Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Caught in the Act of Quenching? -- A Population of Post-Starburst Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that roughly one in five spectroscopically confirmed ultra-diffuse galaxies is a post-starburst system, and that three of these seven systems are isolated, implying UDGs can quench without a dense environment.

desk verdict First spectroscopic population of post-starburst UDGs; the isolated members are intriguing, but missing error bars and a small sample keep the 20% fraction at the teaser level. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00117 v2 pith:O5NEC6N3 submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.GA

Loraine Sandoval Ascencio , M. C. Cooper , Dennis Zaritsky , Richard Donnerstein , Donghyeon J. Khim , Devontae C. Baxter This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxiespost-starburstgalaxyquenchingdwarfintegralfieldspectroscopySMUDGesKCWIevolution
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

Using Keck Cosmic Web Imager spectra of 44 candidate ultra-diffuse galaxies from the SMUDGes survey, the authors show that about 20% of the 35 confirmed UDGs display post-starburst signatures: strong Balmer absorption from recently formed A-type stars with little or no Hβ emission. Three of these seven systems sit more than 1.5 Mpc in projection from any massive galaxy, beyond the reach of likely backsplash or tidal quenching. The paper argues this is evidence that ultra-diffuse galaxies can quench without environmental assistance, most plausibly through star-formation feedback after a recent burst. If right, local UDGs do not follow a single quenching channel, and isolated quenched UDGs are not forbidden by current formation models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the post-starburst selection in the (A/K, Hβ EW) plane. A/K is the ratio of the best-fit A-type star to K-type star contribution in a linear combination of one K0/K1 and one A7 MILES template, fit to the continuum-subtracted KCWI spectrum over 3700–5500 Å. Galaxies with A/K > 0.3, negligible Hβ emission, and weak [OII] form the post-starburst spur: they have recent star formation (A stars) but no ongoing star formation. This two-population decomposition, inherited from classic E+A searches, is what lets the paper catch the short-lived transition phase; the environment analysis then measures projected distances to massive galaxies to test whether the quenching can be blamed on a host.

What would settle it

Take the seven candidate galaxies and look for Hα emission or ultraviolet light; if strong Hα or bright UV is detected in the three isolated systems, star formation has not actually stopped and the post-starburst classification fails. A second check is to refit the same spectra with full stellar-population models that include dust and varied metallicity; if the best-fit A-star fractions drop below the adopted threshold, the identified population disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a population of seven post-starburst ultra-diffuse galaxies in the local universe, identified from Keck/KCWI spectra of 44 SMUDGes candidates. After fitting a linear combination of A7 and K0/K1 stellar templates to continuum-subtracted spectra, the authors select galaxies with A/K > 0.3, Hβ EW < A/K + 0.5 Å, and [OII] EW < 6 Å; seven of the 35 confirmed UDGs meet these criteria. These galaxies show deep Balmer absorption from young A stars but little or no ongoing star formation, the spectroscopic signature of a galaxy caught shortly after quenching. Four are plausibly satellites of massive groups or clusters, but three lie more than 1.5 Mpc in projection from any massive galaxy, and two of those are more than 2–3 virial radii from any potential host. The paper reads these three as evidence that quenching can occur in isolation, likely through star-formation feedback after a recent burst.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that fitting a galaxy's spectrum with one young A-type star and one old K-type star, after removing the continuum, truly measures how many A stars are present without deleting real hydrogen emission from the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ~20% fraction holds for the broader SMUDGes UDG population, local UDGs are not simply a mix of star-forming field dwarfs and quenched cluster dwarfs; a substantial fraction are caught mid-transition.
  • The three isolated post-starburst UDGs imply that at least some UDG quenching does not require ram-pressure stripping, tidal stripping, or backsplash from a massive host.
  • Because the A-star phase lasts only of order a gigayear, finding 20% of confirmed UDGs in this phase implies a high rate of recent quenching, or of recycling between star-forming and quenched states, in UDGs.
  • The result supports feedback-driven size growth and quenching in low-mass diffuse galaxies, since a recent burst can both puff up the stellar distribution and temporarily shut off star formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editor-level extension: the single isolated post-starburst with residual [OII]/Hβ emission (SMDG0015208+200027) is a natural target for deep Hα or HI follow-up to test whether quenching is complete or only a lull.
  • If the same selection is applied to a larger spectroscopic sample of SMUDGes UDGs, a 20% post-starburst fraction would imply UDGs cycle through bursts and quiescence more violently than normal dwarfs, a claim the present sample is too small to confirm.
  • A testable prediction follows: isolated post-starburst UDGs should show disturbed or extended stellar morphologies from recent feedback, and their gas reservoirs may be partially retained, so HI mapping could distinguish feedback-driven quenching from gas exhaustion.
  • Applying the same A/K and Hβ method to intermediate-redshift UDGs would show whether this isolated quenching channel was more common in the past, when gas fractions and burst rates were higher.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. Sandoval Ascencio et al. present KCWI spectroscopy of 44 UDG candidates from SMUDGes, confirming 35 as UDGs. Fitting a linear combination of A7 and K0/K1 stellar templates to continuum-subtracted spectra and measuring Hbeta and [OII] equivalent widths, they identify 7 post-starburst UDGs, or ~20% of the confirmed UDG sample. They further find that 3 of these 7 are isolated (or at large projected distance from massive hosts) and argue that these systems demonstrate quenching mechanisms independent of environment. The paper frames this as evidence for diverse quenching pathways in UDGs.

