Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 59 references

Testing a proposed "planarity" tool for studying satellite systems: On the alleged consistency of Milky Way satellite galaxy planes with $\Lambda$CDM

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The proposed 'planarity' metric for satellite systems cannot measure planarity on its own terms, because it responds to any anisotropy and depends on the chosen coordinate orientation, so the claimed consistency of the Milky Way satellite…

desk verdict A decisive and careful falsification of a new planarity metric; the orientation test alone kills it, and the equal-area check closes the main loophole. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14330 v1 pith:W3QCICGR submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Marcel S. Pawlowski , Mariana P. Júlio , Kosuke Jamie Kanehisa , Oliver Müller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords satellitegalaxyplanesplanaritymetricMilkyWaysatellitesLambdaCDMcosmologyanisotropytestsGinicoefficientcosmologicalsimulationsvalidation
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 tests a recently proposed 'planarity' metric for satellite galaxy systems, a single-number tool that was used to argue that the Milky Way's satellite plane is consistent with Lambda CDM cosmology. The authors build mock satellite systems that are isotropic except for one specific anisotropy at a time—overall oblate or prolate shape, satellite clustering, radial concentration, or lopsidedness—and run the metric on each. All of these features, none of which involve an actual satellite plane, shift the metric's reported planarity toward high values. The metric's output also changes sharply when the same system is rotated by 90 degrees, showing it depends on the chosen coordinate pole. The paper concludes that the metric lacks specificity and cannot be used to infer consistency between the Milky Way satellite plane and Lambda CDM.

What carries the argument

The central object is the proposed metric itself: for each pair of satellites it takes the cross-product of their position vectors (relative to the host), bins the resulting normal directions in a 2D histogram of azimuth and inclination in a chosen spherical coordinate system, computes the Gini coefficient of the bin counts, and reports the quantile of that Gini value among 1000 isotropic mock systems. That machinery is what carries the argument, because its dependence on the coordinate pole and its response to any anisotropy are the properties the paper tests. The authors also check a variant with equal-area bins, since the public code does not appear to implement the equal-area scaling described in the original paper; the orientation sensitivity and the inflation from anisotropy persist in both versions.

What would settle it

Apply the metric to an isotropically drawn 40-satellite system, rotate it by 90 degrees, and compare the reported quantiles: a suitable metric must return the same value, and the paper's Fig. 1 predicts almost no correlation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Uzeirbegovic et al. (2024) planarity metric measures general deviation from isotropy, not planarity in particular. Because the metric bins the spherical coordinates of all pairwise cross-products of satellite position vectors in a fixed coordinate frame and then converts the Gini coefficient of bin counts into a quantile relative to isotropic mocks, any anisotropy that concentrates those normals—flattening, elongation, clustered pairs, radially concentrated or offset distributions—raises the reported quantile. The orientation test is the cleanest: 1000 isotropic mock systems rotated by 90 degrees give quantiles with almost no correlation (Pearson r = 0.352, Spearman rho = 0.351), so the metric is not invariant to the coordinate system. Therefore the high quantiles previously reported for the Milky Way and for Lambda CDM simulated systems cannot be read as evidence of consistency; the paper argues the consistency claim does not follow.

