Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 110 references

Exploring the Diversity of Faint Satellites in the M81 Group

T0 review · 4 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 Hubble/ACS follow-up confirms four faint M81 group systems as ultra-faint dwarf galaxies with diverse structures.

desk verdict Careful HST confirmation of four faint M81 satellites, with useful new structural data; the distance assumption deserves a sensitivity test before the 'most compact/concentrated' claims stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02697 v1 pith:ZLM3ZAPW submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.GA

Katya Gozman , Eric F. Bell , In Sung Jang , Jose Marco Arias , Jeremy Bailin , Roelof S. de Jong , Richard D'Souza , Oleg Y. Gnedin
show 4 more authors
Antonela Monachesi Paul A. Price Vaishnav V. Rao Adam Smercina
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesM81groupsatellitegalaxystructureresolvedstellarpopulationsHubbleSpaceTelescopeSersicprofilestidalinteractions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses Hubble Space Telescope/ACS imaging to confirm that four faint stellar overdensities in the M81 group—D1005+68, D1006+69, DWJ0954+6821, and D1009+68—are dwarf galaxies rather than chance groupings or star clusters. All four are ultra-faint or near-ultra-faint ($M_V \geq -7.9$), old ($\sim 13$ Gyr), and metal-poor ($\mathrm{[M/H]} < -1.5$), making them among the faintest confirmed satellite galaxies outside the Local Group. Their structural parameters are unusually diverse: the same small sample contains a highly concentrated system, a highly elliptical system, and a very compact system. The broader point is that satellite populations of Milky-Way-mass galaxies may be more varied than the Milky Way and Andromeda samples suggest, so models tuned only to the Local Group could be missing part of the picture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a Markov-chain Monte Carlo maximum-likelihood fit of an elliptical Sérsic or exponential surface-density profile to the positions of resolved red-giant-branch stars, with a constant background term and completeness corrections from artificial star tests. The Sérsic index $n$ controls central concentration, so a fit with $n \approx 4.8$ versus the exponential $n=1$ case is what makes D1006+69 stand out; model choice is decided by the Bayesian information criterion. A companion step converts the fitted number of stars into absolute magnitude and stellar mass by comparing with a mock 13 Gyr, metal-poor stellar population, and metallicities are obtained by interpolating theoretical isochrones on the color–magnitude diagram. Tidal radii are estimated from a dynamical-mass formula with an assumed $5$ km/s velocity dispersion, which supports the claim that tides are not shaping these systems.

What would settle it

Resolve the tip of the red giant branch (or horizontal branch) in any one of the four fields with deeper space-based imaging: if the measured distance differs from 3.6 Mpc, or if a velocity-dispersion measurement comes out near zero rather than a few km/s, the galaxy classification and the reported physical sizes and rankings would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that D1005+68, D1006+69, DWJ0954+6821, and D1009+68 are faint dwarf galaxies in the M81 group, confirmed from resolved red-giant-branch stars in HST/ACS images. It derives structural parameters and finds a wide spread: D1006+69 is best fit by a Sérsic profile with $n = 4.8^{+2.1}_{-1.9}$, making it one of the most centrally concentrated ultra-faint dwarfs known; D1009+68 has ellipticity $\epsilon = 0.57^{+0.13}_{-0.19}$, one of the highest found in a faint dwarf outside the Local Group; DWJ0954+6821 has a circularized half-light radius of about $102$ pc, the most compact M81 satellite at its luminosity; and D1005+68 is moderately elliptical with a half-light radius near $300$ pc. Two of the systems have surface brightnesses lower than most galaxies in their absolute-magnitude range. All four are quenched and metal-poor, and their metallicities agree with the luminosity–metallicity relation followed by Milky Way and Andromeda dwarfs. Tidal-radius estimates indicate none is being stripped by M81, so their unusual shapes are not attributed to tides.

