Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 96 references

An LBT view of the co-rotating group of galaxies around NGC 2750: Deep imaging and new satellite candidates

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep imaging discovers six new dwarf galaxy candidates around NGC 2750 and reinforces a flattened, bright-satellite-rich system while leaving its co-rotation unconfirmed.

desk verdict A careful, honest deep-imaging survey that delivers a useful dwarf-candidate catalog, but its strongest quantitative claim (the bright-satellite excess) is not robust to the distance ambiguity the paper itself documents. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19001 v1 pith:YTQTI3C7 submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.GA

S. Taibi , M. S. Pawlowski , O. Müller , M. Bílek , M. P. Júlio , K. J. Kanehisa , M. Jovanović , A. Lalović
show 1 more author
S. Samurović
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords satelliteplanesdwarfgalaxiesultra-diffuselowsurfacebrightnessimagingluminosityfunctioncosmologicaltensionNGC2750galaxygroups
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 sets out to test whether the spiral galaxy NGC 2750 hosts a thin, co-rotating plane of dwarf satellite galaxies, a pattern that is rare in standard cosmological simulations and has been claimed for this system by earlier work. Using deep $g$- and $r$-band imaging with the Large Binocular Telescope, reaching about 31 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in $r$, it finds six new low-surface-brightness dwarf candidates, one of them consistent with an ultra-diffuse galaxy (an unusually extended, very faint dwarf), plus tidal debris around the host. The enlarged satellite list keeps the projected distribution moderately flattened, with minor-to-major axis ratio $b/a = 0.67 \pm 0.12$, and the system's luminosity function shows an excess of bright satellites near $M_V \sim -15$: only about 0.5% of matched TNG50 simulated analogues have as many. The previously reported co-rotation of the known satellites is retained but not confirmed, because the new candidates' velocities are unknown and a single outer candidate moving against the trend would erase the correlation. A sympathetic reading is that NGC 2750 adds a further observed example of the 'too many bright satellites' tension, with the distance and membership assumptions as the main caveats.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is deep low-surface-brightness imaging: a dithering pattern with steps of about the host's diameter allows the science frames themselves to serve as flat fields, and co-addition of 30 dithered 180 s LBT exposures reaches a 3$\sigma$ limit of 30.6 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in $r$. Candidate dwarfs are then characterised by S\'ersic-profile fits and placed on $M_V$--$\mu_V(0)$--$R_e$ scaling relations against known dwarfs, which is the paper's main membership heuristic. Two quantitative engines follow: a Bayesian linear rotation model $V_{\rm rot} = k R_i \cos(\theta - \theta_i)$ with no intrinsic dispersion for the kinematic test, and a satellite-count comparison within the assumed virial radius (150 kpc) against ELVES hosts and 650 isolated TNG50 analogues selected by baryonic mass.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic redshifts of the seven candidates would settle the co-rotation claim: one outer candidate with a velocity opposite the known trend pushes the correlation's $p$-value above 0.05, while random velocities for the two innermost candidates usually preserve it. A reliable distance to NGC 2750 (for example from resolved stars or a better inclination-corrected Tully-Fisher measurement) would settle the luminosity-function claim, since at 20 Mpc the satellites would be about 1.6 mag fainter and the bright excess would largely disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, deep $g$- and $r$-band imaging with the Large Binocular Telescope reaches $\mu_r \sim 31$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and reveals six previously unknown low-surface-brightness dwarf galaxy candidates around NGC 2750, one of which has properties consistent with an ultra-diffuse galaxy ($R_e \sim 30''$, central surface brightness $\mu_V(0) \sim 28$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$) and may alternatively be a dwarf being tidally destroyed. The candidates, combined with the known satellites, yield a projected distribution with minor-to-major axis ratio $b/a = 0.67 \pm 0.12$, a moderate flattening that supports and sharpens the earlier measurement. The luminosity function shows an excess of bright satellites near $M_V \sim -15$: among TNG50 analogues matched in baryonic mass and isolation, only $\sim 0.5\%$ have as many satellites at that luminosity, and among ELVES hosts only NGC 1023 is comparable. The co-rotating signal reported earlier is retained in the sense that the best-fitting kinematic axis ($k = 32 \pm 8$ km s$^{-1}$ arcmin$^{-1}$, $\theta_k = 10^\circ \pm 20^\circ$) agrees with the spatial axis, but it is not confirmed, because assigning even one of the outer candidates a velocity opposite the trend would push the correlation's $p$-value above 0.05.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed group distance of $42 \pm 7$ Mpc, taken from the Hubble flow rather than a reliable host measurement, because every physical conclusion—absolute magnitudes, effective radii, the ultra-diffuse classification, the virial-radius comparison, and the luminosity-function excess—scales with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The flattening persists with the new candidates ($b/a = 0.67 \pm 0.12$) and is consistent with, though less extreme than, the projected planes seen around the Milky Way and M31.
  • The luminosity-function excess at $M_V \sim -15$ places NGC 2750 above nearly all ELVES hosts and 99.5% of TNG50 analogues, strengthening the 'too many satellites' tension.
  • A spectroscopic campaign targeting the innermost candidates can test the co-rotation, while the faint outer candidates are the most discriminating but hardest to observe with current facilities.
  • Tidal features around NGC 2750, together with the absence of a massive stellar halo, favour past interactions with satellites over a recent major merger as the origin of any coherent motion.
  • If the ultra-diffuse galaxy candidate is real, it sits at the faint end of known UDGs and may be a tidally disrupting dwarf similar to Antlia II.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a better distance places NGC 2750 closer than 42 Mpc, all absolute magnitudes shift fainter by about 1.6 mag at 20 Mpc, which would weaken the bright-satellite excess; a larger distance would make the excess more extreme.
  • Membership of the faint candidates is untested; contamination by background dwarfs could remove part of the flattening and the luminosity excess, so deep spectroscopy of even a few candidates is the fastest way to tighten the claims.
  • The resemblance of the ultra-diffuse candidate to Antlia II suggests a testable tidal-stripping scenario: deep imaging for globular clusters or tidal tails around the candidate would discriminate between a genuine UDG and a disrupted dwarf.
  • If the bright-satellite excess holds, applying the same deep-imaging and counting protocol to a larger sample of isolated spirals would show whether NGC 2750 is an outlier or the first of a population that cosmological simulations systematically underpredict.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents deep LBT g- and r-band imaging of a roughly 35' x 30' field around NGC 2750. The authors use a standard reduction pipeline with a self-flat-field strategy, calibrate the photometry to SDSS, model and subtract the scattered light from a bright foreground star, and report tidal features around the host. They identify six new candidate dwarf galaxies, including one ultra-diffuse-galaxy candidate, and they measure structural and photometric parameters for all candidates. Adopting a fiducial group distance of 42 ± 7 Mpc from the Hubble flow, they argue that the candidates follow local dwarf scaling relations, that the projected satellite distribution is moderately flattened (b/a = 0.67 ± 0.12), and that the NGC 2750 luminosity function shows an excess of bright satellites relative to ELVES hosts and TNG50 analogues, with only about 0.5% of analogues having as many satellites near M_V ≈ -15. They also re-examine the previously reported co-rotation signal and conclude that it is retained but not confirmed, since the new candidates could enhance or destroy it depending on their radial velocities.

