Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Predictions for the Detectability of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies and Outer-Halo Star Clusters with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper calculates that Rubin's LSST should detect 89 ± 20 Milky Way satellite galaxies, falling to 67–83 with realistic star/galaxy separation, and that faint compact systems are recovered with >50% efficiency out to ~250 kpc.

desk verdict A careful, useful LSST satellite forecast whose headline 89±20 is not broken, but the quoted uncertainty omits the one systematic that could move it most: the search is run at each satellite's true distance modulus rather than over a blind grid. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16203 v2 pith:JQINDBCT submitted 2025-04-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Kabelo Tsiane , Sidney Mau , Alex Drlica-Wagner , Jeffrey L. Carlin , Peter S. Ferguson , Keith Bechtol , Ethan O. Nadler , Annika H. G. Peter
show 3 more authors
Yao-Yuan Mao Adam J. Thornton The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords MilkyWaysatellitesultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesstar-galaxyseparationLegacySurveyofSpaceandTimeobservationalselectionfunctionmatched-filtersearchDC2simulationsgalaxy-haloconnection
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

The paper's goal is to convert LSST's expected survey data into a concrete prediction of how many Milky Way satellite galaxies and outer-halo star clusters a standard search should find, and to locate where the main uncertainty lives. It injects $10^{5}$ simulated stellar systems into the DC2 simulated LSST catalog, with photometric scatter, detection completeness, and star/galaxy misclassification taken from the simulation itself, and measures the recovery rate of the matched-filter search. With perfect star/galaxy separation, systems as faint as $M_V = 0$ mag with half-light radius $r_{1/2} = 10$ pc are recovered with more than 50% efficiency out to roughly 250 kpc; realistic classification lowers the false-positive-limited yield from $89 \pm 20$ to $83 \pm 18$ or $67 \pm 14$ detectable satellites. These numbers imply that Rubin should more than double the known satellite census inside its footprint and push detections to fainter, more distant systems, with star/galaxy separation—not survey depth—as the main factor deciding how many are actually found.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three linked pieces. First, catalog-level injection: each artificial satellite is a Plummer-profile stellar population with a Chabrier initial mass function and Marigo isochrones, assigned detection, classification, and photometric-uncertainty properties from the DC2 catalog so it can be merged directly into the data. Second, the search: a matched-filter code (called 'simple' in the paper) that applies an isochrone color-magnitude selection, smooths the filtered density field, and outputs a Poisson detection significance SIG, whose 50% efficiency contour is parameterized by $\log_{10} r_{1/2} = A_0(D)/(M_V - M_{V,0}(D)) + \log_{10} r_{1/2,0}(D)$ at fixed $D$; a gradient-boosted decision tree trained on the $10^5$ outcomes captures the full efficiency surface. Third, population prediction: the resulting selection function is multiplied against the galaxy-halo connection model, applied to the masked ~18,300 deg2 wide-fast-deep footprint with extinction and bright-star masks, to produce the predicted luminosity function and the $89 \pm 20$ count.

