Deep Photometric Observations of Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites Centaurus I and Eridanus IV

Alexander P. Ji; Alex H. Riley; Alfredo Zenteno; Amandine Doliva-Dolinsky; Andrew B. Pace; Astha Chaturvedi; Bur\c{c}in Mutlu-Pakdil; Clara E. Mart\'inez-V\'azquez; Clecio R. Bom (DELVE Collaboration); David J. Sand

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Deep Photometric Observations of Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites Centaurus I and Eridanus IV

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep imaging shows Eridanus IV is fainter, rounder, and hosts a real northeast extension.

desk verdict Solid, honest follow-up with credible Eri IV revisions; the 'high confidence' extended feature needs a stronger background test before it can be sold as headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04772 v2 pith:UETO4TRG submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.GA

Quinn O. Casey , Burçin Mutlu-Pakdil , David J. Sand , Andrew B. Pace , Denija Crnojevic , Amandine Doliva-Dolinsky , William Cerny , Mairead E. Heiger

show 14 more authors

Alex H. Riley Alexander P. Ji Guilherme Limberg Laurella Marin Clara E. Martínez-Vázquez Gustavo E. Medina Ting S. Li Sasha N. Campana Astha Chaturvedi Joanna D. Sakowska Alfredo Zenteno Julio A. Carballo-Bello Mahdieh Navabi Clecio R. Bom (DELVE Collaboration)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesMilkyWaysatellitesMegacamphotometrycolor-magnitudediagramfittingtidaldisruptiongalaxystructureEridanusIVCentaurusI

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 Magellan/Megacam observations that reach 2–3 magnitudes deeper than the discovery survey data to pin down what the ultra-faint Milky Way satellites Centaurus I and Eridanus IV actually are: extremely faint, old, dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxies. It finds Cen I at 119.8 ± 4.1 kpc with half-light radius 2.60′ and absolute magnitude M_V = −5.39 ± 0.19, matching a clean, undisturbed ultra-faint dwarf. Eri IV is measured closer (69.9 ± 3.6 kpc), rounder (ellipticity 0.26), and fainter (M_V = −3.55 ± 0.24) than reported before. Both are consistent with an old (~13 Gyr), metal-poor ([Fe/H] ≤ −2.2) population. The paper's sharpest claim is that the overdensity northeast of Eri IV is real rather than noise, though its physical origin—tidal debris, a stellar halo, captured field stars, or a bound sub-satellite—is not settled.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three coupled tools. Photometry comes from PSF-fitting with DAOPHOT/ALLSTAR plus artificial-star injections to quantify completeness and uncertainties. Distances are derived by shifting a 13.0 Gyr, [Fe/H] = −2.2 PARSEC isochrone against main-sequence, red-giant-branch, and horizontal-branch stars, with the M92 empirical horizontal-branch fiducial as a cross-check. Structural parameters come from a maximum-likelihood exponential-profile fit to stars selected in color-magnitude space. The extended-structure search uses a matched-filter density map whose signal color-magnitude diagram is a simulated old, metal-poor population and whose background is drawn from real stars well outside each galaxy's half-light radius.

What would settle it

Take spectra of the stars in Eri IV's northeast extension: if their radial velocities and metallicities are not consistent with Eri IV's systemic velocity (≈ −31.5 km s^−1) and low metallicity, the feature is not part of the galaxy; alternatively, deeper wide-field imaging that resolves the overdensity into ordinary Milky Way disk stars would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a revision and a detection. Centaurus I is confirmed as a non-disrupting ultra-faint dwarf: its deep color-magnitude diagram shows a well-populated main sequence, a clear red giant branch, eleven horizontal-branch candidates, and no extended structure where the discovery data hinted at a tidal feature. Eridanus IV is revised to D = 69.9 ± 3.6 kpc, r_h = 3.24′ ± 0.48′, and M_V = −3.55 ± 0.24, making it less elongated (ϵ = 0.26 ± 0.09) than the previously reported value of 0.54; the same data reveal a persistent 3–7σ overdensity to the northeast that survives bootstrap resampling and changes of smoothing parameters. The authors state with high confidence that this northeast extension is a real feature, and identify tidal stripping, a stellar halo, captured field stars, or a sub-satellite as candidate explanations without choosing among them.