Significance. If the assumed distance and group memberships are correct, this system is a valuable addition to the small set of candidate co-rotating satellite planes and to the growing observational evidence for an excess of bright satellites relative to cosmological simulations. The observational work itself is solid and useful: the reduction is standard and documented, the photometric calibration against SDSS is described with zero-point uncertainties, and the Sersic fits are reported with parameter errors. The authors are also appropriately cautious in several places, especially in Section 5.4, where they emphasize that the kinematic correlation is provisional pending spectroscopy. The main quantitative claim, however, rests on a distance that the paper itself shows to be poorly constrained, so the significance of the claimed cosmological tension is not yet firmly established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3 and 5.3, Fig. 5] The claimed bright-satellite excess is not robust to the distance uncertainty. Section 3 reports host Tully-Fisher estimates ranging from 9 to 39 Mpc and a satellite-derived group average of 46 ± 7 Mpc, with one satellite (D4) giving 16 Mpc, while the adopted fiducial value is 42 ± 7 Mpc. The comparison in Fig. 5 uses a fixed absolute-magnitude window near M_V = -14.9 and a fixed projected radius of 150 kpc, both of which scale with the assumed distance. If the true distance were, for example, 20 Mpc, the known satellites would be roughly 1.6 mag fainter in M_V and the survey would cover a much smaller physical radius; the claimed excess could weaken or disappear. The authors should quantify how the luminosity-function comparison and the flattening measurement change over the full allowed distance range, or provide an independent distance constraint, before drawing cosmological conclusions.
  2. [Section 5.4 and Fig. 6] The flattening analysis and the luminosity-function comparison treat all six DGCs as satellites, but none has a confirmed membership. The authors acknowledge that the candidates are not spectroscopically confirmed, yet they do not provide a statistical background-contamination estimate. A simple estimate using counts of similar faint, extended sources in the same field would help show whether the apparent flattening and the bright-end excess could be produced by unrelated background galaxies. This is particularly important because the uncertain candidates DGC2, DGC3, and DGC5 are explicitly flagged as having ambiguous morphology in Table 2.
  3. [Section 4.3 and 5.2] The classification of the western overdensity as an ultra-diffuse galaxy candidate depends directly on the distance through the effective radius, since the UDG criterion R_e > 1.5 kpc is applied to R_e ≈ 30 arcsec at 42 Mpc. At the lower end of the reported Tully-Fisher distance range, R_e would fall below 1.5 kpc and the object would no longer satisfy the UDG criterion. The discussion in Section 5.2 should therefore state explicitly which distance values are compatible with the UDG classification and which are not, rather than presenting the classification under the single fiducial distance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2] The abstract states a depth of about 31 mag arcsec^-2 in r, while Section 2.2 reports a 3σ surface-brightness limit of 30.6 mag arcsec^-2 in r; these values should be reconciled in a single place.
  2. [Table 1] The table lists D1, D2, D3, D4, and D6 but no D5, and the naming is not consistent with Paudel et al. (2021) as presented in Fig. A.1; the authors should clarify which object corresponds to D5 or state why it is omitted.
  3. [Section 4.3] The text states Re ~ 30 arcsec for the UDGC, while Table 3 gives Re,g = 35.9 ± 1.78 arcsec and Re,r = 31.0 ± 1.61 arcsec; the text should quote the measured values with uncertainties to avoid inconsistency.
  4. [Section 3] The phrase 'viral radius' should be 'virial radius.'
  5. [Fig. 5] The percentages listed along the lower part of the right panel (10.0%, 1.8%, 1.4%, etc.) are not explained in the caption or text; the authors should state what these values represent.
  6. [Table 1] The table gives coordinates in degrees but does not explicitly state the equinox or the reference catalog for the coordinates; this should be stated once, for example as J2000.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new LBT imaging results, external benchmark comparisons, and stated assumptions are self-contained; the distance and membership caveats are acknowledged input assumptions rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

