Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

The Extended Globular Cluster System of the archetypal "failed galaxy" Dragonfly-44 from deep white-light Hubble Space Telescope imaging

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deep census finds ~78 globular clusters around Dragonfly-44, not ~20

desk verdict Deep new HST data make a strong case that DF44 really is GC-rich, but the overstated depth claim and the single-band selection need attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26152 v1 pith:VOH63GXV submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.GA

Maria Luisa Buzzo , Pieter van Dokkum , Roberto Abraham , Shany Danieli , Aaron J. Romanowsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersultra-diffusegalaxiesfaileddarkmatterDragonfly-44clusterluminosityfunctionhalomassgalaxyformation
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the ultra-diffuse galaxy Dragonfly-44 hosts a large and spatially extended system of globular clusters—78.3±3.7 clusters with a half-number radius 1.41 times the galaxy's effective radius. That number matches the high end of earlier, disputed estimates and is four times the lowest published count. If true, Dragonfly-44 is restored as one of the clearest 'failed galaxies': a system that formed a massive dark matter halo and many clusters early but almost no field stars. The result matters because it resolves a factor-of-four controversy and gives a concrete benchmark that any successful galaxy formation model must reproduce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the very deep, broad-band 'white-light' imaging that reaches below the turnover of the globular cluster luminosity function—the magnitude where cluster counts peak—so faint clusters are detected directly instead of being estimated through large completeness corrections. A point-spread-function-based selection isolates compact clusters from unresolved background galaxies, a Sérsic fit to the radially binned density profile gives the half-number radius, and integrating the Gaussian-fitted, completeness-corrected luminosity function yields the total number; the cluster count is then converted to a halo mass through the empirical N_GC–M_vir scaling relation.

What would settle it

If a redshift survey of the faintest candidates showed that a large fraction are background galaxies rather than Coma cluster members, the corrected count would fall toward the lower published value; conversely, an independent re-analysis of the same images with a different point-spread-function and background model that recovered about 20 clusters would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Based on ultra-deep space-based imaging that reaches more than a magnitude below the turnover magnitude of the globular cluster luminosity function, the authors report a total of 78.3±3.7 globular clusters around Dragonfly-44, after background subtraction and completeness correction. The cluster system is more extended than the stellar body, with a Sérsic half-number radius of 1.41 R_e, and the faint clusters are less centrally concentrated than the bright ones. From the integrated, completeness-corrected luminosity function they derive a total cluster mass of about 1.6×10^7 solar masses, roughly 5% of the galaxy's stellar mass, and from the cluster count–halo mass relation a virial halo mas

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the faint compact sources selected as globular clusters are truly clusters rather than unresolved background galaxies, and on a constant background density subtracted from the counts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dragonfly-44's status as a canonical failed galaxy is restored, and its GC-inferred halo mass independently supports a cored, rather than cuspy, dark matter profile.
  • The factor-of-four controversy is explained by depth: shallow imaging misses the fainter, more extended clusters, implying that low GC counts for other ultra-diffuse galaxies from shallow data should be revisited.
  • The measured GC mass fraction of ~5% places Dragonfly-44 among the most extreme galaxies known by this robust formation diagnostic, well above the 2.5% threshold for a clear failed galaxy.
  • Any successful model of galaxy formation must now explain a ~10^11.6 solar-mass halo that produced ~80 massive clusters and only 3×10^8 solar masses of field stars before quenching—currently no simulation reproduces such systems as a class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If luminosity segregation of globular clusters is common, many shallow surveys of ultra-diffuse galaxies may systematically underestimate cluster counts, half-number radii, and inferred halo masses, skewing the scaling relations used to classify these galaxies.
  • Applying the same ultra-deep approach to other disputed or cluster-poor ultra-diffuse galaxies could reveal whether the failed-galaxy phenomenon is a distinct formation pathway or the extreme end of a continuous distribution.
  • Because the faint clusters dominate the extended component, a testable extension is to predict a metallicity gradient in the GC system: outer, fainter clusters should be more metal-poor if they formed in the low-density outskirts of the protogalactic halo.
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. The paper presents new HST/WFC3-UVIS F350LP imaging (30,000 s) of Dragonfly-44. After galaxy subtraction, compact sources are selected as GC candidates via finite PSF-fit magnitudes and FWHM < 4.5 pixels. A Sérsic radial profile plus a constant background is fitted to the candidate surface density, giving R_gc = 1.41^{+0.57}_{-0.25} R_e and n_gc = 1.48^{+1.11}_{-0.55}. A Gaussian GCLF is fitted (turnover M_V = -7.47 ± 0.06, σ = 0.81 ± 0.05), completeness-corrected using artificial-star tests (m50 = 28.44), and summed to N_GC = 78.3 ± 3.7. Using external N_GC–halo mass calibrations, the authors infer log(M_vir/M_sun) = 11.6 ± 0.3, M_GC/M_* ≈ 5%, and a dark-matter fraction >99.9%, concluding that DF44 is a canonical failed galaxy and that the earlier factor-of-four discrepancy in GC count is resolved in favor of a rich, extended GC system.

