Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances. I. Optimization of a Maximum Likelihood Algorithm

Andrew E. Dolphin; Dmitry Makarov; Edward J. Shaya; Lidia Makarova; Luca Rizzi; R. Brent Tully; Shoko Sakai

REVIEW

Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances. I. Optimization of a Maximum Likelihood Algorithm

Dmitry Makarov, Lidia Makarova, Luca Rizzi, R. Brent Tully, Andrew E. Dolphin, Shoko Sakai, Edward J. Shaya

Astrophysics · Submitted 3 Mar 2006 · 24 references

Pith's verdict: Genuine ML upgrade for TRGB distances, but the abstract's 'no systematic errors' is contradicted by the paper's own near-limit tests.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDastro-ph/0603073 (version 1)

Pith IDVI4Z7V4F, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAndrew E. Dolphin, Dmitry Makarov, Edward J. Shaya, Lidia Makarova, Luca Rizzi, R. Brent Tully, Shoko Sakai. "Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances. I. Optimization of a Maximum Likelihood Algorithm." arXiv:astro-ph/0603073 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/VI4Z7V4F

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The useful core: the paper takes the Mendez et al. maximum-likelihood approach and augments it with photometric error and completeness functions from artificial star experiments, allows the RGB and AGB slopes to vary under constraints, and validates extensively with Monte Carlo simulations, synthetic galaxies, and real WFPC2/ACS data. When the TRGB is well above the photometric limit the method is clean and unbiased, and even near the limit it does better than edge detection. That is a genuine, if incremental, contribution for the nearby-galaxy distance program.

The soft spot is the abstract's claim that the procedure 'does not introduce any systematic errors.' The paper's own body shows otherwise in the regime it targets. Section 5 states that when the TRGB is within about a magnitude of the faint cutoff, the RGB slope parameter a is unstable and couples to the fitted tip, and the ML fit can spuriously choose a too-faint tip. It also admits there is no algorithmic way to ensure the TRGB is being isolated and not the brightest AGB stars near the limit. The KK 16 comparison is a concrete red flag: WFPC2 gives I_TRGB = 24.62±0.10 while ACS gives 24.78±0.04, a 0.16 mag offset, and Figure 12 shows WFPC2 values falling below the 45-degree line fainter than about 24.5. These are the authors' own tests and numbers. The 'no systematic errors' line is not supported by their evidence.

I agree with the conditional verdict. The method is sound and the paper is unusually honest in the details, but the abstract and summary overstate the reliability. The slope priors from their own 18 LFs are a mild self-referential input, but they do not directly drive the central distance claims. The Monte Carlo and real-data testing is extensive, and the citation pattern gives proper credit to M02 and Sakai et al.

Who gets value: anyone calibrating TRGB distances from HST data, especially for shallow or sparse photometry. This will likely become a reference for the group's distance program. It deserves peer review; the needed corrections are modest. I would send it to review with a request to revise the abstract and Section 5 to state the documented bias near the cutoff and to frame the reliability as conditional on the slope priors or on the tip being reasonably above the detection limit. With that revision it is a solid methodology paper.

Referee report

Significance

If the stated performance holds, this would be a valuable methodological contribution: the ML approach with empirically calibrated errors and completeness is a natural improvement over earlier edge-detection and simpler ML methods, and the paper's extensive testing (Monte Carlo, artificial galaxies, WFPC2/ACS comparisons, two-field internal checks) goes well beyond what is typical. The paper also honestly reports degeneracies between the RGB slope and the fitted TRGB near the photometric limit and the difficulty of separating AGB contamination near the limit. However, the paper's central claim as stated in the abstract is contradicted by its own results in the very regime it highlights, and the proposed remedy (priors on slopes) is not validated. Thus the significance is real but currently conditional on a substantial revision of the claims and additional validation.