No circular reasoning is present. The paper's central results—six new dwarf galaxy candidates, one UDG candidate, a projected flattening of b/a = 0.67 ± 0.12, and an excess of bright satellites—rest on new LBT g- and r-band imaging that was photometrically calibrated against SDSS DR18 (Sect. 2.2) and compared with external surveys and simulations (ELVES, SAGA, LIGHTS, and TNG50; Sect. 5.3). The luminosity-function excess is a count of observed satellites evaluated against externally defined completeness limits and simulated analogues; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The kinematic gradient in Sect. 5.4 is fit to the same radial-velocity data but is used descriptively, and the paper explicitly states that the inclusion of unconfirmed candidates could either enhance or destroy the previously reported co-rotation signal. The fiducial distance of 42 ± 7 Mpc is adopted from the Hubble flow and is stated as an assumption (Sect. 3); the paper openly reports the wide spread of Tully-Fisher estimates (9–39 Mpc for the host, 36–53 Mpc for individual satellites, with D4 giving 16 Mpc) and does not present a distance derived from the new data as an independent prediction. The unconfirmed membership of the DGCs is likewise explicitly acknowledged (Sect. 5.4). Self-citations (e.g., Taibi et al. 2018 for the kinematic fitting method; Müller et al. 2024b and Kanehisa et al. 2024 for similar too-many-satellites claims) are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments; the benchmark comparisons are external. The paper's own caveats about distance and membership are robustness limitations on input assumptions, not circular derivations, so the honest finding is a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a distance assumption, unconfirmed group membership, external TF calibrations, and survey comparison choices. No ad hoc physical entities are introduced. The distance choice is the largest single lever on the science conclusions.