Load-bearing premise

All physical sizes, luminosities, and structural rankings assume that every satellite lies at the same 3.6 Mpc distance as M81, because no distinct tip-of-the-red-giant-branch or horizontal-branch stars were detected to measure individual distances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The four systems are the faintest confirmed satellites of the M81 group, extending the ultra-faint dwarf census beyond the Local Group.
  • If D1006+69's high Sérsic index holds, it is the most centrally concentrated ultra-faint satellite known, a possible signature of an accreted stellar halo or a merger-built structure.
  • D1009+68's high ellipticity with no sign of tidal stripping shows that extreme elongation in faint dwarfs can arise without tides.
  • DWJ0954+6821 shows that M81 hosts a compact dwarf similar to Pegasus V or Tucana B, so compactness is not unique to the Local Group.
  • Ground-based structural measurements of these systems changed substantially under HST follow-up, so high-resolution space imaging will be needed to trust faint-galaxy parameters found by future wide surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the revisions seen here are typical, published ground-based structural parameters for ultra-faint dwarfs in other nearby groups may carry systematic biases large enough to affect comparisons with simulations.
  • One small sample containing a high-$n$ system, a high-ellipticity system, a compact system, and two very low-surface-brightness systems suggests that internal formation history, not host tides, may dominate faint-satellite structure; searching for faint stellar halos around the M81 dwarfs would test this directly.
  • The assumed common distance of 3.6 Mpc is the main lever on the physical rankings; if future data find distance scatter among the four, the compactness, concentration, and luminosity claims would need to be re-ranked.
  • The paper's demonstration that ground-based Sérsic indices and luminosities can be off by large factors implies that candidate-confirmation programs for Rubin and Roman should budget for space-based follow-up of a substantial fraction of candidates.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents HST/ACS resolved-star photometry for four previously discovered faint satellite candidates in the M81 group (D1005+68, D1006+69, DWJ0954+6821, and D1009+68), confirming them as faint dwarf galaxies and measuring their structural parameters with MCMC fits to exponential or Sersic profiles. The authors derive photometric metallicities from PARSEC isochrones, estimate V-band absolute magnitudes and stellar masses using mock stellar populations with completeness corrections, and place the systems in the context of Local Group and Local Volume dwarfs. The central claims are that all four systems are ultra-faint or near-ultra-faint (M_V between about -7.7 and -7.9), old, metal-poor, and quenched, and that they show a striking diversity: DWJ0954+6821 is compact (r_h ~ 102 pc), D1006+69 has a high Sersic index (n ~ 4.8), and D1009+68 is highly elliptical (epsilon ~ 0.57).