Significance. If the classification is correct, this is a valuable discovery: post-starburst UDGs are rare and provide a direct view of recent quenching, and the isolated examples would challenge purely environmental quenching models. The paper's strengths are its use of a standard K+A classification approach, presentation of the spectra (Figure 5 indeed shows deep Balmer absorption), and a documented comparison to SDSS. However, the quantitative claims—the 20% fraction and the isolation of 3 systems—rest on a two-template decomposition whose uncertainties are not quantified at the masses and signal-to-noise of the UDG sample, and the SDSS validation is at much higher stellar masses. The conclusions are plausible but need additional robustness tests before the population fraction and isolation counts can be fully accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.4; Fig. 4] The A/K ratio and Hbeta EW measurements are presented without statistical uncertainties. The only robustness test described is variation of the extraction window by ±20%, which tests aperture choice but not template mismatch, continuum placement, noise, or the two-population simplification. Given the selection boundary A/K > 0.3 and Hbeta EW < A/K + 0.5, the quoted ~20% scatter in A/K and ~25% in Hbeta EW could move systems across the selection cut. Please provide bootstrap or Monte Carlo uncertainties that include alternative stellar templates (the text says alternative templates give 'qualitatively similar' results, but no quantitative comparison is shown) and show error bars in Figure 4. This is load-bearing because the count of 7/35 depends on the exact placement of these measurements relative to the selection.
  2. [§2.5] The SDSS comparison sample used to validate the post-starburst selection spans stellar masses 10^9–10^11 Msun, whereas the UDGs studied here have masses ~10^7.5–10^8.5 Msun. The paper itself cites literature showing that the post-starburst fraction increases toward lower masses, so the ~1% fraction measured in the SDSS sample does not demonstrate that the selection is clean at the masses or signal-to-noise of the UDG sample. A low-mass comparison sample, or synthetic spectra with realistic S/N and metallicity, is needed to show that star-forming low-mass galaxies do not scatter into the post-starburst region defined by A/K > 0.3 and Hbeta EW < A/K + 0.5.
  3. [§4.1 and Abstract] The central fraction of 20% (7/35) is quoted without a statistical uncertainty and without a discussion of selection effects. With only seven objects, the Poisson 1-sigma uncertainty is roughly ±7 percentage points, so the 20% is not strongly distinguished from, e.g., 10% or 30%. In addition, the sample is not volume-limited: it is selected by g < 20, R_e > 5 arcsec, and mu_0,g < 25 mag arcsec^-2, and it excludes the Coma and Virgo cluster regions. Please provide a binomial or Poisson confidence interval for the fraction and clarify how the selection biases (e.g., the brightness/size bias visible in Fig. 1) affect the population-level claim.
  4. [§4.2] The environmental classification of SMDG0224231-031059 is contradictory. The text first states that the galaxy is 'likely unassociated' with the NGC 936 group (projected distance 0.7 Mpc, group virial radius <400 kpc), but later describes it as 'possibly a backsplash galaxy' that was recently quenched by the environment of NGC 936. Because the number of isolated post-starburst UDGs (3 of 7) is a central result, this contradiction must be resolved. The isolation analysis also relies on projected distances to massive galaxies in the NSA; please state explicitly whether the three 'isolated' systems lie within the NSA footprint and discuss the impact of NSA incompleteness (four KCWI targets were already excluded near the NSA edge).
