Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The emergence of globular clusters and globular-cluster-like dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmological simulations at 3-pc resolution produce realistic globular clusters and a new class of globular-cluster-like dwarfs, which may already be hiding among known ultra-faint dwarf galaxies.

desk verdict Real progress on the GC/dwarf emergence question, but the new GCD class is defined by hand-chosen thresholds and its numerical convergence is untested in exactly the regime where it is claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09582 v1 pith:FXW3JD3C submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.GA

Ethan D. Taylor , Justin I. Read , Matthew D. A. Orkney , Stacy Y. Kim , Andrew Pontzen , Oscar Agertz , Martin P. Rey , Eric P. Andersson
show 2 more authors
Michelle L. M. Collins Robert M. Yates
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersdwarfgalaxiesglobular-cluster-likedwarfscosmologicalsimulationssupernovafeedbackΛCDMultra-faintstarformation
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 argues that the long-standing mystery of globular cluster formation can be solved within the standard cosmological model: at a spatial resolution of about 3 pc, the same simulation suite produces dark-matter-free globular clusters, dark-matter-rich dwarf galaxies, and an intermediate class the authors call globular-cluster-like dwarfs (GCDs). The distinction between these classes is not set by a special formation mechanism but by whether the first supernovae self-quench star formation or the system's dark matter halo lets it keep accreting gas. If true, this would explain how two apparently different kinds of stellar system form at the same cosmic epoch, and it would point to a new population of dark-matter-dominated, single-burst systems such as Reticulum II. These GCDs would be sensitive probes of dark matter and potential sites for metal-free stars.

What carries the argument

The engine is the EDGE simulation suite, a set of cosmological zoom-in hydrodynamical simulations run at a base grid resolution of 3 pc, which resolves the momentum and energy of individual supernovae in the interstellar medium. The physical separation into GCs, dwarfs, and GCDs is carried by the competition between star formation, supernova feedback, and the binding provided by the dark matter halo: a system with no protective halo is quenched by one supernova (GC), a system in a low-mass halo self-quenches after a few supernovae (GCD), and a more massive halo retains gas for extended star formation (dwarf). The new class is defined quantitatively by an age spread of 10 < ΔAge (Myr) < 50 an

What would settle it

A measurement that would settle it: obtain a deep colour–magnitude diagram and radial velocities for a candidate GCD such as Reticulum II. If its stars were formed over more than ~50 Myr (multiple bursts), or if its dynamics show that the half-light radius is not dominated by dark matter, the GCD classification is wrong. Alternatively, if a rerun of one of the EDGE halos at 0.75 pc resolution with collisional dynamics shows that the purported GCs do not self-quench but instead continue forming stars, the mechanism would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that gas self-quenching by stellar winds and the first supernovae is what makes a stellar system a globular cluster, while the presence of a low-mass dark matter halo at the threshold where gas can cool stretches the same event into a GCD or a dwarf. Using the EDGE simulation suite, the authors find that GCs, dwarfs, and GCDs occupy three distinct regions of the size–luminosity plane, with GCs having no dark matter, ages confined to a single burst (<10 Myr spread), and dynamical masses comparable to their stellar mass, while dwarfs have dark-matter-dominated dynamics and extended star formation. The GCDs form at z≈8 from a single starburst inside halos of mass ~10^6.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that with 3 pc resolution and the chosen star-formation thresholds, the simulations correctly capture which systems self-quench after a single supernova versus which retain gas and keep forming stars; if that quenching behavior is not converged or is an artifact of the subgrid model, the three-population separation and the GCD class would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these results hold, globular clusters do not need a special formation environment; they are simply the self-quenched outcome of ordinary star formation in dense gas, with about half forming in situ near dwarf centers and half triggered by mergers.
  • The surviving globular clusters in the simulations preferentially form via triggered, merger-driven star formation at large birth radii, implying that the present-day GC population in dwarfs is a biased record of gas-rich mergers.
  • The GCD class, if confirmed observationally, gives a new set of systems that should be searched for narrow age spreads (10–20 Myr) and high dynamical-to-stellar mass ratios among Milky Way satellites.
  • Warm dark matter with a thermal relic mass around 10 keV would erase the halos in which GCDs form, so measuring the dark matter content of a confirmed GCD would constrain particle dark matter.
  • About 20% of the simulated GCDs form from pristine gas and contain ~20% metal-free stars, making them promising targets for JWST-class searches for Population III stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the GCD interpretation of Reticulum II is right, its strong r-process enrichment may be a direct chemical fingerprint of a metal-free star population, and similar chemically peculiar ultra-faint dwarfs should be reclassified as single-burst dark-matter-dominated systems.
  • The authors' resolution tests show GC sizes shrink with resolution; if higher-resolution runs find that self-quenching happens for a different mass range, the GCD definition may need to shift, but the qualitative three-population picture could survive.
  • Because the paper's definition of GCDs uses age spread and mass-to-light ratio, photometric surveys that measure only sizes and luminosities will miss them; spectroscopic follow-up to measure ages and dynamics is the testable path.
  • The EDGE result suggests that the absence of intermediate objects between GCs and dwarfs in observed samples may be a selection effect, and dedicated searches should find a continuum bridging the two classes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Taylor et al. present a suite of EDGE cosmological zoom-in simulations at 3 pc spatial resolution in which both dark-matter-free globular clusters (GCs) and dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxies form self-consistently in a standard ΛCDM cosmology. Using a new structure finder, they identify a third population, 'globular-cluster-like dwarfs' (GCDs), defined by 10 < ΔAge < 50 Myr and Υ > 10, which form as single self-quenching starbursts in low-mass halos at z ≈ 5–10. They report that roughly half of the simulated GCs form via regular star formation and half via merger-triggered star formation, with only five GCs surviving to z = 0, and they propose Reticulum II and several other ultra-faint dwarfs as observational GCD candidates. The paper includes a candid discussion of resolution limitations, notes that cluster sizes are not converged, and defers a full treatment of two-body dynamics to a companion paper.