What would settle it

Run the same matched-filter search on real early LSST wide-fast-deep images after injecting artificial satellites with known distance, size, and luminosity, and compare the recovered fraction with the 50% efficiency contour published here; in parallel, measure the actual star/galaxy classification efficiency near $r \sim 26$ mag using objects with independent morphological or proper-motion classifications and check whether it matches the DC2-derived curve that sets the predicted count.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a quantitative observational selection function for resolved Milky Way satellites: the probability of detection as a function of heliocentric distance $D$, absolute magnitude $M_V$, and half-light radius $r_{1/2}$, derived by injecting $10^5$ artificial satellites into DC2 and processing them with the isochrone matched-filter search. The headline finding is that $>50\%$ detection efficiency reaches $D \sim 250$ kpc for faint compact systems ($M_V \sim 0$ mag, $r_{1/2} \sim 10$ pc) under perfect star/galaxy separation, while the measured EXTENDEDNESS classification produces a 22.4% false-positive rate at the nominal significance threshold and requires raising the threshold from SIG $>5.5$ to SIG $>8.4$ to match the perfect-classification false-positive rate. Convolving the selection function with a galaxy-halo connection model fit to current data predicts $89 \pm 20$ detectable satellites within 300 kpc in the perfect-classification case, $83 \pm 18$ with measured classification, and $67 \pm 14$ after the threshold correction—corresponding to 53, 47, or 31 new discoveries beyond the 36 satellites already known in the LSST wide-fast-deep footprint.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction stands or falls on whether the stars-versus-galaxies classification and photometric scatter measured in a roughly three-square-degree simulated patch represent how the real Rubin telescope and pipelines will treat faint objects across the entire 18,300-square-degree wide-fast-deep footprint, especially near magnitude 26 where classification efficiency drops sharply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With perfect star/galaxy separation, the search should recover roughly 90% of the Milky Way's satellites with $M_V \lesssim 0$ mag, $r_{1/2} > 10$ pc, and $D < 300$ kpc that lie inside the LSST wide-fast-deep footprint.
  • New detections should be fainter, more distant, and lower in surface brightness than the current census, extending satellite searches toward the galaxy-formation threshold.
  • Under measured EXTENDEDNESS classification the false-positive rate is 22.4% at SIG > 5.5, which is why the realistic yield drops to $83 \pm 18$, or $67 \pm 14$ when the threshold is raised to match the perfect-classification false-positive rate.
  • The analytic contour and trained machine-learning model can be used directly to compute completeness corrections for any future LSST-derived satellite sample.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DC2 classification curve does not match real Rubin performance, the predicted count moves within the paper's stated 7–25% band; comparing early LSST point-source candidates against independent morphological or proper-motion classifications around $r \sim 26$ mag would settle which end of the 67–89 range is realized.
  • Because the paper publishes both an analytic contour and a machine-learning selection function, future survey-strategy variants can be evaluated by reweighting the same $10^5$ injections rather than rerunning the full simulation—an exercise the authors leave implicit.
  • The $89 \pm 20$ number, once real data arrive, becomes a test of the galaxy-halo connection itself: a robust count outside that range, after correcting for classification, would imply a different mapping between subhalos and luminous satellites at the faint end.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses simulated LSST data from DESC DC2 to derive a detection selection function for resolved Milky Way satellites and outer-halo star clusters. The authors inject 10^5 catalog-level stellar systems spanning log-uniform distances, masses, and sizes, run the simple isochrone matched-filter search under two star/galaxy classification scenarios (measured EXTENDEDNESS and perfect classification), characterize false positives with blank-sky null tests, and parameterize the resulting detection efficiency both analytically and with a gradient-boosted classifier. Combining this selection function with the Nadler et al. (2020) galaxy-halo model and the LSST WFD baseline footprint, they predict 89 +/- 20 detectable satellite galaxies for perfect star/galaxy separation, 83 +/- 18 for measured separation, and 67 +/- 14 after raising the threshold to equalize the false-positive rate. The main claim is that LSST will detect >50% of M_V = 0 mag, r_1/2 = 10 pc satellites out to ~250 kpc.

