Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 103 references

How invisible stellar halos bias our understanding of ultra-faint galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A realistic surface-brightness cut makes simulated ultra-faint galaxies match observations, but the same cut inflates their inferred dark-matter masses by up to tenfold.

desk verdict Clean, honest simulation study showing that ignoring surface brightness limits can bias UFD sizes and Wolf masses by up to an order of magnitude—but the bias magnitude depends on an isophotal proxy that is admittedly approximate. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15785 v1 pith:JIAN2VE4 submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.GA

Coral Wheeler (1) , Jorge Moreno (2 , 3) , M. Katy Rodriguez Wimberly (4) , Francisco J. Mercado (2 , 5) , James S. Bullock (6 , 7)
show 17 more authors
Michael Boylan-Kolchin (8) Pratik J. Gandhi (9) Sarah R. Loebman (10) Philip F. Hopkins (5) ((1) California State Polytechnic University Pomona (2) Pomona College (3) Carnegie Observatories (4) California State University San Bernardino (5) California Institute of Technology (6) University of California Irvine (7) University of Southern California (8) The University of Texas at Austin (9) Yale University (10) University of California Merced)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesstellarhalossurfacebrightnesslimitsmassestimatorsgalaxysizesdarkmatterhalomassesFIRE-2simulationsLocalGroup
topics Dark Matter
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 argues that a realistic observational detection limit changes what counts as the galaxy in ultra-faint dwarf galaxy studies, and that the choice carries real scientific consequences. Using 19 simulated ultra-faint galaxies (stellar masses roughly 400 to 40,000 solar masses) from FIRE-2 cosmological simulations, it applies a surface brightness threshold of $\mu_V \approx 32.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and recalculates radii, stellar masses, velocity dispersions, metallicities, and dark-matter mass estimates. The cut shrinks the inferred sizes and lowers the inferred velocity dispersions, moving the simulated galaxies closer to observed Milky Way satellites in the mass-size and velocity-dispersion planes. However, the same cut degrades the standard Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator: estimated masses move farther from the true enclosed masses, and for the lowest-mass galaxies the inferred central dark-matter densities and virial masses are biased upward, in the most extreme cases by about an order of magnitude. A sympathetic reader should care because ultra-faint galaxies are used as probes of dark-matter physics and of the minimum halo mass that can form a galaxy, and both uses are sensitive to this bias.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the contrast between two ways of defining a galaxy's edge in simulations: $R_{15\%}$, a fixed cut at 15% of the host halo's virial radius, and $R_{\rm SB}$, the isophotal radius at which the projected stellar surface brightness profile drops below $\mu_V \approx 32.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The second cut is the machine that removes the invisible stellar halo. The Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator, $M_{\rm est}^{1/2} \approx 930\,(\sigma_{\rm los}/{\rm km\,s^{-1}})^2\,((4/3)R_{1/2}/{\rm pc})\,M_{\odot}$, then converts the truncated half-light radius and line-of-sight velocity dispersion into a dynamical mass. The bias arises because both $R_{1/2}$ and $\sigma_{\rm los}$ fall when the halo is removed, but the true enclosed mass $M_{\rm true}^{1/2}$ falls even faster, so the ratio $M_{\rm est}^{1/2}/M_{\rm true}^{1/2}$ grows from a median of 1.48 to 2.79.