free parameters (1)
  • Fiducial group distance D = 42 +/- 7 Mpc
    Adopted from the Cosmicflows-4 Hubble-flow estimate (Valade et al. 2024; Paudel et al. 2021), not measured in this paper. All absolute magnitudes, effective radii, the UDG classification, and the luminosity-function comparison scale with D; the host's own Tully-Fisher estimates range from 9 to 39 Mpc (Sect. 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NGC 2750 system and the new dwarf candidates lie at the same distance of 42 +/- 7 Mpc.
    The paper has no spectroscopic redshifts for the candidates; group membership is inferred from proximity, photometry, and the low-density environment (Sect. 5).
  • domain assumption The newly detected DGCs are physically associated with NGC 2750 rather than background galaxies.
    Used in the flattening and luminosity-function analyses; the authors check known catalogs but cannot exclude background contamination without spectroscopy (Sect. 4.4 and 5.4).
  • domain assumption Intrinsic axial ratio q0 from Roychowdhury et al. (2013) and the Kourkchi et al. (2020) Tully-Fisher calibration correctly convert observed HI widths into distances.
    This external calibration underpins the satellite distance estimates in Sect. 3, including the exclusion of D4 at 16 Mpc.
  • domain assumption The ELVES, SAGA, and LIGHTS samples are adequate completeness-matched benchmarks, and the TNG50 analogue selection (baryonic mass 3.0-5.0e10 Msun, isolation, random orientation) represents a fair cosmological comparison.
    Used in Sect. 5.3 for the luminosity function; the selection choices are stated but not fully validated against the uncertain observed mass of NGC 2750.
  • domain assumption Assumed stellar mass-to-light ratio 1-1.7 and gas-to-stellar mass ratio 0.5 yield the baryonic mass estimate used for the virial radius and TNG50 selection.
    These are literature-based assumptions (Bland-Hawthorn & Gerhard 2016; Paudel et al. 2021) that influence the comparison sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An LBT view of the co-rotating group of galaxies around NGC 2750: Deep imaging and new satellite candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTQTI3C7

@misc{pith2026250619001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An LBT view of the co-rotating group of galaxies around NGC 2750: Deep imaging and new satellite candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTQTI3C7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19001}
}
read the original abstract

Some galaxies such as the Milky Way and Andromeda display coherently rotating satellite planes, posing tensions with cosmological simulations. NGC 2750 has emerged as an additional candidate system hosting a co-rotating group of galaxies. We aim to assess the presence of a coherent satellite plane around NGC 2750 by identifying new candidate dwarf galaxies and low surface brightness features. We conducted deep, wide-field photometric observations of NGC 2750 using the Large Binocular Telescope in the g- and r-bands. Standard data reduction techniques were applied to enhance the detection of low-surface-brightness features down to about 31 mag/arcsec^2 in r. Our observations led to the discovery of six new candidate dwarf galaxies, including one with properties consistent with an ultra-diffuse galaxy. We also identified tidal features around NGC 2750, indicating past interactions with nearby satellites. The spatial distribution of satellites suggests a moderate flattening, further supported by the newly identified candidates. Follow-up spectroscopic measurements will be critical in confirming or challenging the strong kinematic coherence observed previously. The luminosity function of NGC 2750 reveals an excess of bright satellites compared to similar systems, adding to the growing tension between observed satellite populations and cosmological simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19001 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Colour composition of the surveyed area around NGC 2750 obtained by combining the final co-added images in the g- and r-bands with an average (g+r)/2 image. The image FoV is approximately 35′ × 30′ . North is up and east to the left. clean photometry having magnitudes between 18 and 22 mag in both g- and r-band filters. Sources in our data instead were obtained using SExtractor. We found about 300 stars in common be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scattered light removal. The final co-added image in the r-band before (left) and after (right) subtracting the scattered light produced by the brightest star in the field. North is up and east to the left. 4.2. Tidal features around NGC 2750 The removal of the scattered light produced by BD+25 2039 al￾lowed us to have a closer look at the outskirts of NGC 2750. In particular, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial surface brightness profile in the g- and r-bands (left and middle panels), together with the de-reddened colour profile (right panel) for the UDG candidate found near NGC 2750, where the horizontal solid line represents the median colour value. (ϵ = 1 − b/a = 0.5) and its proximity to the host suggest that it may be currently undergoing some degree of tidal disturbance. As discussed in Sect. 5, these evidence… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling relations for the candidate satellites of NGC 2750 compared to the distribution of values for known dwarf and ultra-diffuse galaxies. In the upper left panel is shown the absolute visual magnitude MV vs the central surface brightness µV (0) (in units of mag arc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Luminosity function of the NGC 2750 system compared with those of observed and simulated systems. Left: comparison with the observed systems studied by the ELVES survey (gray lines). Values for the NGC 2750 system are marked with a red line, with the dashed part indica…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase-space diagrams of the NGC 2750 system. Left: Spatial distribution of known members (circles) and candidates (squares) coloured (when measurements are available) according to their difference in line-of-sight velocity from that of the central host. Right: line-of-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44