Significance. If the results are robust, they would demonstrate that no special formation mechanism beyond resolved supernova feedback is needed to produce GCs, and that a previously unrecognized class of dark-matter-dominated, single-burst stellar systems may exist in the Local Group. The paper is commendable for shipping open-source analysis scripts and initial conditions, and for explicitly quantifying several numerical caveats. The central 'emergence' claim for GCs and dwarfs is supported by the simulations, but the headline new class—GCDs—and the associated observational identifications rest on a convergence assumption that is not tested in the regime where GCDs form, and on class boundaries defined from the same simulation output used for discovery.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Simulations'; Extended Data Fig. 1] The resolution-convergence test is performed only on Halo605, a single dwarf that is not representative of the low-mass halo regime (M200 ≈ 10^6.8–7.1 M⊙, z = 5–10) where GCDs form. The test shows that GC masses and metallicities converge, but that sizes shrink systematically with resolution. Since Υ is defined via Mdyn = R1/2 σ_los^2/G, an overestimated R1/2 at fiducial resolution will inflate Υ and could move objects across the Υ > 10 GCD threshold. The paper's assertion that the non-convergence 'does not affect' the GCD prediction (Methods) is therefore unsupported. A convergence test in the GCD host-mass regime, or a quantitative demonstration that ΔAge and Υ are stable, is needed before the new class can be regarded as a prediction rather than a resolution artifact.
  2. [Main text, 'GCD' definition; Fig. 1c,d] The GCD class is defined by the empirical cuts 10 < ΔAge (Myr) < 50 and Υ > 10, placed after inspecting the simulated distribution. These same cuts are then used to identify observed candidates such as Reticulum II. The thresholds are not derived from an independent physical model, and Fig. 1d does not demonstrate a clear gap between the GCD and dwarf populations. This creates a circularity risk: the new class is defined from the same data that are later used to support its existence. Please either derive the boundaries from the proposed formation physics or provide a statistical demonstration that the simulated and observed populations are multi-modal in these coordinates, rather than a continuum that is split at arbitrary values.
  3. [Main text, 'Surviving GCs' and Fig. 2] Only five GCs survive to z = 0, all formed in the two most massive dwarfs, and four of the five are merger-triggered. The conclusion that triggered GCs are 'more likely to survive to the present day' therefore rests on a sample of one regular-formation survivor versus four triggered survivors. The companion N-body paper will address tidal destruction, but the statistical basis for this claim is currently very thin. Please quantify the uncertainty (e.g., binomial confidence interval) or soften the claim to a suggestive trend rather than a definitive survival preference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The label 'Unclassi/f_ied satellites' contains a typographical corruption; it should read 'Unclassified satellites'.
  2. [Main text, halo-mass ranges] The notation '10< <1 0 M M 71 0200 ⊙' and similar ranges is garbled by formatting; please re-set as '10^7 < M200/M⊙ < 10^10' (and analogous) for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 3 labels] The time labels 'Tform – 28.5 Myr', 'Tform + 5.3 Myr', etc. should use a consistent minus-sign glyph and define Tform explicitly in the caption.
  4. [References] In the sentence introducing Boötes V, Horologium I, Reticulum II, etc., the citation '(refs. 2,42)' does not map individually to the listed objects; consider citing each candidate or a table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the emergence claim is an out-of-sample simulation result tested against external data; the GCD classification is descriptive, and the size non-convergence is a robustness caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that resolved supernova feedback in the EDGE cosmological simulations produces dark-matter-free GCs, dark-matter-rich dwarfs, and an intermediate GCD population, all of which are then compared with external Local Group observations (Fig. 1). The subgrid star-formation and feedback parameters (epsilon_ff=0.1, n_th=300 cm^-3, thermal SN injection) were not fitted to reproduce GCs or GCDs; they are the standard EDGE model calibrated on dwarf-galaxy properties, so the emergence of GCs and the GCD class is an out-of-sample result rather than a parameter fit. The GCD definition (10<DeltaAge<50 Myr, Upsilon>10) is a descriptive classification applied after the objects were found, and the observed candidates are proposed conditionally with falsifiable predictions (narrow age spreads, old ages), not by construction. Self-citations to earlier EDGE papers document the code, subgrid physics, and prior robustness tests; they are not used as the sole justification for the present conclusions. The explicitly acknowledged non-convergence of GC sizes with resolution is a numerical-robustness limitation that could affect the GCD classification in the lowest-mass halos, but this is a correctness risk, not a circular step. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the EDGE subgrid model, the structure finder, and the standard cosmological framework. The paper's free parameters are concentrated in the star formation and feedback prescriptions and in the hand-chosen classification thresholds for GCDs and for regular vs triggered GC formation. No new physical entities are proposed, but a new taxonomic entity (GCD) is introduced, which is included here.

