Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Tip of Red Giant Branch Distances to Nearby Dwarf Galaxies WLM and Sextans A with JWST

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper uses JWST near-infrared photometry to measure the tip of the red giant branch in WLM and Sextans A, yielding distances of 0.989 and 1.406 Mpc with about 2.7% uncertainty.

desk verdict Clean JWST TRGB distances for WLM and Sextans A; new measurements, inherited zero point, so validate the calibration transfer before quoting the systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03511 v1 pith:E66NPWK5 submitted 2025-05-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Ziming Yan , Shu Wang , Xiaodian Chen , Licai Deng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords TipoftheredgiantbranchTRGBdistancesdwarfgalaxiesWLMSextansAJWSTNIRCamphotometrySobeledgedetectionstandardcandles
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 uses JWST near-infrared images to find the tip of the red giant branch in two nearby dwarf galaxies, WLM and Sextans A, and converts that brightness cutoff into a distance. The claim is that WLM lies at a distance modulus of $24.977 \pm 0.018$ (stat) $\pm 0.056$ (sys) mag and Sextans A at $25.740 \pm 0.011$ (stat) $\pm 0.057$ (sys) mag, corresponding to about $0.989$ and $1.406$ Mpc with roughly 2.7% uncertainty. These distances agree within about 3% with earlier Cepheid, JAGB, and HST TRGB measurements, which matters because independent distance scales to the same galaxies test whether standard candles agree. The paper argues that with sharper future measurements these dwarfs could become additional anchor points for calibrating the TRGB itself.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB), the sharp drop in the luminosity function of old low-mass stars at the onset of the helium flash; in the F090W band its absolute magnitude is nearly constant across metallicity and age. The measurement chain is: PSF photometry with DOLPHOT on JWST NIRCam F090W/F150W images, spatial and color cuts to isolate halo RGB stars, a smoothed luminosity function, a Sobel edge-detection kernel $[-1,0,1]$ to locate the edge, bootstrap Monte Carlo trials for the statistical error, and finally the Anand et al. (2024a) NGC 4258 calibration to turn apparent into absolute magnitudes. The Sobel edge detection is what actually converts the photometric catalog into a TRGB magnitude.

What would settle it

Measure independent distances to the same two galaxies using RR Lyrae stars observed with JWST, or compare with high-precision Cepheid distances in the same fields. If the RR Lyrae or Cepheid distance moduli differ from the TRGB values by more than the combined uncertainties (roughly 0.06-0.08 mag), the adopted TRGB absolute magnitude or its population dependence is wrong. A simpler check: if the two galaxies' TRGB distances disagree with each other relative to their independent anchors in a metallicity-correlated way, the F090W metallicity correction is missing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is a pair of distance measurements. Using the F090W filter on JWST/NIRCam, the authors detect the helium-flash cutoff at the top of the red giant branch and fit its edge with a Sobel filter, obtaining apparent TRGB magnitudes of $m_{\mathrm{TRGB}} = 20.643 \pm 0.018$ mag for WLM and $21.415 \pm 0.011$ mag for Sextans A. Adopting the NGC 4258-calibrated absolute magnitude $M_{\mathrm{TRGB}}^{\mathrm{F090W}} = -4.377 \pm 0.033 \pm 0.045$ mag and applying small foreground extinctions, they derive distance moduli of $\mu_{0,\mathrm{WLM}} = 24.977 \pm 0.018 \pm 0.056$ mag and $\mu_{0,\mathrm{SexA}} = 25.740 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.057$ mag. The stated upshot is that JWST's resolution lets the TRGB method reach crowded dwarf-galaxy fields with statistical errors near 0.01 mag, and the resulting distances match previous Cepheid, JAGB, and TRGB values within 1$\sigma$, corresponding to roughly 3% in distance.

