pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05144 · v2 · pith:HF2TW4DInew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

New Measurements of Distances to Galaxies in the NGC 1052 Field with the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes: Testing the Bullet-Dwarf Origin of the Trail

Yimeng Tang , Gagandeep S. Anand , Aaron J. Romanowsky , Pieter G. van Dokkum , Kevin A. Bundy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords NGC 1052ultra-diffuse galaxiesdistance measurementssurface brightness fluctuationsTRGBbullet-dwarf scenariodark matter deficient galaxiesNGC 1035 group
0
0 comments X

The pith

Distance measurements place the NGC 1052 dwarf trail at about 20 Mpc, not in the foreground group at 13 Mpc.

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

The paper applies surface brightness fluctuation distances from HST imaging to eight candidate dwarfs along the NGC 1052 trail. All eight are found at roughly 20 Mpc, matching the distance to NGC 1052 and well separated from the NGC 1035 group. For DF2 the SBF distance is 17.7 Mpc, which agrees with a new JWST TRGB measurement of 17.6 Mpc but conflicts with the earlier HST TRGB value of 21.7 Mpc. These results indicate the trail is a real structure at the NGC 1052 distance rather than a line-of-sight coincidence. The work leaves open the bullet-dwarf collision origin while stressing the need for uniform JWST imaging of the remaining members.

Core claim

Surface brightness fluctuation distances from HST place the eight trail dwarfs at approximately 20 Mpc, consistent with NGC 1052 and inconsistent with the foreground NGC 1035 group at 13 Mpc; for DF2 the SBF distance of 17.7 plus or minus 1.4 Mpc matches a new JWST TRGB distance of 17.6 plus or minus 0.6 Mpc but disagrees with the prior HST TRGB distance of 21.7 plus or minus 1.2 Mpc.

What carries the argument

Surface brightness fluctuation (SBF) distance estimates from HST, cross-checked against tip-of-the-red-giant-branch (TRGB) measurements from both HST and JWST.

If this is right

  • The linear trail is physically associated with NGC 1052 rather than a projection artifact.
  • The bullet-dwarf collision scenario for forming the dark-matter-deficient galaxies remains possible.
  • DF2's distance is revised downward, which affects calculations of its dark matter content.
  • Uniform JWST TRGB data on the full set of trail dwarfs are required to test distance uniformity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The distance discrepancy for DF2 points to possible calibration differences between SBF and TRGB in ultra-diffuse galaxies.
  • If the trail distance is confirmed, similar collision products may be identifiable in other groups by the same distance methods.
  • SBF distances could allow quicker screening of candidate ultra-diffuse galaxies before committing to deep TRGB imaging.

Load-bearing premise

The surface brightness fluctuation method yields unbiased distances for these ultra-diffuse low-surface-brightness galaxies when the stellar population assumptions match those used for the TRGB method.

