Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Hubble Space Telescope Survey of M31 Satellite Galaxies IV. Survey Overview and Lifetime Star Formation Histories

T0 review · 3 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 With more than 1,000 orbits of HST imaging, the paper measures star formation histories for 36 Andromeda dwarf galaxies and claims that luminosity and present-day distance from M31 predict the epoch of quenching to within 1.8 Gyr.

desk verdict A genuine dataset paper with a headline quenching relation that needs a uniform-metric re-fit before the 1.8 Gyr claim should be quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13152 v1 pith:ZKSH2347 submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.GA

A. Savino , D. R. Weisz , A. E. Dolphin , M. J. Durbin , N. Kallivayalil , A. Wetzel , J. Anderson , G. Besla
show 30 more authors
M. Boylan-Kolchin T. M. Brown J. S. Bullock A. A. Cole M. L. M. Collins M. C. Cooper A. J. Deason A. L. Dotter M. Fardal A. M. N. Ferguson T. K. Fritz M. C. Geha K. M. Gilbert P. Guhathakurta R. Ibata M. J. Irwin M. Jeon E. N. Kirby G. F. Lewis D. Mackey S. R. Majewski N. Martin A. McConnachie E. Patel R. M. Rich E. D. Skillman J. D. Simon S. T. Sohn E. J. Tollerud R. P. van der Marel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords starformationhistoriesM31dwarfgalaxiesquenchingepochsatelliteresolvedstellarpopulationsHubbleSpaceTelescopecolor-magnitudediagramsgalaxyevolution
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 more than 1,000 orbits of Hubble Space Telescope imaging to measure lifetime star formation histories for 36 dwarf galaxies around Andromeda (M31) and ten fields in M31, M33, and the Giant Stellar Stream. Its central claim is that a dwarf's luminosity and its present-day distance from M31 together fix the epoch at which it stopped forming stars, with an intrinsic scatter of only 1.8 Gyr. A bright, distant satellite tends to keep forming stars until recently, while a faint, close-in satellite quenches early, and the two quantities predict the quenching time better than either alone. The paper also finds that the median star formation histories of satellites inside and outside the proposed great plane of Andromeda are indistinguishable, that about half of M31's dwarfs formed most of their stars very early and then quenched at intermediate ages, and that current simulations reproduce the luminosity trend but not the distance trend. If correct, the result tightens the link between a satellite's halo mass, its accretion history, and how long it can form stars.

What carries the argument

The central objects are resolved color-magnitude diagrams that reach the oldest main sequence turnoff for 36 M31 dwarfs, built from ACS/WFC and WFC3/UVIS imaging and reduced with DOLPHOT. Star formation histories are derived by forward-modeling each CMD's Hess diagram with MATCH, using BaSTI stellar models, artificial-star-test completeness, and age-metallicity-relation priors. The quenching epoch $\tau_q$ is defined as $\tau_{90}$ (the lookback time by which 90% of the star formation occurred) for luminous quenched dwarfs, $\tau_{80}$ for faint ones, and 0 for actively star-forming galaxies; this hybrid metric balances contamination and sensitivity across an 11-magnitude luminosity range. The predictive relation then comes from a Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit of $\tau_q$ to absolute luminosity $M_V$ and RR-Lyrae-based deprojected distance $D_{M31}$. What carries the argument is the combination of a homogeneous 36-galaxy sample and a single deterministic relation with 1.8 Gyr intrinsic scatter.

What would settle it

Take deep, wide-field imaging that covers the full spatial extent of the low-coverage galaxies NGC 147, NGC 185, and And XIX and measure their whole-galaxy star formation histories; if their quenched epochs no longer follow the 1.8-Gyr relation of eq. 2, the relation is an artifact of central-field coverage. A second check is to replace present-day distance with orbital energy once proper motions are available for most satellites and see whether the scatter shrinks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the quenching epoch of an M31 satellite is predictable from just two present-day observables. Fitting the linear model $\tau_q = a\,M_V + b\,D_{M31}/100\,\mathrm{kpc} + c$ to 37 galaxies (36 dwarfs plus M33) yields $\tau_q\,[\mathrm{Gyr}] = 0.69(\pm0.09)\,M_V - 1.18(\pm0.27)\,D_{M31}/100\,\mathrm{kpc} + 17.15(\pm1.14)$, with an intrinsic scatter of 1.8 Gyr and Pearson $r = 0.85$. The scatter is partly an upper limit because the HST fields cover only part of each galaxy. The same bivariate model applied to Milky Way satellites gives a consistent but noisier relation, while the TNG50 and FIRE-2 simulations predict a stronger luminosity dependence and a weaker or absent distance dependence, and contain almost none of the old-in-median-age, intermediately quenched population that makes up roughly half of the M31 sample.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the star formation history measured in one HST field near each galaxy's center represents the whole galaxy, even though for the largest, brightest dwarfs that field contains only about 2% of the stellar light.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Satellite quenching in the M31 system can be estimated from luminosity and current host distance to within 1.8 Gyr, so a galaxy's shutdown time is mostly set by its halo mass and environment rather than stochastic internal processes.
  • The absence of a median SFH difference between great-plane members and other satellites implies that the plane's formation, whatever its origin, left no detectable imprint on when its galaxies formed stars.
  • About half of M31's dwarfs show strong early star formation followed by quenching 8–10 Gyr ago, a combination rare among Milky Way satellites and largely missing from current simulations.
  • Simulations that aim to reproduce the M31 satellite population must match the observed luminosity dependence, a steeper distance dependence than TNG50 or FIRE-2 currently produce, and a substantial delayed-quenching population.
  • The released uniform photometric catalogs and SFHs provide a common baseline for adding abundances, proper motions, and future wide-field imaging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1.8 Gyr relation survives whole-galaxy SFHs, it implies that the final shutdown of low-mass galaxies is quasi-deterministic given two present-day quantities, which would make stochastic feedback models less important near the host and sharpen predictions for undiscovered M31 satellites.
  • A testable extension of the paper's logic: undiscovered ultra-faint dwarfs at large M31 distances should deviate from the relation toward ancient quenching if they are true reionization fossils, directly testing reionization versus environment as the quench mechanism.
  • The distance dependence may be tracing orbital energy or infall time; once HST/JWST proper motions provide orbits for most of the sample, refitting with energy instead of present-day radius could tighten the scatter below 1.8 Gyr or expose which satellites are recent arrivals.
  • The delayed-quenching subpopulation resembles the reionization-heated dwarfs in some analytic models, so a direct comparison of stellar mass range and quenching ages with those models is a natural next step that the paper leaves open.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the HST Treasury Survey of M31 satellite galaxies: deep F606W/F814W (and some F475W/F814W) imaging from more than 1000 orbits, uniformly reduced photometry, and CMD-based star formation histories for 36 dwarf galaxies within ~500 kpc of M31, plus 10 auxiliary fields in M31, M33, and the Giant Stellar Stream. The SFHs reach the oldest main-sequence turnoff and are derived with MATCH using BaSTI models, ASTs, and systematic uncertainty estimates from perturbed stellar models. The science sections report (i) correlations of median age and quenching epoch with luminosity and galactocentric distance, culminating in the bivariate relation tau_q = 0.69 MV - 1.18 D_M31/100 kpc + 17.15 Gyr with 1.8 Gyr intrinsic scatter (Eq. 2, Sec. 5.5); (ii) no difference between on- and off-plane satellites; (iii) a population of M31 dwarfs with ancient tau_50 and intermediate-age tau_q that is rare around the Milky Way; and (iv) comparisons with TNG50 and FIRE-2 simulations that reproduce the luminosity trend but not the distance trend or the delayed-quenching population. Photometric catalogs, ASTs, RR Lyrae catalogs, and SFHs are released as MAST HLSPs.