  5. [§3.2] The reduction from 13 post-starburst candidates to 7 post-starburst UDGs is ambiguous. The text states that 8 of the 13 candidates are UDGs, then says that the [OII] < 6 Å cut removes one candidate, yielding 7 post-starburst UDGs, but it is not explicitly stated that the removed source is one of the 8 UDG candidates. The gold cross in Figure 4 should be identified in Table 1 or the text, and the denominator (35 confirmed UDGs) should be clearly distinguished from the 42 secure-redshift sources. Clarifying this step is necessary for the reader to verify the 20% figure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §4.1] The fraction is given as '20%' in the abstract and '~20% (7/35)' in the text; please standardize the notation.
  2. [§3.1] 35/42 is 83%, not ~85%; adjust the stated confirmation fraction or round explicitly.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The median errors shown in red are for the SDSS sample only; if KCWI error bars are omitted for clarity, state this in the caption or add them.
  4. [§2.4] The adopted velocity width of 75 km/s appears smaller than the KCWI instrumental resolution at R~1800 (c/R ~ 170 km/s at 4500 Å); clarify whether this is the intrinsic dispersion or a typo.
  5. [Table 1] Table 1 does not include the measured A/K, Hbeta EW, and [OII] EW values; adding these columns would make the classification transparent and reproducible.
  6. [§4.1] The statement that the target population was 'largely unbiased' relative to SMUDGes is made in the context of galaxy color; Figure 1 shows a clear brightness/size bias, so please restrict the unbiased claim to color or add a caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the post-starburst classification is an externally-anchored empirical cut, not a reduction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that 7/35 spectroscopically confirmed UDGs show post-starburst signatures. The derivation chain is: (1) KCWI spectra are fit with a linear combination of MILES A7 and K0/K1 stellar templates, giving A/K; (2) H-beta EW is measured on the residual after subtracting the best-fit K+A template; (3) objects are selected as post-starburst using A/K > 0.3, H-beta EW < (A/K) + 0.5, and [OII] EW < 6 Å; (4) the same procedure applied to 30,000 SDSS galaxies yields a ~1% post-starburst fraction consistent with prior literature. None of these steps defines the post-starburst claim in terms of itself: the UDG classification uses independent photometric sizes and spectroscopic redshifts, the post-starburst thresholds are adopted from earlier external papers (e.g., Quintero et al. 2004; Zabludoff et al. 1996), and the SDSS comparison provides an external sanity check. The only coupling is that the H-beta residual is computed after subtracting the same composite template that sets A/K, so the two selection variables are not fully independent. This is a methodological robustness concern about template mismatch and emission-line subtraction, not a circular reduction: the quoted selection inequality does not reduce by construction to the fitted A/K, and the paper's own tests show only ~20-25% scatter in these quantities with extraction window. Self-citations to SMUDGes and Zaritsky et al. provide the target catalog and photometry but are not used to justify the post-starburst classification itself. Therefore no circular step meeting the required 'specific reduction by equation or by definition' standard is present.