    2023

  2. [2]

    2020, , 491, 5101

    Annibali , F., Beccari , G., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2020, , 491, 5101

    2020

  3. [3]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022 a , , 935, 167

    2022

  4. [4]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022 b , , 935, 167

    2022

  5. [5]

    K., Glazebrook , K., & Driver , S

    Baldry , I. K., Glazebrook , K., & Driver , S. P. 2008, , 388, 945

    2008

  6. [6]

    J., Zaritsky , D., et al

    Bennet , P., Sand , D. J., Zaritsky , D., et al. 2018, , 866, L11

    2018

  7. [7]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel , C. Arviset , D. Ponz , & S. Enrique , 112

    2006

  8. [8]

    & Arnouts , S

    Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    1996

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin , E., Mellier , Y., Radovich , M., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender , D. Durand , & T. H. Handley , 228

    2002

  2. [10]

    2020, , 498, 2138

    B \' lek , M., Duc , P.-A., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al. 2020, , 498, 2138

    2020

  3. [11]

    2018, , 614, A59

    B \' lek , M., Thies , I., Kroupa , P., & Famaey , B. 2018, , 614, A59

    2018

  4. [12]

    & Gerhard , O

    Bland-Hawthorn , J. & Gerhard , O. 2016, , 54, 529

    2016

  5. [13]

    1985, , 59, 43

    Bottinelli , L., Gouguenheim , L., Paturel , G., & de Vaucouleurs , G. 1985, , 59, 43

    1985

  6. [14]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0

    Bradley, L. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0

    2023

  7. [15]

    Bullock , J. S. & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2017, , 55, 343

    2017

  8. [16]

    2019, , 485, 382

    Carleton , T., Errani , R., Cooper , M., et al. 2019, , 485, 382

    2019

  9. [17]

    G., Greene , J

    Carlsten , S. G., Greene , J. E., Beaton , R. L., Danieli , S., & Greco , J. P. 2022, , 933, 47

    2022

  10. [18]

    A., Tully , R

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

    2013

  11. [19]

    D., & Tully , R

    Chiboucas , K., Karachentsev , I. D., & Tully , R. B. 2009, , 137, 3009

    2009

  12. [20]

    R., Ibata , R

    Conn , A. R., Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., et al. 2012, , 758, 11

    2012

  13. [21]

    2023, astropy/ccdproc: 2.4.1

    Craig, M., Crawford, S., Seifert, M., et al. 2023, astropy/ccdproc: 2.4.1

    2023

  14. [22]

    2024, , 527, 9118

    Crosby , E., Jerjen , H., M \"u ller , O., et al. 2024, , 527, 9118

    2024

  15. [23]

    2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Duc , P.-A. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 28, Dwarf Galaxies: Keys to Galaxy Formation and Evolution, ed. P. Papaderos , S. Recchi , & G. Hensler , 305

    2012

  16. [24]

    G., Sand , D

    Fielder , C., Jones , M. G., Sand , D. J., et al. 2024, , 168, 212

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  18. [26]

    2021, , 923, 140

    Garavito-Camargo , N., Patel , E., Besla , G., et al. 2021, , 923, 140

    2021

  19. [27]

    T., Peter , A

    Garling , C. T., Peter , A. H. G., Kochanek , C. S., Sand , D. J., & Crnojevi \'c , D. 2021, , 507, 4764

    2021

  20. [28]

    2008, , 482, 349

    Giallongo , E., Ragazzoni , R., Grazian , A., et al. 2008, , 482, 349

    2008

  21. [29]