What would settle it

JWST TRGB observations of one or more additional trail dwarfs that return distances near 13 Mpc would show they belong to the foreground group instead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05144 by Aaron J. Romanowsky, Gagandeep S. Anand, Kevin A. Bundy, Pieter G. van Dokkum, Yimeng Tang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel: DECaLS imaging of the NGC 1052 field, with NGC 1052, NGC 1035, and eight of the trail dwarfs marked. The HST footprints are overplotted as blue boxes, while the JWST footprint for DF2 is shown as the red dashed box. Bottom two rows: The image gallery of NGC 1052, NGC 1035, and eight trail dwarfs studied in the work (not to scale). The pseudocolor images are created using the HST F606W and F814W … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of our SBF distance measurements, where DF2 and DF7 (labeled at far left) represent cases of high and low SB, respectively. The left panel shows the original HST/ACS F814W image, and the middle panel is the normalized residual image, with contaminants and the region beyond 1Re masked. The right panel presents the azimuthally averaged power spectrum of the galaxy (black points), overlaid with the b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Pseudo-color (F090W/F090W+F444W/F444W) JWST NIRCam image of NGC 1052-DF2. The dashed green circle denotes Re. Middle: CMD built from the available F090W+F150W data. Black points denote stars retained for the edge-detection analysis, whereas the fainter gray points were removed with spatial and/or color cuts. Representative photometric uncertainties, calculated at the median color of the TRGB (F090W−F… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation between galaxy distance and Right Ascension (Left), and between distance and radial velocity (Right). The blue solid circles for the eight trail dwarfs and the orange solid diamonds for NGC 1052 and NGC 1035 show their SBF distances derived from HST imaging. The gray open triangles mark the HST-based TRGB distances of DF2 and DF4, which define a predicted trail (gray dashed line and shaded band… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 are two ultra-diffuse galaxies deficient in dark matter (DM), and reported as part of a remarkable linear trail of dwarf galaxies in the NGC 1052 field. Recently, NGC 1052-DF9 has been identified as the third galaxy missing DM along the trail. This structure may have been formed in a high-velocity head-on collision between two gas-rich dwarfs, known as the "bullet-dwarf" scenario. However, the trail overlaps in projection with a foreground system, the NGC 1035 group at $\sim13$ Mpc, raising suspicions that the trail is an artifact of this superposition. DF2 and DF4 have been found to be at distances of $21.7\pm1.2$ and $20.0\pm1.6$ Mpc, respectively, using the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) method with deep Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging, but the distances to other trail dwarfs remain unknown. In this Letter, we use HST imaging to obtain surface brightness fluctuation (SBF) distance estimates for eight candidate trail dwarfs, as well as for the giant galaxies NGC 1052 and NGC 1035. We find that the dwarfs are all at $\sim$20 Mpc, and are not associated with the foreground NGC 1035 group. However, for DF2, we derive an SBF distance of $17.7\pm1.4$ Mpc, inconsistent with the published HST TGRB distance ($21.7\pm1.2$ Mpc). Meanwhile, James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations of DF2 offer a second, and potentially more accurate, TRGB distance of $17.6\pm0.6$ Mpc. While this value matches our SBF result, it is clear that uniform JWST imaging of the remaining trail dwarfs is critically needed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports new surface brightness fluctuation (SBF) distances derived from HST imaging for eight candidate dwarf galaxies in the NGC 1052 trail, along with distances to NGC 1052 and NGC 1035. The authors conclude that all eight dwarfs lie at ~20 Mpc and are therefore not associated with the foreground NGC 1035 group at ~13 Mpc. For NGC 1052-DF2 the SBF distance is 17.7±1.4 Mpc, which conflicts with the published HST TRGB value of 21.7±1.2 Mpc but agrees with a new JWST TRGB measurement of 17.6±0.6 Mpc. The work argues that these results support the bullet-dwarf collision scenario and calls for uniform JWST TRGB imaging of the remaining trail members.

Significance. If the SBF distances prove reliable, the paper supplies direct evidence that the linear trail of dark-matter-deficient dwarfs is physically associated with NGC 1052 rather than a line-of-sight superposition with the NGC 1035 group. The explicit reporting of the DF2 method-to-method tension and the agreement between SBF and the new JWST TRGB constitute a useful internal consistency check. The result would therefore strengthen the empirical foundation for the bullet-dwarf formation channel, provided the SBF zero-point calibration holds for ultra-diffuse, low-surface-brightness systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Results (SBF measurements)] The headline claim that all eight trail dwarfs are at ~20 Mpc (and thus not members of the NGC 1035 group) rests entirely on the SBF distances. The manuscript provides only limited quantitative detail on the SBF zero-point calibration, the adopted stellar-population assumptions, and the full error budget (including the contribution from the free parameter listed in the axiom ledger). Because the DF2 SBF–TRGB tension already signals a possible systematic offset, these calibration choices are load-bearing for the entire set of distances.
  2. [Sample selection / Observations] Sample selection for the eight dwarfs is not described with sufficient specificity to allow an independent assessment of whether the objects are representative of the trail or whether any selection bias could affect the conclusion that none lie at the NGC 1035 distance. The paper should state the criteria used to choose the targets and any cuts applied to the fluctuation-power measurements.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: “published HST TGRB distance” is a typographical error and should read “TRGB”.
  2. [Discussion] The text should clarify whether the SBF distances for the other seven dwarfs are formally consistent with the JWST TRGB value obtained for DF2 or whether they remain within the larger uncertainties of the earlier HST TRGB measurements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the presentation of our methods. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Results (SBF measurements)] The headline claim that all eight trail dwarfs are at ~20 Mpc (and thus not members of the NGC 1035 group) rests entirely on the SBF distances. The manuscript provides only limited quantitative detail on the SBF zero-point calibration, the adopted stellar-population assumptions, and the full error budget (including the contribution from the free parameter listed in the axiom ledger). Because the DF2 SBF–TRGB tension already signals a possible systematic offset, these calibration choices are load-bearing for the entire set of distances.