Major objections (3)

[Abstract and §5] The abstract's claim that the procedure 'does not introduce any systematic errors' and is 'especially useful in cases where the TRGB approaches the photometric limit' is directly contradicted by the paper's own summary in §5, which states that when the TRGB is within ~1 mag of the faint cutoff 'the ML fitting can spuriously chose a very flat or even negative slope for the LF and simultaneously prefer a value for the TRGB that is too faint.' This is not a minor caveat: it is the regime emphasized in the abstract. The abstract should be revised to reflect the demonstrated limitations, or the paper should provide evidence that the constrained version (with priors) eliminates the bias in that regime.
[§4.6 and Fig. 12] The WFPC2/ACS comparison for KK 16 (ITRGB = 24.62 ± 0.10 vs. 24.78 ± 0.04, a 0.16 mag offset) and the statement that WFPC2 values 'fall below the line' for ITRGB fainter than ~24.5 are quantitative evidence of a systematic bias near the photometric limit, exactly where the paper claims the method is especially useful. The paper acknowledges that 'We have not found an algorithmic way to ensure that the TRGB is being isolated and not the brightest AGB stars when the feature is near the photometric limit.' This undermines the unqualified claim of no systematic errors. The authors should either restrict the claim to cases where the TRGB is well above the limit or demonstrate, with Monte Carlo tests using the constrained slopes, that the bias is removed.
[§5, priors] The proposed remedy in §5—fixing slopes or applying priors a' ± σa = 0.30 ± 0.07 and c' ± σc = 0.3 ± 0.2 derived from the authors' own 18 well-observed LFs—is not tested in the paper. The Monte Carlo tests in §4.1 allowed the slopes to be free, and the paper does not report whether the constrained version recovers the input TRGB without bias in the near-limit regime. Given that the slope–tip degeneracy is the central source of the bias, a demonstration that the priors resolve it (or at least quantify the residual bias as a function of tip-to-limit separation and stellar count) is necessary to support the paper's conclusions. Without this, the abstract's claim applies only to the untested constrained version or to the limited cases where the free fit happens to work.

Minor objections (4)

[§4.6] There are a few typographical issues: 'it's proximity' should be 'its proximity', and 'the TRGB is being identified but the location is biased by it's proximity' is an awkward construction.
[§5] The phrase 'Inevitable, the slope is near to a = 0.3' should be 'Inevitably, the slope is near a = 0.3'.
[§3, Eq. (6)] The definitions of m_min and m_max in the normalization integral of Eq. (6) are not given. The text mentions the magnitude limits are set ±1 mag around the preliminary TRGB estimate, but it would be clearer to state this explicitly near the equation, since the choice of fitting window can affect the fit.
[§4.1] The text says 'The figure shows that our method does not introduce any bias even when the TRGB is close to the photometric limit' but immediately adds 'An exception is only the extremely poor populated diagram where the TRGB is close to the photometric limit.' These statements are in tension and should be reconciled, especially in light of the more serious bias documented in §4.6 and §5.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A maximum-likelihood fit of the red-giant-tip luminosity function recovers distances without systematic bias, even close to the photometric limit.

