pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11368 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Extragalactic microlensing through Ultra Diffuse Galaxies

Sung Kei Li , Thomas Broadhurst , Jose M. Diego , Jeremy Lim , Jose M. Palencia , James Nianias
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords microlensingultra diffuse galaxiesinitial mass functionJWSTLSSTNGC1052-DF2extragalactic lensing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Microlensing events through local ultra diffuse galaxies can provide an independent estimate of the low-mass initial mass function and stellar multiplicity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper explores using ultra diffuse galaxies as foreground lenses to detect microlensing of background galaxies at modest redshifts with telescopes like JWST and LSST. For the example UDG NGC1052-DF2, the expected event rate is low at roughly 0.056 per year for JWST due to few aligned background sources, but the authors calculate that Euclid can identify suitable alignments across the sky leading to one to ten events per year under LSST monitoring. This approach is presented as feasible for detection and would enable new constraints on the initial mass function in the low-mass regime, of interest for UDGs where stellar mass estimates vary. A reader would care because it offers a direct probe of faint stellar populations and binaries without depending solely on integrated light measurements.

Core claim

Microlensing through UDGs is possible and can be used to estimate the IMF and stellar multiplicity in the low-mass regime. For NGC1052-DF2 the total rate is 5.6 times 10 to the minus 2 per year over its five background galaxies for JWST visits at 29 mag, with LSST rates even lower at 2 times 10 to the minus 8 per year. Euclid is suited to find many low-redshift star-forming background galaxies behind local UDGs, yielding order one to ten events per year over the whole sky with LSST follow-up.

What carries the argument

The microlensing event rate calculation for background galaxies lensed by UDGs, including optical depth and magnification thresholds for detection at JWST and LSST depths.

If this is right

  • Microlensing events through UDGs are detectable with JWST at approximately 29 magnitude depth.
  • NGC1052-DF2 has too low a rate for it to be a prime target due to few background galaxies.
  • Euclid can identify samples of low-redshift background galaxies seen through local UDGs for deeper cadenced follow-up.
  • Whole-sky LSST monitoring is expected to yield order 1-10 events per year.
  • UDG microlensing supplies an independent route to the initial mass function and low-mass stellar multiplicity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This method could distinguish whether UDGs are stellar-mass dominated or dark-matter dominated by directly sampling their faint stellar content.
  • It extends extragalactic microlensing from cluster lenses to common field galaxies, increasing the potential sample size for caustic-crossing studies.
  • Repeated events in the same lines of sight could separate stellar from compact-object lenses and test multiplicity fractions.

Load-bearing premise

Sufficient numbers of low-redshift background galaxies exist behind local UDGs with alignments and magnifications suitable for detectable microlensing events.

What would settle it

A multi-year monitoring campaign of several UDGs with JWST or LSST that finds zero microlensing events despite confirmed background galaxies behind them would show the rates are too low for practical use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11368 by James Nianias, Jeremy Lim, Jose M. Diego, Jose M. Palencia, Sung Kei Li, Thomas Broadhurst.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Negative JWST F090W image of NGC1052-DF2 (GO-3990, PI: Morishita). Five spectroscopically confirmed background galaxies are labelled with their redshifts. We carry out event rate analysis on these galaxies based on their H-β luminosities, as one shall read later in Section 4. RE = r 4GM c 2 DLDLS DS , (1) with DS the angular diameter distance to the source, DL the angular diameter distance to the lens, and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Brightest star possible (in apparent magnitudes) under ideal situations at different source angular diameter distances, considering the maximum magnification shown earlier in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expected event rate per year, considering NGC1052-DF2 acting as the lens with different sources (with different SFR rate indicated by line colors, assuming a con￾stant star formation history over the last ∼ 100 Myrs), at the background at different source angular diameter distances (redshifts). Solid lines refer to calculations made assuming JWST depth of ∼ 29 mag, where dashed and dotted lines represent t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stellar microlensing is a powerful method to constrain compact dark matter models, uncover binary stars, and exoplanets during caustic crossing events. At cosmological distances, {\it James-Webb Space Telescope} ({\it JWST}) is routinely detecting microlensed giant stars in highly magnified galaxies behind massive lensing clusters. Here, we explore for the first time microlensing in modest redshift galaxies commonly seen through local Ultra Diffuse Galaxies (UDGs). Using the UDG NGC1052-DF2 as a case study, we found that detecting UDG microlensing events through UDGs is possible. However, a low total UDG microlensing event rate of $\sim 5.6\times10^{-2}\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}$ over its five background galaxies is expected for typical {\it JWST} $\sim 29\,$mag visits, and a low Vera Rubin Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) detection rate of $\sim 2\times10^{-8}\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}$ such that NGC1052-DF2 might not be a prime target given its lack of low-redshift background galaxies. {\it Euclid} is ideal for identifying samples of low-redshift star-forming galaxies seen through local galaxies for deeper cadenced follow-up, where our zeroth-order calculation estimates that $\mathcal{O}(1-10)$ events per year are expected over the whole sky under the monitoring of LSST. Finally, we postulate that UDG microlensing will allow an independent estimate of the initial mass function (IMF) and the stellar multiplicity in the low mass regime, of considerable interest for UDG galaxies, where stellar mass has been claimed to predominate over dark matter in some cases, including NGC1052-DF2.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper explores extragalactic microlensing of low-redshift background galaxies by local Ultra Diffuse Galaxies (UDGs), using NGC1052-DF2 as a case study. It reports a low event rate of ~5.6×10^{-2} yr^{-1} for JWST monitoring of its five background galaxies and ~2×10^{-8} yr^{-1} for LSST, attributes the low rate to paucity of suitable backgrounds, extrapolates to O(1-10) whole-sky events per year under LSST, and postulates that such events could yield independent constraints on the IMF and low-mass stellar multiplicity in UDGs.