Significance. If the underlying simplification is valid, this is a valuable, quantitative upgrade over earlier analytic sensitivity estimates. Strengths include the large injection suite, injection at catalog level using DC2-derived photometric scatter, detection, and classification models, explicit null tests for background structure, a reproducible analysis path on the Rubin Science Platform, and the forward application of an independently fit galaxy-halo model without circular reuse of the target data. The prediction is falsifiable once LSST data accumulate, and the authors are transparent about several limitations. The central caveat is that the selection function is measured with the true distance modulus (and search region) supplied to the detector, so the headline prediction is conditional on an equivalence to a blind survey search that is asserted rather than demonstrated for DC2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Appendix A] The search is run at the true distance modulus of each injected satellite, and the false-positive control in Sections 3.2 and 4.1 is carried out in the same fixed-modulus configuration. A real WFD search over ~18,300 deg2 will scan a grid of distance moduli and independent sky positions, increasing the number of trials that must be held at the 2.3% false-positive rate used for the corrected scenario. The paper cites Drlica-Wagner et al. (2020) for the claim that this simplification induces trivial changes, but no test is shown for DC2; in fact, Section 4.1 demonstrates that the fixed distance modulus changes the overlap of the isochrone filter with misclassified background galaxies and produces a distance-dependent false-positive rate. Please rerun a subset of the 10^5 injections with the full distance-modulus scan (or at least several modulus offsets), compare the SIG distributions and 50% efficiency contours, compute the effective number of independent trials from blank-sky scans, and propagate the resulting threshold correction to the predicted number of detections. This is load-bearing because every efficiency contour and the headline 89 +/- 20 prediction is built on these fixed-distance significances.
  2. [Section 5 and Section 6] The population prediction uses a selection function that depends only on M_V, r_1/2, and D, with no dependence on foreground stellar density or sky position. DC2 is a single high-Galactic-latitude field, and the real WFD footprint spans a range of stellar densities even after the masks in Figure 7 are applied. The authors explicitly neglect this dependence in Section 5, but the magnitude of the resulting systematic is not quantified. Because the Nadler et al. (2020) model includes an LMC-associated anisotropic satellite distribution, a position-independent sensitivity can bias the 89 +/- 20 prediction in a nontrivial way. Please quantify this by injecting test satellites into regions of the footprint with different stellar densities, or by including stellar density as a feature in the machine-learning selection function and recomputing the predicted counts.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The quoted 89 +/- 20 uncertainty is sampled from the Nadler et al. (2020) posterior only; it does not include the distance-scan trial factor, the star/galaxy classification systematics, or the DC2-to-LSST transfer uncertainty. The paper itself reports the scenario spread (89, 83, 67), but the abstract headline uses 89 +/- 20, which is easily read as a total uncertainty. Please rephrase the headline so that the prediction is explicitly conditional on the simplifying assumptions, or provide a combined systematic uncertainty that includes the trial-factor and classification-model effects.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Please state the parameter cuts used for the headline prediction (M_V < 0 mag, r_1/2 > 10 pc, D < 300 kpc) in the abstract itself; as written, '89 +/- 20 Milky Way satellite galaxies will be detectable' could be read as the full satellite census.
  2. [Section 3.1] There is a typo: 'Point-like sources are have EXTENDEDNESS = 0' should read 'Point-like sources have EXTENDEDNESS = 0'.
  3. [Section 5] There is a typo in the opening sentence: 'will be be observed' should be 'will be observed'. In addition, the Figure 7 caption spells 'Milk Way' and should be 'Milky Way'.
  4. [Section 4.1] Please state precisely how the false-positive rates 2.3% and 22.4% are defined (per blank-sky region, per fixed distance modulus, or per trial); this definition is needed to interpret the threshold correction from SIG > 5.5 to SIG > 8.4.