Significance. If the central 1.8-Gyr relation holds, it is an important result: it would imply that a dwarf's final shutdown time is almost fully determined by a mass proxy and present-day position, leaving little room for stochastic internal feedback. The paper's main strengths are the homogeneous, oMSTO-depth dataset; the explicit validation against published SFHs for the same fields (Appendix D); the systematic uncertainty treatment via perturbed model grids; and the public release of high-level data products. The comparison with TNG50 and FIRE-2 adds a useful falsifiable dimension: the simulations match the luminosity trend but not the distance dependence or the delayed-quenching population. These strengths make the paper valuable regardless of minor revisions, but the headline predictive claim currently rests on a luminosity-dependent definition of the quenching metric and on an in-sample residual scatter, so the quantitative central claim needs additional robustness work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (2), Appendix E] The headline relation is built on a luminosity-dependent quenching metric: tau_q is tau_90 for quenched dwarfs with M_V < -8, tau_80 for quenched dwarfs with M_V > -8, and 0 for active galaxies. For a fixed underlying SFH, tau_80 is systematically older than tau_90, so switching metrics at M_V = -8 can mechanically steepen the tau_q-M_V correlation; assigning tau_q = 0 to M33 and two other luminous active systems adds additional leverage at the bright end. Appendix E shows tau_80 and tau_90 separately only in univariate plots and does not report bivariate fit coefficients or intrinsic scatter for any single uniform metric. Please re-fit Eq. (1) with uniform definitions (e.g., tau_90 for all quenched dwarfs and tau_80 for all quenched dwarfs, with active galaxies either excluded or treated as censored) and report the coefficients and scatter for each case. If the bivariate relation and the ~1.8 Gyr scatter do not survive under a uniform metric, the abstract and Sec. 5.5 claims should be weakened accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 5.5, abstract] The statement that satellite luminosity and distance from M31 'predict' the quenching epoch to within 1.8 Gyr is based on fitting Eq. (2) to the same 37 galaxies used to measure the residual scatter. This is an in-sample goodness-of-fit statistic, not an out-of-sample prediction, so the predictive wording overstates what is demonstrated. Please either replace 'predict' with 'reproduce' in the abstract and Sec. 5.5, or add a cross-validation analysis (e.g., leave-one-out or train/test splits) and report the actual prediction error for galaxies not used in the fit.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Table 1, Fig. 12] The fraction of stellar light sampled by the ACS field, f_star, correlates strongly with luminosity: bright, extended galaxies have f_star as low as 0.02 (NGC 147, NGC 185, M32, IC 1613, And XIX), while faint compact dwarfs have f_star near unity. Because radial stellar population gradients are common in dwarfs, a central-field SFH can be biased young for low-f_star systems, which would steepen the tau_q-M_V relation and reduce the measured scatter. The text acknowledges this in Sec. 5.1 and argues the trend is physical, but it does not provide a quantitative sensitivity test. Please add a re-fit of Eq. (2) restricted to galaxies with f_star above a threshold (e.g., f_star > 0.3) or including an f_star term, and state whether the coefficients and scatter remain consistent. If they do not, the 1.8 Gyr scatter should be presented as a lower limit on the true scatter rather than the central value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The citation for the reionization epoch appears as '?Robertson 2022' in the caption; this unresolved citation should be fixed.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The text refers to 'Smith et al. submitted' for recently discovered M31 satellites, but this work is not listed in the references; please add the full citation or remove the reference.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] The definition of tau_q leaves the boundary case M_V = -8 undefined ('M_V < -8' for tau_90 and 'M_V > -8' for tau_80); please specify which metric is used at M_V = -8 or make the cuts non-overlapping.
  4. [Appendix A, Table 11] The column headers 'dSFR- Sys' and 'dSFR+ Sys' describe total uncertainties (statistical plus systematic), but the names suggest they are systematic-only; consider renaming the columns or clarifying the text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 1.8-Gyr 'prediction' is the in-sample scatter of a fit whose response τq is defined using the luminosity predictor (τ90 for MV<−8, τ80 for MV>−8, 0 for bright active galaxies), so part of Eq. 2 is built from the metric definition.

  1. self definitional [§5.2 (Identifying the Quenching Epoch), applied in Eq. 2 of §5.5]
    "Given that our galaxy sample spans 11 magnitudes in luminosity, it is challenging to adopt a single quenching metric for all systems. Instead, we adopt the quenching metric τq defined as: i) τ90 for quenched dwarfs with MV < −8, ii) τ80 for quenched dwarfs with MV > −8, iii) 0 for those galaxies with active star formation (Peg DIG, IC 1613, and M33)."

    The response variable of Eq. 2 is defined by cutting on the predictor MV: faint dwarfs (MV > −8) receive the older percentile τ80, bright dwarfs (MV < −8) receive the younger percentile τ90, and the three bright active systems are pinned to 0. For the same cumulative SFH, τ80 is always older than τ90, so the metric switch at MV = −8 mechanically steepens the τq–MV correlation that Eq. 2 then 'predicts.' Appendix E states that with τ90 alone the low-luminosity galaxies 'behave as outliers in the trends with satellite luminosity and galactocentric distance,' and no bivariate coefficient or scatter is reported for a single uniform metric; hence the 0.69 MV slope and 1.8 Gyr scatter are partly manufactured by the luminosity-dependent definition of τq.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§5.5 (A Fundamental Predictor of Satellite Quenching?) and Abstract]
    "We explore this question by fitting a linear model of the form: τq = a × MV + b × DM31 + c + N(0, rms) (1) to our M31 satellite data (our primary sample of 36 galaxies plus M33). ... The intrinsic rms scatter inferred from the model is 1.8 Gyr."