Significance. If the measurement is correct, this is a significant result: it settles a disputed GC count for a benchmark UDG and supports the failed-galaxy interpretation of DF44. The new F350LP data are substantially deeper than previous HST imaging, and the paper includes explicit artificial-star completeness tests, a public reduced mosaic and catalog, and direct comparison with the Saifollahi et al. analyses. The inference is not circular: N_GC is measured from new imaging, and the halo mass is obtained from external calibrations. The main weakness is that the entire GC identification rests on single-band morphology, so the quoted N_GC and R_gc remain conditional on the level of contamination by unresolved background galaxies.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2–3.4] The GC candidate selection uses only F350LP information: a finite PSF-fit magnitude and FWHM<4.5 px, with a constant background density ρ_bg=0.005±0.001 arcsec^-2 fitted jointly with the Sérsic profile. At m_V~27–29 unresolved background galaxies can pass the same cuts, and no color or multi-band size information is used. Because ρ_bg and the Sérsic parameters are fitted simultaneously, a radial background gradient or small-scale clustering would bias both N_GC and R_gc. The consistency checks in §3.5 use the same candidate list and therefore do not independently test contamination; recovering 14/22 Saifollahi et al. candidates validates the bright population, not the faint sources that drive the extended distribution. A modest ~20% contamination in the faint sample would materially change N_GC and R_gc and hence the failed-galaxy classification. I request a color cross-check with the ac
  2. [§3.3 and Abstract] The abstract, §4.2, and conclusions state that the data reach 'more than one magnitude below the turnover', but the reported numbers do not support this. With m50=28.44 and turnover m_V≈27.6 (or m_V=27.53 from the fitted M_V=-7.47), the 50% completeness point is only ~0.84–0.91 mag fainter than turnover. The §3.3 statement that the turnover lies 'well above' the 50% completeness threshold is likewise overstated. This matters because the faint-end correction is not negligible and the Gaussian GCLF is extrapolated below 50% completeness. Please correct the depth claims and quantify the sensitivity of N_GC to alternative completeness and GCLF assumptions.
  3. [§3.5] The quoted N_GC=78.3±3.7 appears not to include a full systematic error budget. The background-density uncertainty (±0.001 arcsec^-2) alone corresponds to several GCs over the area inside 4R_e, and the radial extrapolation uncertainty from R_gc=1.41^{+0.57}_{-0.25} is asymmetric and large. The completeness correction in the 28–29 mag range is also model-dependent. Please state explicitly which uncertainties contribute to the quoted error bar and provide a combined statistical plus systematic estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The 'smoothed residual image' in Figure 2 is not described; please specify the smoothing kernel and scale used.
  2. [§3.2] The phrase 'a finite PSF-fit magnitude' is non-standard. Consider defining it explicitly (e.g., sources for which the PSF-fit converges and gives a positive flux) and stating how many detected sources are rejected by this criterion.
  3. [§3.2] The two brightest candidates are noted to lie at the boundary of the ultra-compact-dwarf regime (M_V≈-11). Please state explicitly whether they are included in the GC count and how their classification would affect N_GC if they are excluded.
  4. [§3.5] The consistency check with the radial profile applies a single global completeness factor of 77.4%. Since completeness is strongly magnitude-dependent, using the full completeness function would make the comparison more meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: N_GC is measured from new imaging, and derived quantities use external calibrations.