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

The paper does not fit any free parameters to produce its central discovery; the listed thresholds are hand-chosen boundaries adopted from the post-starburst literature and UDG definitions. They directly set the sample sizes (13 candidates, 7 UDGs, 35 confirmed UDGs) and therefore the headline percentages. The environmental interpretation adds assumptions about the completeness of the NSA catalog and about what projected distances mean for backsplash or infall.

free parameters (5)
  • A/K threshold = 0.3
    Post-starburst selection boundary in Figure 4; hand-chosen based on the spur in the A/K vs Hbeta EW plane and prior literature. Changing it changes the 13 candidates and the 7 UDG count.
  • Hbeta EW upper limit = EW(Hbeta) < (A/K) + 0.5 Å
    Same selection boundary; linear slope chosen to isolate low-emission, high-A/K sources. Not derived from a model.
  • [OII] EW limit = 6 Å
    Used to remove one candidate with significant emission; adopted from prior post-starburst studies, but the cut affects the final sample size.
  • UDG size threshold = R_e > 1 kpc
    Defines the denominator of 35 confirmed UDGs; a stricter cut at 1.5 kpc reduces the sample and the inference would change.
  • UDG surface brightness threshold = mu_g < 24 mag/arcsec2 (target selection uses mu_0,g < 25)
    The paper is not fully consistent in the surface brightness cut applied to classify UDGs, and this ambiguity affects which targets enter the confirmed UDG population.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A linear combination of one K0/K1 and one A7 stellar template can represent the integrated light of a UDG well enough to infer the A-star fraction.
    The A/K measurement in Section 2.4 assumes this two-template decomposition; template mismatch or a different stellar population mix would bias A/K.
  • domain assumption After subtracting the best-fit K+A composite, residual Hbeta emission (or lack thereof) traces ongoing star formation, and the adopted Hbeta absorption correction does not artificially suppress the emission measurement.
    Section 2.4: the Hbeta emission is measured after subtracting the K+A template; if the template over-subtracts the Balmer trough, the EW would be biased low, inflating the post-starburst classification.
  • domain assumption The SDSS comparison sample at 0.1 < z < 0.2 with M* ~ 1e9-1e11 M_sun provides a valid baseline for the ~1% post-starburst fraction.
    The paper uses this comparison to validate its selection, but the mass range is higher than the UDGs (1e7-1e9 M_sun), and post-starburst fractions are known to increase at low mass, weakening the benchmark.
  • domain assumption The NSA catalog is complete for M* > 1e10 M_sun galaxies to z < 0.06 in the survey footprint.
    The isolation classification in Section 4.2 relies on finding all massive neighbors within the NSA footprint; incompleteness near the edge or in the footprint gaps would misclassify isolated systems.
  • domain assumption Projected distance to a massive galaxy, with backsplash expectations from prior simulations, is sufficient to identify systems that are not influenced by a host.
    Section 4.2 classifies the three isolated post-starburst UDGs using projected distances; without full 3D velocities for neighbors, the systems could still be in infall/backsplash configurations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Caught in the Act of Quenching? -- A Population of Post-Starburst Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5NEC6N3