Load-bearing premise

The tests assume that the public code released by Uzeirbegovic et al. (2024) accurately implements the metric used in their published analysis, since the provided code lacks the equal-area bin scaling described in the paper and the authors can only run the versions they have.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported consistency of the Milky Way satellite plane with Lambda CDM, which rested on this metric, is not supported by the metric's output.
  • Studies using this metric will overestimate the fraction of simulated satellite systems that look planar, because common Lambda CDM features such as triaxial halos, clustering, and lopsidedness all push the quantile upward.
  • The metric cannot be used to compare the Milky Way sample with simulated hosts of different satellite numbers, since the quantile depends on the number of satellites even when the underlying anisotropy is identical.
  • Any future use of the metric would need to demonstrate rotation invariance and specificity to planar sub-structure before drawing cosmological conclusions, which the paper shows the current version lacks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A general lesson implicit in these results: any summary statistic that uses a fixed coordinate pole and bins directions will inherit orientation artifacts; validation for such tools should include rotation tests and null controls built from anisotropies unrelated to the target feature.
  • The same battery of tests could be applied to other proposed planarity measures for satellite systems, and the failure modes documented here suggest some may share the sensitivity to lopsidedness or radial concentration.
  • The equal-area binning variant reduces but does not remove the orientation dependence, which hints that the problem is not the binning scheme but the use of a global pole for pairwise normal vectors; a rotation-invariant statistic would need to avoid that choice entirely.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests the "planarity" metric proposed by Uzeirbegovic et al. (2024), which measures the degree of satellite-galaxy planarity by constructing the cross-products of all satellite position vectors, binning the resulting normal-vector directions in spherical coordinates, and computing the Gini coefficient of the bin counts, reported as a quantile relative to 1000 isotropic mock systems. The authors show that this metric is not invariant under rotation: for 1000 isotropic mock systems rotated by 90 degrees, the resulting quantiles show almost no correlation (Pearson r = 0.352, Spearman rho = 0.351), a direct violation of the rotational invariance required of any planarity measure. They further demonstrate that oblateness or prolateness of the overall satellite distribution, the number of satellites, satellite clustering, and lopsidedness all bias the metric toward higher inferred planarity, even in the complete absence of planar substructure. The paper also critiques the error-sampling procedure used in the original study (Appendix A). The authors conclude that the metric is unsuitable for measuring planarity and that consequently the claimed consistency of the Milky Way satellite plane with Lambda-CDM cannot be inferred from it.

Significance. If correct, this paper invalidates the central claim of Uzeirbegovic et al. (2024) and provides a clear methodological caution for the community. The strength of the paper lies in its direct, falsifiable tests with explicit controls: 1000 realizations per configuration, tests of both the publicly released code and an equal-area bin-scaled variant (Appendix B), and a decisive orientation test that alone establishes the metric's failure of rotational invariance. The paper is appropriately cautious in its conclusion: it does not claim that the Milky Way satellite plane is inconsistent with Lambda-CDM, but only that this particular metric cannot be used to demonstrate consistency. The use of publicly available code and transparent toy models enhances reproducibility. The paper's scope is limited, but the conclusion is well supported.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text reads "the metric infers an decreased degree" and should be corrected to "a decreased degree".
  2. [Section 2.5] The phrase "can thus let one to falsely infer" should be revised to "can thus cause one to falsely infer".
  3. [Section 2.1] The correlation coefficients (r = 0.352, rho = 0.351) are reported without uncertainties or p-values; since these are computed over 1000 independent realizations, the standard error is roughly 0.03, so the conclusion is robust, but a p-value or a statement of significance would strengthen the presentation.
  4. [Section 2] The description "the metric constructs the cross-products of all possible combinations of satellite galaxy position vectors" could be misread as including ordered pairs; it would be clearer to say "all unique pairs of satellite position vectors".
  5. [Appendix A] The two panels of Figure A.1 are described in the caption but the text does not fully explain why Leo V shows a wider spread than Crater II; a short sentence attributing this to the larger proper-motion uncertainties would help the reader interpret the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper tests an external metric against independently constructed toy models and random realizations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a falsification of the Uzeirbegovic et al. (2024) planarity metric. The derivation chain does not fit any parameter to a target result, nor does it import a conclusion from self-citation. The rotation test in Section 2.1 constructs 1000 isotropic mock systems and compares quantiles before and after a 90-degree rotation; the weak correlation (Pearson r = 0.352) is an externally computed property of the metric under test, not something the paper defines into existence. The other tests (halo shape, satellite number, clustering, lopsidedness) likewise generate toy distributions from stated prescriptions and measure the metric's response. The paper explicitly acknowledges the one implementation uncertainty (whether the public code includes the equal-area bin scaling described in the original paper) and mitigates it by repeating the full test suite with a scaled metric in Appendix B; the conclusions hold in both cases. Self-citations in the introduction are contextual and not load-bearing: the argument stands on the presented tests, not on prior work by the authors. Therefore the claim that the metric lacks specificity and orientation-independence is self-contained and not circular.