free parameters (5)
  • Star formation efficiency ε_ff = 0.1
    Subgrid efficiency per free-fall time; a standard calibrated value that sets the star formation rate and hence the feedback timing that quenches GCs and GCDs.
  • Star formation thresholds (T_gas, ρ_gas) = T < 100 K, ρ > 300 m_H cm^-3
    Chosen thresholds in the EDGE model that determine where stars can form; directly controls which gas becomes a GC, dwarf, or GCD.
  • GCD class boundaries = 10 Myr < ΔAge < 50 Myr; Υ > 10
    Hand-picked classification cuts used to define the new object class; changing these boundaries changes the simulated GCD population and the candidate list.
  • Regular vs triggered GC formation boundary = r_birth / ~R1/2 < 4
    Chosen split to separate 'regular' from 'merger-triggered' GC formation; the paper's claim that about half form by each route depends on this cut.
  • Structure-finder clustering parameters = membership probability >75%; 75 nearest particles; 3σ velocity/age cut
    Tuning choices for HDBScan/Plummer group identification that set which stellar systems are counted as GCs or GCDs.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standard ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2013 parameters (ΩΛ=0.691, Ωb=0.045, Ωm=0.309, H0=67.77).
    The simulations assume the standard cosmological model; the paper's title claims GCs emerge 'in the Standard Cosmology', so this background is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption EDGE subgrid physics: Schmidt-law star formation with ε_ff=0.1 and thresholds; Kroupa IMF; thermal injection SNe; AGB and radiation pressure feedback.
    The emergence of GCs depends on the balance of gas cooling, star formation and feedback; these are model assumptions, not derived.
  • domain assumption Gas cooling via fine-structure lines to T < 100 K.
    Enables star formation in low-mass halos; a standard but approximate treatment of the ISM cooling.
  • domain assumption Spatially uniform, time-dependent UV background for reionization (public RAMSES implementation).
    Quenches the lowest-mass dwarfs and sets the formation window for GCDs; different reionization models change stellar masses by about a factor of 2 (stated in Methods).
  • domain assumption Gas contributes negligibly to the gravitational potential after objects form.
    Stated in Methods to justify ignoring gas in the bound-group analysis; could fail for young, gas-rich clusters.
  • domain assumption AHF + HDBScan + Plummer fitting recovers all bound stellar systems with >10 particles; manual inspection removes spurious structures.
    The census of GCs and GCDs depends on the structure finder; the authors note AHF alone missed about 90% of GCs, so the augmented pipeline is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Birth radius normalization ~R1/2 = 0.015 r200 (Kravtsov 2013).
    Used to define 'regular' vs 'triggered' GC formation; assumes a universal size-virial radius relation for dwarf hosts.
invented entities (1)
  • Globular-cluster-like dwarf (GCD) independent evidence
    purpose: A new class of stellar system intermediate between globular clusters and dwarf galaxies, predicted to form from a single self-quenching starburst in a low-mass dark-matter halo; proposed to explain several ultra-faint Milky Way satellites and to probe dark matter and Population III stars.
    The paper gives falsifiable handles: GCDs should have narrow age spreads (10-20 Myr), be older than ultra-faint dwarfs, and some should host about 20% metal-free stars; candidate hosts (Reticulum II, C-19, etc.) are named for future observations. The class is defined by property cuts, so its independence is partially definitional, but the formation mechanism and predictions make it testable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The emergence of globular clusters and globular-cluster-like dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXW3JD3C

@misc{pith2026250909582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The emergence of globular clusters and globular-cluster-like dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXW3JD3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09582}
}
read the original abstract

Globular clusters (GCs) are among the oldest and densest stellar systems in the Universe, yet how they form remains a mystery. Here we present a suite of cosmological simulations in which both dark-matter-free GCs and dark-matter-rich dwarf galaxies naturally emerge in the Standard Cosmology. We show that these objects inhabit distinct locations in the size-luminosity plane and that they have similar ages, age spread, metallicity and metallicity spread to globulars and dwarfs in the nearby Universe. About half of our simulated globulars form by means of regular star formation near the centres of their host dwarf, with the rest forming further out, triggered by mergers. The latter are more tidally isolated and more likely to survive to the present day. Finally, our simulations predict the existence of a new class of object that we call 'globular-cluster-like dwarfs' (GCDs). These form from a single, self-quenching, star-formation event in low-mass dark-matter halos at high redshift and have observational properties intermediate between globulars and dwarfs. We identify several dwarfs in our Galaxy, such as Reticulum II (refs. 2-4), that could be in this new class. If so, they promise unprecedented constraints on dark-matter models and new sites to search for metal-free stars.

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. Dark matter density profiles of the Milky Way satellite population: reconciling simulations and observations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fixed-physical-radius slope and full-profile comparisons of NIHAO/FIRE-2 satellites to 16 MW dwarfs show mass-dependent core formation and agreement within ~1σ for most systems, outperforming NFW.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Brodie, J. P. & Strader, J. Extragalactic globular clusters and galaxy formation. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 193–267 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Simon, J. D. The faintest dwarf galaxies. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 375–415 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Simon, J. D. et al. Timing the r-process enrichment of the ultra-faint dwarf galaxy Reticulum II. Astrophys. J. 944, 43 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    P., Frebel, A., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D. & Chiti, A. Complete element abundances of nine stars in the r-process galaxy Reticulum II. Astrophys. J. 830, 93 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Rodriguez, C. L. et al. The observed rate of binary black hole mergers can be entirely explained by globular clusters. Res. Not. Am. Astron. Soc. 5, 19 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J

    Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J. & McMillan, S. L. W. Formation of massive black holes through runaway collisions in dense young star clusters. Nature 428, 724–726 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Häberle, M. et al. Fast-moving stars around an intermediate-mass black hole in ω Centauri. Nature 631, 285–288 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Bañares-Hernández, A., Calore, F., Camalich, J. M. & Read, J. I. New constraints on the central mass contents of Omega Centauri from combined stellar kinematics and pulsar timing. Astron. Astrophys. 693, A104 (2025)

    2025

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    J., Strigari, L

    Evans, A. J., Strigari, L. E. & Zivick, P. Dark and luminous mass components of Omega Centauri from stellar kinematics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511, 4251–4264 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Carlberg, R. G. & Grillmair, C. J. The dark matter halo of M54. Astrophys. J. 935, 14 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Wan, Z. et al. Dynamics in the outskirts of four Milky Way globular clusters: it’s the tides that dominate. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 519, 192–207 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Grudić, M. Y. et al. Great balls of FIRE – I. The formation of star clusters across cosmic time in a Milky Way-mass galaxy. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 519, 1366–1380 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Ashman, K. M. & Zepf, S. E. The formation of globular clusters in merging and interacting galaxies. Astrophys. J. 384, 50–61 (1992)

    1992

  6. [14]

    Sameie, O. et al. Formation of proto-globular cluster candidates in cosmological simulations of dwarf galaxies at z > 4. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 1800–1813 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    & Narayan, R

    Naoz, S. & Narayan, R. Globular clusters and dark satellite galaxies through the stream velocity. Astrophys. J. Lett. 791, L8 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Lake, W. et al. The Supersonic Project: star formation in early star clusters without dark matter. Astrophys. J. Lett. 956, L7 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Peebles, P. J. E. & Dicke, R. H. Origin of the globular star clusters. Astrophys. J. 154, 891 (1968)

    1968

  10. [18]

    Fall, S. M. & Rees, M. J. A theory for the origin of globular clusters. Astrophys. J. 298, 18–26 (1985)

    1985

  11. [19]

    Kravtsov, A. V. & Gnedin, O. Y. Formation of globular clusters in hierarchical cosmology. Astrophys. J. 623, 650–665 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Peebles, P. J. E. Dark matter and the origin of galaxies and globular star clusters. Astrophys. J. 277, 470–477 (1984)

    1984

  13. [21]

    C., Lake, G., Read, J

    Boley, A. C., Lake, G., Read, J. & Teyssier, R. Globular cluster formation within a cosmological context. Astrophys. J. Lett. 706, L192–L196 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Gutcke, T. A. Low-mass globular clusters from stripped dark matter halos. Astrophys. J. 971, 103 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    & Sills, A

    Mashchenko, S. & Sills, A. Globular clusters with dark matter halos. II. Evolution in a tidal field. Astrophys. J. 619, 258–269 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    & Mieske, S

    Baumgardt, H. & Mieske, S. High mass-to-light ratios of ultra-compact dwarf galaxies – evidence for dark matter?. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 391, 942–948 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    & Boldrini, P

    Vitral, E. & Boldrini, P. Properties of globular clusters formed in dark matter mini-halos. Astron. Astrophys. 667, A112 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. Momentum injection by supernovae in the interstellar medium. Astrophys. J. 802, 99 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Agertz, O. et al. EDGE: the mass–metallicity relation as a critical test of galaxy formation physics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 491, 1656–1672 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    S., Brodie, J

    Larsen, S. S., Brodie, J. P., Huchra, J. P., Forbes, D. A. & Grillmair, C. J. Properties of globular cluster systems in nearby early-type galaxies. Astron. J. 121, 2974–2998 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    & Gieles, M

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O. & Gieles, M. The origin of the Milky Way globular clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 3622–3636 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Gray, E. I. et al. EDGE: a new model for nuclear star cluster formation in dwarf galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 539, 1167–1179 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kirby, E. N. et al. The universal stellar mass–stellar metallicity relation for dwarf galaxies. Astrophys. J. 779, 102 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Rey, M. P. et al. EDGE: from quiescent to gas-rich to star-forming low-mass dwarf galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 497, 1508–1520 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    & Szécsi, D

    Lahén, N., Naab, T. & Szécsi, D. Star clusters forming in a low-metallicity starburst – rapid self-enrichment by (very) massive stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 530, 645–667 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Lahén, N. et al. The GRIFFIN project—formation of star clusters with individual massive stars in a simulated dwarf galaxy starburst. Astrophys. J. 891, 2 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Calura, F. et al. Sub-parsec resolution cosmological simulations of star-forming clumps at high redshift with feedback of individual stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 5914–5934 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    E., Macciò, A

    Schneider, A., Smith, R. E., Macciò, A. V. & Moore, B. Non-linear evolution of cosmological structures in warm dark matter models. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 424, 684–698 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Lapi, A. et al. Astroparticle constraints from cosmic reionization and primordial galaxy formation. Universe 8, 476 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Bond, H. E. Where is population III? Astrophys. J. 248, 606–611 (1981)

    1981

  31. [39]

    Trussler, J. A. A. et al. On the observability and identification of Population III galaxies with JWST. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 525, 5328–5352 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Martin, N. F. et al. A stellar stream remnant of a globular cluster below the metallicity floor. Nature 601, 45–48 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Errani, R. et al. The Pristine survey – XVIII. C-19: tidal debris of a dark matter-dominated globular cluster? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 514, 3532–3540 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Simon, J. D. et al. Eridanus III and DELVE 1: carbon-rich primordial star clusters or the smallest dwarf galaxies? Astrophys. J. 976, 256 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Hayes, C. R. et al. GHOST commissioning science results: identifying a new chemically peculiar star in Reticulum II. Astrophys. J. 955, 17 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    & Bromm, V