Load-bearing premise

The entire distance scale rests on the adopted absolute F090W TRGB magnitude of $-4.377$ mag from the NGC 4258 calibration being valid for the very metal-poor, old red giants in WLM and Sextans A; a zero-point error or an uncorrected metallicity or age effect would shift both distances by the same amount.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WLM is at $0.989 \pm 0.027$ Mpc and Sextans A at $1.406 \pm 0.038$ Mpc, tightening the local distance scale for two standard-candle host galaxies.
  • The agreement among TRGB, Cepheid, and JAGB distances within about 3% in these dwarfs supports the mutual consistency of the three distance indicators.
  • If future measurements sharpen these distances, WLM and Sextans A can join the set of anchor galaxies used to calibrate the TRGB absolute magnitude, with the aim of pushing TRGB-based distance uncertainty below 2%.
  • The high signal-to-noise and small crowding of JWST photometry reduce statistical TRGB errors to 0.01-0.02 mag, showing the method can be pushed into fields where HST suffers crowding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the shared zero point would be to measure RR Lyrae distances to the same two galaxies with JWST; the paper mentions this as future work, but the implication is that a mismatch would localize the error to the TRGB calibration rather than to the photometry.
  • Because both galaxies are very metal-poor and have old RGB populations, agreement of the F090W TRGB with independent distances also constrains how much metallicity dependence the NGC 4258 calibration can have.
  • If the same F090W TRGB approach works on other nearby dwarfs, the number of independent anchor points for the distance ladder could grow quickly, which bears on the Hubble-constant tension the paper cites.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper presents JWST NIRCam F090W/F150W photometry of the dwarf galaxies WLM and Sextans A, measures the tip of the red giant branch using Sobel edge detection on GLOESS-smoothed luminosity functions, and derives distance moduli by subtracting an adopted NGC 4258-calibrated absolute TRGB magnitude in F090W taken from Anand et al. (2024a). The resulting values are mu0,WLM = 24.977 +/- 0.018 (stat) +/- 0.056 (sys) mag and mu0,SexA = 25.740 +/- 0.011 (stat) +/- 0.057 (sys) mag, which are compared with literature TRGB, Cepheid, and JAGB distances. The photometric reductions are described in detail, including DOLPHOT PSF photometry, quality cuts, artificial star tests, bootstrap resampling, and smoothing-scale stability checks.