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

The paper's central claim rests on toy-model experiments with hand-chosen parameters (satellite count, shape scaling, pairing fraction, offset, radial concentration) and on two key assumptions: that the original public code implements the metric faithfully, and that a planarity metric must be rotation-invariant and specific to planar sub-structure rather than generic anisotropy. No new physical entities are introduced and no parameters are fitted to data.

free parameters (5)
  • Nsat (satellite count) = 20, 30, 40, 50
    Number of satellites in mock systems, chosen to bracket the MW sample and the original requirement of Nsat>30; the metric's response depends on Nsat (Section 2.3, Fig. 3).
  • Axis scaling factor q = 0.5, 0.67, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
    Scaling applied to x-coordinates to create oblate/prolate distributions; chosen by hand to model halo shapes (Section 2.2).
  • Pair fraction fpair = 0.0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
    Probability that a satellite is assigned a nearby companion, modeling hierarchical clustering (Section 2.4).
  • Offset shift (lopsidedness) = 0.1 of system extent
    Shifts entire distribution along x-axis to model lopsidedness; value chosen to be small but noticeable (Section 2.5).
  • Radial distribution exponent a = 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4
    Radial distance r = r'^a controls concentration; a=0.5 is the fiducial uniform-density case of Uzeirbegovic et al., larger a gives concentrated distributions (Section 2.5).
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The publicly released planarity code of Uzeirbegovic et al. (2024) correctly implements the metric as used in their analysis.
    The paper defaults to the provided code, though it notes the code may lack the equal-area bin scaling; results are repeated in Appendix B with scaling and remain valid.
  • domain assumption A suitable planarity metric must be invariant under rigid rotations of the studied system (coordinate-system independence).
    The paper states this requirement in Section 2.1 and uses the 90-degree rotation test to show the metric fails it.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic features modeled (triaxiality, clustering, lopsidedness, radial concentration) are present in LCDM satellite systems independently of satellite planes.
    Supported by cited literature in Sections 2.2, 2.4, 2.5.
  • standard math Standard statistical tools (Gini coefficient, quantiles, Pearson and Spearman correlations) behave as expected for the comparisons made.
    The paper relies on these standard tools without derivation, which is appropriate for this context.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing a proposed "planarity" tool for studying satellite systems: On the alleged consistency of Milky Way satellite galaxy planes with $\Lambda$CDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3QCICGR

@misc{pith2026241214330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing a proposed "planarity" tool for studying satellite systems: On the alleged consistency of Milky Way satellite galaxy planes with $\Lambda$CDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3QCICGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14330}
}
abstract

The existence of planes of satellite galaxies has been identified as a long-standing challenge to $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, due to the rarity of satellite systems in cosmological simulations that are as extremely flattened and as strongly kinematically correlated as observed structures. Here we investigate a recently proposed new metric to measure the overall degree of ''planarity'' of a satellite system, which was used to claim consistency between the Milky Way satellite plane and $\Lambda$CDM. We study the behavior of the ''planarity'' metric under several features of anisotropy present in $\Lambda$CDM satellite systems but unrelated to satellite planes. Specifically, we consider the impact of oblate or prolate distributions, the number of satellites, clustering of satellites, and radial and asymmetric distributions ('lopsidedness'). We also investigate whether the metric is independent of the orientation of the studied satellite system. We find that all of these features of anisotropy result in the metric inferring an increased degree of ''planarity'', despite none of them having any direct relation to satellite planes. The metric is also highly sensitive to the orientation of the studied system (or chosen coordinate system): there is almost no correlation between the metric's reported degrees of ''planarity'' for identical random systems rotated by 90{\deg}. Our results demonstrate that the new proposed metric is unsuitable to measure overall ''planarity'' in satellite systems. Consequently, no consistency of the observed Milky Way satellite plane with $\Lambda$CDM can be inferred using this metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantiles for 1000 random isotropic distributions in two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of quantiles for systems with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of the number of satellites on the inferred ”planarity” of a distribution with intrinsic pro- or oblateness. From left to right the number of satellites per system is 20, 30, and 50, respectively (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of quantiles for isotropic distributions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of radial distribution and lopsidedness on the inferred ”planarity” of a satellite system. The left panel plots the cumu￾lative radial distribution of mock satellite systems (green: observed MW; black: fiducial distribution of Uzeirbegovic et al. 2024). The midd…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Primack, J