    Jeon, M., Besla, G. & Bromm, V. Highly r-process enhanced stars in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 506, 1850–1861 (2021). Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliation...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Rey, M. P. et al. EDGE: the origin of scatter in ultra-faint dwarf stellar masses and surface brightnesses. Astrophys. J. Lett. 886, L3 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Rey, M. P. et al. EDGE: what shapes the relationship between H i and stellar observables in faint dwarf galaxies?. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511, 5672–5681 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Orkney, M. D. A. et al. EDGE: the shape of dark matter haloes in the faintest galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 525, 3516–3532 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Eisenstein, D. J. & Hut, P. HOP: a new group-finding algorithm for N-body simulations. Astrophys. J. 498, 137 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    Knollmann, S. R. & Knebe, A. AHF: Amiga’s halo finder. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 182, 608 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    & White, S

    Katz, N. & White, S. D. M. Hierarchical galaxy formation: overmerging and the formation of an X-ray cluster. Astrophys. J. 412, 455–478 (1993)

    1993

  43. [51]

    Ade, P. A. R. et al. Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Cosmological hydrodynamics with adaptive mesh refinement-A new high resolution code called RAMSES

    Teyssier, R. Cosmological hydrodynamics with adaptive mesh refinement-A new high resolution code called RAMSES. Astron. Astrophys. 385, 337–364 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    V., Klypin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A. & Khokhlov, A. M. Adaptive refinement tree: a new high-resolution N-body code for cosmological simulations. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 111, 73–94 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Pontzen, A. et al. EDGE: a new approach to suppressing numerical diffusion in adaptive mesh simulations of galaxy formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 1755–1765 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    & Rey, M

    Stopyra, S., Pontzen, A., Peiris, H., Roth, N. & Rey, M. P. GenetIC—a new initial conditions generator to support genetically modified zoom simulations. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 252, 28 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    & Peiris, H

    Roth, N., Pontzen, A. & Peiris, H. V. Genetically modified haloes: towards controlled experiments in ΛCDM galaxy formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 974–986 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Rey, M. P. & Pontzen, A. Quadratic genetic modifications: a streamlined route to cosmological simulations with controlled merger history. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 45–54 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    & Bregman, J

    Rosen, A. & Bregman, J. N. Global models of the interstellar medium in disk galaxies. Astrophys. J. 440, 634 (1995)

    1995

  51. [59]

    V., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., Leitner, S. N. & Gnedin, N. Y. Toward a complete accounting of energy and momentum from stellar feedback in galaxy formation simulations. Astrophys. J. 770, 25 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    P., Agertz, O., Renaud, F

    Andersson, E. P., Agertz, O., Renaud, F. & Teyssier, R. INFERNO: galactic winds in dwarf galaxies with star-by-star simulations including runaway stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 521, 2196–2214 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    P., Agertz, O

    Andersson, E. P., Agertz, O. & Renaud, F. How runaway stars boost galactic outflows. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 494, 3328–3341 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    P., Bryan, G

    Steinwandel, U. P., Bryan, G. L., Somerville, R. S., Hayward, C. C. & Burkhart, B. On the impact of runaway stars on dwarf galaxies with resolved interstellar medium. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 526, 1408–1427 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Andersson, E. P. et al. EDGE-INFERNO: simulating every observable star in faint dwarf galaxies and their consequences for resolved-star photometric surveys. Astrophys. J. 978, 129 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    & Schaye, J

    Dalla Vecchia, C. & Schaye, J. Simulating galactic outflows with kinetic supernova feedback. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 387, 1431–1444 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    & Schaye, J

    Dalla Vecchia, C. & Schaye, J. Simulating galactic outflows with thermal supernova feedback. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 426, 140–158 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Kravtsov, A. V. On the origin of the global Schmidt law of star formation. Astrophys. J. 590, L1–L4 (2003)

    2003

  59. [67]

    Saitoh, T. R. et al. Toward first-principle simulations of galaxy formation: I. How should we choose star-formation criteria in high-resolution simulations of disk galaxies? Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 60, 667–681 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Hopkins, P. F. et al. Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): stellar feedback explains cosmologically inefficient star formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 445, 581–603 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Rey, M. P. et al. EDGE: the emergence of dwarf galaxy scaling relations from cosmological radiation-hydrodynamics simulations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 541, 1195–1217 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Prgomet, M. et al. EDGE: the sensitivity of ultra-faint dwarfs to a metallicity-dependent initial mass function. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 513, 2326–2334 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Orkney, M. D. A. et al. EDGE: two routes to dark matter core formation in ultra-faint dwarfs. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 3509–3522 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Orkney, M. D. A., Read, J. I., Petts, J. A. & Gieles, M. Globular clusters as probes of dark matter cusp-core transformations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 488, 2977–2988 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Orkney, M. D. A. et al. EDGE: the puzzling ellipticity of Eridanus II’s star cluster and its implications for dark matter at the heart of an ultra-faint dwarf. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 515, 185–200 (2022). Article

    2022

  66. [74]

    & Gottlöber, S

    Klypin, A., Prada, F., Yepes, G., Heß, S. & Gottlöber, S. Halo abundance matching: accuracy and conditions for numerical convergence. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 447, 3693–3707 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    Knebe, A. et al. Haloes gone MAD: The Halo-Finder Comparison Project. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 415, 2293–2318 (2011)