Significance. If the measured apparent TRGB magnitudes are correct, the paper delivers precise (~2.7% in distance) TRGB distances for two very metal-poor dwarf galaxies using JWST, and it provides a useful cross-check of the F090W TRGB scale on stellar populations that are more metal-poor than typical calibration hosts. The strengths of the paper are the thorough photometric characterization (DOLPHOT with artificial star tests, high completeness near the TRGB, small photometric errors, bootstrap uncertainties, and smoothing-scale stability tests) and the transparent propagation of the adopted calibration and extinction uncertainties. The main caveats are not internal to the photometry but concern the transfer of the external F090W zero point and the adopted constant M_TRGB to these particular stellar populations; any error in that transfer shifts both distance moduli coherently by its full amount. The agreement with previous measurements is reassuring but does not independently validate the zero point, because many of the comparison TRGB distances share the NGC 4258 calibration heritage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, DOLPHOT zero-point system] The zero-point transfer is load-bearing and is asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper states that the DOLPHOT NIRCam module changed from the Sirius-Vega to the Vega-Vega system as default and that substituting filtersvega.dat for filters.dat brings the photometry onto the system used by Anand et al. (2024a), but no test is shown that this substitution produces the intended zero point or removes the quoted ~0.025 mag F090W offset. Because the statistical errors on m_TRGB are only 0.018 and 0.011 mag, a residual zero-point error of even 0.01-0.02 mag is comparable to the statistical precision and enters both distance moduli directly. Please provide a direct validation, for example by running DOLPHOT with filters.dat and filtersvega.dat on the same frames and comparing magnitudes, or by comparing with independent HST/NIRCam measurements of stars in common, and report the resulting zero-point and color-term checks.
  2. [Section 4.2, color selection] The color selection for Sextans A is admitted to extend slightly blueward of the calibrated range, but the effect is dismissed without quantification. The adopted F090W TRGB absolute magnitude is calibrated over 1.15 < (F090W-F150W) < 1.75 mag, and the paper itself notes a measurable brightening of the TRGB with color in the near-infrared; if the Sextans A RGB population lies partly outside this range, the assumed constant M_TRGB may not apply. Please report the actual color range used for each galaxy at the TRGB, the number of stars in the selected sample, and a test such as recomputing the Sobel tip after trimming the blue wing or applying a color-dependent correction, to demonstrate that the tip does not shift by more than the quoted systematic budget.
  3. [Section 4.1, spatial selection for WLM] The WLM spatial mask is chosen after the D25-based selection failed, and the only justification is the low extinction and faintness of the galaxy. Because the JWST footprint mostly covers the star-forming disk and the two outermost chips (B1 and B2) may still contain young or intermediate-age populations, contamination could in principle bias the Sobel response and therefore the TRGB magnitude. Please include diagnostics that the selected sample is dominated by old RGB stars, such as per-chip color-magnitude diagrams, star counts, or a comparison of the measured tip with a more conservative outer-annulus mask, or otherwise justify quantitatively that disk contamination is negligible for WLM.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, systematic error budget] The quoted systematic errors of 0.056 and 0.057 mag are not fully broken down; please state explicitly how the external M_TRGB statistical term (0.033 mag) is combined with the systematic term (0.045 mag) and the extinction uncertainty, so that the reader can reproduce the quoted totals.
  2. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2, literature comparison] The text states that the results agree with previous measurements within 1 sigma, but Figures 5 and 6 appear to show several literature points at 2-3 sigma; please soften the summary or explain why those outliers are considered within the stated agreement.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract quotes agreement within 3% distance uncertainty while the summary quotes 2.7%; please make the rounding consistent.
  4. [Section 2] There is a minor grammatical error in 'The data for WLM includes only one NIRCam observation'; it should be 'include'.
  5. [General] The paper alternates between 'Sex A' and 'Sextans A'; please use the full name consistently except where a short form is explicitly defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the distance moduli are a direct combination of independent JWST TRGB photometry with an externally calibrated absolute magnitude.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The paper measures apparent TRGB magnitudes (m_TRGB = 20.643 +/- 0.018 mag for WLM and 21.415 +/- 0.011 mag for Sextans A) from JWST NIRCam F090W photometry using a standard Sobel edge-detection algorithm, with bootstrap and artificial-star-test uncertainties. It then converts these to distance moduli by subtracting an adopted absolute TRGB magnitude, M_TRGB(F090W) = -4.377, taken from Anand et al. (2024a), which itself rests on the NGC 4258 geometric distance. The apparent magnitudes are not fitted to any assumed distance, and the absolute magnitude is not adjusted to force agreement with literature distances. The literature comparisons in Section 5 are consistency checks, not inputs to the measurement. The extinction correction uses the authors' own Wang & Chen (2019, 2024) reddening law, but this is a published, parameter-free extinction coefficient applied to a small correction (~0.04-0.05 mag) and is not the load-bearing step that determines the distance zero point. The only self-citations (Wang & Chen 2019, 2024; Chen et al. 2023) are either peripheral or future-work references, and they do not carry the central argument. The unverified filter-zeropoint transfer from Sirius-Vega to Vega-Vega is a potential systematic uncertainty, but it is an empirical calibration risk, not circular reasoning: the paper does not define the predicted distance in terms of the adopted calibration. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The result is therefore self-contained against an external calibration and exhibits no meaningful circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All inputs to the distance calculation are externally adopted: the absolute TRGB magnitude from Anand et al. (2024a), the reddening values from Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011), and the extinction law from Wang & Chen (2019). The paper's own contribution is the apparent TRGB magnitude measurement and its photometric error budget.

free parameters (2)
  • M_TRGB(F090W) adopted calibration = -4.377 +/- 0.033 +/- 0.045 mag
    Adopted from Anand et al. (2024a), calibrated by NGC 4258. The distance modulus is mu = m_TRGB - M_TRGB - A_F090W, so this is the dominant external parameter.
  • Foreground extinction E(B-V) = 0.0308 mag (WLM), 0.0374 mag (Sex A)
    Adopted from Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011); converted to A_F090W with the Wang & Chen (2019) law, with an assumed 20% uncertainty.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The F090W TRGB absolute magnitude calibrated from NGC 4258 applies to the metal-poor RGB populations of WLM and Sextans A.
    The distance moduli are obtained by subtracting this externally adopted M from the measured apparent magnitudes; any metallicity/age dependence in the zero point enters the central result.
  • domain assumption The first significant peak of the Sobel edge-detection response is the helium-flash TRGB.
    Standard TRGB methodology (Lee et al. 1993); the paper selects the first prominent peak after GLOESS smoothing with sigma_s = 0.06 mag.
  • domain assumption The DOLPHOT artificial star tests and quality cuts accurately model completeness, photometric bias, and errors near the TRGB.
    The statistical error on m_TRGB is derived from bootstrap resampling with AST-based Gaussian errors.
  • domain assumption Foreground extinction from Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011) and the Wang & Chen (2019) reddening law are correct for these sightlines.
    The extinction correction is applied to each galaxy and contributes to the systematic error budget.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Tip of Red Giant Branch Distances to Nearby Dwarf Galaxies WLM and Sextans A with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E66NPWK5