    Authors: We agree that expanded quantitative detail on the SBF zero-point calibration, stellar-population assumptions, and full error budget is warranted given the importance of these distances and the noted DF2 tension. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection in the Methods that specifies the adopted SBF calibration relations (including the zero-point and color term), the stellar population models assumed for the ultra-diffuse dwarfs, and a complete error budget table that isolates the contribution from the free parameter. We retain the explicit discussion of the DF2 SBF–TRGB discrepancy and its implications for systematic offsets. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sample selection / Observations] Sample selection for the eight dwarfs is not described with sufficient specificity to allow an independent assessment of whether the objects are representative of the trail or whether any selection bias could affect the conclusion that none lie at the NGC 1035 distance. The paper should state the criteria used to choose the targets and any cuts applied to the fluctuation-power measurements.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the target selection and fluctuation-power cuts were described too briefly. The eight dwarfs were chosen from the known trail candidates that fall within the HST pointings and satisfy basic detectability criteria; we have now added an explicit paragraph in the Observations section that lists the selection criteria (projected proximity to the trail, surface-brightness threshold, and minimum size) together with the quantitative cuts applied to the fluctuation-power measurements (e.g., signal-to-noise and power-spectrum quality thresholds) to ensure only reliable SBF detections are retained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: distances from externally calibrated standard candles

full rationale

The paper applies the established TRGB and SBF distance indicators to new HST/JWST imaging of the trail dwarfs. Both methods rest on zero-points and stellar-population calibrations drawn from the literature and independent of the present observations or equations. The reported distances (e.g., SBF values near 20 Mpc, JWST TRGB for DF2 at 17.6 Mpc) are direct measurements, not quantities defined by the paper's own fits or renamed patterns. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or self-definitional step is present; the tension between prior HST TRGB and new SBF/JWST values is an empirical discrepancy, not a circular reduction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central distance claims rest on the applicability of standard TRGB and SBF calibrations to ultra-diffuse galaxies without additional population-dependent corrections.

free parameters (1)
  • SBF zero-point calibration
    Absolute magnitude scale for surface brightness fluctuations is taken from empirical relations fitted to other galaxies.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption TRGB and SBF methods return true geometric distances for the stellar populations present in these ultra-diffuse galaxies.
    The paper treats both indicators as directly comparable without additional systematic terms for low surface brightness or metallicity effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5931 in / 1326 out tokens · 28368 ms · 2026-06-28T05:24:15.550347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S., Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Beaton, R., et al

    Anand, G. S., Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Beaton, R., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 993, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1584

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1584 2041

  2. [2]

    S., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Riess, A. G., & Yuan, W. 2022, ApJ, 932, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac68df 2022

  3. [3]

    S., Riess, A

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a 2024

  4. [4]

    S., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Cohen, Y., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 982, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb399

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb399

  5. [5]