@misc{pith2026250200117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Caught in the Act of Quenching? -- A Population of Post-Starburst Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5NEC6N3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00117}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of post-starburst ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs), identified through spectroscopic analysis with KCWI at the Keck II Telescope. Our analysis is based on a sample of 44 candidate UDGs selected from the Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies (SMUDGes) program. Our measured spectroscopic redshifts reveal $\sim 85\%$ of the entire KCWI sample exhibit large physical sizes ($R_{e} \gtrsim 1~{\rm kpc}$) and low surface brightnesses ($24 \lesssim \mu_{0,g} \lesssim 25$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$) which categorize them as UDGs. We find $20\%$ of the confirmed UDG population contain post-starburst (or K+A) features, characterized by minimal to no emission in H$\beta$ indicative of quenched star formation and a predominant presence of spectral A-type stars. In surveying the local environments of the post-starburst UDGs, we find that nearly half are isolated systems, which is unusual given that isolated UDGs are most commonly found to be star-forming. Two of these systems reside $2-3~R_{\rm vir}$ away from potential nearby massive hosts ($M_{\star} >10^{10}~\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$), indicating the absence of environmental influence. These post-starburst UDGs may represent systems experiencing star formation feedback such that a recent burst may lead to (at least temporary) quenching. Overall, our results highlight the potentially diverse quenching pathways of UDGs in the local Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — (Left) The distribution of size versus apparent 𝑔-band magnitude for our KCWI targets (green closed and open stars) in comparison to the SMUDGes parent catalog (red and orange circles). The KCWI targets were selected from a subset of the SMUDGes catalog (orange circles), defined by 𝑔 < 20, 𝑅𝑒 > 5 ′′ , and 𝜇0,𝑔 < 25 mag arcsec−2 . The two KCWI targets plotted as open stars are the two systems without a secure spect… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — For three representative targets from our KCWI sample, we show Legacy Sky Survey 𝑔𝑟 𝑖 images (left), KCWI 2-d collapsed spectral images (center), and extracted KCWI 1-d spectra (right). The purple rectangles in the center panel show the window within which the 1-d spectra are extracted. The 1-d spectra (black lines) are smoothed using an inverse-variance weighting and a kernel of 5 Å. For comparison, the best-fit … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Relationship between half-light radius and 𝑔-band absolute magnitude for our KCWI sample (green and blue stars) relative to existing UDG (orange symbols, van Dokkum et al. 2015a; Rong et al. 2020; Leisman et al. 2017) and dwarf (grey circles, Eigenthaler et al. 2018) populations in the local Universe. The black dashed line at 𝑅𝑒 = 1 kpc defines our UDG size limit, while the magenta dashed line corresponds to a sur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — The distribution of H𝛽 EW versus A/K ratio for our KCWI sample (shaded squares) relative to a sample of 30,000 galaxies at 0.1 < 𝑧 < 0.2 selected from the SDSS (contours and grey circles). The dashed lines illustrate our post-starburst selection, which identifies 13 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Spectra of the 7 post-starburst UDGs from our KCWI sample. The extracted 1-d spectra are shown in black, smoothed using an inverse-variance weighting and a kernel of 5 Å, with the best-fit, composite A- and K-star template shown in blue. Each of these sources exhibit…

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. Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies. VIII. Misfits, Miscasts, and Miscreants

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The SMUDGes catalog is reclassified by visual morphology, leaving 6,553 clean UDG candidates and identifying 29 dwarf ring galaxies and 15 merger-sequence objects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aguerri J. A. L., Agulli I., M \'e ndez-Abreu J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1921A 477, 1921

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty692 2018

  2. [2]

    Almeida A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...44A 267, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  3. [3]

    C., Loeb A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459L..51A 459, L51

    Amorisco N. C., Loeb A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459L..51A 459, L51

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 2016

  4. [4]

    L., Morris S

    Balogh M. L., Morris S. L., Yee H. K. C., Carlberg R. G., Ellingson E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...527...54B 527, 54

    doi:10.1086/308056 1999

  5. [5]

    L., Navarro J

    Balogh M. L., Navarro J. F., Morris S. L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540..113B 540, 113

    doi:10.1086/309323 2000

  6. [6]

    Baron D., Poznanski D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4530B 465, 4530

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3021 2017

  7. [7]

    Bautista J. M. G., Koda J., Yagi M., Komiyama Y., Yamanoi H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acd3e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...10B 267, 10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd3e7 2023

  8. [8]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1255B 5, 1255

    Benavides J. A., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1255B 5, 1255

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 2021

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    A., Sales L

    Benavides J. A., Sales L. V., Abadi M. G., Marinacci F., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.1033B 522, 1033

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Zaritsky D., Crnojevi \'c D., Spekkens K., Karunakaran A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aadedf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866L..11B 866, L11

    Bennet P., Sand D. J., Zaritsky D., Crnojevi \'c D., Spekkens K., Karunakaran A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aadedf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866L..11B 866, L11

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Bezanson R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3dfa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..153B 925, 153

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Kazin E., Muna D., Weaver B

    Blanton M. R., Kazin E., Muna D., Weaver B. A., Price-Whelan A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142...31B 142, 31

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Impey C

    Bothun G. D., Impey C. D., Malin D. F., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..404B 376, 404

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., White S. D. M., Tremonti C., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351.1151B 351, 1151

    2004

  7. [15]

    Carleton T., Errani R., Cooper M., Kaplinghat M., Pe \ n arrubia J., Guo Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..382C 485, 382

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Carleton T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953...83C 953, 83