    The 1.8 Gyr value is the residual scatter of the same M31 data to which Eq. 1 was fitted; the abstract's statement that luminosity and distance 'predict the satellite quenching epoch to within 1.8 Gyr' is thus an in-sample goodness-of-fit statistic, not an out-of-sample prediction. No held-out M31 data are used. The independent MW and TNG50/FIRE-2 comparisons provide external support for the general trends, but they do not convert the in-sample rms into a predictive test of Eq. 2.

full rationale

The central, load-bearing claim of the paper is the '1.8 Gyr prediction' of quenching epoch from luminosity and distance. Two reducible steps are present. First, the response variable τq is defined with a luminosity threshold (τ90 for MV<−8, τ80 for MV>−8, 0 for active galaxies), so the predictor MV enters the construction of the response; Appendix E documents that a uniform τ90 metric makes faint galaxies outliers and no uniform-metric version of Eq. 2 is given, so the headline slope and scatter are partly set by this definition. Second, the 'prediction' is the residual scatter of a fit to the same sample, i.e., a fit diagnostic relabeled as predictive accuracy. These are genuine partial circularities. However, the paper is not fundamentally circular: the SFH measurements are independent products, the paper tests the same model on MW satellites and on TNG50/FIRE-2 simulations with comparable scatter, and the authors explicitly disclose the metric heterogeneity and field-of-view limitations. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. On the 0-10 scale, the central claim partially reduces by construction, so a score of 6 is appropriate; it would rise if the Appendix E uniform-metric fits were absent or if the external comparisons had been omitted, and would fall if a uniform-metric Eq. 2 were provided with a similarly tight scatter.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard stellar population modeling assumptions plus the observational assumption that single ACS pointings represent whole galaxies. The empirical scaling relation (eq. 2) has three fitted coefficients, so the headline scatter is a fit residual, not a free prediction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • a coefficient in eq. 2 = 0.69 ± 0.09 Gyr/mag
    Slope of quenching epoch vs absolute magnitude, fitted to 37 M31 satellites; drives the luminosity trend.
  • b coefficient in eq. 2 = -1.18 ± 0.27 Gyr per 100 kpc
    Slope of quenching epoch vs deprojected distance, fitted to the same sample.
  • c intercept in eq. 2 = 17.15 ± 1.14 Gyr
    Intercept of the linear model; needed to produce the claimed 1.8 Gyr scatter.
  • intrinsic scatter rms = 1.79 +0.26/-0.21 Gyr
    Inferred scatter of the linear model, quoted as the '1.8 Gyr prediction' in the abstract.
  • internal reddening dAV for star-forming targets = 0.0 to 0.9 mag (M33 fields)
    Fitted per-field extinction for Psc I, Peg DIG, IC 1613, and M33 fields (§4.3); affects SFH shape for these galaxies.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption BaSTI stellar evolution tracks (Hidalgo et al. 2018; Pietrinferni et al. 2021, 2024) accurately predict CMD loci for old, metal-poor populations.
    The entire SFH inversion in §4.1 relies on these models; systematic errors are explored by perturbing the grids (§4.6).
  • domain assumption Kroupa IMF and 0.35 unresolved binary fraction assumed in model grid.
    §4.2; these choices affect the inferred SFR normalization and age distribution, though Savino et al. (2023) argue the impact is small.
  • ad hoc to paper Monotonic age-metallicity relation with 0.15 dex dispersion imposed during fitting.
    §4.2; imposed to mitigate the age-metallicity degeneracy for F606W/F814W filters; can bias the SFH if the true AMR is non-monotonic.
  • domain assumption RR Lyrae distances from Savino et al. (2022) are correct.
    §4.3; adopted as homogeneous distances; distance errors propagate into age and luminosity scales for all galaxies.
  • ad hoc to paper The measured ACS-field SFH is representative of the entire galaxy, despite f_star as low as 0.02.
    §5.1; required for all population-level trends; acknowledged as a limitation, especially for extended galaxies.
  • domain assumption tau80 and tau90 trace the quenching epoch.
    §5.2; cumulative SFH percentiles are used as proxies for quenching because CMD contaminants mimic low-level recent star formation.
  • domain assumption Foreground extinction maps (Green et al. 2019; Schlafly & Finkbeiner 2011) are accurate for these lines of sight.
    §4.3; extinction errors shift the CMD and affect derived ages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Hubble Space Telescope Survey of M31 Satellite Galaxies IV. Survey Overview and Lifetime Star Formation Histories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKSH2347

@misc{pith2026250113152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Hubble Space Telescope Survey of M31 Satellite Galaxies IV. Survey Overview and Lifetime Star Formation Histories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKSH2347}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13152}
}
abstract