    2025, A&A, 697, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452446

    Gvozdenko, A., & Montes, M. 2025, A&A, 697, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452446

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452446 2025

  6. [6]

    L., Seibert, M., Hatt, D., et al

    Beaton, R. L., Seibert, M., Hatt, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4263

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4263 2019

  7. [7]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    P., & Cantiello, M

    Blakeslee, J. P., & Cantiello, M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 146, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aad90e

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aad90e 2018

  9. [9]

    P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al

    Blakeslee, J. P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 657, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/657

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/657 2010

  10. [10]

    Dark matter-deficient twins: FCC 224 and FCC 240 as possible analogues of NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4

    Buzzo, M. L., van Dokkum, P., Hilker, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.24099, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.24099

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24099 2026

  11. [11]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2442

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2442 2022

  12. [12]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453522

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453522 2025

  13. [13]

    P., Raimondo, G., et al

    Cantiello, M., Blakeslee, J. P., Raimondo, G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 239, doi: 10.1086/491694

    work page doi:10.1086/491694 2005

  14. [14]

    G., Beaton, R

    Carlsten, S. G., Beaton, R. L., Greco, J. P., & Greene, J. E. 2019, ApJ, 879, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22c1 2019

  15. [15]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c8

    Cohen, Y., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c8 2018

  16. [16]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  17. [17]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8dc4

    Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8dc4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8dc4 2020

  18. [18]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJL, 874, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e8c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e8c 2019

  19. [19]

    2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013 http://ascl.net/1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013 http://ascl.net/1608.013

    2016

  20. [20]

    Emsellem, E., van der Burg, R. F. J., Fensch, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834909

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834909 2019

  21. [21]

    A., Alabi, A., Brodie, J

    Forbes, D. A., Alabi, A., Brodie, J. P., & Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2420 2019

  22. [22]

    Fosbury, R. A. E., Mebold, U., Goss, W. M., & Dopita, M. A. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.4.549 Fouqu´ e, P., Durand, N., Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/183.4.549 1978

  23. [23]

    1992, Catalogue of Optical Radial Velocities, Monographies de la base de donne´ es extragalactiques (Observatoire de Lyon)

    Paturel, G. 1992, Catalogue of Optical Radial Velocities, Monographies de la base de donne´ es extragalactiques (Observatoire de Lyon). https://books.google.com/books?id=5luUAAAACAAJ

    1992

  24. [24]

    ApJ , keywords =

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hoyt, T. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce78 2025

  25. [25]

    2024, A&A, 684, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348300

    Trujillo, I. 2024, A&A, 684, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348300

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348300 2024

  26. [26]

    P., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S

    Greco, J. P., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S. G., & Conroy, C. 2021, ApJ, 908, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd030

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd030 2021

  27. [27]

    H., Ciardullo, R., Roth, M

    Jacoby, G. H., Ciardullo, R., Roth, M. M., Arnaboldi, M., & Weilbacher, P. M. 2024, ApJS, 271, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2166

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2166 2024

  28. [28]

    S., & Lee, M

    Jang, I. S., & Lee, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 836, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/74 2017

  29. [29]

    D., Karachentseva, V

    Karachentsev, I. D., Karachentseva, V. E., Suchkov, A. A., & Grebel, E. K. 2000, A&AS, 145, 415, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000249

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000249 2000

  30. [30]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15860

    Pasha, I. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15860

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    A., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., et al

    Keim, M. A., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7dab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7dab 2022

  32. [32]

    A., van Dokkum, P., Shen, Z., et al

    Keim, M. A., van Dokkum, P., Shen, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addfd4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addfd4 2025

  33. [33]

    J., & Lee, M

    Kim, Y. J., & Lee, M. G. 2021, ApJ, 923, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d94 2021

  34. [34]

    2021, ApJL, 917, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac16e0

    Lee, J., Shin, E.-j., & Kim, J.-h. 2021, ApJL, 917, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac16e0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac16e0 2021