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    C., McLure R

    Carnall A. C., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Dav \'e R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4379C 480, 4379

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Cava A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...495..707C 495, 707

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Kere s D., Wetzel A., Hopkins P

    Chan T. K., Kere s D., Wetzel A., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C. A., El-Badry K., Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..906C 478, 906

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..590C 500, 590

    Cleland C., McGee S. L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..590C 500, 590

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Huchra J

    Crook A. C., Huchra J. P., Martimbeau N., Masters K. L., Jarrett T., Macri L. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655..790C 655, 790

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Daddi E., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626..680D 626, 680

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Dey A., et al., 2016, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI. p. 99082C, @doi 10.1117/12.2231488

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Dey A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..168D 157, 168

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Dutton A

    Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., Obreja A., Dekel A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466L...1D 466, L1

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    Dressler A., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    1983 doi

  19. [27]

    Eigenthaler P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855..142E 855, 142

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    J., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585..694E 585, 694

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585..694E 585, 694

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Faber S

    Fang J. J., Faber S. M., Salim S., Graves G. J., Rich R. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761...23F 761, 23

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Fasano G., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...445..805F 445, 805

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    arXiv:2401.01931

    Fielder C., Jones M., Sand D., Bennet P., Crnojevic D., Karunakaran A., Mutlu-Pakdil B., Spekkens K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.01931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240101931F p. arXiv:2401.01931

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    P., Cooper M

    Fillingham S. P., Cooper M. C., Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J. S., Garrison-Kimmel S., Wheeler C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4491F 477, 4491

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Flaugher B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..150F 150, 150

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525L..93F 525, L93

    Forbes D. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525L..93F 525, L93

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Yang Y., Zabludoff A

    French K. D., Yang Y., Zabludoff A. I., Tremonti C. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862....2F 862, 2

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Freundlich J., Dekel A., Jiang F., Ishai G., Cornuault N., Lapiner S., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4523F 491, 4523

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Fritz J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...566A..32F 566, A32

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., Tremonti C. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362...41G 362, 41

    2005

  31. [39]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3144G 502, 3144

    Gannon J. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3144G 502, 3144

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..946G 510, 946

    Gannon J. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..946G 510, 946

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Yan R., Tinker J

    Geha M., Blanton M. R., Yan R., Tinker J. L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...85G 757, 85

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    Gil de Paz A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..185G 173, 185

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    Goto T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12227.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381..187G 381, 187

    2007

  36. [44]

    Goto T., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/55.4.771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASJ...55..771G 55, 771

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    M., 2018, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JOSS....3..695G 3, 695

    Green G. M., 2018, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JOSS....3..695G 3, 695

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Chilingarian I

    Grishin K. A., Chilingarian I. V., Afanasiev A. V., Fabricant D., Katkov I. Y., Moran S., Yagi M., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01470-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1308G 5, 1308

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...26H 199, 26

    Huchra J. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...26H 199, 26

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..205H 152, 205

    Hutchinson T. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..205H 152, 205

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    Impey C., Bothun G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..267I 35, 267

    1997 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Dutton A

    Jiang F., Dekel A., Freundlich J., Romanowsky A. J., Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., Di Cintio A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1499 , 487, 5272

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J

    Johnson B. D., Leja J., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...22J 254, 22

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Bennet P., Mutlu-Pakdil B., Sand D

    Jones M. G., Bennet P., Mutlu-Pakdil B., Sand D. J., Spekkens K., Crnojevi \'c D., Karunakaran A., Zaritsky D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...72J 919, 72

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    L., RS P., Karunakaran A., Spekkens K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..257K 923, 257

    Kadowaki J., Zaritsky D., Donnerstein R. L., RS P., Karunakaran A., Spekkens K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..257K 923, 257

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...33K 341, 33

    2003

  47. [56]

    Koda J., Yagi M., Yamanoi H., Komiyama Y., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807L...2K 807, L2

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    Kriek M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2df9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...36K 966, 36

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Leisman L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842..133L 842, 133

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...24L 244, 24

    Leroy A. K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...24L 244, 24

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    Liao S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5182L 490, 5182

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    Makarov D., Karachentsev I., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18071.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2498M 412, 2498

    2011

  53. [62]

    Mancini C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1265M 489, 1265

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.105M 654, A105

    Marleau F. R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.105M 654, A105

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    S., Ramsay S

    Martin C., Moore A., Morrissey P., Matuszewski M., Rahman S., Adkins S., Epps H., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy...