What would settle it

Deep star-count surveys of known ultra-faint Milky Way satellites reaching surface brightnesses near or below $\mu_V \approx 32.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ should either find previously undetected outer stellar populations or fail to find them; if no such extended halos exist, the invisible-halo premise collapses and Wolf-estimator masses recomputed over any recovered stars should not move far from unity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ultra-faint galaxies can carry extended, very low-surface-brightness stellar halos that real surveys do not detect, and that ignoring those halos is not a neutral choice. Defined by the conventional simulation edge at 15% of the virial radius, the simulated galaxies are too large, too massive, and too kinematically hot compared with observed ultra-faint dwarfs. Re-defining the edge as the radius where the projected surface brightness falls below $\mu_V \approx 32.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ reduces half-light radii by more than half and pushes velocity dispersions below 5 km s$^{-1}$, producing better agreement with observations. But the same operation shrinks the true enclosed mass within the new half-light radius faster than it shrinks the Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimate, so the estimated-to-true mass ratio worsens from a median of 1.48 to 2.79. The consequence is that the very galaxies that look most like observed ultra-faints are the ones whose inferred dark-matter halo masses are most inflated, by up to an order of magnitude in the most extreme cases.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations are isolated low-mass galaxies without a Milky Way-mass host, so the paper assumes their extended stellar halos are representative of observed Milky Way satellites; if tides from a massive host strip or reshape those halos, the bias could change in magnitude or even direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed ultra-faint dwarfs may be the bright central cores of galaxies that are intrinsically more extended, which would explain why simulations appear too puffy until the low-surface-brightness outskirts are discarded.
  • Line-of-sight velocity dispersions below 5 km s$^{-1}$ can occur without tidal stripping by a massive host, so cold kinematics alone does not require a Milky Way-mass perturbing galaxy.
  • Metallicities of observed ultra-faints may be biased slightly high because the missing outer stars are preferentially the most metal-poor, though the surface-brightness cut only partially closes the mass-metallicity gap.
  • Dynamical masses of ultra-faint galaxies derived with the Wolf estimator should be viewed as upper limits when their stellar halos are not detected, since estimated masses systematically overshoot the true enclosed mass.
  • Dark-matter constraints drawn from ultra-faint galaxy kinematics, including limits on warm, self-interacting, or fuzzy dark matter, could shift substantially if the halo-mass overestimate is not corrected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real Milky Way satellites have already been tidally stripped by the host galaxy, their extended halos may be gone, and the sign or size of the bias could differ from what the isolated simulation sample predicts.
  • A direct observational test is to search for previously undetected, very low-surface-brightness stellar populations around known ultra-faints; detecting them and recomputing masses over the larger radii should lower inferred dark-matter densities.
  • Deeper co-added surveys should steadily shrink this bias as the effective detection threshold moves below 32.5 mag arcsec$^{-2}$, a trend that future data can verify.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses 19 ultra-faint galaxies (M_star ~ 250-40,000 Msun) drawn from three FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations with baryonic mass resolution of 30 Msun to compare two ways of defining a simulated galaxy's edge: a fixed cut at 15% of the halo virial radius (R_15%) and an isophotal cut at mu_V = 32.5 mag arcsec^-2 (R_SB) assuming M/L = 1. It finds that applying the surface brightness cut reduces stellar masses, half-mass radii, and line-of-sight velocity dispersions, moving the simulated galaxies closer to observed UFDs in the mass-size plane, the sigma_los-M_star plane, and the circular-velocity-versus-half-light-radius plane. It also finds that the Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator becomes less accurate after the cut, with the median ratio M_est_1/2 / M_true_1/2 increasing from 1.48 to 2.79, and that for the lowest-mass galaxies the inferred dark matter halo masses can be overestimated by an order of magnitude. The paper concludes that surface brightness limits must be taken into account when using UFD mass estimates to constrain dark matter physics or the low-mass threshold of galaxy formation.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a concrete, physically motivated mechanism that can simultaneously reconcile simulated UFDs with observed compact sizes and warn against interpreting UFD dynamical masses at face value. The numerical experiment is clean and internally consistent: the surface brightness threshold is externally motivated, the Wolf estimator is tested against the true simulated enclosed mass rather than being used to define the conclusion, and no fitting to the target observed result is involved. The simulations and initial conditions are publicly available, which is a strength for reproducibility. The main limitations are the small sample (19 galaxies from three volumes), the lack of a Milky Way-mass host for most of the galaxies, and the reliance on a particular isophotal cut as a proxy for how real surveys detect UFDs; these limitations primarily affect the strength of the quantitative claims rather than the internal logic of the experiment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4.1] The central claim that observed UFD mass estimates are biased high by missing stellar halos depends on R_SB faithfully reproducing the edge set by real surveys. Observed UFDs are discovered as overdensities of resolved stars, so the limiting radius is set by Poisson fluctuations in small numbers of bright RGB stars against foreground and background contamination, not by an integrated isophote at mu_V = 32.5 mag arcsec^-2 with M/L = 1. The paper itself states in Sec. 4.1 that the comparison is 'a reasonably good approximation' and that the authors 'speculate' it is valid. For the lowest-mass simulated galaxies, which contain roughly 10-30 star particles, the isophotal crossing radius may be dominated by counting noise and may not correspond to any measurable observed radius. Because the quantitative ratios in Figs. 7 and 8 are predictions of this particular cut, I ask for a direct validation using mock star-count surveys or mock images with resolved stellar populations, or alternatively a clear reframing of the abstract's caution as conditional on isophotal detection.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.1] The simulated sample consists of 19 galaxies drawn from three isolated low-mass halos, and Sec. 4.1 explicitly notes that the simulations do not include a Milky Way-mass host galaxy. Observed UFDs are predominantly satellites of the Milky Way or of other Local Group galaxies, where tidal forces and the host potential can strip or alter outer stellar populations. If real UFD outer halos are truncated by tides, the magnitude and possibly the direction of the reported bias could differ from the isolated case. I recommend testing the R_SB analysis in simulations that include a Milky Way-mass host, or at least comparing the radial stellar profiles of these isolated UFDs with those of observed satellites to justify the extrapolation to the observed population.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 8] The order-of-magnitude halo-mass inflation in Fig. 8 is derived by comparing M_est_1/2 to NFW enclosed-mass curves assuming a fixed concentration c = 24 from the extrapolated Neto et al. (2007) relation. The concentration-mass relation at UFD masses is not well constrained, and changing c shifts the inferred M_halo for a given (M_est_1/2, R_1/2) point. Since the abstract's strongest caution concerns real mass estimates, the sensitivity of the Fig. 8 inference to c and to the assumption of an NFW profile should be quantified, for example by repeating the inference over the plausible range of concentration at these masses.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'R 156% cut' appears to be a typo; it should read 'R_SB cut'.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 7] The color coding in Fig. 7 is described in the text as the change in the log mass ratio between the two cuts, but the figure caption and text do not specify the color scale or state explicitly that red points correspond to larger ratios for R_SB and blue points to larger ratios for R_15%; please add this information.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] The sentence 'this SB threshold is over two orders magnitude lower' is missing 'of'; it should read 'over two orders of magnitude lower'.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The text refers to 'inverted age and metallicity gradients' but the subsequent analysis concerns metallicity only; clarify whether age gradients are used, or restrict the discussion to metallicity gradients.
  5. [References] References to works 'in prep' such as Rodriguez-Wimberly in prep and Murphy et al. in prep should either be completed with available identifiers or clearly marked as private communications in the reference list.
  6. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'The increase in overall surface brightness due to the R 156% cut' is confusing even after correcting the typo, because the cut reduces galaxy sizes and therefore increases the mean surface brightness within the edge; please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the surface-brightness cut is an externally motivated mock-observation step, and the Wolf-estimator bias is tested against simulated true enclosed masses.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The R_SB cut at mu_V = 32.5 mag arcsec^-2 is introduced as an observational detection limit in Section 2.1, not fitted to the mass-estimate outcome. The claims that sizes and M_est move closer to observations are consequences of applying that external selection, and the paper's central warning is that this apparent agreement accompanies a degradation of M_est relative to the independently measured M_true. The Wolf et al. (2010) estimator is used as an external estimator whose accuracy is tested against the simulations' true enclosed masses in Figures 6 and 7, rather than being used to define the conclusion. Prior work by the same group (Wheeler et al. 2019; FIRE-2) supplies the simulation laboratory; this reuse is a data-source citation, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The main admitted weakness, stated in Section 4.1 as 'We therefore speculate that the comparisons performed here provide a reasonably good approximation of reality,' is an external-validity caveat about how real UFDs are detected by star counts rather than isophotes, not a circular reduction. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent to the target result by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces. The central claim rests on simulation fidelity (FIRE-2), the choice of detection threshold, and the assumption that simulated galaxies represent observed UFDs.