The reading

The paper argues that the standard candle at the tip of the red giant branch can be measured reliably even when the tip sits within about a magnitude of the photometric limit, precisely where edge-detection methods become noisy and biased. The fix is to fit a parameterized luminosity function by maximum likelihood, feeding the fit with photometric-error and completeness functions measured from artificial-star experiments rather than assuming simple Gaussian scatter. The authors claim the resulting method is unbiased and accurate, based on Monte Carlo recoveries, synthetic galaxies, and comparisons with edge detection on real dwarf galaxies observed with HST/WFPC2 and ACS. This matters because many archival, single-orbit observations place the TRGB near the detection limit, and a reliable estimate there extends the useful distance range of existing data.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a four-parameter maximum-likelihood model for the luminosity function: $\psi(m)=10^{a(m-m_{\mathrm{TRGB}})+b}$ fainter than the tip and $\psi(m)=10^{c(m-m_{\mathrm{TRGB}})}$ brighter than it, with a jump of amplitude $b$ at the tip. The observed LF is the convolution $\phi(m)=\int \psi(m')\rho(m')e(m|m')\,dm'$, where $\rho(m)$ is the completeness fraction and $e(m|m')$ is a Gaussian whose mean bias and dispersion come from artificial-star tests. The likelihood is minimized through $L=-\sum_i \ln\phi(m_i|x)+N\ln\int_{m_{\min}}^{m_{\max}}\phi(m|x)\,dm$, yielding the tip magnitude, the RGB jump, and the two slopes. The convolution is what lets the fit distinguish the true discontinuity from the blurred edge produced by measurement error and incompleteness, and it is the mechanism that lets the method push toward the photometric limit.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a maximum-likelihood fit of a broken power-law luminosity function—with a jump at the TRGB and separate RGB and AGB slopes—recovers the TRGB magnitude $m_{\mathrm{TRGB}}$ without systematic error when the photometric-error distribution and completeness function from artificial-star tests are folded into the model. The authors demonstrate this by injecting stars with known input TRGB magnitudes and showing that median recovered values match input values across $I_{\mathrm{TRGB}}=22$ to $25.5$ mag when the sample contains at least a few hundred stars within 1 mag of the tip; the exception is the extreme case of very few stars right at the cutoff. They further show, using synthetic galaxies and real comparisons, that the ML method gives smaller scatter than edge detection at every crowding level and remains usable down to about 50 stars in the first magnitude below the tip.

Load-bearing premise

The method must be able to tell where the red-giant branch stops from how steeply the branch rises in brightness; near the photometric limit the paper itself finds this distinction becomes unstable, and the fit can place the tip too faint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With snapshot WFPC2 data, the ML method recovers unbiased TRGB magnitudes down to about $I_{\mathrm{TRGB}}=25.5$ mag as long as the RGB slope is constrained or prior-weighted.
Single-orbit ACS data, which reach about 1.5 mag deeper, should give reliable TRGB measurements to $I_{\mathrm{TRGB}}\sim26$ mag, extending distance measurements to roughly 10 Mpc.
Near the photometric limit, leaving the RGB slope free lets the fit pick a flat or negative slope and a too-faint tip, so slope constraints are an essential part of the unbiased claim.
The AGB slope must also be constrained, since unconstrained values can mask the jump amplitude and bias the tip.
For galaxies with centrally concentrated young populations, restricting the analysis to an outer spatial region can make a clean TRGB detection possible, provided at least about 100 RGB stars remain below the tip.

Reading between the lines

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

Published TRGB distances derived from shallow WFPC2 snapshots that put the tip at $I\sim25$ may be systematically too faint, because the paper's KK16 comparison shows the shallow camera can mistake the AGB onset for the tip; a re-derivation of archival distances with constrained slopes would test this directly.
The same convolution machinery could be applied to other sharp features in color-magnitude diagrams, such as the main-sequence turnoff or the onset of the asymptotic giant branch, wherever completeness and error blurring set the practical limit.
Comparing repeated independent fields of the same galaxy at the same depth should yield internal scatter near 0.02-0.05 mag, so a larger sample of such field pairs would provide a cheap external check of the method's claimed accuracy.
If the no-bias claim holds, distance-limited samples of nearby galaxies will grow without new observations, since existing single-orbit WFPC2 and ACS data near the limit can be reprocessed with constrained ML fits.