    2010 doi

  56. [65]

    Mart \' nez-Delgado D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...96M 151, 96

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    T., Simard L., Ellison S

    Mendel J. T., Simard L., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.2212M 429, 2212

    2013 doi

  58. [67]

    Meusinger H., Br \"u necke J., Schalldach P., in der Au A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A.134M 597, A134

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L..21M 809, L21

    Mihos J. C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L..21M 809, L21

    2015 doi

  60. [69]

    Moretti A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..81M 599, A81

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...93M 864, 93

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    B., Gunn J

    Oke J. B., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..713O 266, 713

    1983 doi

  63. [72]

    Papastergis E., Adams E. A. K., Romanowsky A. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...601L..10P 601, L10

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    Paturel G., Petit C., Prugniel P., Theureau G., Rousseau J., Brouty M., Dubois P., Cambr \'e sy L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...412...45P 412, 45

    2003 doi

  65. [74]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1708P 477, 1708

    Pawlik M. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1708P 477, 1708

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    M., Bridges T

    Poggianti B. M., Bridges T. J., Komiyama Y., Yagi M., Carter D., Mobasher B., Okamura S., Kashikawa N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..197P 601, 197

    2004 doi

  67. [76]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693..112P 693, 112

    Poggianti B. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693..112P 693, 112

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    J., van der Burg R

    Prole D. J., van der Burg R. F. J., Hilker M., Spitler L. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2049P 500, 2049

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    D., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602..190Q 602, 190

    Quintero A. D., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602..190Q 602, 190

    2004 doi

  70. [79]

    C., Courteau S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3209R 452, 3209

    Roediger J. C., Courteau S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3209R 452, 3209

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    Rom \'a n J., Trujillo I., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468..703R 468, 703

    doi

  72. [81]

    Rom \'a n J., Trujillo I., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4039R 468, 4039

    doi

  73. [82]

    A., Ruiz-Lara T., Valls-Gabaud D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..823R 486, 823

    Rom \'a n J., Beasley M. A., Ruiz-Lara T., Valls-Gabaud D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..823R 486, 823

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Zhang H.-X., Cao T., Puzia T

    Rong Y., Zhu K., Johnston E. J., Zhang H.-X., Cao T., Puzia T. H., Galaz G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aba8aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899L..12R 899, L12

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    V., Navarro J

    Sales L. V., Navarro J. F., Pe \ n afiel L., Peng E. W., Lim S., Hernquist L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1848S 494, 1848

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371..703S 371, 703

    2006

  77. [86]

    Sandage A., Binggeli B., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AJ.....89..919S 89, 919

    1984 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  79. [88]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...26S 846, 26

    Shi D. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...26S 846, 26

    2017 doi

  80. [89]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac404a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...89S 926, 89

    Suess K. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac404a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...89S 926, 89

    2022 doi

  81. [90]

    G., Stoica R

    Tempel E., Kruuse M., Kipper R., Tuvikene T., Sorce J. G., Stoica R. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..81T 618, A81

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    W., Theuns T., Bower R

    Trayford J. W., Theuns T., Bower R. G., Crain R. A., Lagos C. d. P., Schaller M., Schaye J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3925T 460, 3925

    2016 doi

  83. [92]

    C., Brooks A

    Tremmel M., Wright A. C., Brooks A. M., Munshi F., Nagai D., Quinn T. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.2786T 497, 2786

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..171T 149, 171

    Tully R. B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..171T 149, 171

    2015 doi

  85. [94]

    B., Shaya E

    Tully R. B., Shaya E. J., Karachentsev I. D., Courtois H. M., Kocevski D. D., Rizzi L., Peel A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..184T 676, 184

    2008 doi

  86. [95]