free parameters (3)
  • Surface brightness threshold mu_V = 32.5 mag arcsec^-2
    Chosen as a realistic detection limit for upcoming surveys; not fitted to target result. The magnitude of biases depends on this threshold.
  • Stellar mass-to-light ratio M/L = 1 M_sun/L_sun
    Assumed to convert stellar mass to light for SB profiles; affects which stars fall outside the cut. Authors state trends would not change, but this is not demonstrated.
  • Galaxy edge cut R_15% = 15% of virial radius
    Conventional simulation aperture used as baseline; not fitted. The comparison between R_15% and R_SB defines the bias.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 subgrid physics (star formation, feedback, IMF) accurately models UFD formation
    Simulations rely on FIRE-2 as validated by prior papers (Hopkins et al. 2018); not re-validated here.
  • domain assumption Simulated UFDs are representative of observed UFDs despite lacking a Milky Way-mass host
    Most simulated galaxies are isolated or satellites of low-mass hosts; observed UFDs are mostly MW satellites, potentially affected by tides. Latent in Sections 2 and 4.
  • domain assumption NFW concentration c=24 extrapolated to UFD masses
    Used in Fig. 8 to map M_est to halo mass; from Neto et al. (2007) extrapolation.
  • standard math Wolf et al. (2010) estimator assumptions (tracers at r_-3)
    The estimator is a known formula; its accuracy for power-law profiles is questioned by the paper (Section 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How invisible stellar halos bias our understanding of ultra-faint galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIAN2VE4