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this work usefully extends the census of ultra-faint dwarfs beyond the Local Group and provides an important preview of what Rubin and Roman will do for faint satellite science. The paper has clear strengths: the photometry and artificial-star completeness analysis are carefully described; the MCMC fitting follows established methods; BIC-based model selection is used; and the data are public with a MAST DOI. The confirmation of four faint, old, metal-poor dwarfs around M81 is a solid and timely result. However, the more striking comparative claims (most compact M81 satellite, most concentrated UFD, one of the most elliptical dwarfs) depend on physical sizes and luminosities that are sensitive to the assumed common distance, and the distance uncertainty is not propagated into the reported half-light radii. Because these qualitative rankings are a central part of the abstract and discussion, the quantitative comparisons need additional support before the paper can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Table 2] The paper assumes a single distance of 3.6 Mpc for all four satellites and explicitly states in the Table 2 footnote that no distance uncertainty has been propagated into the physical half-light radii. This is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that one satellite is 'one of the most compact galaxies for its magnitude' and for Section 6.1's 'most compact M81 satellite' statement, since those comparisons are made in the M_V-r_h plane. A ±400 kpc distance error (the same magnitude used elsewhere in the table) changes r_h by ±11% and M_V by about ±0.24 mag simultaneously, which can shift DWJ0954+6821 across the distribution of other dwarfs. The authors should either propagate distance uncertainties into r_h and a_h, or explicitly phrase the compactness claims as distance-dependent and show how the conclusions change under plausible distance variations.
  2. [§5.3, §3.2, §3.4] The statement that 'none of our targets show distinct TRGBs' is used to justify assigning the M81 distance to all satellites, but Sections 3.2 and 3.4 report previously published TRGB detections for D1006+69 and D1009+68 from Okamoto et al. (2019). The paper neither adopts these literature distances nor explains why they are rejected or considered unreliable in the HST data. If the literature TRGB distances are correct and differ from 3.6 Mpc, the quoted absolute magnitudes, physical radii, and the resulting classifications as ultra-faint or near-ultra-faint and 'most compact' will be biased by more than the quoted random errors. The authors should explicitly discuss the literature distances and either incorporate them into the analysis or justify excluding them.
  3. [§5.1, §6.3, Table 2] The high-Sersic-index claim for D1006+69 (n = 4.8+2.1-1.9) rests on a fit to only 24 stars, with the ellipticity simultaneously unconstrained and reported only as an upper limit. A BIC difference of -5 is quoted as strong preference for the Sersic model, but with this sample size and background contamination, the result is vulnerable to small-number fluctuations, the adopted RGB selection box, and the assumed background density. The paper appropriately cautions that the ellipticity of this system is an upper limit, but it does not apply the same caution to the Sersic index. I request a robustness test for the n ~ 5 result, for example fits with injected synthetic populations or variations of the RGB selection region, before the 'most concentrated' characterization in the abstract and Section 6.3 is accepted.
  4. [§5.3] The V-band magnitudes and stellar masses are derived from a single mock stellar population with Z = 0.00045 ([M/H] ~ -1.5), but D1009+68 is measured to have [M/H] ~ -2.2 and the other systems also span a range of metallicities. The paper propagates uncertainties from distance and age into M_V and M_* but not from metallicity, even though the number of stars falling in the adopted RGB selection box depends on metallicity through the isochrone shape and luminosity function. The authors should either demonstrate that this effect is negligible for their selection boxes or add a metallicity-related systematic uncertainty to M_V and M_*.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] The prior is stated as 'log(0) < log(a_h) < log(1.6 arcmin)', but log(0) is undefined; presumably a small positive lower bound was intended and should be stated explicitly.
  2. [§5.1] There is a typo in 'Bayseian information criterion' (should be 'Bayesian'). Also, the BIC formula should define whether n is the number of stars or the number of data points used in the fit; the text is ambiguous.
  3. [§6.1] The phrase 'one of the most compact galaxies for its magnitude' is not quantified. The authors should specify the comparison sample, the percentile or rank implied, and how the ranking changes when distance uncertainty is included.
  4. [§6.2] The tidal radii in Table 2 are derived assuming a characteristic velocity dispersion of 5 km/s for all four satellites, with no uncertainty quoted. Since the tidal-radius comparison is used to conclude that none of the systems are being stripped, a short sensitivity test to the assumed dispersion (e.g., 2-10 km/s) would make the conclusion more robust.
  5. [Table 2] The footnote says 'One can assume a 30% uncertainty on age for the values of M_V and mass as reported in Harmsen et al. (2017)', but the tabulated error bars list random, distance, and age components; it should be clarified whether the quoted age errors already include this 30% or whether the reader is expected to apply it separately.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

HST-based structural measurements are self-contained; only a minor self-definitional age claim and an unpropagated distance assumption, neither load-bearing.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 5.2 (Photometric Metallicity)]
    "These are all faint (MV ≥ −7.9) and consistent with old (~13 Gyr), metal-poor ([M/H] < −1.5) populations. ... We construct a color-magnitude map using PARSEC isochrones between -2.15 ≤ [M/H] ≤ 0.5 in 0.5 dex intervals, assuming an age of 13 Gyr, a distance of 3.6 Mpc, and using only the RGB stage of each isochrone."