    Allgood, B., Flores, R. A., Primack, J. R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1781

    2006

  2. [2]

    & Steinmetz, M

    Bailin, J. & Steinmetz, M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 647

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    F., & Fritz, T

    Battaglia, G., Taibi, S., Thomas, G. F., & Fritz, T. K. 2022, A&A, 657, A54

    2022

  4. [4]

    R., Stierwalt, S., et al

    Besla, G., Patton, D. R., Stierwalt, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3376

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Brainerd, T. G. & Samuels, A. 2020, ApJ, 898, L15

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 162

    Chamberlain, K., Besla, G., Patel, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 162

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A., Tully, R

    Chiboucas, K., Jacobs, B. A., Tully, R. B., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2013, AJ, 146, 126

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    R., Lewis, G

    Conn, A. R., Lewis, G. F., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 120 Crnojevi´c, D., Sand, D. J., Caldwell, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, L35

    work page 2013

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109

    Dubois, Y ., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109

    2021

  2. [10]

    & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D. & Belokurov, V . A. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2554

    2020

  3. [11]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 1225

    Evslin, J. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1225

    2014

  4. [12]

    F., Starkenburg, E., Barber, C

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J. F., Starkenburg, E., Barber, C. R., & McConnachie, A. W. 2013, MNRAS, 431, L73

    2013

  5. [13]

    Forero-Romero, J. E. & Arias, V . 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5533 Förster, P. U., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.05496

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S., & Jamie Kanehisa, K

    Heesters, N., Jerjen, H., Müller, O., Pawlowski, M. S., & Jamie Kanehisa, K. 2024, A&A, 690, A110

    2024

  7. [15]

    A., Ibata, N

    Ibata, R. A., Ibata, N. G., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, L6

    2014

  8. [16]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Conn, A. R., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 62 Júlio, M. P., Pawlowski, M. S., Tony Sohn, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A212

    2013

  9. [17]

    J., Pawlowski, M

    Kanehisa, K. J., Pawlowski, M. S., Müller, O., & Sohn, S. T. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6184

    2023

  10. [18]

    Karachentsev, I. D. & Kroupa, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2805

    2024

  11. [19]

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

    Kelley, T., Bullock, J. S., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4409

    2019

  12. [20]

    Kroupa, P., Theis, C., & Boily, C. M. 2005, A&A, 431, 517 Article number, page 5 A&A proofs: manuscript no. planarity 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 radius 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0CDF Nsat = 40, x = 0.10 a = 0.5 a = 1.0 a = 2.0 a = 3.0 a = 4.0 MW 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 quantile (pole...

    2005

  13. [21]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 8

    Li, H., Hammer, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 8

    2021

  14. [22]

    I., Guo, Q., Tempel, E., & Ibata, R

    Libeskind, N. I., Guo, Q., Tempel, E., & Ibata, R. 2016, ApJ, 830, 121

    2016

  15. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 1405 Macciò, A

    Liu, Y ., Wang, P., Guo, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1405 Macciò, A. V ., Kang, X., Fontanot, F., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1995 Martínez-Delgado, D., Makarov, D., Javanmardi, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A48

    2024

  16. [24]

    S., et al

    Martinez-Delgado, D., Stein, M., Pawlowski, M. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03769 Müller, O., Heesters, N., Jerjen, H., Anand, G., & Revaz, Y . 2023, A&A, 673, A160 Müller, O., Heesters, N., Pawlowski, M. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A250 Müller, O., Pawlowski, M....