Original abstract

Accurate distances to galaxies can be determined from the luminosities of stars at the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB). We use a Maximum Likelihood algorithm to locate the TRGB in galaxy color-magnitude diagrams. The algorithm is optimized by introducing reliable photometric errors and a completeness characterization determined with artificial star experiments. The program is extensively tested using Monte-Carlo simulations, artificial galaxies, and a sample of nearby dwarf galaxies observed with HST/WFPC2 and ACS. Our procedure is shown to be reliable, to have good accuracy, and to not introduce any systematic errors. The methodology is especially useful in cases where the TRGB approaches the photometric limit and/or the RGB is poorly populated.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,835 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.07 · states limitation 0.30 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.02 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.10 · mentions code or data availability 0.03.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Accurate distances to galaxies can be determined from the luminosities of stars at the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB). We use a Maximum Likelihood algorithm to locate the TRGB in galaxy color-magnitude diagrams. The algorithm is optimized by introducing reliable photometric errors and a completeness characterization determined with artificial star experiments. The program is extensively tested using Monte-Carlo simulations, artificial galaxies, and a sample of nearby dwarf galaxies observed with HST/WFPC2 and ACS. Our procedure is shown to be reliable, to have good accuracy, and to not introduce any systematic errors. The methodology is especially useful in cases where the TRGB approaches the photometric limit and/or the RGB is poorly populated.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Accurate distances to galaxies can be determined from the luminosities of stars at the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB).	background 1.00	0.10	0.10	asserted 0.94
s1	We use a Maximum Likelihood algorithm to locate the TRGB in galaxy color-magnitude diagrams.	method 0.90	0.94	0.04	asserted 1.00
s2	The algorithm is optimized by introducing reliable photometric errors and a completeness characterization determined with artificial star experiments.	method 0.93	0.92	0.06	asserted 1.00
s3	The program is extensively tested using Monte-Carlo simulations, artificial galaxies, and a sample of nearby dwarf galaxies observed with HST/WFPC2 and ACS.	method 0.96	0.94	0.04	asserted 0.93
s4	Our procedure is shown to be reliable, to have good accuracy, and to not introduce any systematic errors.	result 0.93	0.94	0.66	asserted 1.00
s5	The methodology is especially useful in cases where the TRGB approaches the photometric limit and/or the RGB is poorly populated.	interpretation 0.80	0.55	0.08	asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.78.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** — The color-magnitude diagram (left panel) and the TRGB calcula

**Figure 2.** — The luminosity function of an artificial star simulation. The inpu

**Figure 3.** — Median deviations of the recovered TRGB values minus input va

**Figure 4.** — Distribution of reconstructed IT RGB for different sets of tests simulating snapshot WFPC2 conditions. The left panel shows the results for a sample with 37 stars within 1 mag of the TRGB and input IT RGB = 22, 23.5 and 24.5. The right panel shows the results for a sample with 371 stars within 1 mag of the TRGB with the same input IT RGB

**Figure 5.** — Recovery of the RGB slope parameter a with snapshot WFPC2 conditions. The bold solid line is the median recovered value compared with the input value of 0.3. The thin lines show 75th percentiles of high and low deviations

**Figure 6.** — TRGB uncertainties vs. photometric error, received from a

**Figure 7.** — Contribution to the total distance error due to the TRGB de

**Figure 8.** — TRGB detection against the number of stars in the first magn

**Figure 9.** — Comparison of TRGB detection results obtained alternatively

**Figure 10.** — The TRGB detection result for the inner field of NGC 2366 (up

**Figure 11.** — The color-magnitude diagram and the TRGB calculation result

**Figure 12.** — Comparison of single orbit ACS and WFPC2 TRGB determination

**Figure 13.** — The color-magnitude diagram and the TRGB calculation result

**Figure 14.** — Projected spatial distribution of detected objects arou

**Figure 15.** — Left panel: CMD of UGC3755 in the region inside the ellipse of Fig

Figures reproduced from arXiv:astro-ph/0603073 by the authors.