  5. [Section 4.2 and Table 2] The analytic 50% detection-efficiency contours are quoted without goodness-of-fit values or uncertainties on the fitted coefficients A0, M_V,0, and log10(r_1/2,0/pc); adding these would help users of the selection function estimate the impact of fit degeneracies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 89±20 prediction is a forward application of a DC2-measured selection function to an independently published galaxy–halo model posterior.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward pipeline: characterize DC2 catalog detection, classification, and photometric-error efficiencies from the simulation; inject 10^5 simulated resolved stellar systems with physical parameters drawn from ranges representative of known satellites; run the simple matched-filter at each injected satellite's true distance modulus and record detection significance; fit analytic and gradient-boosted parameterizations of the resulting selection function; and convolve the Nadler et al. (2020) galaxy–halo model posterior with the selection function and an 18,300 deg2 masked WFD footprint to obtain 89±20. The population model is a published, externally fit model based on DES and Pan-STARRS1 data plus cosmological zoom-in simulations; it is not constructed from, nor fitted to, the LSST detection predictions made here. The selection function is an empirical measurement from DC2, not an input to the population model, so convolving the two is a genuine prediction rather than a rearrangement of inputs. The one salient self-citation is the claim that fixing the search distance modulus to the true value introduces only trivial changes relative to a blind scan, supported by Drlica-Wagner et al. (2020); that is an independent empirical result from DES analysis, not the present LSST result, and the paper explicitly notes the simplification and its computational motivation. All equations used for the selection-function parameterizations are fits to the injection outcomes, not definitions of the target prediction. Limitations the paper itself states, such as the high-latitude DC2 field, neglected stellar-density dependence, catalog-level rather than image-level injection, and trial factors in a real blind scan, are accuracy caveats rather than circularity. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on measured selection-function coefficients fit to injected simulations, two hand-set thresholds, and several domain assumptions about how well DC2 represents LSST and how well the adopted population model extends to the faint end. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Selection function coefficients A0, M_V,0, log10(r1/2,0/pc) per distance bin = Table 2 lists values for six distance bins and three scenarios (e.g., idealized star/galaxy at 11.3 kpc: A0=22.7…
    Fit to the binned detection efficiency of 10^5 injected satellites; these coefficients define the 50% detectability contours used to translate satellite properties into detection probability.
  • Corrected detection threshold SIG > 8.4 = 8.4
    Chosen so that the measured star/galaxy classification analysis matches the 2.3% false positive rate of the perfect classification analysis; this threshold changes the predicted yield from 83 to 67 satellites.
  • Magnitude cuts g < 26 and r < 26 = 26 mag
    Hand-set analysis cuts motivated by the sharp drop in stellar classification efficiency near r ~ 26 mag (Figure 2); these cuts also set the depth mask applied to the LSST WFD footprint in Section 5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DC2's photometric depth, uncertainties, and EXTENDEDNESS-based star/galaxy classification are representative of the real LSST WFD survey in the unmasked footprint.
    The entire selection function is derived from DC2. Section 2.1 describes DC2's limitations (outdated cadence, no bright stars, ~300 deg2 field) and Section 5 masks regions where performance differs, but the transfer to real data remains an assumption.
  • domain assumption Catalog-level injection of resolved stellar populations adequately reproduces detectability without full image-level blending simulations.
    Section 2.4 states this assumption and cites Zhang et al. 2025 showing catalog-level simulations give slightly higher sensitivity; the paper relies on this for all injection results.
  • domain assumption Supplying the search with the true centroid and distance modulus of each injected satellite yields detection efficiencies representative of a blind scan.
    Appendix A explains this choice was made to avoid months of runtime and cites Drlica-Wagner et al. 2020 for a trivial effect; no in-paper measurement of the blind-search penalty is provided.
  • domain assumption The Nadler et al. 2020 galaxy-halo model, including its faint-end luminosity extrapolation and Kravtsov size relation, describes the Milky Way satellite population down to M_V = 0 mag.
    Section 5 uses this model to convert selection functions into a predicted count; the model's parameters are constrained by brighter DES and PS1 satellites plus a power-law extrapolation, so the faint end is an extrapolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictions for the Detectability of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies and Outer-Halo Star Clusters with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQINDBCT

@misc{pith2026250416203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictions for the Detectability of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies and Outer-Halo Star Clusters with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQINDBCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16203}
}
abstract

We predict the sensitivity of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) to faint, resolved Milky Way satellite galaxies and outer-halo star clusters. We characterize the expected sensitivity using simulated LSST data from the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Data Challenge 2 (DC2) accessed and analyzed with the Rubin Science Platform as part of the Rubin Early Science Program. We simulate resolved stellar populations of Milky Way satellite galaxies and outer-halo star clusters over a wide range of sizes, luminosities, and heliocentric distances, which are broadly consistent with expectations for the Milky Way satellite system. We inject simulated stars into the DC2 catalog with realistic photometric uncertainties and star/galaxy separation derived from the DC2 data itself. We assess the probability that each simulated system would be detected by LSST using a conventional isochrone matched-filter technique. We find that assuming perfect star/galaxy separation enables the detection of resolved stellar systems with $M_V$ = 0 mag and $r_{1/2}$ = 10 pc with >50% efficiency out to a heliocentric distance of ~250 kpc. Similar detection efficiency is possible with a simple star/galaxy separation criterion based on measured quantities, although the false positive rate is higher due to leakage of background galaxies into the stellar sample. When assuming perfect star/galaxy classification and a model for the galaxy-halo connection fit to current data, we predict that 89 +/- 20 Milky Way satellite galaxies will be detectable with a simple matched-filter algorithm applied to the LSST wide-fast-deep data set. Different assumptions about the performance of star/galaxy classification efficiency can decrease this estimate by ~7%-25%, which emphasizes the importance of high-quality star/galaxy separation for studies of the Milky Way satellite population with LSST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The simulated LSST DESC DC2 footprint covers ∼300 deg2 of the high Galactic latitude sky. Maps of the S/N = 5 magnitude limit for point-like sources in the 𝑔-band (left) and 𝑟-band (right) show the uniformity and depth of the WFD portion of DC2. Variations in the depth come from the the observing strategy and simulated observing conditions. The median S/N = 5 magnitude limits for point-like sources are 𝑔 = 27.0 mag … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Characteristics of the simulated stellar catalog in a ∼3 deg2 region of DC2. We show the photometric performance as a function of the true 𝑟-band magnitude of simulated stars and the difference with respect to the 𝑟-band magnitude limit, Δ𝑟 = 𝑟 −maglim(𝑟). (Left) Detection efficiency and star/galaxy separation efficiency models based on the input truth and measured output from DC2. Star/galaxy classification is perf… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulated LSST color–magnitude diagram of stars associated with a simulated Milky Way satellite (red points; 𝑀𝑉 = −0.3 mag, 𝐷 = 91 kpc) and the density of simulated objects from DESC DC2 that are classified as stars (gray background). The left panel uses a measured star/galaxy classification based on the EXTENDEDNESS parameter while the right panel assumes a perfect star/galaxy separation. The red solid line shows o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial clustering in the distribution of mis-classified galaxies can increase the rate of false positives in Milky Way satel￾lite searches. We show how the detection significance of blank-sky regions changes when the spatial positions of DC2 objects classi￾fied as sta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detection efficiency of searches for simulated Milky Way satellites in DC2 using measured star/galaxy information. Detection efficiency is reported as a function of azimuthally averaged physical half-light radius, and absolute V-band magnitude in six different bins of …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Geometric masks applied to predict the population of Milk Way satellite galaxies that will be observable by LSST. Colored regions are removed from our analysis either because they lie outside the LSST WFD footprint (dark blue), have interstellar extinction 𝐸(𝐵 − 𝑉) > 0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Predicted luminosity function of Milky Way satellite galaxies with 𝑀𝑉 < 0 mag and 𝑟1/2 > 10 pc located within 300 kpc (cumulative number of satellite galaxies brighter than a specific 𝑉-band absolute magnitude). The blue contours show the 1𝜎 and 2𝜎 uncertainty on the t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Model predictions for the properties of Milky Way satellite dwarf galaxies detectable with LSST (normalized gray scale). Overplotted are the currently known candidate (open circles) and confirmed (filled circles) Milky Way satellite dwarf galaxies (Pace 2024, and refer…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Search for Dark Matter Annihilation and Decay with H$\alpha$ Line Emission

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    H-alpha line emission from recombining gas in quiet dwarf galaxies is a new probe of dark matter annihilation/decay, giving leading limits for some dark matter masses.

  2. COZMIC. III. Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations of Self-interacting Dark Matter with Suppressed Initial Conditions

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cosmological zoom-in simulations show that suppressing the small-scale matter power spectrum, as expected in self-interacting dark matter models, reduces or erases the gravothermal core-collapse signature in dwarf-mass halos.

  3. The Keck/DEIMOS Stellar Archive: I. Uniform Velocities and Metallicities for 78 Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies and Globular Clusters

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A homogeneous catalog of velocities, CaT metallicities, and memberships for 22,339 stars in 78 Milky Way satellites, with a 1.1 km/s velocity error floor.

  4. Wide binaries in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies as a probe of extended dark objects

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Wide binaries in Boötes I exclude dark-matter fractions down to ~10^-3 to 10^-2 for extended dark objects between 0.1 and 3000 solar masses with radii up to 10^7 solar radii, implying P_R ≲ 5×10^-6 at k ≈ 4×10^2-3×10^...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd62c

    Abolfathi, B., Alonso, D., Armstrong, R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd62c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd62c 2021

  2. [2]

    2015, Phys

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Anderson, B., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 231301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.231301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.231301 2015

  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. [4]

    X., da Costa, L., et al

    Balbinot, E., Santiago, B. X., da Costa, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/101

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/101 2013

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/50

    Bechtol, K., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/50 2015

  6. [6]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05739

    Bechtol, K., Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05739

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05739 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Frenk, C