  35. [35]

    R., & Chung, E

    Lee, J., Shin, E.-j., Kim, J.-h., Shapiro, P. R., & Chung, E. 2024, ApJ, 966, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2932

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2932 2024

  36. [36]

    G., Freedman, W

    Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553, doi: 10.1086/173334 10Tang et al

    work page doi:10.1086/173334 1993

  37. [37]

    E., Carlsten, S

    Li, J., Greene, J. E., Carlsten, S. G., & Danieli, S. 2024, ApJL, 975, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b59

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b59 2024

  38. [38]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd3f3 2023

  39. [39]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/508925 2006

  40. [40]

    P., Tonry, J

    Mei, S., Blakeslee, J. P., Tonry, J. L., et al. 2005, ApJS, 156, 113, doi: 10.1086/426544

    work page doi:10.1086/426544 2005

  41. [41]

    2019, ApJL, 880, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2fd2

    Monelli, M., & Trujillo, I. 2019, ApJL, 880, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2fd2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2fd2 2019

  42. [42]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc340

    Montes, M., Infante-Sainz, R., Madrigal-Aguado, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc340

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc340 2020

  43. [43]

    2023,, JWST Proposal

    Morishita, T., Mason, C., Trenti, M., et al. 2023,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3990

    2023

  44. [44]

    Newman, M. J. B., McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad79f8

  45. [45]

    Newman, M. J. B., McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 966, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad306d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad306d

  46. [46]

    2022, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Otaki, K., & Mori, M. 2022, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2207, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012049, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2207/1/012049

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2207/1/012049 2022

  47. [47]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  48. [48]

    A., Kirk J

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  49. [49]

    2021a, ApJ, 909, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd29

    Shen, Z., van Dokkum, P., & Danieli, S. 2021a, ApJ, 909, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdd29

  50. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa70

    Shen, Z., van Dokkum, P., & Danieli, S. 2023, ApJ, 957, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfa70 2023

  51. [51]

    2021b, ApJL, 914, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335

    Shen, Z., Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 914, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335 2041

  52. [52]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba434

    Shin, E.-j., Jung, M., Kwon, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba434

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba434 2020

  53. [53]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    Silk, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz090 2019

  54. [54]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Tang, Y., Romanowsky, A. J., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 978, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd0

  55. [55]

    J., Gannon, J

    Tang, Y., Romanowsky, A. J., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 982, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adae11

  56. [56]

    Tonry, J., & Schneider, D. P. 1988, AJ, 96, 807, doi: 10.1086/114847

    work page doi:10.1086/114847 1988

  57. [57]

    A., Borlaff, A., et al

    Trujillo, I., Beasley, M. A., Borlaff, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz771 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Abraham, R., Conroy, C., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz771 2019

  58. [58]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJL, 874, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y., Romanowsky, A. J., & Conroy, C. 2018a, ApJL, 864, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aada4d van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y., et al. 2018b, Nature, 555, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature25767 van Dokkum, P., Cohen, Y., Danieli, S., et al. 2018c, ApJL, 856, L...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92 2019

  59. [59]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acbb72 2023

  60. [60]

    J., Brodie, J., et al

    Wasserman, A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad779

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad779 2018

  61. [61]

    R., McQuinn, K

    Weisz, D. R., McQuinn, K. B. W., Savino, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdcfd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdcfd 2023

  62. [62]

    R., Dolphin, A

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2600 2024

  63. [63]

    H., Haghi, H., & Kroupa, P

    Zonoozi, A. H., Haghi, H., & Kroupa, P. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1668, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab789 NGC 1052 trail dwarf distances11 APPENDIX A.SBF FITTING FOR ALL GALAXIES Figure A1 shows the SBF fitting for all galaxies in our sample, in addition to DF2 and DF7, which are presented in Figure 2. B.JWST ARTIFICIAL STAR TESTS We performed artificial star tests with...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab789 2021