No falsifiable prediction is made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies. VIII. Misfits, Miscasts, and Miscreants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2W45XLZD

@misc{pith2026250524755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies. VIII. Misfits, Miscasts, and Miscreants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2W45XLZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24755}
}
read the original abstract

We re-examine the 7,070 candidate ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) in the SMUDGes survey and provide classifications based on their visual morphology. Among the more interesting cases, we identify objects along a low surface brightness galaxy merger sequence (ongoing mergers (8) and post-mergers (7)) and a distinct set of dwarf ring galaxies (29). The ring galaxies are hypothesized to be the result of nearly polar-axis collisions, but the responsible companions are undetected. We also highlight objects in the catalog that appear to be tidally affected (66), thereby cautioning that their cataloged parameters may be unreliable. Finally, we identify contaminants of various types in the catalog, leaving 6,553 as viable undisturbed UDG candidates. We discuss all categories and provide example images of the more interesting ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Two examples of tidally distorted SMUDGes sources (Class = D). Images drawn from the Legacy Survey. The galaxy name and the size of the image in arcsec is given in each frame. For two of the three, the estimated redshifts agree well. Given the limited number of objects for comparison, this level of agreement is consistent with the previously esti￾mated accuracy rate for our estimated redshifts of 75%. 3.1.2. The T… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Eight SMUDGes identified as ongoing mergers galaxies (Class = OM). Images drawn from the Legacy Survey. The galaxy name and the size of the image in arcsec is given in each frame. and not included among the 29 ring galaxies dis￾cussed previously). These do not exhibit strong signs of star formation. The apparent greenish color of SMDG1128385+521403 in the Figure reflects a color cal￾ibration issue with the display… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. — The seven SMUDGes sources that are classified as post￾merger (Class = PM). Images drawn from the Legacy Survey. The galaxy name and the size of the image in arcsec is given in each frame. The greenish shade of the sources in some of the panels is due to a color calibration issue in the creation of these images within this portion of the Legacy survey. The first (SMDG0333056-255813) is part of NGC 1360, a planetary… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The 29 SMUDGes identified as dwarf ring galaxies (Class = R). Images drawn from the Legacy Survey. The galaxy name and the size of the image in arcsec is given in each frame. For those with available spectroscopic redshifts we had added a 5 kpc horizontal bar for sca…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The two SMUDGes identified as ’smoke rings’ (Class = SR). Images drawn from the Legacy Survey. The galaxy name and the size of the image in arcsec is given in each frame. These are off-center in the frame because the SMUDGes pipeline identified the brightest section …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Angular correlation function for SMUDGes candidates, which represents the excess fractional probability over random of finding a projected companion as a function of the pair separation. We select only those objects of class = G and exclude those within the Coma, For…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — All identified tidal streamers (Class = TS). These vary in morphology but generally consist of a filamentary distribution of distinct blue pockets of star formation. Images drawn from the Legacy Survey. The galaxy name and the size of the image in arcsec is given in …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  2. [2]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1992, Nature, 360, 715, doi:10.1038/360715a0

    doi:10.1038/360715a0 1992

  3. [3]

    J., Zaritsky, D., et al

    Bennet, P., Sand, D. J., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, L11, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadedf

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadedf 2018

  4. [4]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 93, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c

    Burkert, A. 2017, ApJ, 838, 93, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa671c 2017

  6. [6]

    GAMA 526784: the progenitor of a globular cluster-rich ultra-diffuse galaxy? I. Star clusters, stellar body and ionised gas properties

    Buzzo, M. L., Hilker, M., Zanella, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15910, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.15910

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.15910 2025

  7. [7]

    D., Lloyd, C., & Penston, M

    Cannon, R. D., Lloyd, C., & Penston, M. V. 1970, The Observatory, 90, 153

    work page 1970

  8. [8]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 382, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz383 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A

    Carleton, T., Errani, R., Cooper, M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 382, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz383 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14745 2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Mirabel, I

    Duc, P. A., & Mirabel, I. F. 1994, A&A, 289, 83

    1994

  3. [11]