From $>1000$ orbits of HST imaging, we present deep homogeneous resolved star color-magnitude diagrams that reach the oldest main sequence turnoff and uniformly measured star formation histories (SFHs) of 36 dwarf galaxies ($-6 \ge M_V \ge -17$) associated with the M31 halo, and for 10 additional fields in M31, M33, and the Giant Stellar Stream. From our SFHs we find: i) the median stellar age and quenching epoch of M31 satellites correlate with galaxy luminosity and galactocentric distance. Satellite luminosity and present-day distance from M31 predict the satellite quenching epoch to within $1.8$ Gyr at all epochs. This tight relationship highlights the fundamental connection between satellite halo mass, environmental history, and star formation duration. ii) There is no difference between the median SFH of galaxies on and off the great plane of Andromeda satellites. iii) $\sim50$\% of our M31 satellites show prominent ancient star formation ($>12$ Gyr ago) followed by delayed quenching ($8-10$ Gyr ago), which is not commonly observed among the MW satellites. iv) A comparison with TNG50 and FIRE-2 simulated satellite dwarfs around M31-like hosts show that some of these trends (dependence of SFH on satellite luminosity) are reproduced in the simulations while others (dependence of SFH on galactocentric distance, presence of the delayed-quenching population) are weaker or absent. We provide all photometric catalogs and SFHs as High-Level Science Products on MAST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The HST pointings for the 36 dwarf galaxies in our sample, overlaid on DSS archival imaging. The galaxies are ordered by luminosity. The ACS/WFC and WFC3/UVIS fields are shown in red and blue, respectively. The new deep imaging acquired by our program is illustrated as a filled footprint, while archival deep fields are shown as empty contours. We also report the 1rh and 2rh ellipses (dotted lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The archival ACS/WFC pointings we use for M31 (left) and M33 (right), overlaid on DSS archival imaging. For M31, the approximate outline of the region in which the GSS dominates the stellar density is also outlined (dotted line). For M33, ellipses corresponding to 1, 2, and 3 disc scale lengths are shown (dotted lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The ACS CMD of And XI (MV = −6.4), at different steps of our contaminant cleaning procedure. A) Raw photometric catalog, as output from DOLPHOT. B) Photometric catalog, after the quality cuts of § 3.1 have been applied. C) Photometric catalog, after the bright-star mas…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial distribution of sources in the And XI cat￾alog. The shaded regions illustrate our spatial masks used to exclude diffraction spikes (red). In the upper side of this field, a bright stray light artifact is also masked (orange). At the bottom of this field, also v…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ACS CMDs for the 36 dwarf galaxies in our primary sample. The galaxies are sorted in order of decreasing luminosity. Panels with black points show F814W vs (F606W-F814W) CMDs, while panels with blue points show F814W vs (F475W-F814W) CMDs. The CMDs are not corrected fo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative SFHs for the 36 dwarf galaxies in our sample, measured from the ACS fields. The black line shows the best-fit SFH, the yellow region show the statistical uncertainties and the grey region show the systematic uncertainties. The epoch of reionization is highli…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The cumulative SFHs for the M31 Halo field, the GSS field, and M33. The M33 SFH is the combination of the 8 fields from Table2. Lines and colors have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Median star formation epoch (τ50, left), and quenching epoch (τq, right) as function of galaxy absolute magnitude (taken from Savino et al. 2022). The symbols are color-coded by the amount of stellar light sampled by the ACS field (f⋆, reported in Table1). M33 is show…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Median star formation epoch (τ50, left), and quenching epoch (τq, right) as function of distance from M31 (taken from Savino et al. 2022). The symbols are color-coded by the value of absolute luminosity. Star forming galaxies are shown as star symbols. Notable outlier…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between the measured values of τq (y axis) and the values τ pred q predicted from eq. 2 (x axis). The dashed line shows our fiducial model, while the shaded region shows the intrinsic scatter term of our model. The symbols are color-coded by the value of f⋆…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Median SFH for the GPoA candidate members (blue line, left panel) and out-of-plane candidates (orange line, middle panel). The grey lines show the SFH of individual galaxies. The right panel shows a direct comparison between the median SFH of the two samples. The shad…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of τ50 vs τq for the dwarf galaxies associated with M31 (left) and the MW (right). Only galaxies with MV < −6 are shown in this plot. The symbols are color-coded by absolute magnitude. Quenched galaxies are shown as circles while star-forming galaxies are…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distribution of our M31 satellite sample in the galactocentric distance vs absolute luminosity parameter space. Satellites discovered by PAndAS are highlighted as orange diamonds. The 579 simulated satellites from TNG50 (top panel) and the 466 simulated satellites fro…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Trends of τ50 (left) and τq (right) with absolute luminosity in our M31 satellite sample. Circles represent quenched dwarfs, while stars represent star-forming dwarfs. Squares show 579 simulated satellite dwarfs from the TNG50 simulation (Engler et al. 2023, top) and …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Trends of τ50 (left) and τq (right) with galactocentric distance in our M31 satellite sample. Circles represent quenched dwarfs, while stars represent star-forming dwarfs. Squares show 579 simulated satellite dwarfs from the TNG50 simulation (Engler et al. 2023, top) …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Values of τ50 and τq for our M31 satellite sam￾ple. Circles represent quenched dwarfs, while stars represent star-forming dwarfs. Squares show 579 simulated satellite dwarfs from the TNG50 simulation (Engler et al. 2023, top) and 394 simulated dwarfs from the FIRE-2 s…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Differential SFHs for the 36 dwarf galaxies in our primary sample. Due to the different absolute amount of star formation in each dwarf, the y axis is scaled arbitrarily to highlight the SFH details. The galaxies belonging to the M31 subpopulation with old τ50 and int…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Differential SFHs for the M31 Halo field, the GSS field, and M33 (combined across the eight fields). Due to the different absolute amount of star formation, the y axis is scaled arbitrarily to highlight the SFH details. a set of DOLPHOT output metrics4 . We also provi…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Cumulative SFHs for the eight ACS fields belonging to M33. Lines and colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Comparison with literature SFHs. The black line is the best fit SFH from this paper, while the red line is the literature SFH from ISLAndS (Skillman et al. 2017), LCID (Gallart et al. 2015), Geha et al. (2015), and Brown et al. (2006). The yellow and grey regions show…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Trends of τ80 (left) and τ90 (right) with absolute luminosity (top) and galactocentric distance (bottom). The symbols and colors of the top panels are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Distribution of τ50 vs τ90 (top panels) and τ50 vs τ80 (bottom panels) for the dwarf galaxies associated with M31 (left) and the MW (right). Only galaxies with MV < −6 are shown in this plot. The symbols and colors in this plot are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…

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

  1. The satellite galaxies of the Milky Way and Andromeda

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A field review of Local Group dwarf satellites, their discovery, observed properties, and use as dark matter and galaxy evolution probes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

225 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Weisz, D

    Albers, S. M., Weisz, D. R., Cole, A. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2903

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2903 2019

  2. [2]

    W., Coppin, P., Gentile, G., & Diaferio, A

    Angus, G. W., Coppin, P., Gentile, G., & Diaferio, A. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1822

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1822 2016

  3. [3]

    M., Christensen, C

    Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa 2021

  4. [5]

    2007a, AJ, 133, 1125, doi: 10.1086/511185 —

    Schommer, R. 2007a, AJ, 133, 1125, doi: 10.1086/511185 —. 2007b, AJ, 133, 1138, doi: 10.1086/511186

    doi:10.1086/511185

  5. [7]

    F., & Fritz, T

    Battaglia, G., Taibi, S., Thomas, G. F., & Fritz, T. K. 2022, A&A, 657, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141528

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141528 2022

  6. [8]

    2006, A&A, 459, 423, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065720

    Battaglia, G., Tolstoy, E., Helmi, A., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 423, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065720

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065720 2006

  7. [9]

    F., Slater, C

    Bell, E. F., Slater, C. T., & Martin, N. F. 2011, ApJL, 742, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L15