@misc{pith2026250503511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Tip of Red Giant Branch Distances to Nearby Dwarf Galaxies WLM and Sextans A with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E66NPWK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03511}
}
abstract

Distance measurements to extragalactic systems that are both accurate and precise are cornerstones of modern astrophysics, underpinning the calibration of standard candles and the determination of the Hubble constant. Dwarf galaxies, such as Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte (WLM) and Sextans A, provide valuable laboratories for testing distance scales across different stellar populations. In this work, we utilize the high sensitivity and spatial resolution of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to measure the distances to WLM and Sextans A using the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) method. Adopting the TRGB absolute magnitude calibrated by NGC 4258, we determine distance moduli of $\mu_{\mathrm{0,WLM}} = 24.977 \pm 0.018 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.056 (\mathrm{sys})$ mag for WLM and $\mu_{\mathrm{0,SexA}} = 25.740 \pm 0.011 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.057 (\mathrm{sys})$ mag for Sextans A. Our results are consistent within a 3% distance uncertainty with previous measurements based on TRGB, Cepheids, and J-Region Asymptotic Giant Branch (JAGB) methods. With improved distance measurements in the future, these two galaxies have the potential to serve as additional anchor points for TRGB calibration, aiming to reduce the TRGB-based distance uncertainty to below 2%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Footprints of our NIRCam observations of WLM (Left) and Sextans A (right), overlaid on 10′×10′ background images from the Pan-STARRS1 survey. The white and cyan boxes in the right panel represent the footprints of the observations “o014 t041” and “o015 t040” respectively. The 25th B-band magnitude isophotes are shown as the dashed orange lines. system as default zeropoints instead of the Vega-Vega system since Octob… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of artificial star tests for Sex A. Top: Completeness curve as a function of input F090W magni￾tudes, defined as the ratio of the number of stars that were successfully detected and passed the quality criteria to the number of artificial stars injected. Bottom: The red line rep￾resents the photometric bias and error, with the background black dots representing the F090W magnitude differences be￾tween the out… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: The color-magnitude diagram of the RGB region for WLM. The color band is plotted as the orange lines, while the black and grey dots represent stars that passed and failed the color selection, respectively. Right: The Sobel edge-detection results for WLM. The red solid line is the edge-detection response of the smoothed luminosity function (blue solid line). The first prominent peak of the Sobel response, or th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distances for WLM in this work and literature. The orange vertical line indicates the mean of the distance modulus from this work, with the shaded region representing the 1σ error range. References: McConnachie et al. (2005), Pietrzy´nski et al. (2007), Rizzi et al. (2…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Discovery of SiC and Iron Dust Around AGB Stars in the very Metal-Poor Sextans A Dwarf Galaxy with JWST: Implications for Dust Production at High Redshift

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Detection of SiC and likely metallic iron dust around AGB stars in the very metal-poor Sextans A galaxy, implying early dust formation at high redshift.

  2. JWST Reveals a Galaxy-Wide Association of Red Supergiants with OB Stars in NGC 5584

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In NGC 5584, 82% of UV-selected star-forming complexes coincide with red supergiant overdensities, with strong UV to near-infrared luminosity correlations and a characteristic age near 15 Myr.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., Weisz, D

    Albers, S. M., Weisz, D. R., Cole, A. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2903

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2903 2019

  2. [2]

    S., Riess, A

    Anand, G. S., Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 966, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a

  3. [3]

    The TRGB-SBF Project. II. Resolving the Virgo Cluster with JWST

    Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Cohen, Y., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16810, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16810

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.16810

  4. [4]

    M., Macri, L

    Bhardwaj, A., Kanbur, S. M., Macri, L. M., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 88, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/88

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/88 2016

  5. [5]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1081, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02011-y