References

Works cited (24)

[1]

Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F., Pancino, E. 2001, ApJ, 556, 635

View on Pith 2001
[2]

Bertelli, G., Mateo, M., Chiosi, C., & Bressan, A. 1992, ApJ, 388, 400

View on Pith 1992
[3]

Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383

View on Pith 2000
[4]

Dolphin, A.E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91

View on Pith 2002
[5]

Dolphin, A.E. 2006, in preparation

View on Pith 2006
[6]

Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Vilchez J.M., 1996, AJ, 112, 1928

View on Pith 1996
[7]

Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

View on Pith 2000
[8]

Holtzman, J., Afonso, C., & Dolphin, A., 2005, in press

View on Pith 2005
[9]

Iben, I., Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271 Karachentseva V.E., Karachentsev I.D. 1998, A&AS, 127, 409

View on Pith 1983
[10]

Karachentseva, V.E., Karachentsev, I.D. 2000, A&AS, 146, 359

View on Pith 2000
[11]

Karachentsev, I.D. 1994, Astron. Astrophys. Trans., 6, 1

View on Pith 1994
[12]

Karachentseva, V., Sakai, S., Shaya, E.J. 2005, AJ, submitted

View on Pith 2005
[13]

Karachentsev, I.D., Karachentseva, V.E., Huchtmeier, W.K., Makar ov, D.I. 2004, AJ, 127, 2031 – 24 –

View on Pith 2004
[14]

Karachentsev, I.D., Sharina, M.E, Dolphin, A.E., Grebel, E.K., Geisler, D ., Guhathakurta, P., Hodge, P.W., Karachentseva, V.E., Sarajedini, A., and Seitzer, P., 2003, A&A, 398, 467

View on Pith 2003
[15]

Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L., Madore, B.F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553

View on Pith 1993
[16]

Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1995, AJ, 109, 1645

View on Pith 1995
[17]

Madore, B.F., Freedman, W.L. 1998, in Stellar astrophysics for the lo cal group: VIII Canary Islands Winter School of Astrophysics, 263 Ma´iz-Apell´ aniz, J., Cieza, L., MacKenty, J.W. 2002, AJ, 123, 1307

View on Pith 1998
[18]

Meyer, M.J., Zwaan, M.A., Webster, R.L., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 119 5 M´ endez B., Davis M., Moustakas J., Newman J., Madore B.F., Freedman W.L. 2002, AJ, 124, 213

View on Pith 2004
[19]

Rizzi, L., Held, E. V., Bertelli, G., Nasi, E., Saviane, I., & Vallenari, A. 2002 , ASP Conf. Ser. 274: Observed HR Diagrams and Stellar Evolution, 274, 4 90

View on Pith 2002
[20]

Sakai, S. 1999, in IAU Symp. 183, Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe, ed. K. Saito (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 48

View on Pith 1999
[21]

Sakai, S., Madore, B.F., Freedman, W.L. 1996, ApJ, 461, 713

View on Pith 1996
[22]

Sakai, S., Ferrarese, L., Kennicutt, R.C., Jr., Saha, A. 2004, ApJ, 6 08, 42

View on Pith 2004
[23]

Salaris, M., Cassisi, S. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 406 Sandage A.R. 1971 in Proceedings of a Study Week on Nuclei of Galaxie s ed. D.J.K. O’Connell (Amsterdam: North Holland, and New York: American Elsev ier), p.601

View on Pith 1997
[24]

Whiting, A.B., Hau, G.K.T., Irwin, M. 2002, ApJS, 141, 123 – 25 – This manuscript was prepared with the AAS L ATEX macros v5.2. Table 1: The TRGB detection results for NGC 2366 Field Filters Exp. (sec) IT RGB a b c Inner (sum) F555W, F814W 6700, 4100 23.55 +0.04 −0.03 0.40 +0.01 −0.02 0.25 +0.03 −0.03 0.54 +0.07 −0.07 Inner (a) F555W, F814W 1300, 1300 23....