Load-bearing premise

Every conclusion about Eri IV's northeast extension assumes the background color-magnitude diagram built from stars outside the half-light radius is an honest model of the foreground; if that region is contaminated by Eri IV's own halo, affected by reddening or the faulty CCD, or if the overdensity is diffuse Galactic foreground, the persistent 3–7σ feature would be an artifact rather than a real extension.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Both Cen I and Eri IV sit on the size-luminosity plane among confirmed Milky Way dwarf galaxies, reinforcing that they are genuine ultra-faint dwarfs rather than globular clusters.
Cen I's proposed tidal feature in the discovery data is not present in the deep data and is best explained as background contamination, consistent with the zero velocity gradient measured spectroscopically.
Eri IV's revised half-light radius raises r_t/r_h to about 7.6, weakening the tidal-disruption interpretation on standard Jacobi-radius grounds.
The six new Cen I candidates and fourteen new Eri IV candidates from Gaia EDR3 proper motions are concrete targets for spectroscopic follow-up, two of which sit inside the northeast extension.
The northeast extension is robust against resampling and smoothing choices, so future work should treat it as a real structural component whose origin is unsettled.

Reading between the lines

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

If follow-up kinematics show the northeast extension moves as a coherent stream, it would imply tidal stripping on an orbit that current models place near apocenter, suggesting the orbital model or the influence of the Magellanic Clouds needs revision.
A dark-subhalo capture origin, as proposed for similar stellar clumps, could be tested by checking whether the extension's color-magnitude distribution is indistinguishable from Eri IV's; the two new candidate members there make such a test feasible.
The revised ellipticity and luminosity for Eri IV imply its velocity dispersion should be reinterpreted: a rounder, fainter system at 69.9 kpc would yield a different dynamical mass and dark-matter content than the discovery parameters imply.
The same matched-filter procedure applied to other newly discovered ultra-faint satellites would benefit from a foreground-aware background model; the choice of background region is the step most likely to flip a claim of tidal structure.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a competent, honest deep-imaging follow-up of two ultra-faint dwarfs, and the main quantitative results should hold up. The genuinely new content is the revised Eri IV picture—closer, fainter, rounder than the discovery values—and the claim of a real extended structure northeast of its center. Cen I is mostly confirmation, but that confirmation is useful: the distance agrees with the RR Lyrae value and the old candidate tidal feature does not survive in deeper data.

What the paper does well: the methods are standard for this group but executed carefully. Distances come from two independent approaches (MS/RGB counting and HB fiducial fitting) that agree internally, and Cen I agrees externally with the RR Lyrae distance. Uncertainties are handled with bootstrap and jackknife resampling, artificial-star tests are described, and full photometric tables are provided. The Eri IV revisions are large, but the paper shows the luminosity would only shift mildly if the discovery distance were adopted, so the numbers are not fitted to a preferred conclusion.

Soft spots, in decreasing order. First, the Eri IV extended feature is the headline new claim, stated with 'high confidence,' but it rests on a matched-filter map whose background CMD is constructed from real stars in the same 24-arcmin field. The bootstrap and smoothing checks probe Poisson noise and binning, not whether that background is representative or spatially uniform. If the outer region contains part of Eri IV's own halo, or if foreground density or reddening varies toward the northeast, residuals at exactly this location could appear. The two Gaia stars near the feature were selected using the same proper-motion baseline, so they do not independently confirm it. I would soften 'high confidence' to 'significant' and add an independent-background or reddening-variation test. Second, Eri IV's data are about 2 mag shallower than Cen I's, yet they drive the largest parameter revisions; that warrants a caveat, though it is not disqualifying. Third, the 'best-fit isochrone' label in the Figure 1 caption is misleading: the age and metallicity were imported from the discovery papers and only the distance was fit. Minor wording issue.