    G., Kaufman, M., & Thomasson, M

    Elmegreen, B. G., Kaufman, M., & Thomasson, M. 1993, ApJ, 412, 90, doi:10.1086/172903

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    Fosbury, R. A. E., & Hawarden, T. G. 1977, MNRAS, 178, 473, doi:10.1093/mnras/178.3.473

    1977 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Guerrero, M

    Goldman, D. B., Guerrero, M. A., Chu, Y.-H., & Gruendl, R. A. 2004, AJ, 128, 1711, doi:10.1086/424623

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    R., et al

    Heesters, N., M¨ uller, O., Marleau, F. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A33, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346441

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Charlton, J

    Hunsberger, S. D., Charlton, J. C., & Zaritsky, D. 1996, ApJ, 462, 50, doi:10.1086/177126

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 6140, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2527

    Inoue, S., Yoshida, N., & Hernquist, L. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 6140, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2527

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    J., & Combes, F

    Jog, C. J., & Combes, F. 2009, Phys. Rep., 471, 75, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.12.002

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Bennet, P., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., et al

    Jones, M. G., Bennet, P., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 72, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0975

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Kadowaki, J., Zaritsky, D., & Donnerstein, R. L. 2017, ApJ, 838, L21, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa653d

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    L., et al

    Kadowaki, J., Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 257, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2948

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 91, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cf

    Karunakaran, A., Motiwala, K., Spekkens, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 91, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cf

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Zaritsky, D., Lambert, M., & Donnerstein, R

    Khim, D. J., Zaritsky, D., Lambert, M., & Donnerstein, R. 2024, AJ, 168, 45, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ed3

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Zaritsky, D., & Donnerstein, R

    Lambert, M., Khim, D. J., Zaritsky, D., & Donnerstein, R. 2024, AJ, 167, 61, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0f25

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al

    Liao, S., Gao, L., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5182, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2969

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    1976, ApJ, 209, 382, doi:10.1086/154730 SMUDGes Detritus 9

    Lynds, R., & Toomre, A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 382, doi:10.1086/154730 SMUDGes Detritus 9

    1976 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Nelson, E., & Petrillo, K

    Madore, B. F., Nelson, E., & Petrillo, K. 2009, ApJS, 181, 572, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/572

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1158, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20098.x

    Mapelli, M., & Mayer, L. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1158, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20098.x

    2012

  22. [30]

    F., Dottori, H., & Lutz, D

    Mirabel, I. F., Dottori, H., & Lutz, D. 1992, A&A, 256, L19

    1992

  23. [31]

    Oke, J. B. 1964, ApJ, 140, 689, doi:10.1086/147960

    1964 doi

  24. [32]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi:10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  25. [33]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10, doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Habas, R., et al

    Poulain, M., Marleau, F. R., Habas, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A14, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142012

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    R., & White, S

    Rix, H.-W. R., & White, S. D. M. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 941, doi:10.1093/mnras/240.4.941 Sandoval Ascencio, L., Cooper, M. C., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00117, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.00117 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computin...

    1989 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    White, S. D. M. 1981, MNRAS, 195, 1037, doi:10.1093/mnras/195.4.1037

    1981 doi

  29. [37]

    White, S. D. M., Huchra, J., Latham, D., & Davis, M. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 701, doi:10.1093/mnras/203.3.701

    1983 doi

  30. [38]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi:10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, L110, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw198

    Zaritsky, D. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L110, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw198

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2023a, ApJS, 267, 27, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 —

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Dey, A., et al. 2023a, ApJS, 267, 27, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 —. 2019, ApJS, 240, 1, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaefe9 —. 2021, ApJS —. 2022, ApJS

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Jaff´ e, Y

    Zaritsky, D., Crossett, J. P., Jaff´ e, Y. L., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 524, 1431, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1964

    doi

  34. [42]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 1085, doi:10.1086/587448

    Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., Song, I., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1085, doi:10.1086/587448

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    1956, Ergebnisse der exakten Naturwissenschaften, 29, 344 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template

    Zwicky, F. 1956, Ergebnisse der exakten Naturwissenschaften, 29, 344 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-phsection of the arXiv, making the revie...

    1956

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.