    2024

  17. [25]

    J., Crnojevi´c, D., et al

    Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´c, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 188

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424

    2024

  19. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 121

    Patel, E., Kallivayalil, N., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 121

    2020

  20. [28]

    2021, ApJ, 917, L18

    Paudel, S., Yoon, S.-J., & Smith, R. 2021, ApJ, 917, L18

    2021

  21. [29]

    Pawlowski, M. S. 2018, Modern Physics Letters A, 33, 1830004

    2018

  22. [30]

    Pawlowski, M. S. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 66

    2021

  23. [31]

    S., Bullock, J

    Pawlowski, M. S., Bullock, J. S., Kelley, T., & Famaey, B. 2019, ApJ, 875, 105

    2019

  24. [32]

    S., Famaey, B., Jerjen, H., et al

    Pawlowski, M. S., Famaey, B., Jerjen, H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2362

    2014

  25. [33]

    S., Famaey, B., Merritt, D., & Kroupa, P

    Pawlowski, M. S., Famaey, B., Merritt, D., & Kroupa, P. 2015, ApJ, 815, 19

    2015

  26. [34]

    Pawlowski, M. S. & Kroupa, P. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3042

    2020

  27. [35]

    S., Kroupa, P., & Jerjen, H

    Pawlowski, M. S., Kroupa, P., & Jerjen, H. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1928

    2013

  28. [36]

    Pawlowski, M. S. & McGaugh, S. S. 2014, ApJ, 789, L24

    2014

  29. [37]

    S., Müller, O., Taibi, S., et al

    Pawlowski, M. S., Müller, O., Taibi, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A153

    2024

  30. [38]

    S., Oria, P.-A., Taibi, S., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R

    Pawlowski, M. S., Oria, P.-A., Taibi, S., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R. 2022, ApJ, 932, 70

    2022

  31. [39]

    S., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P

    Pawlowski, M. S., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1109

    2012

  32. [40]

    Pawlowski, M. S. & Tony Sohn, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 42

    2021

  33. [41]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1379

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Chapman, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1379

    2021

  34. [42]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1471

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1471

    2020

  35. [43]

    & Brainerd, T

    Samuels, A. & Brainerd, T. G. 2023, ApJ, 947, 56

    2023

  36. [44]

    R., Skillman, E

    Savino, A., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 101

    2022

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 253

    Seo, C., Yoon, S.-J., Paudel, S., An, S.-H., & Moon, J.-S. 2024, ApJ, 976, 253

    2024

  38. [46]

    Shao, S., Cautun, M., & Frenk, C. S. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1166

    2019

  39. [47]

    T., Patel, E., Fardal, M

    Sohn, S. T., Patel, E., Fardal, M. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 43

    2020

  40. [48]

    S., Khoperskov, S., Steinmetz, M., & Libeskind, N

    Taibi, S., Pawlowski, M. S., Khoperskov, S., Steinmetz, M., & Libeskind, N. I. 2024, A&A, 681, A73

    2024

  41. [49]

    B., Libeskind, N

    Tully, R. B., Libeskind, N. I., Karachentsev, I. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, L25

    2015

  42. [50]

    2024, MN- RAS[arXiv:2411.17813]

    Uzeirbegovic, E., Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2024, MN- RAS[arXiv:2411.17813]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 437

    Vasiliev, E. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 437

    2024

  44. [52]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3226

    Vega-Ferrero, J., Yepes, G., & Gottlöber, S. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3226

    2017

  45. [53]

    S., & Cooper, A

    Wang, J., Frenk, C. S., & Cooper, A. P. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1502

    2013

  46. [54]

    I., Pawlowski, M

    Wang, P., Libeskind, N. I., Pawlowski, M. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 78

    2021

  47. [55]

    J., et al

    Wang, Y ., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1511

    2008

  48. [56]

    R., Deason, A

    Wetzel, A. R., Deason, A. J., & Garrison-Kimmel, S. 2015, ApJ, 807, 49

    2015

  49. [57]

    S., et al

    Wheeler, C., Oñorbe, J., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1305

    2015

  50. [58]

    White, S. D. M. & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52

    1991

  51. [59]

    White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341 Article number, page 6 Marcel S. Pawlowski et al.: Testing a proposed ”planarity” tool for studying satellite systems Appendix A: Error Treatment In analyzing the observed Milky Way system of satellite galax- ies, Uzeirbegovi...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.