    The abstract presents 'consistent with old (~13 Gyr)' as a derived property, but the metallicity interpolation grid, the RGB selection boxes, and the mock stellar population used for MV and mass are all built from PARSEC isochrones 'assuming an age of 13 Gyr.' Judged against the same 13 Gyr grid, the systems must be consistent with it, so the age portion of the conclusion restates the input assumption rather than a measured age; the 8-13 Gyr range appears only in error estimates. This is a minor, hedged step because the paper does not claim to measure the age, because the absence of blue stars is an independent (weak) check, and because the structural parameters that drive the paper's central claims do not depend on the age assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the HST/ACS confirmation and structural characterization of four faint M81 satellites. That derivation uses new photometry, artificial-star completeness corrections, and a likelihood fit with Sersic/exponential profiles; none of those fits is forced by the earlier discovery papers, and the fitted parameters (half-light radii, ellipticities, Sersic index) are independent of the 3.6 Mpc distance assumption except for the trivial conversion from arcminutes to parsecs. The MV and mass estimates use the count of RGB stars in the fitted box and a mock isochrone population; they are anchored by the box choice but not by any fitted value from the discovery papers. The paper explicitly notes it does not propagate distance uncertainty into the physical radii, which is a completeness/caveat issue rather than circularity. The only clear circular step is the age statement: the metallicity and stellar-population characterization assume a 13 Gyr age up front, so 'consistent with old (~13 Gyr)' is essentially an input restated as an output. That step is minor, explicitly hedged in the text, and does not bear on the primary structural conclusions, so the circularity score is 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reported structural parameters and classifications depend on assumed distance, age, velocity dispersion, and stellar models; those are external inputs rather than measured quantities, so they appear as axioms or hand-chosen parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Assumed distance to all four satellites = 3.6 Mpc
    Adopted because no TRGB or horizontal branch stars are detected; used to convert angular sizes to pc and to compute MV and stellar mass. A 400 kpc uncertainty is considered for MV/mass but not for physical radii.
  • Assumed stellar population age = 13 Gyr
    Used for isochrone metallicity interpolation and mock stellar population scaling; the paper notes a 30% age uncertainty is assumed following Harmsen et al. 2017.
  • Assumed line-of-sight velocity dispersion for satellites = 5 km/s
    Adopted as typical for UFDs to estimate dynamical masses and tidal radii in Section 6.2; not measured for these systems.
  • Assumed alpha-enhancement in metallicity conversion = [alpha/Fe] = 0.3
    Used to convert photometric [M/H] to [Fe/H] for comparison to the luminosity-metallicity relation, following typical UFD values (Section 6.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption All four satellites lie at the M81 distance of 3.6 Mpc
    Section 5.3: no TRGB detection, so distance is assumed; affects all physical quantities.
  • domain assumption The stellar populations are old (13 Gyr) and metal-poor with no recent star formation
    Section 5.2 and Figure 3: isochrone fitting assumes 13 Gyr age; absence of blue stars is interpreted as quenching, though young populations could be too sparse to detect.
  • domain assumption The background density can be represented by a constant Sigma_b over the masked area
    Section 5.1, Eq. 5, used to subtract field contamination in the MCMC likelihood.
  • domain assumption The selected RGB stars are all members of the satellite or the constant background
    The likelihood model assumes no other spatial component; interloping populations or stream stars would bias structural fits.
  • domain assumption PARSEC isochrones and the STEV mock population accurately represent the true stellar populations
    Section 5.2-5.3: metallicity and MV/mass scaling depend on these stellar models.
  • domain assumption The systems are dispersion-dominated with sigma_los ~ 5 km/s, enabling dynamical mass and tidal radius estimates
    Section 6.2, Eq. 9 uses Wolf et al. 2010 with an assumed velocity dispersion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Diversity of Faint Satellites in the M81 Group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZLM3ZAPW

@misc{pith2026241202697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Diversity of Faint Satellites in the M81 Group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZLM3ZAPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02697}
}
read the original abstract