No load-bearing flaw. The structural and luminosity measurements are credible, and the paper is transparent about the multiple interpretations of the Eri IV feature. This is for anyone working on the MW satellite census, UFD structure, or tidal disruption. Send it to peer review; the extended-feature section needs revision, but the paper should not be desk-rejected.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents deep Magellan/Megacam g,r photometry of two ultra-faint dwarf galaxy candidates, Centaurus I and Eridanus IV. It derives distances via isochrone CMD fitting and horizontal-branch fiducial matching, structural parameters via maximum-likelihood exponential fits, absolute magnitudes via synthetic CMD luminosity integration, and searches for tidal debris using matched-filter maps. The main results are that Cen I lies at D = 119.8 ± 4.1 kpc with half-light radius 2.60′ ± 0.30′ and M_V = −5.39 ± 0.19, with no clear tidal feature, while Eri IV lies at D = 69.9 ± 3.6 kpc with half-light radius 3.24′ ± 0.48′ and M_V = −3.55 ± 0.24, making it closer, fainter, and rounder than previously reported, and hosting a claimed significant northeast extended feature. The paper also identifies new Gaia EDR3 candidate members around both systems.

Significance. If the measurements stand, the paper provides robust structural and distance benchmarks for two recently discovered ultra-faint satellites, including an important revision of Eri IV's luminosity and ellipticity. The study is strengthened by machine-readable photometric catalogs, artificial-star completeness tests, bootstrap and jackknife uncertainty estimation, and internal cross-checks between MS/RGB and HB distances, with Cen I also agreeing with the RR Lyrae distance. The claimed northeast extension of Eri IV is potentially interesting for tidal-disruption and stellar-halo studies, but the current analysis does not yet establish this feature at the level of confidence claimed in the text.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.5 / Section 4.2 / Figure 2] The central claim that the northeast extension of Eri IV is real with 'high confidence' is not supported by the tests presented. The matched-filter map uses a single background CMD constructed from real stars 'well outside the half-light radius' within the same 24-arcmin field, and the bootstrap resampling and smoothing/binning checks only vary star counts and the smoothing kernel; they do not test whether the background CMD is spatially uniform, whether it is contaminated by Eri IV's own extended halo, or whether reddening, foreground density, or CCD artifacts vary toward the northeast. Any of these effects could create a residual at the location of the claimed feature. The two Gaia candidates near the feature are selected with the same CMD and proper-motion priors and cannot independently confirm its reality. I recommend adding tests with independent background annuli, quadrant-split or sliding-background maps, and reddening sensitivity checks, or downgrading the 'high confidence' phrasing to a tentative detection pending such tests.
[Section 3.2 / Table 4] The distance uncertainty budget does not include the isochrone metallicity spread that is actually present in the fits. For Cen I, the CMD-fitting distance modulus is m−M = 20.45 for [Fe/H] = −2.2 and m−M = 20.30 for [Fe/H] = −2.0, a difference of 0.15 mag, while the quoted total uncertainty is 0.08 mag. The statement that old, low-metallicity isochrones exhibit minimal variation is contradicted by these two best-fit values. Because the adopted distance is the mean of the MS/RGB and HB results, the isochrone metallicity choice should be propagated as a systematic term, or the two peaks should be explicitly shown to be statistically equivalent; otherwise the distance error bars in Table 4 underestimate the model dependence.

minor comments (4)

[Table 5] Several entries in Table 5 list the star type as 'RBG' (rows with Method 2 and '1, 2'); this should read 'RGB'.
[Section 3.2] The description of the HB jackknife is unclear for Cen I: the text says the jackknife resampling does not change the distance modulus, which would imply zero variance, yet the total error budget is said to include the jackknife uncertainty in quadrature. Please clarify how the Cen I HB uncertainty was actually assigned.
[Section 3.4] The sentence 'We account for variation in the distance modulus and number of stars by allowing either value to vary' should read 'both values' or 'each value' for clarity, since the text immediately describes varying both quantities.
[Section 3.5 / Figure 2 caption] The body text refers to 'white arrows' and 'magenta arrows' while the Figure 2 caption uses singular 'white arrow' and 'magenta arrow'; the terminology should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild self-referential isochrone assumption; central distances and structural parameters are externally benchmarked and not circular.

self definitional [Abstract and Section 3.2 (Distance)]
"The stellar ages (13.0 Gyr) of the isochrones were chosen to be consistent with the discovery papers. ... Our deep color-magnitude diagrams show that Cen I and Eri IV are consistent with an old (tau~13.0 Gyr) and metal-poor ([Fe/H]<=-2.2) stellar population."