    2011

  68. [76]

    Pujol, A. et al. Subhaloes gone Notts: the clustering properties of subhaloes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 438, 3205–3221 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Forouhar Moreno, V. J. et al. Assessing subhalo finders in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06932 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    & Astels, S

    McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Astels, S. hdbscan: hierarchical density based clustering. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 205 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Plummer, H. C. On the problem of distribution in globular star clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 71, 460–470 (1911)

    1911

  72. [80]

    & Woods, R

    Pontzen, A., Roškar, R., Stinson, G. & Woods, R. pynbody: N-body/SPH analysis for python (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    & Tremmel, M

    Pontzen, A. & Tremmel, M. TANGOS: the agile numerical galaxy organization system. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 237, 23 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Girardi, L. et al. The ACS Nearby Galaxy Survey Treasury. IX. Constraining asymptotic giant branch evolution with old metal-poor galaxies. Astrophys. J. 724, 1030–1043 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    Marigo, P. et al. Evolution of asymptotic giant branch stars. II. Optical to far-infrared isochrones with improved TP-AGB models. Astron. Astrophys. 482, 883–905 (2008)

    2008

  76. [84]

    Kravtsov, A. V. The size–virial radius relation of galaxies. Astrophys. J. Lett. 764, L31 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    Pace, A. B. The Local Volume Database: a library of the observed properties of nearby dwarf galaxies and star clusters. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424 (2024)

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    & Jerjen, H

    Kim, D. & Jerjen, H. A hero’s little horse: discovery of a dissolving star cluster in Pegasus. Astrophys. J. 799, 73 (2015)

    2015

  79. [87]

    & Koposov, S

    Torrealba, G., Belokurov, V. & Koposov, S. E. Nine tiny star clusters in Gaia DR1, PS1, and DES. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484, 2181–2197 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    Voggel, K. et al. Probing the boundary between star clusters and dwarf galaxies: a MUSE view on the dynamics of Crater/Laevens I. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 460, 3384–3397 (2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    Weisz, D. R. et al. A Hubble Space Telescope study of the enigmatic Milky Way halo globular cluster crater. Astrophys. J. 822, 32 (2016)

    2016

  82. [90]

    Cerny, W. et al. Six more ultra-faint Milky Way companions discovered in the DECam Local Volume Exploration survey. Astrophys. J. 953, 1 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Martin, N. F. et al. SMASH 1: a very faint globular cluster disrupting in the outer reaches of the LMC? Astrophys. J. Lett. 830, L10 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    Mau, S. et al. A faint halo star cluster discovered in the Blanco Imaging of the Southern Sky Survey. Astrophys. J. 875, 154 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    Balbinot, E. et al. A new Milky Way halo star cluster in the Southern Galactic Sky. Astrophys. J. 767, 101 (2013)

    2013

  86. [94]

    Homma, D. et al. Boötes. IV. A new Milky Way satellite discovered in the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey and implications for the missing satellite problem. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 71, 94 (2019)

    2019

  87. [95]

    Mau, S. et al. Two ultra-faint Milky Way stellar systems discovered in early data from the DECam Local Volume Exploration survey. Astrophys. J. 890, 136 (2020)

    2020

  88. [96]

    Fadely, R. et al. Segue 3: an old, extremely low luminosity star cluster in the Milky Way’s halo. Astron. J. 142, 88 (2011)

    2011

  89. [97]

    Muñoz, R. R. et al. A MegaCam survey of outer halo satellites. III. Photometric and structural parameters. Astrophys. J. 860, 66 (2018)

    2018

  90. [98]

    C., Jerjen, H., Kim, D

    Conn, B. C., Jerjen, H., Kim, D. & Schirmer, M. On the nature of ultra-faint dwarf galaxy candidates. I. DES1, Eridanus III, and Tucana V. Astrophys. J. 852, 68 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    Longeard, N. et al. Detailed study of the Milky Way globular cluster Laevens 3. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 490, 1498–1508 (2019)

    2019

  92. [100]

    Cerny, W. et al. DELVE 6: an ancient, ultra-faint star cluster on the outskirts of the Magellanic Clouds. Astrophys. J. Lett. 953, L21 (2023)

    2023

  93. [101]

    Longeard, N. et al. The pristine dwarf-galaxy survey – III. Revealing the nature of the Milky Way globular cluster Sagittarius II. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 503, 2754–2762 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Mutlu-Pakdil, B. et al. A deeper look at the new Milky Way satellites: Sagittarius II, Reticulum II, Phoenix II, and Tucana III. Astrophys. J. 863, 25 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    Richstein, H. et al. Deep Hubble Space Telescope photometry of Large Magellanic Cloud and Milky Way ultrafaint dwarfs: a careful look into the magnitude–size relation. Astrophys. J. 967, 72 (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    Muñoz, R. R. et al. The discovery of an ultra-faint star cluster in the constellation of Ursa Minor. Astrophys. J. Lett. 753, L15 (2012)

    2012

  97. [105]

    Luque, E. et al. Deep SOAR follow-up photometry of two Milky Way outer-halo companions discovered with Dark Energy Survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 2006–2018 (2018)

    2006

  98. [106]

    Cerny, W. et al. Discovery of an ultra-faint stellar system near the Magellanic Clouds with the DECam Local Volume Exploration Survey. Astrophys. J. 910, 18 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Gatto, M. et al. Deep very large telescope photometry of the faint stellar system in the Large Magellanic Cloud periphery YMCA-1. Astrophys. J. Lett. 929, L21 (2022)