In the last decade, we have been able to probe further down the galaxy luminosity function than ever before and expand into the regime of ultra-faint dwarfs (UFDs), which are some of the best probes we have of small-scale cosmology and galaxy formation. Digital sky surveys have enabled the discovery and study of these incredibly low-mass, highly dark-matter dominated systems around the Local Group, but it is critical that we expand the satellite census further out to understand if Milky Way and M31 satellites are representative of dwarf populations in the local Universe. Using data from HST/ACS, we present updated characterization of four satellite systems in the M81 group. These systems - D1005+68, D1006+69, DWJ0954+6821, and D1009+68 - were previously discovered using ground-based Subaru HSC data as overdensities in M81's halo and are now confirmed with HST/ACS by this work. These are all faint (M_V >= -7.9) and consistent with old (~13 Gyr), metal-poor ([M/H] < -1.5) populations. Each system possesses relatively unusual features - including one of the most concentrated satellite galaxies with a Sersic index of n ~ 5, one of the most elliptical galaxies outside the Local Group with an e ~ 0.6, and one of the most compact galaxies for its magnitude. Two of the satellites have very low surface brightness, lower than most known galaxies in this absolute magnitude range. This work previews the scientific promise of the upcoming Rubin Observatory and Roman Telescope for illuminating the diversity of UFDs in the Local Volume and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: HST/ACS F814W images of our four dwarfs. The best-fit ellipses representing 2ah are shown in red for each galaxy. Bottom: A map of the M81 group and select satellite galaxies. The background image is composed of images generated by Aladin (Bonnarel et al. 2000), stacked to create an RGB frame using astropy’s make lupton rgb. White dots represent stellar halo stars identified in Subaru/HSC data. Satellites highl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Completeness curve for one galaxy in our sample, D1009+68. For each system, we estimated structural parameters such as the centroid (x0, y0) 1 , ellipticity ϵ = 1 − b a , and half-light radius rh of each UFD in order to compare them to the broader population of galactic and extra￾galactic UFDs. We used a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)-based maximum-likelihood approach follow￾ing the work of Martin et al. (2016) and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color-magnitude diagrams for stars within 2ah of each satellite galaxy, as derived by the best-fit structural parameters. Points are color-coded by their completeness fraction (see Section 4). The overall 50% completeness limit is drawn as a dashed line. The best-fit 13 Gyr isochrone for each system is shown as a solid black line, with the metallicity derived from our RBF interpolation method. The region used to sel… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plots showing the posterior probability distributions for various fitted structural parameters in each satellite. The circularized half-light radius rh = ah √ 1 − ϵ is displayed instead of just the fitted elliptical half-light radius ah. The median values of eac…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial density profiles for each satellite. Black dots are derived from counting the number of RGB stars in bins of elliptical annuli around each satellite and dividing by the total non-zero area in each bin, accounting for pixels that are masked out in each image. Err…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of point sources in each ACS field. The 2 and 3ah best-fit ellipses are shown in black. Only the RGB stars used to fit each satellite are shown. The x- and y-scales are identical in each plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Local Volume dwarf galaxies and globular clusters in the MV −rh plane. Grey x’s are globular clusters, red circles are previously known M81 satellites not characterized in this paper from Chiboucas et al. (2013). r ′ magnitudes were converted to approxi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Luminosity-metallicity relation for nearby satellites. Metallicities of satellites from this work are converted to [Fe/H] using Streich et al. 2014 assuming an [α/Fe] = 0.3. All other data points are from the Local Volume Database. Error bars include errors from bootst…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The ellipticity of select Local Volume satellites against the ratio of their elliptical half light radii and tidal radii. Tidal radii are calculated assuming a systemic line-of-sight velocity dispersion of 5 km/s for M81 satellites and a rotational velocity of 230 km/s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Various isochrones overlaid on the RGB stars within 2ah of D1005+68. The panels going from left to right show isochrones varying in age, distance, and metallicity, respectively, keeping the other two quantities constant with nominal values of [M/H] = −1.5, age= 13 Gyr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The mask images used to mask out bright stars and artifacts. RGB stars used for parameter fitting are overlaid as magenta points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    # agmY N5p*K0hR _uX1Y_X[XX_rSA

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    I., Read , J

    Ad \'e n , D., Wilkinson , M. I., Read , J. I., et al. 2009, , 706, L150, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/l150 2009

  5. [5]

    I., et al

    Agertz , O., Pontzen , A., Read , J. I., et al. 2020, , 491, 1656, 10.1093/mnras/stz3053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3053 2020