The isochrone used for the CMD fit is fixed to 13.0 Gyr and [Fe/H]=-2.2 because the discovery papers used those values, not because the new data independently determine them. The abstract then presents consistency with those same values as a result, making the population-consistency statement an input restated as an output. This assumption also propagates into the star selection for structural fitting, the absolute-magnitude simulation, and the matched-filter signal CMD, so those internal consistencies are inherited from the adopted isochrone rather than demonstrated. This is not load-bearing for the distance values because the HB-fiducial and, for Cen I, the RR Lyrae distance provide independent checks, but it is a mild self-referential step.

full rationale

The central measurements of distance, half-light radius, ellipticity, and absolute magnitude are derived with standard CMD-fitting and maximum-likelihood structure fitting against PARSEC isochrones, and they are checked against an independent M92 horizontal-branch fiducial and, for Cen I, the RR Lyrae distance. The Eri IV extended feature is a matched-filter detection whose significance is asserted from bootstrap resampling of the photometric catalog; the concern that the background CMD may not be spatially representative is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction of the claim to its input. The only mild circularity is that the old, metal-poor isochrone is imported from the discovery papers and then used to show consistency with an old, metal-poor population, and the same simulated CMD is used as the matched-filter signal. These are assumptions rather than fitted-then-predicted quantities, and they do not force the headline distances or morphologies, so the overall circularity burden is low.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central measurements are standard photometric characterizations whose main model inputs are the adopted PARSEC isochrones (13.0 Gyr, [Fe/H] = -2.2), the exponential profile, the M92 HB fiducial, and an assumed Salpeter IMF. The most notable gap between input and evidence is that the adopted isochrone metallicity (-2.2) is higher than the spectroscopically measured mean metallicities cited from Heiger et al. (2024), a systematic the authors only partially probe.

free parameters (5)

Adopted isochrone age = 13.0 Gyr
Age for the PARSEC isochrones is chosen to match the discovery papers (Section 3.2), not fitted to the data. It feeds the distance fit, structural member selection, luminosity integration, and matched-filter signal CMD.
Adopted isochrone metallicity = [Fe/H] = -2.2
The most metal-poor PARSEC isochrone available is used for distance, structure, luminosity, and matched-filter analysis (Sections 3.2 through 3.5). The paper's own cited spectroscopy (Heiger et al. 2024) measures mean [Fe/H] of -2.57 for Cen I and -2.87 for Eri IV; a DSEP [Fe/H] = -2.4 check is run, but the adopted value remains -2.2.
Initial structural parameters for MLE fits = Discovery values from Mau et al. 2020 and Cerny et al. 2021
Adopted as starting points for the maximum likelihood fits (Section 3.3). Outputs agree with discovery within errors, so the priors do not appear to force the result.
Matched-filter smoothing and binning = 25 arcsec pixels, Gaussian smoothing width 1.0 pixel
Chosen for the density maps (Section 3.5); the authors check robustness to smoothing and binning parameters for the Eri IV feature.
IMF for luminosity integration = Salpeter (1955) initial mass function
Assumed for the artificial CMD used to integrate to M_V (Section 3.4); a different IMF slope changes the inferred total luminosity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PARSEC isochrones accurately model old, metal-poor stellar populations at the relevant age and metallicity.
Invoked in Sections 3.2 through 3.5 for distance, member selection, luminosity, and matched-filter signal. Cross-checked against DSEP but not independently validated for these systems.
domain assumption UFD surface brightness profiles are well described by an exponential model.
The structural fitting (Section 3.3) uses the exponential profile maximum likelihood of Sand et al. (2009), including for systems that may not be in dynamical equilibrium.
domain assumption The M92 globular cluster horizontal branch fiducial of Bernard et al. (2014) is a valid template for the HB of these UFDs.
Used to derive the HB-based distance modulus in Section 3.2; depends on both systems having old, metal-poor HB morphologies like M92.
domain assumption The matched-filter background is well represented by real stars outside the half-light radius within the same 24 arcmin field.
Section 3.5 builds the background CMD from stars 'well outside the half-light radius'; spatial variations in foreground or reddening within the field would bias the overdensity significance.
domain assumption Gaia EDR3 astrometric cuts (ruwe < 1.4, excess noise < 2, zero-parallax consistency) select genuine members with negligible contamination.
Used in the flexible membership selection in Section 3.6; interloper halo stars passing these cuts would be misclassified as members.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Photometric Observations of Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites Centaurus I and Eridanus IV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UETO4TRG