@misc{pith2026250615785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How invisible stellar halos bias our understanding of ultra-faint galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIAN2VE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15785}
}
abstract

We explore how a realistic surface brightness detection limit of $\mu_V \approx 32.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ for stars at the edges of ultra-faint galaxies affects our ability to infer their underlying properties. We use a sample of 19 galaxies with stellar masses $\approx 400 - 40,000~{\rm M}_\odot$ simulated with FIRE-2 physics and baryonic mass resolution of $30~M_{\odot}$. The surface brightness cut leads to smaller sizes, lower stellar masses, and lower stellar velocity dispersions than the values inferred without the cut. However, by imposing this realistic limit, our inferred galaxy properties lie closer to observed populations in the mass-size plane, better match observed velocity dispersions as a function of stellar mass, and better reproduce derived circular velocities as a function of half-light radius. For the most massive galaxies in our sample, the surface brightness cut leads to higher mean $\rm [Fe/H]$ values, but the increase is not enough to match the observed MZR. Finally, we demonstrate that the common Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator is less accurate when the surface brightness cut is applied. For our lowest-mass galaxies, in particular, excluding the low-surface brightness outskirts causes us to overestimate their central dark-matter densities and virial masses. This suggests that attempts to use mass estimates of ultra-faint galaxies to constrain dark-matter physics or to place constraints on the low-mass threshold of galaxy formation must take into account surface brightness limits or risk significant biases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected surface brightness profiles (assuming M/L = 1M⊙/L⊙) out to 15% of the halo virial radius for all ultra-faint (M⋆ < 105 M⊙) galaxies in our sample, color￾coded by dark matter halo mass. A horizontal line is shown at 32.5 mag arcsec−2 . We select the radius at which each profile crosses this threshold (open circles) as the new galaxy edge. In every case, this decreases the defined galaxy “edge” of our simula… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2D (projected) half-stellar-mass radii (R1/2) versus M⋆ for all simulated galaxies in the sample. Open symbols show values calculated assuming the galaxy edge is R15%, while solid symbols use the RSB cut described in Section 2.1. Marker shapes indicate centrals (stars) and satellites (triangles). Observed MW UFDs are com￾piled from Pace (2024). The solid line is a typical sur￾face brightness limit of these surveys, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Line of sight velocity dispersion versus stellar mass within the galaxy “edge” for the R15% (open symbols) and RSB cut (solid symbols), color-coded by dark matter halo mass. Marker shapes indicate centrals (stars) and satellites (triangles). Data are from a compilation by Pace (2024), and are limited to M⋆ < 105 M⊙. The RSB cut moves the predicted σlos towards lower values, and closer to observations. Right: L… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar mass (M⋆) versus metallicity ([Fe/H]) our simulated galaxies using a galaxy edge defined as 15% rvir (R15%; open symbols) and using a surface brightness cut at µ = 32.5mag arcsec−2 (RSB; closed symbols). As in Wheeler et al. (2019), the UFDs at [Fe/H] ∼ −4 are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Metallicity distribution function (MDF) for our most massive ultra-faint galaxy, m10v30 B, for the R15% (solid black line) and surface brightness limit (RSB; dashed blue line). MDFs for Bootes 1 (Eridanus 2) are also shown as red (cyan) shaded histograms (Rodrigu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator evaluated at the 3D de-projected half-light radius using the R15% cut (open symbols) and the RSB cut (closed symbols) for the same galaxy. Marker shapes indicate centrals (stars) and satellites (triangles). Thin lines connect mat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio of estimated total mass enclosed within R1/2 from Wolf et al. (2010), Mest 1/2 to the true total mass enclosed within the same radius, Mtrue 1/2 , for the R15% (open points) and surface brightness limit (RSB; closed points). Marker shapes indicate centrals (stars…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Estimated mass within R1/2 from the Wolf et al. (2010) formula, Mest 1/2 , versus 3D de-projected half-light radius for for simulated FIRE-2 UFDs using the R15% cut. Marker shapes indicate centrals (stars) and satellites (triangles). Point color indicates the tru…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I., et al

    Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3053 2019

  2. [2]

    Babul, A., & Rees, M. J. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/255.2.346

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/255.2.346 1992

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f4

    Belland, B., Kirby, E., Boylan-Kolchin, M., & Wheeler, C. 2020, ApJ, 903, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f4 2020

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12030, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12030 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J

    Benito, M., H¨ utsi, G., M¨ u¨ ursepp, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12030, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12030 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2722

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.12030 2025

  5. [5]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01074.x

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    S., Stanek, K

    Brown, J. S., Stanek, K. Z., Holoien, T. W. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz258

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz258 2019

  7. [7]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517, doi: 10.1086/309279

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Stewart, K

    Bullock, J. S., Stewart, K. R., Kaplinghat, M., Tollerud, E. J., & Wolf, J. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1043, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/1043

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7 Carton Zeng, Z., Peter, A. H. G., Du, X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14621, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14621

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    J., Belokurov, V., Hamren, K

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Hamren, K. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3975, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1764 del Pino, A., Aparicio, A., & Hidalgo, S. L. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2174 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 415, do...

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9

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

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Buck, T., Macci` o, A

    Dutton, A. A., Buck, T., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3028

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.1.43P

    Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.1.43P

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    R., & Quataert, E

    El-Badry, K., Weisz, D. R., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 319, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx436 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 2817, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21623.x

    Gurovich, S. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2817, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21623.x

    2012

  12. [20]

    Filion, C., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2021, ApJ, 923, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2df1

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Primack, J

    Flores, R. A., & Primack, J. R. 1994, ApJL, 427, L1, doi: 10.1086/187350

    1994 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Weisz, D

    Fu, S. W., Weisz, D. R., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0030

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P

    Gandhi, P. J., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2228

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Geha, M., Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/29

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    I., No¨ el, N

    Goater, A., Read, J. I., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3354 Gonz´ alez-Samaniego, A., Bullock, J. S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2322 14Wheeler et al

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Bullock, J

    Graus, A. S., Bullock, J. S., Fitts, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2649

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz076

    Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz076

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2014, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7395

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 —. 2018b, MNRAS, 477, 1578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty674

    doi

  23. [31]

    D., Sales, L

    Jahn, E. D., Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2457

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4017

    Jeon, M., Bromm, V., Besla, G., Yoon, J., & Choi, Y. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4017

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    V., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1995, ApJ, 451, 598, doi: 10.1086/176247

    1995 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    Jung, M., Roca-F` abrega, S., Kim, J.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.1.201

    1993 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al

    Kelley, T., Bullock, J. S., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1553

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Y., Peter, A

    Kim, S. Y., Peter, A. H. G., & Hargis, J. R. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 211302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.211302

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Moreno, J., et al

    Klein, C., Bullock, J. S., Moreno, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1505

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82, doi: 10.1086/307643

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Knebe, A

    Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14683

    Ko, M., Jeon, M., Choi, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14683

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    W., et al

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

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    Kravtsov, A. V. 2013, ApJL, 764, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L31

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    Lazar, A., & Bullock, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa692

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Simon, J

    Li, T. S., Simon, J. D., Kuehn, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf91

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    Longeard, N., Jablonka, P., Arentsen, A., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Frenk, C

    Lovell, M. R., Frenk, C. S., Eke, V. R., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 300, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2431 Macci` o, A. V., Frings, J., Buck, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2048

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    F., de Jong, J

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

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Bullock, J

    Mercado, F. J., Bullock, J. S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3958

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Moreno, J., Feldmann, R., et al

    Mercado, F. J., Moreno, J., Feldmann, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf07

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    B., van Dokkum, P., Mowla, L., & van der Wel, A

    Miller, T. B., van Dokkum, P., Mowla, L., & van der Wel, A. 2019, ApJL, 872, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0380

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    1994 doi

  49. [57]

    1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    1999 doi

  50. [58]

    S., et al

    Moreno, J., Danieli, S., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 496, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01598-4

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    C., et al

    Mostow, O., Torrey, P., Rose, J. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09566

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Mowla, L., van der Wel, A., van Dokkum, P., & Miller, T. B. 2019, ApJL, 872, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010, AJ, 140, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/138 M¨ uller, O., Marleau, F. R., Heesters, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A44, ...