    2022

  100. [108]

    P., Mackey, D

    Kim, D., Jerjen, H., Milone, A. P., Mackey, D. & Da Costa, G. S. Discovery of a faint outer halo Milky Way star cluster in the southern sky. Astrophys. J. 803, 63 (2015)

    2015

  101. [109]

    McConnachie, A. W. & Irwin, M. J. Structural properties of the M31 dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 365, 1263–1276 (2006)

    2006

  102. [110]

    McConnachie, A. W. The observed properties of dwarf galaxies in and around the Local Group. Astron. J. 144, 4 (2012)

    2012

  103. [111]

    Makarova, L. N. et al. A nearby isolated dwarf: star formation and structure of ESO 006-001. Astrophys. J. 943, 139 (2023)

    2023

  104. [112]

    N., Bullock, J

    Kirby, E. N., Bullock, J. S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Kaplinghat, M. & Cohen, J. G. The dynamics of isolated Local Group galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 439, 1015–1027 (2014)

    2014

  105. [113]

    Dalcanton, J. J. et al. The ACS Nearby Galaxy Survey Treasury. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 183, 67–108 (2009)

    2009

  106. [114]

    Koribalski, B. S. et al. The 1000 brightest HIPASS galaxies: H I properties. Astron. J. 128, 16–46 (2004)

    2004

  107. [115]

    Newman, M. J. B. et al. An empirical calibration of the tip of the red giant branch distance method in the near infrared. I. HST WFC3/IR F110W and F160W filters. Astrophys. J. 966, 175 (2024)

    2024

  108. [116]

    Jones, M. G. et al. Pavo: discovery of a star-forming dwarf galaxy just outside the Local Group. Astrophys. J. Lett. 957, L5 (2023)

    2023

  109. [117]

    Karachentsev, I. D. et al. A new galaxy near the Local Group in Draco. Astron. Astrophys. 379, 407–411 (2001)

    2001

  110. [118]

    Higgs, C. R. et al. Solo dwarfs II: the stellar structure of isolated Local Group dwarf galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 503, 176–199 (2021)

    2021

  111. [119]

    Kirby, E. N. et al. Chemistry and kinematics of the late-forming dwarf irregular galaxies Leo A, Aquarius, and Sagittarius DIG. Astrophys. J. 834, 9 (2017)

    2017

  112. [120]

    McQuinn, K. B. W. et al. Pegasus W: an ultrafaint dwarf galaxy outside the halo of M31 not quenched by reionization. Astrophys. J. 944, 14 (2023)

    2023

  113. [121]

    Bernstein-Cooper, E. Z. et al. ALFALFA discovery of the nearby gas-rich dwarf galaxy Leo P. V. neutral gas dynamics and kinematics. Astron. J. 148, 35 (2014)

    2014

  114. [122]

    McQuinn, K. B. W. et al. Leo P: an unquenched very low-mass galaxy. Astrophys. J. 812, 158 (2015)

    2015

  115. [123]

    Sand, D. J. et al. Tucana B: a potentially isolated and quenched ultra-faint dwarf galaxy at D ≈ 1.4 Mpc. Astrophys. J. Lett. 935, L17 (2022)

    2022

  116. [124]

    M., van Zee, L., Lo, K

    Young, L. M., van Zee, L., Lo, K. Y., Dohm-Palmer, R. C. & Beierle, M. E. Star formation and the interstellar medium in four dwarf irregular galaxies. Astrophys. J. 592, 111–128 (2003)

    2003

  117. [125]

    Hargis, J. R. et al. Hubble Space Telescope imaging of Antlia B: star formation history and a new tip of the red giant branch distance. Astrophys. J. 888, 31 (2020)

    2020

  118. [126]

    Sand, D. J. et al. Antlia B: a faint dwarf galaxy member of the NGC 3109 association. Astrophys. J. Lett. 812, L13 (2015)

    2015

  119. [127]

    Zoutendijk, S. L. et al. The MUSE-Faint survey. III. No large dark-matter cores and no significant tidal stripping in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. Preprint https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.09374 (2021)

    2021

  120. [128]

    Tully, R. B. et al. The Extragalactic Distance Database. Astron. J. 138, 323–331 (2009)

    2009

  121. [129]

    McQuinn, K. B. W. et al. Discovery and characterization of two ultrafaint dwarfs outside the halo of the Milky Way: Leo M and Leo K. Astrophys. J. 967, 161 (2024)

    2024

  122. [130]

    Carlin, J. L. et al. Tidal destruction in a low-mass galaxy environment: the discovery of tidal tails around DDO 44. Astrophys. J. 886, 109 (2019)

    2019

  123. [131]

    Battaglia, G., Rejkuba, M., Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M. J. & Beccari, G. A wide-area view of the Phoenix dwarf galaxy from Very Large Telescope/FORS imaging. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 424, 1113–1131 (2012)

    2012

  124. [132]

    Kacharov, N. et al. Prolate rotation and metallicity gradient in the transforming dwarf galaxy Phoenix. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 466, 2006–2023 (2017)

    2006

  125. [133]

    & Kunkel, W

    van de Rydt, F., Demers, S. & Kunkel, W. E. Phoenix: an intermediate dwarf galaxy in the Local Group. Astron. J. 102, 130–136 (1991)

    1991

  126. [134]