@misc{pith2026250104772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Photometric Observations of Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites Centaurus I and Eridanus IV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UETO4TRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04772}
}

abstract

We present deep Magellan$+$Megacam imaging of Centaurus I (Cen I) and Eridanus IV (Eri IV), two recently discovered Milky Way ultra-faint satellites. Our data reach $\sim2-3$ magnitudes deeper than the discovery data from the DECam Local Volume Exploration (DELVE) Survey. We use these data to constrain their distances, structural properties (e.g., half-light radii, ellipticity, and position angle), and luminosities. We investigate whether these systems show signs of tidal disturbance, and identify new potential member stars using Gaia EDR3. Our deep color-magnitude diagrams show that Cen I and Eri IV are consistent with an old ($\tau\sim 13.0$ Gyr) and metal-poor ($\text{[Fe/H]}\le-2.2$) stellar population. We find Cen I to have a half-light radius of $r_{h}=2.60\pm0.30'$ ($90.6\pm11$ pc), an ellipticity of $\epsilon=0.36\pm0.05$, a distance of $D=119.8\pm4.1$ kpc ($m-M=20.39\pm0.08$ mag), and an absolute magnitude of $M_{V}=-5.39\pm0.19$. Similarly, Eri IV has $r_{h}=3.24\pm0.48'$ ($65.9\pm10$ pc), $\epsilon=0.26\pm0.09$, $D=69.9\pm3.6$ kpc ($m-M=19.22\pm0.11$ mag), and $M_{V}=-3.55\pm0.24$. These systems occupy a space on the size-luminosity plane consistent with other known Milky Way dwarf galaxies which supports the findings from our previous spectroscopic follow-up. Cen I has a well-defined morphology which lacks any clear evidence of tidal disruption, whereas Eri IV hosts a significant extended feature with multiple possible interpretations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04772 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** CMD and Hess diagrams for Cen I (a) and Eri IV (b). We only include stars within the half-light radius for a given UFD (Section 3.3). Candidate HB stars within the half-light radius are shown as blue diamonds, candidate HB stars within the FoV are green triangles, and RR Lyrae stars from Mart´ınez-V´azquez et al. (2021) are shown as purple triangles for Cen I only (the filled triangle is within the half-light radius… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The smoothed matched-filter maps for Cen I (left) and Eri IV (right) where the image center corresponds to the RA and DEC reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Half-light radius along the semi-major axis (rh) against the absolute magnitude (MV ) for a number of dwarf galaxies/globular clusters. Cen I and Eri IV are the red diamond and blue square, respectively. Brown x’s are M31 dwarf galaxies (e.g. Tollerud et al. 2012; Martin et al. 2016; Rhode et al. 2023), black circles are MW dwarf galaxies, orange open circles are GCs from Harris (2010), and gray triangles are ultra-… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Spectroscopic Analysis of Pictor II: a very low metallicity ultra-faint dwarf galaxy bound to the Large Magellanic Cloud
astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Pictor II is spectroscopically confirmed as an extremely metal-poor, dark matter-dominated ultra-faint dwarf galaxy that is very likely bound to the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[32]

& Jerjen, H

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 Kim, D. & Jerjen, H. 2015, ApJL, 808, L39. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L39 Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 130. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/130 Koposov, S. E., Walker, M. G., Belokurov, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5343. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1772 Landsman, W. B. 1993, Astronomical Data Anal...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 2015
[79]

J., Finkbeiner, D

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/79 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525. doi:10.1086/305772 Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab Shipp, N., Panithanpaisal, N., Necib, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 44. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc582 Shipp, N., Riley, A. H., Simpson, C. M....

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09143 1998
[111]

Discovery and Spectroscopic Confirmation of Aquarius III: A Low-Mass Milky Way Satellite Galaxy

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c3 Cerny, W., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 1. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78 Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aced84 Cerny, W., Chiti, A., Geha, M., et al. 2024, arXiv:2410.00981. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.00981 Chiti, A., Frebel, A....