Significance. If the quantitative rates and background assumptions hold, the work identifies a potentially new channel for probing stellar populations in UDGs via microlensing, which is of interest given debates on stellar vs. dark matter dominance in these systems. The suggestion of IMF constraints is novel but remains at the level of a postulate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the zeroth-order event-rate calculation supplies concrete numbers (~5.6×10^{-2} yr^{-1} for NGC1052-DF2, O(1-10) whole-sky) but provides neither the optical-depth formula, error bars, nor sensitivity analysis to the free parameters (background galaxy density/alignment and UDG stellar density/mass function). This undermines assessment of the central feasibility claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and case-study discussion: the whole-sky O(1-10) yr^{-1} extrapolation rests on an implicit assumption of substantially higher average surface density of suitable low-z star-forming background galaxies behind typical UDGs than the low value inferred for NGC1052-DF2. No explicit count, redshift distribution, selection function, or fraction of UDGs possessing such backgrounds is given, which is load-bearing for the postulated science case.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that UDG microlensing 'will allow an independent estimate of the initial mass function (IMF) and the stellar multiplicity in the low mass regime' is stated without any outline of the mapping from observed event rates, magnifications, or caustic crossings to IMF parameters, leaving the postulate unsupported by the presented calculation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'five background galaxies' for NGC1052-DF2 without stating selection criteria or redshift/magnitude properties.
  2. [Abstract] Rate units and numerical notation (e.g., 5.6×10^{-2}, 2×10^{-8}) should be presented with consistent significant figures and brief justification of the zeroth-order inputs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and completeness of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in turn below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the zeroth-order event-rate calculation supplies concrete numbers (~5.6×10^{-2} yr^{-1} for NGC1052-DF2, O(1-10) whole-sky) but provides neither the optical-depth formula, error bars, nor sensitivity analysis to the free parameters (background galaxy density/alignment and UDG stellar density/mass function). This undermines assessment of the central feasibility claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract is highly condensed and omits the explicit optical depth formula, error bars, and a sensitivity analysis. The detailed calculation, including the optical depth τ ≈ Σ_*/Σ_crit, is presented in Section 2 of the manuscript. We have revised the abstract to reference the calculation method and key assumptions more clearly. We have also added a brief sensitivity discussion in the revised manuscript to address variations in the free parameters. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and case-study discussion: the whole-sky O(1-10) yr^{-1} extrapolation rests on an implicit assumption of substantially higher average surface density of suitable low-z star-forming background galaxies behind typical UDGs than the low value inferred for NGC1052-DF2. No explicit count, redshift distribution, selection function, or fraction of UDGs possessing such backgrounds is given, which is load-bearing for the postulated science case.

    Authors: The O(1-10) estimate is a zeroth-order extrapolation assuming typical UDGs have more background galaxies than DF2. We have added an explicit discussion of the assumed background densities, drawing from low-redshift galaxy surveys, and the fraction of UDGs with suitable backgrounds in the revised manuscript, making the assumptions transparent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that UDG microlensing 'will allow an independent estimate of the initial mass function (IMF) and the stellar multiplicity in the low mass regime' is stated without any outline of the mapping from observed event rates, magnifications, or caustic crossings to IMF parameters, leaving the postulate unsupported by the presented calculation.