View on Pith 2002

How the literature uses it

2 arXiv papers cite this in 3 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F., Pancino, E. 2001, ApJ, 556, 635

View on Pith 2001

[2] [2]

Bertelli, G., Mateo, M., Chiosi, C., & Bressan, A. 1992, ApJ, 388, 400

View on Pith 1992

[3] [3]

Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383

View on Pith 2000

[4] [4]

Dolphin, A.E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91

View on Pith 2002

[5] [5]

Dolphin, A.E. 2006, in preparation

View on Pith 2006

[6] [6]

Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Vilchez J.M., 1996, AJ, 112, 1928

View on Pith 1996

[7] [7]

Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

View on Pith 2000

[8] [8]

Holtzman, J., Afonso, C., & Dolphin, A., 2005, in press

View on Pith 2005

[9] [9]

Iben, I., Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271 Karachentseva V.E., Karachentsev I.D. 1998, A&AS, 127, 409

View on Pith 1983

[10] [10]

Karachentseva, V.E., Karachentsev, I.D. 2000, A&AS, 146, 359

View on Pith 2000

[11] [11]

Karachentsev, I.D. 1994, Astron. Astrophys. Trans., 6, 1

View on Pith 1994

[12] [12]

Karachentseva, V., Sakai, S., Shaya, E.J. 2005, AJ, submitted

View on Pith 2005

[13] [13]

Karachentsev, I.D., Karachentseva, V.E., Huchtmeier, W.K., Makar ov, D.I. 2004, AJ, 127, 2031 – 24 –

View on Pith 2004

[14] [14]

Karachentsev, I.D., Sharina, M.E, Dolphin, A.E., Grebel, E.K., Geisler, D ., Guhathakurta, P., Hodge, P.W., Karachentseva, V.E., Sarajedini, A., and Seitzer, P., 2003, A&A, 398, 467

View on Pith 2003

[15] [15]

Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L., Madore, B.F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553

View on Pith 1993

[16] [16]

Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1995, AJ, 109, 1645

View on Pith 1995

[17] [17]

Madore, B.F., Freedman, W.L. 1998, in Stellar astrophysics for the lo cal group: VIII Canary Islands Winter School of Astrophysics, 263 Ma´iz-Apell´ aniz, J., Cieza, L., MacKenty, J.W. 2002, AJ, 123, 1307

View on Pith 1998

[18] [18]

Meyer, M.J., Zwaan, M.A., Webster, R.L., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 119 5 M´ endez B., Davis M., Moustakas J., Newman J., Madore B.F., Freedman W.L. 2002, AJ, 124, 213

View on Pith 2004

[19] [19]

Rizzi, L., Held, E. V., Bertelli, G., Nasi, E., Saviane, I., & Vallenari, A. 2002 , ASP Conf. Ser. 274: Observed HR Diagrams and Stellar Evolution, 274, 4 90

View on Pith 2002

[20] [20]

Sakai, S. 1999, in IAU Symp. 183, Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe, ed. K. Saito (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 48

View on Pith 1999

[21] [21]

Sakai, S., Madore, B.F., Freedman, W.L. 1996, ApJ, 461, 713

View on Pith 1996

[22] [22]

Sakai, S., Ferrarese, L., Kennicutt, R.C., Jr., Saha, A. 2004, ApJ, 6 08, 42

View on Pith 2004

[23] [23]

Salaris, M., Cassisi, S. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 406 Sandage A.R. 1971 in Proceedings of a Study Week on Nuclei of Galaxie s ed. D.J.K. O’Connell (Amsterdam: North Holland, and New York: American Elsev ier), p.601

View on Pith 1997

[24] [24]

Whiting, A.B., Hau, G.K.T., Irwin, M. 2002, ApJS, 141, 123 – 25 – This manuscript was prepared with the AAS L ATEX macros v5.2. Table 1: The TRGB detection results for NGC 2366 Field Filters Exp. (sec) IT RGB a b c Inner (sum) F555W, F814W 6700, 4100 23.55 +0.04 −0.03 0.40 +0.01 −0.02 0.25 +0.03 −0.03 0.54 +0.07 −0.07 Inner (a) F555W, F814W 1300, 1300 23....

View on Pith 2002