    Chen, X., Zhang, J., Wang, S., & Deng, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1081, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02011-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02011-y 2023

  6. [6]

    E., McQuinn, K

    Cohen, R. E., McQuinn, K. B. W., Savino, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb61d Da Costa, G. S., & Armandroff, T. E. 1990, AJ, 100, 162, doi: 10.1086/115500

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb61d 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67 2009

  8. [8]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Saha, A., Skillman, E

    Dolphin, A. E., Saha, A., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1261, doi: 10.1086/346279

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    Freedman, W. L. 2021, ApJ, 919, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e95

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    L., & Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2020, ApJ, 899, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba9d8

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Jang, I. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06153, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06153

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hatt, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 611, doi: 10.1086/589994 G´ orski, M., Pietrzy´ nski, G., & Gieren, W

    Gieren, W., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Szewczyk, O., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 611, doi: 10.1086/589994 G´ orski, M., Pietrzy´ nski, G., & Gieren, W. 2011, AJ, 141, 194, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/194

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Freedman, W

    Hatt, D., Beaton, R. L., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f73

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Li, Z.-Y., Barth, A

    Ho, L. C., Li, Z.-Y., Barth, A. J., Seigar, M. S., & Peng, C. Y. 2011, ApJS, 197, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/21

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Jang, I

    Hoyt, T. J., Jang, I. S., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.11769

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Humphreys, E. M. L., Reid, M. J., Moran, J. M., Greenhill, L. J., & Argon, A. L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/13

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

    Jacobs, B. A., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 332, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/332

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Dolphin, A., Tully, R

    Karachentsev, I. D., Dolphin, A., Tully, R. B., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1361, doi: 10.1086/500013

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Freedman, W

    Lee, A. J., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd253

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Monson, A

    Lee, A. J., Monson, A. J., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32c7

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    G., Freedman, W

    Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553, doi: 10.1086/173334

    1993 doi

  17. [25]

    G., & Jang, I

    Lee, M. G., & Jang, I. S. 2013, ApJ, 773, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/13

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Anand, G

    Li, S., Riess, A. G., Anand, G. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08921, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08921

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    F., & Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1995, AJ, 109, 1645, doi: 10.1086/117391

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., Owens, K. A., & Jang, I. S. 2023, AJ, 166, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd3f3

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., Hatt, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7f4

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Madore, B

    Mager, V. A., Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 2008, ApJ, 689, 721, doi: 10.1086/592563

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    2006, AJ, 132, 2729, doi: 10.1086/508925

    Makarov, D., Makarova, L., Rizzi, L., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2729, doi: 10.1086/508925

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Vaduvescu, O., Pozo Nunez, F., et al

    McCall, M. L., Vaduvescu, O., Pozo Nunez, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117669

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 979, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08514.x

    2005

  26. [34]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Boyer, M. L., Mitchell, M. B., et al. 2017b, ApJ, 834, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/78

    doi

  27. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad965

    Rousseau-Nepton, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad965

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Madore, B

    Persson, S. E., Madore, B. F., Krzemi´ nski, W., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2239, doi: 10.1086/424934 9 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Gieren, W., Udalski, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 594, doi: 10.1086/518599

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    1994, A&A, 287, 371

    Piotto, G., Capaccioli, M., & Pellegrini, C. 1994, A&A, 287, 371

    1994

  30. [38]

    J., Pesce, D

    Reid, M. J., Pesce, D. W., & Riess, A. G. 2019, ApJL, 886, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab552d

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    B., Makarov, D., et al

    Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., Makarov, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 815, doi: 10.1086/516566

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    F., & Freedman, W

    Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1996, ApJ, 461, 713, doi: 10.1086/177096

    1996 doi

  35. [43]

    1997, MNRAS, 289, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/289.2.406

    Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/289.2.406

    1997 doi

  36. [44]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, A&A, 606, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731004

    Pietrinferni, A. 2017, A&A, 606, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731004

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Reindl, B., & Sandage, A

    Tammann, G. A., Reindl, B., & Sandage, A. 2011, A&A, 531, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016382

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61 —

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61 —. 2024, ApJL, 964, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2e98

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    T., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al

    Warfield, J. T., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 23, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acbb72

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/147

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Savino, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2600

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac04b2

    Zgirski, B., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Gieren, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac04b2

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.