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/l15 2011

  8. [11]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

Show all 225 references
  1. [12]

    B., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 642, L137, doi: 10.1086/504797

    2006 doi

  2. [13]

    T., et al

    Bennet, P., Patel, E., Sohn, S. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5349

    2024 doi

  3. [14]

    J., Ferguson, A

    Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 453, L113, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv116

    doi

  4. [16]

    J., Ferguson, A

    Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Richardson, J. C., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 446, 2789, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2309

    doi

  5. [17]

    2024, AJ, 167, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad38b6

    Bhardwaj, A., Rejkuba, M., Ngeow, C.-C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad38b6

    2024 doi

  6. [18]

    2000, ApJ, 541, 675, doi: 10.1086/309457

    Blitz, L., & Robishaw, T. 2000, ApJ, 541, 675, doi: 10.1086/309457

    2000 doi

  7. [19]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1188, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01467-0

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1188, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01467-0

    2021 doi

  8. [20]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 1560, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18495.x

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Besla, G., & Hernquist, L. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1560, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18495.x

    2011

  9. [21]

    R., Bullock, J

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Weisz, D. R., Bullock, J. S., & Cooper, M. C. 2016, MNRAS, 462, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw121

    2016 doi

  10. [22]

    M., Martin, N

    Brasseur, C. M., Martin, N. F., Macci` o, A. V., Rix, H.-W., & Kang, X. 2011, ApJ, 743, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/179

    2011 doi

  11. [23]

    2008, JWST White Paper

    Brown, T., Ferguson, H., Gardner, J., et al. 2008, JWST White Paper

    2008

  12. [24]

    M., Smith, E., Ferguson, H

    Brown, T. M., Smith, E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 323, doi: 10.1086/508015

    2006 doi

  13. [25]

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

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    2014 doi

  14. [26]

    2005, Science, 307, 1440, doi: 10.1126/science.1108342

    Henkel, C. 2005, Science, 307, 1440, doi: 10.1126/science.1108342

    2005 doi

  15. [27]

    Menten, K. M. 2007, A&A, 462, 101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066430

    2007 doi

  16. [28]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

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

    2017 doi

  17. [29]

    S., & Johnston, K

    Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931, doi: 10.1086/497422

    2005 doi

  18. [30]

    Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7

    2022 doi

  19. [31]

    2002, AJ, 123, 3199, doi: 10.1086/340702

    Carrera, R., Aparicio, A., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., & Alonso-Garc ´ ıa, J. 2002, AJ, 123, 3199, doi: 10.1086/340702

    2002 doi

  20. [32]

    I., Pawlowski, M

    Casetti-Dinescu, D. I., Pawlowski, M. S., Girard, T. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08252, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08252

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [33]

    2004, ApJ, 616, 498, doi: 10.1086/424907

    Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., Castelli, F., & Pietrinferni, A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 498, doi: 10.1086/424907

    2004 doi

  22. [34]

    Karachentsev, I. D. 2013, AJ, 146, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/126

    2013 doi

  23. [35]

    I., Guhathakurta, P., & Johnston, K

    Choi, P. I., Guhathakurta, P., & Johnston, K. V. 2002, AJ, 124, 310, doi: 10.1086/341041

    2002 doi

  24. [36]

    R., Brooks, A

    Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a

    2024 doi

  25. [37]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 624, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14722.x

    Coelho, P., Mendes de Oliveira, C., & Cid Fernandes, R. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 624, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14722.x

    2009

  26. [38]

    E., Kalirai, J

    Cohen, R. E., Kalirai, J. S., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae52d 43

    2018 doi

  27. [39]

    A., Weisz, D

    Cole, A. A., Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/54

    2014 doi

  28. [40]

    A., Weisz, D

    Cole, A. A., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df6

    2017 doi

  29. [41]

    Collins, M. L. M., Charles, E. J. E., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 515, L72, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac063

    doi

  30. [42]

    Collins, M. L. M., Williams, B. F., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 517, 4382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2794

    doi

  31. [43]

    Collins, M. L. M., Chapman, S. C., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2411, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17069.x

    2010

  32. [44]

    Collins, M. L. M., Chapman, S. C., Rich, R. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/172

    2013 doi

  33. [45]

    Collins, M. L. M., Karim, N., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae199

    2024 doi

  34. [46]

    R., Lewis, G

    Conn, A. R., Lewis, G. F., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/120

    2013 doi

  35. [47]

    R., McMonigal, B., Bate, N

    Conn, A. R., McMonigal, B., Bate, N. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw513 Crnojevi´ c, D., Ferguson, A. M. N., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2003 Da Costa, G. S., Armandroff, T. E., & Caldwell, N. 2002, AJ, 124, 332,...

    2016 doi

  36. [48]

    1996, AJ, 112, 2576, doi: 10.1086/118204 —

    Seitzer, P. 1996, AJ, 112, 2576, doi: 10.1086/118204 —. 2000, AJ, 119, 705, doi: 10.1086/301223

    1996 doi

  37. [49]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67

    2009 doi

  38. [50]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18 Dall’Ora, M., Clementini, G., Kinemuchi, K., et al. 2006, ApJL, 653, L109, doi: 10.1086/510665

    2012 doi

  39. [51]

    E., Carlsten, S., et al

    Danieli, S., Greene, J. E., Carlsten, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefbd de Boer, T. J. L., Tolstoy, E., Lemasle, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424119 de Grijs, R., & Bono, G. 2014, AJ, 148, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/17

    2023 doi

  40. [52]

    J., & Belokurov, V

    Deason, A. J., & Belokurov, V. 2024, NewAR, 99, 101706, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706

    2024

  41. [53]

    J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R

    Deason, A. J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/5

    2016 doi

  42. [54]

    R., Koposov, S

    Dey, A., Najita, J. R., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca5f8

    2023 doi

  43. [55]

    F., Fattahi, A., et al

    Digby, R., Navarro, J. F., Fattahi, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz745

    2019 doi

  44. [56]

    F., Thomas, G

    Doliva-Dolinsky, A., Martin, N. F., Thomas, G. F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd5

    2022 doi

  45. [57]

    F., Yuan, Z., et al

    Doliva-Dolinsky, A., Martin, N. F., Yuan, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf6

    2023 doi

  46. [58]

    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. http://ascl.net/1608.013

    2016

  47. [59]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630 —. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05271.x —. 2012, ApJ, 751, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/60 —. 2013, ApJ, 775, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/76

    2000

  48. [60]