    R., Rom \'a n , J., & Trujillo , I

    Golini , G., Montes , M., Carrasco , E. R., Rom \'a n , J., & Trujillo , I. 2024, , 684, A99

    2024

  22. [30]

    Graham , A. W. & Driver , S. P. 2005, , 22, 118

    2005

  23. [31]

    R., Duc , P.-A., et al

    Habas , R., Marleau , F. R., Duc , P.-A., et al. 2020, , 491, 1901

    2020

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362

    2020

  25. [33]

    P., Giovanelli , R., Kent , B

    Haynes , M. P., Giovanelli , R., Kent , B. R., et al. 2018, , 861, 49

    2018

  26. [34]

    R., et al

    Heesters , N., Habas , R., Marleau , F. R., et al. 2021, , 654, A161

    2021

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  28. [36]

    A., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., Conn , A. R., et al. 2013, , 493, 62

    2013

  29. [37]

    & Akhlaghi , M

    Infante-Sainz , R. & Akhlaghi , M. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 10

    2024

  30. [38]

    H., Schlegel , D., et al

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Lupton , R. H., Schlegel , D., et al. 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583

    2004

  31. [39]

    Jerjen , H., Binggeli , B., & Freeman , K. C. 2000, , 119, 593

    2000

  32. [40]

    P., Koposov , S

    Ji , A. P., Koposov , S. E., Li , T. S., et al. 2021, , 921, 32

    2021

  33. [41]

    K., & Ammon , K

    Jordi , K., Grebel , E. K., & Ammon , K. 2006, , 460, 339

    2006

  34. [42]

    P., Pawlowski , M

    J \'u lio , M. P., Pawlowski , M. S., Tony Sohn , S., et al. 2024, , 687, A212

    2024

  35. [43]

    J., Pawlowski , M

    Kanehisa , K. J., Pawlowski , M. S., Heesters , N., & M \"u ller , O. 2024, , 686, A280

    2024

  36. [44]

    J., Pawlowski , M

    Kanehisa , K. J., Pawlowski , M. S., & M \"u ller , O. 2023, , 524, 952

    2023

  37. [45]

    B., Anand , G

    Kourkchi , E., Tully , R. B., Anand , G. S., et al. 2020, , 896, 3

    2020

  38. [46]

    B., Neill , J

    Kourkchi , E., Tully , R. B., Neill , J. D., et al. 2019, , 884, 82

    2019

  39. [47]

    Kroupa , P., Theis , C., & Boily , C. M. 2005, , 431, 517

    2005

  40. [48]

    W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S

    Lang , D., Hogg , D. W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S. 2010, , 139, 1782

    2010

  41. [49]

    & Helmi , A

    Li , Y.-S. & Helmi , A. 2008, , 385, 1365

    2008

  42. [50]

    I., Hoffman , Y., Tully , R

    Libeskind , N. I., Hoffman , Y., Tully , R. B., et al. 2015, , 452, 1052

    2015

  43. [51]

    W., et al

    Lim , S., C \^o t \'e , P., Peng , E. W., et al. 2020, , 899, 69

    2020

  44. [52]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2021, , 907, 85

    2021

  45. [53]

    R., Habas , R., Poulain , M., et al

    Marleau , F. R., Habas , R., Poulain , M., et al. 2021, , 654, A105

    2021

  46. [54]

    2021, , 652, A48

    Mart \' nez-Delgado , D., Makarov , D., Javanmardi , B., et al. 2021, , 652, A48

    2021

  47. [55]

    & Trujillo , I

    Monelli , M. & Trujillo , I. 2019, , 880, L11

    2019

  48. [56]

    S., et al

    M \"u ller , O., Heesters , N., Pawlowski , M. S., et al. 2024 a , , 683, A250

    2024

  49. [57]

    2018 a , , 615, A105

    M \"u ller , O., Jerjen , H., & Binggeli , B. 2018 a , , 615, A105

    2018

  50. [58]

    S., Jerjen , H., & Lelli , F

    M \"u ller , O., Pawlowski , M. S., Jerjen , H., & Lelli , F. 2018 b , Science, 359, 534

    2018

  51. [59]

    S., Lelli , F., et al

    M \"u ller , O., Pawlowski , M. S., Lelli , F., et al. 2021, , 645, L5

    2021

  52. [60]