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Christensen, C., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0085

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Walker, M

    Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Walker, M. G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45ec

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    O., Gluscevic, V., Driskell, T., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Gluscevic, V., Driskell, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bb1

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  58. [66]

    V., H¨ außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al

    Nedkova, K. V., H¨ außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1744

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    F., Gao, L., Bett, P., et al

    Neto, A. F., Gao, L., Bett, P., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1450, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12381.x

    2007

  60. [68]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/96 How invisible stellar halos bias our understanding of ultra-faint galaxies15

    Okamoto, S., Arimoto, N., Yamada, Y., & Onodera, M. 2012, ApJ, 744, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/96 How invisible stellar halos bias our understanding of ultra-faint galaxies15

    2012 doi

  61. [69]

    Orkney, M. D. A., Read, J. I., Rey, M. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1066

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Navarro, J. F., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 673, 226, doi: 10.1086/523686

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    H., & Schechter, P

    Press, W. H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425, doi: 10.1086/152650

    1974 doi

  64. [72]

    P., Andersson, E

    Prgomet, M., Rey, M. P., Andersson, E. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2326, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1074

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    H., Kriek, M., Feldmann, R., et al

    Price, S. H., Kriek, M., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, ApJL, 844, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7d4b

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1352

    Qu, H., Yuan, Z., Doliva-Dolinsky, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1352

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2025, A&A, 694, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452476

    Querci, L., Pallottini, A., Branca, L., & Salvadori, S. 2025, A&A, 694, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452476

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    2023, A&A, 679, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347239

    Revaz, Y. 2023, A&A, 679, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347239

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2019, ApJL, 886, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53dd Rodriguez Wimberly, M. K., Cooper, M. C., Fillingham, S. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3357

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    S., et al

    Rohr, E., Feldmann, R., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3625

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2aa3

    Sacchi, E., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2aa3

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  73. [82]

    2023, A&A, 669, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244309

    Sanati, M., Jeanquartier, F., Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2023, A&A, 669, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244309

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    2016 doi

  75. [84]

    A., et al

    Sestito, F., Zaremba, D., Venn, K. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2427

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    2003

  77. [86]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x

    1999

  78. [87]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    R., et al

    Strawn, C., Roca-F` abrega, S., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12cb

    2024 doi

  80. [89]

    2021, ApJL, 914, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024e

    Tarumi, Y., Yoshida, N., & Frebel, A. 2021, ApJL, 914, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024e

    2021 doi

  81. [90]

    A., Vivas, A

    Tau, E. A., Vivas, A. K., & Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E. 2024, AJ, 167, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1509

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    J., Bullock, J

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

    2008 doi

  83. [92]

    E., et al

    Torrealba, G., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04082

    2018 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Trujillo, I., Chamba, N., & Knapen, J. H. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 87, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa236 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Abraham, R., Conroy, C., &

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJL, 874, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92 van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., Merritt, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45

    2019 doi

  86. [95]

    C., Geha, M

    Vargas, L. C., Geha, M. C., & Tollerud, E. J. 2014, ApJ, 790, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/73

    2014 doi

  87. [96]

    A., Stinson, G

    Wang, L., Dutton, A. A., Stinson, G. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 83, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1937

    2015 doi

  88. [97]

    O., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Wang, Y., Nadler, E. O., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f4c

    2024 doi

  89. [98]

    C., Sanderson, R

    Wetzel, A., Hayward, C. C., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acb99a

    2023 doi

  90. [99]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23

    2016 doi

  91. [100]

    S., et al

    Wheeler, C., O˜ norbe, J., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1691

    2015 doi

  92. [101]

    F., Pace, A

    Wheeler, C., Hopkins, P. F., Pace, A. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2887

    2019 doi

  93. [102]

    2002, AJ, 123, 848, doi: 10.1086/338438

    Willman, B., Dalcanton, J., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 848, doi: 10.1086/338438

    2002 doi

  94. [103]

    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

    2010

  95. [104]

    2024, Surface Brightness Limit Derivations (SMTN-016), Vera Rubin Observatory Simulations Technical Note

    Yoachim, P., & the LSST Galaxies Science Collaboration. 2024, Surface Brightness Limit Derivations (SMTN-016), Vera Rubin Observatory Simulations Technical Note

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.