  6. [6]

    P., Rey, M

    Andersson, E. P., Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., et al. 2024, EDGE-INFERNO: Simulating every observable star in faint dwarf galaxies and their consequences for resolved-star photometric surveys. 2409.08073

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Smercina , A., Price , P

    Bell , E. F., Smercina , A., Price , P. A., et al. 2022, , 937, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e5e

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Belokurov , V., & Evans , N. W. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 911, 10.1038/s41550-022-01740-w

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2000, , 143, 33, 10.1051/aas:2000331

    Bonnarel , F., Fernique , P., Bienaym \'e , O., et al. 2000, , 143, 33, 10.1051/aas:2000331

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Belokurov , V., & Frenk , C

    Bose , S., Deason , A. J., Belokurov , V., & Frenk , C. S. 2020, , 495, 743, 10.1093/mnras/staa1199

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, , 427, 127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  7. [15]

    M., Tumlinson , J., Geha , M., et al

    Brown , T. M., Tumlinson , J., Geha , M., et al. 2012, , 753, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L21

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual , G., & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  9. [17]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    Bullock , J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2017, , 55, 343, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Greene , J

    Carlsten , S. G., Greene , J. E., Peter , A. H. G., Beaton , R. L., & Greco , J. P. 2021, , 908, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd039

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Tully , R

    Chiboucas , K., Jacobs , B. A., Tully , R. B., & Karachentsev , I. D. 2013, , 146, 126, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/126

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    D., & Tully , R

    Chiboucas , K., Karachentsev , I. D., & Tully , R. B. 2009, , 137, 3009, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3009

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Chiti , A., Frebel , A., Simon , J. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 392, 10.1038/s41550-020-01285-w

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    G., de Jong , J

    Coleman , M. G., de Jong , J. T. A., Martin , N. F., et al. 2007, , 668, L43, 10.1086/522672

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    de Blok , W. J. G., Walter , F., Brinks , E., et al. 2008, , 136, 2648, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2648

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Wetzel , A

    Deason , A. J., Wetzel , A. R., Garrison-Kimmel , S., & Belokurov , V. 2015, , 453, 3568, 10.1093/mnras/stv1939

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2016

  18. [26]

    Dolphin , A. E. 2000, , 112, 1383, 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Drlica-Wagner , A., Bechtol , K., Rykoff , E. S., et al. 2015, , 813, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, , 893, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9

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

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    D'Souza , R., & Bell , E. F. 2021, , 504, 5270, 10.1093/mnras/stab1283

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Smith , S

    Errani , R., Navarro , J. F., Smith , S. E. T., & McConnachie , A. W. 2024, , 965, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2267

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Esteban , I., Peter , A. H. G., & Kim , S. Y. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.04674, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.04674

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    P., Cooper , M

    Fillingham , S. P., Cooper , M. C., Pace , A. B., et al. 2016, , 463, 1916, 10.1093/mnras/stw2131

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63, 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Bartko , F., Bely , P

    Ford , H. C., Bartko , F., Bely , P. Y., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3356, Space Telescopes and Instruments V, ed. P. Y. Bely & J. B. Breckinridge , 234--248, 10.1117/12.324464

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Gilmore , G., & Wyse , R

    Frebel , A., Norris , J. E., Gilmore , G., & Wyse , R. F. G. 2016, , 826, 110, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/110

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    W., Simon , J

    Fu , S. W., Simon , J. D., & Alarc \'o n Jara , A. G. 2019, , 883, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3658

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    E., et al

    Fukugita , M., Ichikawa , T., Gunn , J. E., et al. 1996, , 111, 1748, 10.1086/117915

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2017, , 847, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8626

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    I., No \"e l , N

    Goater , A., Read , J. I., No \"e l , N. E. D., et al. 2024, , 527, 2403, 10.1093/mnras/stad3354

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    F., et al

    Harmsen , B., Monachesi , A., Bell , E. F., et al. 2017, , 466, 1491, 10.1093/mnras/stw2992

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, , 70, S18, 10.1093/pasj/psx050