    Benson, A. J., Frenk, C. S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Cole, S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 177, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05388.x

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    M., & Santos, J

    Bica, E., Bonatto, C., Dutra, C. M., & Santos, J. F. C. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 678, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13612.x

    arXiv 2008

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Johnson, B

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Weisz, D. R., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1736

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

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

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

    2012

  4. [12]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Buch, D., Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., & Mao, Y.-Y. 2024, ApJ, 971, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad554c

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    R., & Peter, A

    Buckley, M. R., & Peter, A. H. G. 2018, Phys. Rep., 761, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.07.003

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

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

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz365

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Ben´ıtez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291–4313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    B., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Cerny, W., Pace, A. B., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1af

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Cerny, W., Mart´ınez-V´azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 953, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78

    doi

  11. [19]

    S., et al

    Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., Li, T. S., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 953, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aced84

    doi

  12. [20]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1274, doi: 10.1086/321401

    Chabrier, G. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1274, doi: 10.1086/321401

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. 2016, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 785–794, doi: 10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  14. [22]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x

    2000

  15. [23]

    Corwin, H. G. 2004, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 7239, 0 Dal Tio, P., Pastorelli, G., Mazzi, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7be6

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    A., & Ng, K

    Dekker, A., Ando, S., Correa, C. A., & Ng, K. C. Y. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 123026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123026 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 D’Onghia, E., & Lake, G. 2008, ApJ, 686, L61, do...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Peter, A

    Dooley, G. A., Peter, A. H. G., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2001

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9 Detectability of Milky Way Satellites by Rubin Observatory 17

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Mau, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9 Detectability of Milky Way Satellites by Rubin Observatory 17

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Pe˜narrubia, J., & Walker, M

    Errani, R., Ibata, R., Navarro, J. F., Pe˜narrubia, J., & Walker, M. G. 2024, ApJ, 968, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad402d

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3349 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al

    Errani, R., & Pe˜narrubia, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3349 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, ˚a, 662, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025a, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.10...

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    W., & Willman, B

    Fadely, R., Hogg, D. W., & Willman, B. 2012, ApJ, 760, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/15

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Frebel, A., & Ji, A. P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.09188, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.09188

    2023 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    S., et al

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

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Bullock, J

    Graus, A. S., Bullock, J. S., Kelley, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1992

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    P., Cuillandre, J.-C., Bachelet, E., et al

    Guy, L. P., Cuillandre, J.-C., Bachelet, E., et al. 2022, in Zenodo id. 5836022, Vol. 58, 5836022, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5836022

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al

    Guy, L. P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al. 2023, Rubin Observatory Plans for an Early Science Program, RTN-011. https://rtn-011.lsst.io/

    2023

  27. [35]

    J., Dey, A., Price-Whelan, A

    Han, J. J., Dey, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.11784, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.11784

    2023 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    R., Willman, B., & Peter, A

    Hargis, J. R., Willman, B., & Peter, A. H. G. 2014, ApJ, 795, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L13

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da1

    Heitmann, K., Finkel, H., Pope, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da1

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    1991, The Bright star catalogue (Yale University Observatory)

    Hoffleit, D., & Jaschek, C. 1991, The Bright star catalogue (Yale University Observatory)

    1991

  33. [41]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 733, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae044

    Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 733, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae044

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2330

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2330

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Frebel, A., Chiti, A., & Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Chiti, A., & Simon, J. D. 2016, Nature, 531, 610, doi: 10.1038/nature17425

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Yoachim, P., Chandrasekharan, S., et al

    Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., Chandrasekharan, S., et al. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225, 336.40 Juri´c, M., Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    V., Zivick, P., et al

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

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., R¨oser, S., & Scholz, R.-D. 2013, A&A, 558, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322302

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Mackey, D., & Da Costa, G

    Kim, D., Jerjen, H., Milone, A. P., Mackey, D., & Da Costa, G. S. 2015, ApJ, 803, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/63

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    Y., & Peter, A

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

    2021 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Y., Peter, A

    Kim, S. Y., Peter, A. H. G., & Hargis, J. R. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 211302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.211302