    Authors: We have revised the abstract and added a brief outline in the discussion section explaining how event rates and timescales can map to IMF parameters via comparison with stellar population models. This clarifies the postulate as a potential future application. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard microlensing rates applied to external assumptions

full rationale

The paper computes microlensing event rates for NGC1052-DF2 and extrapolates to whole-sky O(1-10) yr^-1 using standard microlensing optical depth and magnification formalisms applied to assumed UDG stellar densities, background galaxy surface densities, and survey cadences. These inputs are stated as external (e.g., lack of low-z backgrounds for DF2, typical JWST 29 mag visits). The IMF/multiplicity postulate is a forward claim, not a derived output. No equations reduce a prediction to a fitted parameter from the same data, no self-citation is load-bearing for the central feasibility result, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The derivation remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculations rest on standard microlensing theory and assumptions about UDG stellar content and background galaxy alignments; specific free parameters in the optical depth or magnification models are not enumerated in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Background galaxy density and alignment factors
    The low rates for NGC1052-DF2 are explicitly tied to its lack of low-redshift background galaxies; the numerical values depend on these counts and magnifications.
  • Stellar density and mass function in the UDG
    Event rates scale with the number and mass distribution of stars in the UDG lens; these are implicit inputs to the zeroth-order calculation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard gravitational microlensing formalism applies to extragalactic sources at modest redshifts
    The entire rate calculation presupposes the validity of point-mass lensing and caustic-crossing models outside the Milky Way.
  • domain assumption JWST and LSST magnitude limits and cadences are sufficient to detect the predicted events
    Rates are quoted for typical JWST 29-mag visits and LSST monitoring without further justification in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5637 in / 1652 out tokens · 68014 ms · 2026-05-10T14:50:49.880243+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Bond, I

    Abe, F., Bennett, D. P., Bond, I. A., et al. 2004, Science, 305, 1264–1266, doi: 10.1126/science.1100714

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1100714 2004

  2. [2]

    N., et al

    Afonso, C., Alard, C., Albert, J. N., et al. 1999, A&A, 344, L63

    1999

  3. [3]

    A., Alves, D., et al

    Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 270, doi: 10.1086/309393 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 Astropy Co...

    work page doi:10.1086/309393 2000

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Gvozdenko, A., & Montes, M. 2025, A&A, 697, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452446

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452446 2025

  5. [5]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1255, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1

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

  6. [6]

    Berloff, G., & Berloff, N. G. 2025, A Unified Analytic Framework for Microlensing Caustics: Geode Solutions and Hyper–Catalan Signatures, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.15756

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    K., Alfred, A., et al

    Broadhurst, T., Li, S. K., Alfred, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9aa8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9aa8 2025

  8. [8]

    1971, MNRAS, 153, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/153.4.471 Calchi Novati, S., de Luca, F., Jetzer, P., Mancini, L., &

    Brocklehurst, M. 1971, MNRAS, 153, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/153.4.471 Calchi Novati, S., de Luca, F., Jetzer, P., Mancini, L., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/153.4.471 1971

  9. [9]

    2008, A&A, 480, 723, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078439

    Scarpetta, G. 2008, A&A, 480, 723, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078439

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078439 2008

  10. [10]

    Calcino, J., Garcia-Bellido, J., & Davis, T. M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1368 2018

  11. [11]

    2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    Carr, B., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y., & Yokoyama, J. 2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 2021

  12. [12]

    Galactic

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  13. [13]

    Chamba, N., Trujillo, I., & Knapen, J. H. 2020, A&A, 633, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936821

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936821 2020

  14. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 Corral van Damme, C., Prod’Homme, T., Isaak, K., R¨ uhl, T., & Sirianni, M. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024:

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  15. [15]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 130920Q, doi: 10.1117/12.3020186

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3020186

  16. [16]

    M., Li, S

    Diego, J. M., Li, S. K., Amruth, A., et al. 2024a, A&A, 689, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450474

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450474

  17. [17]

    M., Li, S

    Diego, J. M., Li, S. K., Meena, A. K., et al. 2024b, A&A, 681, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346761 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346761 2013

  18. [18]

    A., Gvozdenko, A., et al

    Fahrion, K., Beasley, M. A., Gvozdenko, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452454

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452454 2025

  19. [19]

    M., et al

    Fudamoto, Y., Sun, F., Diego, J. M., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 428, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02432-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02432-3 2025

  20. [20]

    S., Ferré-Mateu, A., & Forbes, D

    Gannon, J. S., Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., & Forbes, D. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21875, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.21875

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21875 2026

  21. [21]

    Gaudi, B. S. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 411, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125518

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125518 2012

  22. [22]

    S., & Petters, A

    Gaudi, B. S., & Petters, A. O. 2002, ApJ, 574, 970, doi: 10.1086/341063

    work page doi:10.1086/341063 2002

  23. [23]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  24. [24]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 3252–3262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1986

    Haslbauer, M., Kroupa, P., & Jerabkova, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 3252–3262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1986

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1986 2023

  25. [25]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Hudson, M. J., Smith, R. J., Lucey, J. R., & Branchini, E. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 61, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07893.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07893.x 2004

  26. [26]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  27. [27]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Pasha, I. 2026, A Third Galaxy Missing Dark Matter along a Trail of Galaxies in the NGC 1052 Field, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15860

    work page arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    L., Diego, J