    R., Tinker J

    Wetzel A. R., Tinker J. L., Conroy C., van den Bosch F. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2687W 439, 2687

    2014 doi

  87. [96]

    Wild V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1880W 440, 1880

    2014 doi

  88. [97]

    Wild V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..529W 494, 529

    2020 doi

  89. [98]

    I., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20159.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.1684W 420, 1684

    Wong O. I., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20159.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.1684W 420, 1684

    2012

  90. [99]

    M., Gonzalez J

    Worthey G., Faber S. M., Gonzalez J. J., Burstein D., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...94..687W 94, 687

    1994 doi

  91. [100]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  92. [101]

    C., Tremmel M., Brooks A

    Wright A. C., Tremmel M., Brooks A. M., Munshi F., Nagai D., Sharma R. S., Quinn T. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5370W 502, 5370

    2021 doi

  93. [102]

    Yagi M., Koda J., Komiyama Y., Yamanoi H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...11Y 225, 11

    2016 doi

  94. [103]

    A., Faber S

    Yan R., Newman J. A., Faber S. M., Konidaris N., Koo D., Davis M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648..281Y 648, 281

    2006 doi

  95. [104]

    Yan R., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15192.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..735Y 398, 735

    2009

  96. [105]

    I., Zaritsky D., Lauer T

    Yang Y., Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., Lauer T. R., Mihos J. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...607..258Y 607, 258

    2004 doi

  97. [106]

    M., Faber S

    Yesuf H. M., Faber S. M., Trump J. R., Koo D. C., Fang J. J., Liu F. S., Wild V., Hayward C. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...84Y 792, 84

    2014 doi

  98. [107]

    M., Kurucz R

    Yoon J., Peterson D. M., Kurucz R. L., Zagarello R. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708...71Y 708, 71

    2010 doi

  99. [108]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  100. [109]

    I., Zaritsky D., Lin H., Tucker D., Hashimoto Y., Shectman S

    Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., Lin H., Tucker D., Hashimoto Y., Shectman S. A., Oemler A., Kirshner R. P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...466..104Z 466, 104

    1996 doi

  101. [110]

    Zaritsky D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaefe9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..240....1Z 240, 1

    2019 doi

  102. [111]

    E., Dey A., Kadowaki J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...60Z 257, 60

    Zaritsky D., Donnerstein R., Karunakaran A., Barbosa C. E., Dey A., Kadowaki J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...60Z 257, 60

    2021 doi

  103. [112]

    E., Dey A., Kadowaki J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6ceb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261...11Z 261, 11

    Zaritsky D., Donnerstein R., Karunakaran A., Barbosa C. E., Dey A., Kadowaki J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6ceb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261...11Z 261, 11

    2022 doi

  104. [113]

    J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...27Z 267, 27

    Zaritsky D., Donnerstein R., Dey A., Karunakaran A., Kadowaki J., Khim D. J., Spekkens K., Zhang H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...27Z 267, 27

    2023 doi

  105. [114]

    E., Nersesian A., Bezanson R., van der Wel A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd84a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952....6Z 952, 6

    Zhang J., Li Y., Leja J., Whitaker K. E., Nersesian A., Bezanson R., van der Wel A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd84a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952....6Z 952, 6

    2023 doi

  106. [115]

    Zou H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129f4101Z 129, 064101

    2017 doi

  107. [116]

    de Blok W. J. G., McGaugh S. S., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/290.3.533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.290..533D 290, 533

    1997 doi

  108. [117]

    G., Abraham R., Merritt A., Zhang J., Geha M., Conroy C., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798L..45V 798, L45

    van Dokkum P. G., Abraham R., Merritt A., Zhang J., Geha M., Conroy C., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798L..45V 798, L45

    doi

  109. [118]

    G., et al., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..26V 804, L26

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L..26V 804, L26

    doi

  110. [119]

    van Dokkum P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828L...6V 828, L6

    2016 doi

  111. [120]

    van der Burg R. F. J., Muzzin A., Hoekstra H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...590A..20V 590, A20

    2016 doi

  112. [121]

    van der Burg R. F. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607A..79V 607, A79

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.