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    W., et al

    Koposov, S., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 279, doi: 10.1086/589911

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab510c Kov´acs, A., & Szapudi, I

    Korytov, D., Hearin, A., Kovacs, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab510c Kov´acs, A., & Szapudi, I. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv063

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

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

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

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Kravtsov, A. V. 2013, ApJ, 764, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L31

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Li, Z.-Z., Qian, Y.-Z., Han, J., Wang, W., & Jing, Y. P. 2019, ApJ, 886, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f6d

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    K., et al

    Loveday, J., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1013 LSST DESC, Abolfathi, B., Armstrong, R., et al. 2022, DESC DC2 Data Release Note. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04855

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/59

    Lu, Y., Benson, A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/59

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/109

    Lunnan, R., Vogelsberger, M., Frebel, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/109

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    1976, MNRAS, 174, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/174.3.695

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1976, MNRAS, 174, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/174.3.695

    1976 doi

  52. [60]

    Malhan, K., Valluri, M., Freese, K., & Ibata, R. A. 2022, ApJ, 941, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e5

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    Manwadkar, V., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2452

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    Mao, Y.-Y., Williamson, M., & Wechsler, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 810, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/21

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0bb8

    Mau, S., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0bb8

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Crnojevi´c, D., et al

    Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´c, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db8

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Goumiri, I

    Muyskens, A. L., Goumiri, I. R., Priest, B. W., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4e93

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    O., Gluscevic, V., Driskell, T., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Gluscevic, V., Driskell, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bb1

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    O., Mao, Y.-Y., Green, G

    Nadler, E. O., Mao, Y.-Y., Green, G. M., & Wechsler, R. H. 2019, ApJ, 873, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab040e

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    O., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., Garrison-Kimmel, S., & Wetzel, A. 2018, ApJ, 859, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac266

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    O., Wechsler, R

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

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    S., & Helly, J

    Newton, O., Cautun, M., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., & Helly, J. C. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1085

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    Newton, O., Leo, M., Cautun, M., et al. 2021, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2021, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/062

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    1973, Uppsala general catalogue of galaxies (Uppsala: Roy

    Nilson, P. 1973, Uppsala general catalogue of galaxies (Uppsala: Roy. Soc. Sci. Uppsala) O’Mullane, W., Economou, F., Huang, F., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15030, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15030

    1973 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

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

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    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

  70. [78]

    2018, Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2018, Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0490

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1980

    Pieres, A., Girardi, L., Balbinot, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1980

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460

    1911 doi

  73. [81]

    2019, HealSparse: A sparse implementation of HEALPix

    Rykoff, E., & S´anchez, J. 2019, HealSparse: A sparse implementation of HEALPix. https://healsparse.readthedocs.io/

    2019

  74. [82]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

    1998 doi

  75. [83]

    J., et al

    Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Hoyle, B., March˜a, M. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2579 18 Tsiane, Mau, Drlica-Wagner et al

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    H., Simpson, C

    Shipp, N., Riley, A. H., Simpson, C. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09143, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09143

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

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

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    T., ˇZeljko Ivezi´c, & Lupton, R

    Slater, C. T., ˇZeljko Ivezi´c, & Lupton, R. H. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6166

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    Smith, S. E. T., Cerny, W., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0d9f

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 The pandas development team

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 The pandas development team. 2020, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2015 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    J., Bullock, J

    Tollerud, E. J., Bullock, J. S., Strigari, L. E., & Willman, B. 2008, ApJ, 688, 277, doi: 10.1086/592102

    2008 doi

  82. [90]

    E., et al

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

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H

    Walsh, S. M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/450

    2008 doi

  85. [93]

    Webbink, R. F. 1985, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 113, Dynamics of Star Clusters, ed. J. Goodman & P. Hut, 541–577

    1985

  86. [94]

    2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/128

    Willman, B., Geha, M., Strader, J., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/128

    2011 doi

  87. [95]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13858

    Zhang, S., Hildebrandt, H., Yan, Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13858

    2025 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298 A RUBIN SCIENCE PLATFORM PERFORMANCE Our analysis of the DC2 data is performed on the Rubin IDF using the RSP (O’Mullane et al. 2021), an online ser- vice that enab...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.