    S., Revaz , Y., et al

    M \"u ller , O., Pawlowski , M. S., Revaz , Y., et al. 2024 b , , 684, L6

    2024

  53. [61]

    2017, , 602, A119

    M \"u ller , O., Scalera , R., Binggeli , B., & Jerjen , H. 2017, , 602, A119

    2017

  54. [62]

    J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

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

    2024

  55. [63]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  56. [64]

    2000, , 146, 19

    Paturel , G., Fang , Y., Petit , C., Garnier , R., & Rousseau , J. 2000, , 146, 19

    2000

  57. [65]

    2021, , 917, L18

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

    2021

  58. [66]

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

    2018

  59. [67]

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

    2021

  60. [68]

    S., Kroupa , P., & de Boer , K

    Pawlowski , M. S., Kroupa , P., & de Boer , K. S. 2011, , 532, A118

    2011

  61. [69]

    S., M \"u ller , O., Taibi , S., et al

    Pawlowski , M. S., M \"u ller , O., Taibi , S., et al. 2024, , 688, A153

    2024

  62. [70]

    & Granger, B

    P \'e rez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9

    2007

  63. [71]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  64. [72]

    N., Karachentsev , I

    Roychowdhury , S., Chengalur , J. N., Karachentsev , I. D., & Kaisina , E. I. 2013, , 436, L104

    2013

  65. [73]

    2022, , 511, 4633

    Saifollahi , T., Zaritsky , D., Trujillo , I., et al. 2022, , 511, 4633

    2022

  66. [74]

    V., Wetzel , A., & Fattahi , A

    Sales , L. V., Wetzel , A., & Fattahi , A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897

    2022

  67. [75]

    Schlafly , E. F. & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  68. [76]

    Sersic , J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  69. [77]

    A., Bournaud , F., & Yi , S

    Smith , R., Duc , P. A., Bournaud , F., & Yi , S. K. 2016, , 818, 11

    2016

  70. [78]

    G., Tully , R

    Sorce , J. G., Tully , R. B., Courtois , H. M., et al. 2014, , 444, 527

    2014

  71. [79]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Speziali , R., Di Paola , A., Giallongo , E., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 70144T

    2008

  72. [80]

    2018, , 618, A122

    Taibi , S., Battaglia , G., Kacharov , N., et al. 2018, , 618, A122

    2018

  73. [81]

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

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

    2024

  74. [82]

    S., Mart \' nez , V

    Tempel , E., Stoica , R. S., Mart \' nez , V. J., et al. 2014, , 438, 3465

    2014

  75. [83]

    E., et al

    Torrealba , G., Belokurov , V., Koposov , S. E., et al. 2019, , 488, 2743

    2019

  76. [84]

    C., Brooks , A

    Tremmel , M., Wright , A. C., Brooks , A. M., et al. 2020, , 497, 2786

    2020

  77. [85]

    2021, , 654, A40

    Trujillo , I., D'Onofrio , M., Zaritsky , D., et al. 2021, , 654, A40

    2021

  78. [86]

    & Fliri , J

    Trujillo , I. & Fliri , J. 2016, , 823, 123

    2016

  79. [87]

    B., Courtois , H

    Tully , R. B., Courtois , H. M., Dolphin , A. E., et al. 2013, , 146, 86

    2013

  80. [88]

    Tully , R. B. & Fisher , J. R. 1988, Catalog of Nearby Galaxies

    1988

  81. [89]

    B., Kourkchi , E., Courtois , H

    Tully , R. B., Kourkchi , E., Courtois , H. M., et al. 2023, , 944, 94

    2023

  82. [90]

    B., Libeskind , N

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

    2015

  83. [91]

    I., Pomar \`e de , D., et al

    Valade , A., Libeskind , N. I., Pomar \`e de , D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1610

    2024

  84. [92]

    G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al

    van Dokkum , P. G., Abraham , R., Merritt , A., et al. 2015, , 798, L45

    2015

  85. [93]

    & Drake, F

    Van Rossum, G. & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  86. [94]

    2021, , 501, 2279

    Vasiliev , E., Belokurov , V., & Erkal , D. 2021, , 501, 2279

    2021

  87. [95]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  88. [96]

    2024, , 168, 69

    Zaritsky , D., Golini , G., Donnerstein , R., et al. 2024, , 168, 69

    2024

Pith tools

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