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00981 2023
[118]

H., Bullock, J

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a9 Weinberg, D. H., Bullock, J. S., Governato, F., et al. 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 12249. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308716112 Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-. hoon ., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23 Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 650, L...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a9 2015
[125]

J., Zaritsky, D., et al

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed1f Crnojevi´ c, D., Sand, D. J., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 824, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L14 Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoﬀ, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109 Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Allam, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 833, L5. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/L5 Drlica-Wagner, ...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1012.3224 2016
[126]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0 Moskowitz, A. G. & Walker, M. G. 2020, ApJ, 892, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Majewski, S. R., & Johnston, K. V. 2008, ApJ, 679, 346. doi:10.1086/587125 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010, AJ, 140,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0 2020
[137]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccb Smith, S. E. T., Jensen, J., Roediger, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 76. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdd77 Stetson, P. B. 1994, PASP, 106, 250. doi:10.1086/133378 Strigari, L. E. 2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 81, 056901. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aaae16 Tan, C. Y., Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2024, arXiv:2408.00865. doi:10...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00865 2023
[138]

R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F

doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/138 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacd0e Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´ c, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 106. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb40b Ou, X., Chiti, A...

arXiv 2018

Show all 12 references

[234]

2018, PASJ, 70, S18

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf7 Homma, D., Chiba, M., Okamoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S18. doi:10.1093/pasj/psx050 Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 94. doi:10.1093/pasj/psz076 Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv:2311.05439. doi:10....

2018 doi arXiv
[245]

Y., de Boer, T., Pieres, A., et al

doi:10.1086/592076 Wang, M. Y., de Boer, T., Pieres, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881,

2019 doi
[343]

A., Pace, A

doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 Cantu, S. A., Pace, A. B., Marshall, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 81. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0443 Carlin, J. L., Sand, D. J., Mu˜ noz, R. R., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 267. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa94d0 Cerny, W., Pace, A. B., Drlica-Wagner, A...

2021 doi
[366]

2024, ApJ, 961,

doi:10.1086/680687 McNanna, M., Bechtol, K., Mau, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961,

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

& Jerjen, H

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 Kim, D. & Jerjen, H. 2015, ApJL, 808, L39. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L39 Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 130. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/130 Koposov, S. E., Walker, M. G., Belokurov, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5343. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1772 Landsman, W. B. 1993, Astronomical Data Anal...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 2015

[2] [79]

J., Finkbeiner, D

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/79 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525. doi:10.1086/305772 Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab Shipp, N., Panithanpaisal, N., Necib, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 44. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc582 Shipp, N., Riley, A. H., Simpson, C. M....

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09143 1998

[3] [111]

Discovery and Spectroscopic Confirmation of Aquarius III: A Low-Mass Milky Way Satellite Galaxy

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c3 Cerny, W., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 1. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78 Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aced84 Cerny, W., Chiti, A., Geha, M., et al. 2024, arXiv:2410.00981. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.00981 Chiti, A., Frebel, A....

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00981 2023

[4] [118]

H., Bullock, J

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a9 Weinberg, D. H., Bullock, J. S., Governato, F., et al. 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 12249. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308716112 Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-. hoon ., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23 Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 650, L...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a9 2015

[5] [125]

J., Zaritsky, D., et al

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaed1f Crnojevi´ c, D., Sand, D. J., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 824, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L14 Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoﬀ, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109 Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Allam, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 833, L5. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/L5 Drlica-Wagner, ...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1012.3224 2016

[6] [126]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0 Moskowitz, A. G. & Walker, M. G. 2020, ApJ, 892, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Majewski, S. R., & Johnston, K. V. 2008, ApJ, 679, 346. doi:10.1086/587125 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010, AJ, 140,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d0 2020

[7] [137]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccb Smith, S. E. T., Jensen, J., Roediger, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 76. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdd77 Stetson, P. B. 1994, PASP, 106, 250. doi:10.1086/133378 Strigari, L. E. 2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 81, 056901. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aaae16 Tan, C. Y., Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2024, arXiv:2408.00865. doi:10...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00865 2023

[8] [138]

R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F

doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/138 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacd0e Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´ c, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 106. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb40b Ou, X., Chiti, A...

arXiv 2018