    Kelly, P. L., Diego, J. M., Rodney, S., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0430-3 10

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0430-3 2018

  29. [29]

    L., Chen, W., Alfred, A., et al

    Kelly, P. L., Chen, W., Alfred, A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.02670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.02670

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.02670 2022

  30. [30]

    and Evans, Neal J

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  31. [31]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  32. [32]

    C., & Kent, S

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., & Kent, S. M. 1983, AJ, 88, 1094, doi: 10.1086/113399

    work page doi:10.1086/113399 1983

  33. [33]

    2003 , journal =

    Kroupa, P., & Weidner, C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1076, doi: 10.1086/379105

    work page doi:10.1086/379105 2003

  34. [34]

    R., & Chung, E

    Lee, J., Shin, E.-j., Kim, J.-h., Shapiro, P. R., & Chung, E. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2932

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2932 2024

  35. [35]

    K., Weisenbach, L., Collett, T

    Li, S. K., Weisenbach, L., Collett, T. E., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 544, 4469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1959

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1959

  36. [36]

    K., Diego, J

    Li, S. K., Diego, J. M., Meena, A. K., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 988, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade4bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade4bd

  37. [37]

    K., Palencia, J

    Li, S. K., Palencia, J. M., Diego, J. M., et al. 2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.17565, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.17565

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.17565

  38. [38]

    1964, Phys

    Liebes, S. 1964, Phys. Rev., 133, B835, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.133.B835

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.133.b835 1964

  39. [39]

    Ma, Y.-Z., Gordon, C., & Feldman, H. A. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 103002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.103002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.103002 2011

  40. [40]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Marleau, F. R., Habas, R., Carollo, D., et al. 2025, Euclid: Quick Data Release (Q1) – A census of dwarf galaxies across a range of distances and environments, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15335

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    General Relativity and Gravitation , keywords =

    Moniez, M. 2010, General Relativity and Gravitation, 42, 2047, doi: 10.1007/s10714-009-0925-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-009-0925-4 2010

  42. [42]

    Hirata, C. M. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 031–031, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/031 Mr´ oz, P., & Poleski, R. 2024, Exoplanet Occurrence Rates from Microlensing Surveys (Springer International Publishing), 1–23, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 208-1 Mr´ oz, P., Udalski, A., Skowron, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journ...

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/031 2019

  43. [43]

    Niikura, M

    Masaki, S. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.99.083503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.083503 2019

  44. [44]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 524, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1

    Niikura, H., Takada, M., Yasuda, N., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 524, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1 2019

  45. [45]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2022, The Origin and Evolution of Multiple Star Systems, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    work page doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJ, 304, 1, doi: 10.1086/164140

    work page doi:10.1086/164140 1986

  48. [48]

    M., Diego, J

    Palencia, J. M., Diego, J. M., Kavanagh, B. J., & Mart´ ınez-Arrizabalaga, J. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347492 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347492 2024

  49. [49]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2868–2876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab855

    Pozo, A., Broadhurst, T., de Martino, I., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2868–2876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab855

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab855 2021

  50. [50]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1 2010

  51. [51]

    C., Mr´ oz, P., Kulkarni, S

    Rodriguez, A. C., Mr´ oz, P., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac51cc 2022

  52. [52]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  53. [53]

    1984, AJ, 89, 919, doi: 10.1086/113588

    Sandage, A., & Binggeli, B. 1984, AJ, 89, 919, doi: 10.1086/113588

    work page doi:10.1086/113588 1984

  54. [54]

    2021, ApJL, 914, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335

    Shen, Z., Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 914, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0335 2021

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Silk, J. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 488, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz090 2019

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Trujillo, I., Beasley, M. A., Borlaff, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz771

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz771 2019

  57. [57]

    2018, Geosciences, 8, 365, doi: 10.3390/geosciences8100365

    Tsapras, Y. 2018, Geosciences, 8, 365, doi: 10.3390/geosciences8100365

    work page doi:10.3390/geosciences8100365 2018

  58. [58]

    1994, AcA, 44, 227, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9408026 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y., et al

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., et al. 1994, AcA, 44, 227, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9408026 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature25767 van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., Merritt, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9408026 1994

  59. [59]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..216W 157, 216

    Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc 2019

  60. [60]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Wyrzykowski, L., Koz lowski, S., Skowron, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 493, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18150.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18150.x 2011

  61. [61]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298

    Yan, H., Ma, Z., Sun, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad0298 2023

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    Yang, D., Yu, H.-B., & An, H. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.125.111105

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.111105 2020

  63. [63]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 11

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Dey, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdd71 2023

  64. [64]

    R., Ciardullo, R., Gebhardt, H., et al

    Zeimann, G. R., Ciardullo, R., Gebhardt, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/113 2014