    Homma , D., Chiba , M., Okamoto , S., et al. 2018, , 70, S18, 10.1093/pasj/psx050

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Belokurov , V., Evans , N

    Irwin , M. J., Belokurov , V., Evans , N. W., et al. 2007, , 656, L13, 10.1086/512183

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    Jang , I. S. 2023, , 521, 1532, 10.1093/mnras/stad619

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    S., de Jong , R

    Jang , I. S., de Jong , R. S., Holwerda , B. W., et al. 2020, , 637, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936994

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Sestito , F., et al

    Jensen , J., Hayes , C. R., Sestito , F., et al. 2024, , 527, 4209, 10.1093/mnras/stad3322

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    V., Zivick , P., et al

    Kallivayalil , N., Sales , L. V., Zivick , P., et al. 2018, , 867, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfee

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Y., & Peter , A

    Kim , S. Y., & Peter , A. H. G. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.09050, 10.48550/arXiv.2106.09050

    2021 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    N., Cohen , J

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

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    2016, in IOS Press, 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver , T., Ragan-Kelley , B., P \'e rez , F., et al. 2016, in IOS Press, 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Profumo , S., & Smyth , N

    Koulen , J. M., Profumo , S., & Smyth , N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.19015, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.19015

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    E., Hook , R

    Krist , J. E., Hook , R. N., & Stoehr , F. 2011, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8127, Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions V, ed. M. A. Kahan , 81270J, 10.1117/12.892762

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    F., et al

    Lancaster , L., Pearson , S., Williams , B. F., et al. 2022, , 164, 142, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8a95

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Simon , J

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

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, , 516, 2348, 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    Longeard , N., Jablonka , P., Arentsen , A., et al. 2022, , 516, 2348, 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, , 525, 3086, 10.1093/mnras/stad2227

    Longeard , N., Jablonka , P., Battaglia , G., et al. 2023, , 525, 3086, 10.1093/mnras/stad2227

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2024, , 976, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c4

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    R., Santana , F

    Marchi-Lasch , S., Mu \ n oz , R. R., Santana , F. A., et al. 2019, , 874, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab089c

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Martin , C. L. 1998, , 506, 222, 10.1086/306219

    1998 doi

  54. [62]

    F., de Jong , J

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

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    F., Ibata , R

    Martin , N. F., Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., et al. 2016, , 833, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/167

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    W., Ibata , R., Martin , N., et al

    McConnachie , A. W., Ibata , R., Martin , N., et al. 2018, , 868, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e7

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, , 961, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0

    McNanna , M., Bechtol , K., Mau , S., et al. 2024, , 961, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    McQuinn , K. B. W., Mao , Y.-Y., Buckley , M. R., et al. 2023 a , , 944, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaec9

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    McQuinn , K. B. W., Mao , Y.-Y., Cohen , R. E., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.08738, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.08738

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    F., Radburn-Smith , D

    Monachesi , A., Bell , E. F., Radburn-Smith , D. J., et al. 2016, , 457, 1419, 10.1093/mnras/stv2987

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    2018 b , , 860, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b

    ---. 2018 b , , 860, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    M., Christensen , C., et al

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

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

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

    Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2021, , 918, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db8

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    O., Wechsler , R

    Nadler , E. O., Wechsler , R. H., Bechtol , K., et al. 2020, , 893, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae2527

    Ogami , I., Tanaka , M., Komiyama , Y., et al. 2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae2527

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    Okamoto , S., Arimoto , N., Ferguson , A. M. N., et al. 2015, , 809, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L1

    2015 doi

  67. [76]

    2019, , 884, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44a7

    ---. 2019, , 884, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44a7

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    Pace , A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    2020, , 893, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    Patel , E., Kallivayalil , N., Garavito-Camargo , N., et al. 2020, , 893, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    J., de Jong , R

    Radburn-Smith , D. J., de Jong , R. S., Seth , A. C., et al. 2011, , 195, 18, 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/18

    2011 doi

  71. [80]

    2023, , 679, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347239

    Revaz , Y. 2023, , 679, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347239