    E., Saha, A., Skillman, E

    Dolphin, A. E., Saha, A., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 187, doi: 10.1086/375761 D’Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0533-x —. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1283

    2003 doi

  49. [61]

    J., & Roweth, D

    Duane, S., Kennedy, A., Pendleton, B. J., & Roweth, D. 1987, Physics Letters B, 195, 216, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X

    1987 doi

  50. [62]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    2016 doi

  51. [63]

    D., et al

    Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Joshi, G. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1357

    2023 doi

  52. [64]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2437

    Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Pasquali, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2437

    2021 doi

  53. [65]

    2021, AJ, 162, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfec4

    Guhathakurta, P. 2021, AJ, 162, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfec4

    2021 doi

  54. [66]

    N., Gilbert, K

    Escala, I., Kirby, E. N., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb474

    2020 doi

  55. [67]

    Escala, I., Quirk, A. C. N., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca9cd

    2023 doi

  56. [70]

    Ferguson, A. M. N., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Tanvir, N. R. 2002, AJ, 124, 1452, doi: 10.1086/342019

    2002 doi

  57. [71]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2694

    Fernando, N., Arias, V., Guglielmo, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2694

    2017 doi

  58. [72]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2483

    Power, C. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2483

    2018 doi

  59. [73]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Kelley, T., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04180. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.04180

    2019 arXiv

  60. [74]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 44

    2013 doi

  61. [75]

    Frebel, A., & Norris, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423

    2015 doi

  62. [76]

    W., Weisz, D

    Fu, S. W., Weisz, D. R., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3665 —. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04698, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04698 —. 2024b, ApJ, 965, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25ed

    2022 doi arXiv

  63. [77]

    2015, ApJL, 811, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L18

    Gallart, C., Monelli, M., Mayer, L., et al. 2015, ApJL, 811, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L18

    2015 doi

  64. [78]

    J., Wetzel, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Gandhi, P. J., Wetzel, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1584

    2024 doi

  65. [79]

    2017a, MNRAS, 464, 3108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2564

    Bardwell, E. 2017a, MNRAS, 464, 3108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2564

    doi

  66. [80]

    S., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2017b, MNRAS, 471, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1710

    doi

  67. [81]

    F., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4574, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2507

    2019 doi

  68. [82]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/114

    Geha, M., Weisz, D., Grocholski, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/114

    2015 doi

  69. [83]

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

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

    2017 doi

  70. [84]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14499

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [85]

    M., Kirby, E

    Gilbert, K. M., Kirby, E. N., Escala, I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3807

    2019 doi

  72. [86]

    M., Kalirai, J

    Gilbert, K. M., Kalirai, J. S., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/76

    2014 doi

  73. [87]

    S., Bullock, J

    Graus, A. S., Bullock, J. S., Fitts, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2649

    2019 doi

  74. [88]

    K., Gallagher, John S., I., & Harbeck, D

    Grebel, E. K., Gallagher, John S., I., & Harbeck, D. 2003, AJ, 125, 1926, doi: 10.1086/368363

    2003 doi

  75. [89]

    P., Greene, J

    Greco, J. P., Greene, J. E., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab842

    2018 doi

  76. [90]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  77. [91]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 3543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt435

    Hammer, F., Yang, Y., Fouquet, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt435

    2013 doi

  78. [92]

    B., Wang, J

    Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., Wang, J. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3343

    2018 doi

  79. [93]

    K., Holtzman, J., et al

    Harbeck, D., Grebel, E. K., Holtzman, J., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 3092, doi: 10.1086/324232

    2001 doi

  80. [94]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    2018 doi

  81. [95]

    L., Aparicio, A., Skillman, E., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Aparicio, A., Skillman, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/14

    2011 doi

  82. [96]

    L., Monelli, M., Aparicio, A., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Monelli, M., Aparicio, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/103

    2013 doi

  83. [97]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158

    2018 doi

  84. [98]

    R., McConnachie, A

    Higgs, C. R., McConnachie, A. W., Annau, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab002

    2021 doi

  85. [99]

    J., et al

    Ho, N., Geha, M., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/77

    2015 doi

  86. [100]

    R., et al

    Ho, N., Geha, M., Munoz, R. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/124

    2012 doi

  87. [101]

    A., Afonso, C., & Dolphin, A

    Holtzman, J. A., Afonso, C., & Dolphin, A. 2006, ApJS, 166, 534, doi: 10.1086/507074

    2006 doi

  88. [102]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  89. [103]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  90. [104]

    M., Guhathakurta, P., van der Marel, R., et al

    Howley, K. M., Guhathakurta, P., van der Marel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/65

    2013 doi

  91. [105]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  92. [106]

    2001, Nature, 412, 49, doi: 10.1038/35083506

    Tanvir, N. 2001, Nature, 412, 49, doi: 10.1038/35083506

    2001 doi

  93. [107]

    F., Irwin, M., et al

    Ibata, R., Martin, N. F., Irwin, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1591, doi: 10.1086/522574

    2007 doi

  94. [108]

    A., Ibata, N

    Ibata, R. A., Ibata, N. G., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2014, ApJL, 784, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/1/L6

    2014 doi

  95. [109]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Conn, A. R., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 62, doi: 10.1038/nature11717

    2013 doi

  96. [110]

    J., Ferguson, A

    Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Huxor, A. P., et al. 2008, ApJL, 676, L17, doi: 10.1086/587100

    2008 doi

  97. [111]

    D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al

    Joshi, G. D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2573

    2021 doi

  98. [112]

    S., Zucker, D

    Kalirai, J. S., Zucker, D. B., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1043, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/1043

    2009 doi

  99. [113]

    S., Beaton, R

    Kalirai, J. S., Beaton, R. L., Geha, M. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 671, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/671

    2010 doi

  100. [114]

    D., Kaisina, E

    Karachentsev, I. D., Kaisina, E. I., & Makarov, D. I. 2014, AJ, 147, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/13

    2014 doi

  101. [115]

    2015, AJ, 150, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/90

    Karczmarek, P., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Gieren, W., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/90

    2015 doi

  102. [116]

    N., Cohen, J

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

    2013 doi

  103. [117]

    N., Gilbert, K

    Kirby, E. N., Gilbert, K. M., Escala, I., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f0f

    2020 doi

  104. [118]

    K., Wyse, R

    Koch, A., Grebel, E. K., Wyse, R. F. G., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 895, doi: 10.1086/499490

    2006 doi

  105. [119]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1439

    Kravtsov, A., & Manwadkar, V. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1439