    Bouchard, A., Jerjen, H., Da Costa, G. S. & Ott, J. Detection of neutral hydrogen in early-type dwarf galaxies of the Sculptor Group. Astron. J. 130, 2058–2064 (2005)

  127. [135]

    Savino, A. et al. The Hubble Space Telescope Survey of M31 Satellite Galaxies. I. RR Lyrae-based distances and refined 3D geometric structure. Astrophys. J. 938, 101 (2022)

    2022

  128. [136]

    McNanna, M. et al. A search for faint resolved galaxies beyond the Milky Way in DES Year 6: a new faint, diffuse dwarf satellite of NGC 55. Astrophys. J. 961, 126 (2024)

    2024

  129. [137]

    Simon, J. D. & Geha, M. The kinematics of the ultra-faint Milky Way satellites: solving the missing satellite problem. Astrophys. J. 670, 313–331 (2007)

    2007

  130. [138]

    Leaman, R. et al. The comparative chemical evolution of an isolated dwarf galaxy: a VLT and Keck spectroscopic survey of WLM. Astrophys. J. 767, 131 (2013)

    2013

  131. [139]

    Taibi, S. et al. The Tucana dwarf spheroidal galaxy: not such a massive failure after all. Astron. Astrophys. 635, A152 (2020)

    2020

  132. [140]

    Barnes, D. G. & de Blok, W. J. G. On the neutral gas content and environment of NGC 3109 and the Antlia dwarf galaxy. Astron. J. 122, 825–829 (2001)

    2001

  133. [141]

    Hoffman, G. L. et al. Arecibo H i mapping of a large sample of dwarf irregular galaxies. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 105, 269–298 (1996)

    1996

  134. [142]

    D., Makarova, L

    Karachentsev, I. D., Makarova, L. N., Tully, R. B., Wu, P.-F. & Kniazev, A. Y. KK258, a new transition dwarf galaxy neighbouring the Local Group. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 443, 1281–1290 (2014)

    2014

  135. [143]

    D., Makarova, L

    Karachentsev, I. D., Makarova, L. N., Makarov, D. I., Tully, R. B. & Rizzi, L. A new isolated dSph galaxy near the Local Group. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 447, L85–L89 (2015)

    2015

  136. [144]

    D., Kniazev, A

    Karachentsev, I. D., Kniazev, A. Y. & Sharina, M. E. The isolated dSph galaxy KKs3 in the local Hubble flow. Astron. Nachr. 336, 707–714 (2015)

    2015

  137. [145]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. A catalogue of masses, structural parameters, and velocity dispersion profiles of 112 Milky Way globular clusters. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 1520–1557 (2018)

    2018

  138. [146]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H., Sollima, A. & Hilker, M. Absolute V-band magnitudes and mass-to-light ratios of Galactic globular clusters. Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 37, e046 (2020)

    2020

  139. [147]

    & Vasiliev, E

    Baumgardt, H. & Vasiliev, E. Accurate distances to Galactic globular clusters through a combination of Gaia EDR3, HST, and literature data. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 5957–5977 (2021)

    2021

  140. [148]

    Kunder, A. et al. The Milky Way Bulge extra-tidal star survey: BH 261 (AL 3). Astron. J. 167, 21 (2024)

    2024

  141. [149]

    Simpson, J. D. The most metal-poor Galactic globular cluster: the first spectroscopic observations of ESO280-SC06. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 477, 4565–4576 (2018)

    2018

  142. [150]

    Kobulnicky, H. A. et al. Discovery of a new low-latitude Milky Way globular cluster using GLIMPSE. Astron. J. 129, 239–250 (2005)

    2005

  143. [151]

    Harris, W. E. A new catalog of globular clusters in the Milky Way. Preprint at https://arxiv. org/abs/1012.3224 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  144. [152]

    E., Debattista, V

    Kunder, A., Crabb, R. E., Debattista, V. P., Koch-Hansen, A. J. & Huhmann, B. M. Spectroscopic observations of obscured populations in the inner galaxy: 2MASS-GC02, Terzan 4, and the 200 km s−1 stellar peak. Astron. J. 162, 86 (2021)

    2021

  145. [153]

    Pallanca, C. et al. Internal kinematics and structure of the bulge globular cluster NGC

  146. [154]

    Souza, S. O. et al. Photo-chemo-dynamical analysis and the origin of the bulge globular cluster Palomar 6. Astron. Astrophys. 656, A78 (2021)

    2021

  147. [155]

    D., Borissova, J

    Kurtev, R., Ivanov, V. D., Borissova, J. & Ortolani, S. Obscured clusters. II. GLIMPSE-C02 – a new metal rich globular cluster in the Milky Way. Astron. Astrophys. 489, 583–587 (2008)

    2008

  148. [156]

    & Kobulnicky, H

    Strader, J. & Kobulnicky, H. A. A probable new globular cluster in the Galactic disk. Astron. J. 136, 2102–2106 (2008)

    2008

  149. [157]

    & Bidin, C

    Carraro, G., Zinn, R. & Bidin, C. M. Whiting 1: the youngest globular cluster associated with the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Astron. Astrophys. 466, 181–189 (2007)

    2007

  150. [158]

    Taylor, E. et al. EDGE: initial condition files. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.16536387 (2025). Acknowledgements E.D.T. acknowledges support from the UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC; grants ST/V50712X/1 and ST/Y002865/1). J.I.R. and M.L.M.C. ackno...

    2025

  151. [6569]

    Astrophys. J. 950, 138 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.