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

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

    Rey , M. P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al. 2020, , 497, 1508, 10.1093/mnras/staa1640

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, , 886, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53dd

    ---. 2019, , 886, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53dd

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    D., et al

    Richstein , H., Kallivayalil , N., Simon , J. D., et al. 2024, , 967, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad393c

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    J., Larsen , S

    Romanowsky , A. J., Larsen , S. S., Villaume , A., et al. 2023, , 518, 3164, 10.1093/mnras/stac2898

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    J., Olszewski , E

    Sand , D. J., Olszewski , E. W., Willman , B., et al. 2009, , 704, 898, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/898

    2009 doi

  77. [86]

    J., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Jones , M

    Sand , D. J., Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Jones , M. G., et al. 2022, , 935, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ee

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    L., Evans , N

    Sanders , J. L., Evans , N. W., & Dehnen , W. 2018, , 478, 3879, 10.1093/mnras/sty1278

    2018 doi

  79. [88]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

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

    2011 doi

  80. [89]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525, 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  81. [90]

    Simon , J. D. 2019, , 57, 375, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    T., & Bell , E

    Slater , C. T., & Bell , E. F. 2014, , 792, 141, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/141

    2014 doi

  83. [92]

    F., Price , P

    Smercina , A., Bell , E. F., Price , P. A., et al. 2018, , 863, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d6

    2018 doi

  84. [93]

    F., Slater , C

    Smercina , A., Bell , E. F., Slater , C. T., et al. 2017, , 843, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78fa

    2017 doi

  85. [94]

    F., Price , P

    Smercina , A., Bell , E. F., Price , P. A., et al. 2020, , 905, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc485

    2020 doi

  86. [95]

    S., Bailin , J., et al

    Streich , D., de Jong , R. S., Bailin , J., et al. 2014, , 563, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220956

    2014 doi

  87. [96]

    2021, , 914, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024e

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

    2021 doi

  88. [97]

    A., Vivas , A

    Tau , E. A., Vivas , A. K., & Mart \' nez-V \'a zquez , C. E. 2024, , 167, 57, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1509

    2024 doi

  89. [98]

    E., Belokurov , V., & Irwin , M

    Torrealba , G., Koposov , S. E., Belokurov , V., & Irwin , M. 2016, , 459, 2370, 10.1093/mnras/stw733

    2016 doi

  90. [99]

    E., et al

    Torrealba , G., Belokurov , V., Koposov , S. E., et al. 2019, , 488, 2743, 10.1093/mnras/stz1624

    2019 doi

  91. [100]

    W., & Caon , N

    Trujillo , I., Graham , A. W., & Caon , N. 2001, , 326, 869, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04471.x

    2001

  92. [101]

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

    2009

  93. [102]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  94. [103]

    A., Sestito , F., et al

    Waller , F., Venn , K. A., Sestito , F., et al. 2023, , 519, 1349, 10.1093/mnras/stac3563

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    R., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    Weisz , D. R., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2017, , 469, L83, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx043

    2017 doi

  96. [105]

    R., Dolphin , A

    Weisz , D. R., Dolphin , A. E., Skillman , E. D., et al. 2015, , 804, 136, 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/136

    2015 doi

  97. [106]

    R., Dalcanton , J

    Weisz , D. R., Dalcanton , J. J., Williams , B. F., et al. 2011, , 739, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/5

    2011 doi

  98. [107]

    R., Tollerud , E

    Wetzel , A. R., Tollerud , E. J., & Weisz , D. R. 2015, , 808, L27, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L27

    2015 doi

  99. [108]

    F., Pace , A

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

    2019 doi

  100. [109]

    B., Irwin , M

    Whiting , A. B., Irwin , M. J., & Hau , G. K. T. 1997, , 114, 996, 10.1086/118530

    1997 doi

  101. [110]

    D., Bullock , J

    Wolf , J., Martinez , G. D., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2010, , 406, 1220, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x

    2010

  102. [111]

    C., Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M

    Wright , A. C., Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., et al. 2024, , 970, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49a3

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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