    2022 doi

  106. [120]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  107. [121]

    2008, ApJL, 674, L81, doi: 10.1086/529137 45

    Kuehn, C., Kinemuchi, K., Ripepi, V., et al. 2008, ApJL, 674, L81, doi: 10.1086/529137 45

    2008 doi

  108. [122]

    Lane, J. M. M., Bovy, J., & Mackereth, J. T. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2834

    2023 doi

  109. [123]

    Lee, M. G. 1995, AJ, 110, 1129, doi: 10.1086/117592

    1995 doi

  110. [124]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Lewis, A. R., Dolphin, A. E., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/183

    2015 doi

  111. [125]

    T., & Bovy, J

    Mackereth, J. T., & Bovy, J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa047

    2020 doi

  112. [126]

    R., Beaton, R

    Majewski, S. R., Beaton, R. L., Patterson, R. J., et al. 2007, ApJL, 670, L9, doi: 10.1086/524033

    2007 doi

  113. [127]

    H., et al

    Mao, Y.-Y., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abce58 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14498, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14498

    2021 doi arXiv

  114. [128]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 1127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12148.x

    Mapelli, M., Ripamonti, E., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12148.x

    2007

  115. [129]

    F., Ibata, R

    Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1983, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10823.x

    2006

  116. [130]

    F., Ibata, R

    Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 776, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/80

    doi

  117. [131]

    F., McConnachie, A

    Martin, N. F., McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 758, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/758

    2009 doi

  118. [132]

    F., Slater, C

    Martin, N. F., Slater, C. T., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 772, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/15

    doi

  119. [133]

    F., Schlafly, E

    Martin, N. F., Schlafly, E. F., Slater, C. T., et al. 2013c, ApJL, 779, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/779/1/L10

    doi

  120. [134]

    F., Ibata, R

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

    2016 doi

  121. [135]

    F., Weisz, D

    Martin, N. F., Weisz, D. R., Albers, S. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa901a Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., Karim, N., Charles, E. J. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 16, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2797 Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Monelli, M., Bono, G., et al. 2015...

    2017 doi

  122. [136]

    1998, AJ, 115, 1856, doi: 10.1086/300330

    Mateo, M., Hurley-Keller, D., & Nemec, J. 1998, AJ, 115, 1856, doi: 10.1086/300330

    1998 doi

  123. [137]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  124. [138]

    W., Higgs, C

    McConnachie, A. W., Higgs, C. R., Thomas, G. F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3740

    2021 doi

  125. [139]

    W., & Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., & Irwin, M. J. 2006a, MNRAS, 365, 902, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09771.x —. 2006b, MNRAS, 365, 1263, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09806.x

    2005

  126. [140]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1335, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06785.x

    2003

  127. [141]

    W., Huxor, A., Martin, N

    McConnachie, A. W., Huxor, A., Martin, N. F., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1009, doi: 10.1086/591313

    2008 doi

  128. [142]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 66, doi: 10.1038/nature08327

    2009 doi

  129. [143]

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

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

    2018 doi

  130. [144]

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

    2023 doi

  131. [145]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Mao, Y.-Y., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 967, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429b

    doi

  132. [146]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 297, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/297

    2010 doi

  133. [147]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/158

    2015 doi

  134. [148]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., B. Newman, M. J., Savino, A., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 961, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1105

    doi

  135. [149]

    V., Saviane, I., et al

    Momany, Y., Held, E. V., Saviane, I., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 973, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20067024

    2007 doi

  136. [150]

    C., Lauer, T

    Monachesi, A., Trager, S. C., Lauer, T. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/97

    2012 doi

  137. [151]

    R., & Pancino, E

    Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R., & Pancino, E. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 874, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08122.x

    2004

  138. [152]

    L., et al

    Monelli, M., Gallart, C., Hidalgo, S. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1864, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1864

    2010 doi

  139. [153]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/157

    Monelli, M., Cassisi, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/157

    2012 doi

  140. [154]

    E., Bernard, E

    Monelli, M., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Bernard, E. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 147, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/147 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b M¨ uller, O., Pawlowski, M. S., Jerjen, H., & Lelli, F...

    2016 doi

  141. [155]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    2020 doi

  142. [156]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  143. [157]

    K., Hoyt, T

    Oakes, E. K., Hoyt, T. J., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b07

    2022 doi

  144. [158]

    Patel, E., Besla, G., & Sohn, S. T. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2616

    2017 doi

  145. [159]

    Patel, E., & Mandel, K. S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc029

    2023 doi

  146. [160]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

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

    2020 doi

  147. [161]

    Pawlowski, M. S. 2018, Modern Physics Letters A, 33, 1830004, doi: 10.1142/S0217732318300045 —. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1185, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01452-7 46

    2018 doi

  148. [162]

    S., Bullock, J

    Pawlowski, M. S., Bullock, J. S., Kelley, T., & Famaey, B. 2019, ApJ, 875, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10e0

    2019 doi

  149. [163]

    S., & Sohn, S

    Pawlowski, M. S., & Sohn, S. T. 2021, ApJ, 923, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2aa9 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Ma, Y.-Z., Walker, M. G., & McConnachie, A. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu879

    2021 doi

  150. [164]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 21

    2007

  151. [165]

    M., Bridges, T

    Perrett, K. M., Bridges, T. J., Hanes, D. A., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2490, doi: 10.1086/340186

    2002 doi

  152. [166]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad335

    Pham, K., Kravtsov, A., & Manwadkar, V. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad335

    2023 doi

  153. [167]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3267

    Pietrinferni, A., Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3267

    2024 doi

  154. [168]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5

    Pietrinferni, A., Hidalgo, S., Cassisi, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5

    2021 doi

  155. [169]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  156. [170]

    2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pillepich, A., Sotillo-Ramos, D., Ramesh, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

    2024 arXiv

  157. [171]

    Preston, J., Erkal, D., Collins, M. L. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2327

    2024 doi

  158. [172]

    Preston, J., Collins, M. L. M., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2529

    2019 doi

  159. [173]

    E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A

    Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.07809. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.07809

    2021 arXiv

  160. [174]

    J., de Jong, R

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

    2011 doi

  161. [175]

    C., Irwin, M

    Richardson, J. C., Irwin, M. J., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/76

    2011 doi

  162. [176]

    Robertson, B. E. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 121, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120221-044656

    2022 doi

  163. [177]

    Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., & Bullock, J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21432.x

    2012

  164. [178]

    A., Arimoto, N., Caldwell, N., et al

    Rose, J. A., Arimoto, N., Caldwell, N., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 712, doi: 10.1086/427136

    2005 doi

  165. [179]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3871

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Monelli, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3871

    2021 doi

  166. [180]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab006

    Rusakov, V., Monelli, M., Gallart, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab006

    2021 doi

  167. [181]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2aa3

    Sacchi, E., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2aa3

    2021 doi

  168. [182]

    1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

    Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

    1993 doi

  169. [183]

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

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    2022 doi

  170. [184]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    Samuel, J., Pardasani, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    2023 doi

  171. [185]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab955

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Chapman, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab955

    2021 doi

  172. [186]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1706

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Santistevan, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1706

    2022 doi

  173. [187]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3054

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3054

    2020 doi

  174. [188]

    R., Weisz, D

    Sandford, N. R., Weisz, D. R., & Ting, Y.-S. 2020, ApJS, 249, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cb0

    2020 doi

  175. [189]

    B., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., Sanderson, R

    Santistevan, I. B., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., Sanderson, R. E., & Samuel, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3100

    2023 doi

  176. [190]

    Pawlowski, M. S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3130

    2020 doi

  177. [191]

    2015, A&A, 583, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527072

    Savino, A., Salaris, M., & Tolstoy, E. 2015, A&A, 583, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527072

    2015 doi

  178. [192]

    Savino, A., Tolstoy, E., Salaris, M., Monelli, M., & de Boer, T. J. L. 2019, A&A, 630, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936077

    2019 doi

  179. [193]

    R., Skillman, E

    Savino, A., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91cb —. 2023, ApJ, 956, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf46f

    2022 doi

  180. [194]

    E., et al

    Savino, A., Gennaro, M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e2f

    2024 doi

  181. [195]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 481, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z

    Sawala, T., Cautun, M., Frenk, C., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 481, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z

    2023 doi

  182. [196]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 S´ ersic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    2011 doi

  183. [197]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  184. [198]

    D., & Geha, M

    Simon, J. D., & Geha, M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 313, doi: 10.1086/521816

    2007 doi

  185. [199]

    M., Grand, R

    Simpson, C. M., Grand, R. J. J., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty774

    2018 doi

  186. [200]

    D., Tolstoy, E., Cole, A

    Skillman, E. D., Tolstoy, E., Cole, A. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 596, 253, doi: 10.1086/377635

    2003 doi

  187. [201]

    D., Hidalgo, S

    Skillman, E. D., Hidalgo, S. L., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/44

    2014 doi

  188. [202]

    D., Monelli, M., Weisz, D

    Skillman, E. D., Monelli, M., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c5

    2017 doi

  189. [203]

    T., Bell, E

    Slater, C. T., Bell, E. F., & Martin, N. F. 2011, ApJL, 742, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L14

    2011 doi

  190. [204]

    F., Price, P

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

    2018 doi

  191. [205]

    T., Anderson, J., & van der Marel, R

    Sohn, S. T., Anderson, J., & van der Marel, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 753, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/7 47

    2012 doi

  192. [206]

    T., Patel, E., Fardal, M

    Sohn, S. T., Patel, E., Fardal, M. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf49

    2020 doi

  193. [207]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  194. [208]

    B., Fiorentino, G., Bono, G., et al

    Stetson, P. B., Fiorentino, G., Bono, G., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 616, doi: 10.1086/677352

    2014 doi

  195. [209]

    B., & Harris, W

    Stetson, P. B., & Harris, W. E. 1988, AJ, 96, 909, doi: 10.1086/114856

    1988 doi

  196. [210]

    2022, A&A, 665, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243508

    Taibi, S., Battaglia, G., Leaman, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243508

    2022 doi

  197. [211]

    J., Beaton, R

    Tollerud, E. J., Beaton, R. L., Geha, M. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/45

    2012 doi

  198. [212]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  199. [213]

    J., Helmi, A., et al

    Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M. J., Helmi, A., et al. 2004, ApJL, 617, L119, doi: 10.1086/427388 van den Bergh, S. 1972, ApJL, 171, L31, doi: 10.1086/180861 —. 1974, ApJ, 191, 271, doi: 10.1086/152964 van der Marel, R. P., Fardal, M. A., Sohn, S. T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 24, doi: 10....

    2004 doi

  200. [214]

    C., Geha, M

    Vargas, L. C., Geha, M. C., & Tollerud, E. J. 2014, ApJ, 790, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/73

    2014 doi

  201. [215]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  202. [216]

    T., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al

    Warfield, J. T., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 23, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acbb72

    2023 doi

  203. [217]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 789, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/147 —. 2014b, ApJ, 789, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/148

    doi

  204. [218]

    R., Johnson, B

    Weisz, D. R., Johnson, B. D., & Conroy, C. 2014c, ApJL, 794, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L3

    doi

  205. [219]

    R., Savino, A., & Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Savino, A., & Dolphin, A. E. 2023, ApJ, 948, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc328

    2023 doi

  206. [220]

    R., Dalcanton, J

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

    2011 doi

  207. [221]

    R., Martin, N

    Weisz, D. R., Martin, N. F., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4b52

    2019 doi

  208. [222]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Savino, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2600 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2024 doi

  209. [223]

    C., Sanderson, R

    Wetzel, A., Hayward, C. C., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acb99a

    2023 doi

  210. [224]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23

    2016 doi

  211. [225]

    2009, ApJL, 695, L15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L15

    Holtzman, J., & Sarajedini, A. 2009, ApJL, 695, L15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L15

    2009 doi

  212. [226]

    F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J

    Williams, B. F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/9

    2014 doi

  213. [227]

    F., Durbin, M

    Williams, B. F., Durbin, M. J., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abdf4e

    2021 doi

  214. [228]

    M., Kirby, E

    Wojno, J., Gilbert, K. M., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ccb

    2020 doi

  215. [229]

    2004, AJ, 128, 2826, doi: 10.1086/426359

    Worthey, G. 2004, AJ, 128, 2826, doi: 10.1086/426359

    2004 doi

  216. [230]

    B., Kniazev, A

    Zucker, D. B., Kniazev, A. Y., Bell, E. F., et al. 2004a, ApJL, 612, L117, doi: 10.1086/424706 —. 2004b, ApJL, 612, L121, doi: 10.1086/424691

    doi

  217. [231]

    B., Kniazev, A

    Zucker, D. B., Kniazev, A. Y., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., et al. 2007, ApJL, 659, L21, doi: 10.1086/516748

    2007 doi

Pith tools

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