full rationale

The paper's central result, N_GC = 78.3 ± 3.7 with R_gc = 1.41 Re, is obtained from new HST/WFC3 F350LP imaging through source detection, PSF selection, artificial-star completeness corrections, and a fitted Sersic radial profile with an empirically fitted constant background. These are data-driven measurement steps, not pre-supplied answers. The conversion from GC count to halo mass uses external empirical relations (Harris et al. 2017; Burkert & Forbes 2020), and the comparison to the kinematic halo mass from van Dokkum et al. (2019b) is an independent cross-check using separate spectroscopic data, not an input to the GC fit. Self-citations are used for context and comparison, not as load-bearing derivations. The GCLF turnover is fitted from the data and is similar to, but not imposed equal to, the canonical value. The single-filter morphological selection and background subtraction are legitimate measurement uncertainties that affect correctness, but they do not constitute circularity under the definitions used here.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central number comes from a photometric measurement with fitted background/GCLF parameters; halo mass and dark-matter fraction rely on external calibrations. The main risk is covariance between the fitted background, radial profile, and faint-end GCLF correction.

free parameters (4)
  • Background density rho_bg = 0.005 ± 0.001 arcsec^-2
    Fitted as a constant in the radial profile; subtracted from all annuli and directly sets the contamination correction to N_GC (§3.4).
  • Sersic parameters (n_gc, R_gc, normalization) = n_gc=1.48+1.11-0.55, R_gc=1.41+0.57-0.25 R_e
    MCMC fit to the radial profile; used to extrapolate counts beyond 4 R_e and to define the extended GC system (§3.4).
  • GCLF turnover and dispersion = M_V=-7.47±0.06, sigma=0.81±0.05
    Gaussian fit to the background-subtracted counts; used to correct the faint, incomplete bins before summing N_GC (§3.5).
  • Adopted mass-to-light ratio M/L_V = 2
    Adopted from old, metal-poor GC calibration to convert integrated GC luminosity to M_GC; directly sets the claimed M_GC/M*≈5% (§4.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Distance to Coma cluster is 100 Mpc (distance modulus 35.0).
    Adopted in Section 1; sets the physical scale of R_e, kpc, and absolute magnitudes. A different distance would shift R_gc and M_V.
  • domain assumption Compact sources with FWHM<4.5 px and finite PSF magnitude are globular clusters, and residual background is a constant density.
    Core selection assumption in §3.2 and §3.4; under-subtracted background galaxies would inflate N_GC and change the radial profile.
  • domain assumption The N_GC–Mvir relation from Harris et al. (2017) / Burkert & Forbes (2020) applies to DF44.
    Used in §4.2 to infer log Mvir=11.6±0.3; possible environmental dependence or larger intrinsic scatter is not independently calibrated for this galaxy.
  • domain assumption GCs are old, metal-poor populations with M/L_V=2.
    Used to convert integrated GC luminosity to M_GC; affects the claimed 5% GC mass fraction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Extended Globular Cluster System of the archetypal "failed galaxy" Dragonfly-44 from deep white-light Hubble Space Telescope imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOH63GXV

@misc{pith2026260726152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Extended Globular Cluster System of the archetypal "failed galaxy" Dragonfly-44 from deep white-light Hubble Space Telescope imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOH63GXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26152}
}
abstract

For nearly a decade, Dragonfly-44 (DF44, $M_{\star} = 3\times10^8\,{\rm M}_\odot$) has been considered an archetypal ''failed galaxy'', a system so rich in globular clusters (GCs) and dark matter that it challenges standard dwarf galaxy formation scenarios. Yet a key measurement underpinning this classification has remained controversial, with published GC counts differing by a factor of four. Here we present new ultra-deep Hubble Space Telescope WFC3/UVIS imaging of DF44 in the F350LP filter, reaching more than one magnitude below the turnover of the GC luminosity function. We find that DF44 hosts $N_{\rm GC}=78.3\pm3.7$ GCs in a spatially extended system with a half-number radius of $R_{\rm gc}=1.41^{+0.57}_{-0.25}R_{\rm e}$, at the high end of previously published values. The GC system comprises ${\sim}5\%$ of the total stellar mass and implies a halo mass of $\log(M_{\rm vir}/M_\odot)=11.6\pm0.3$, in agreement with the cored halo mass inferred from stellar kinematics by van Dokkum et al. 2019. This places DF44 among the most dark matter-dominated galaxies known, with a dark matter fraction exceeding 99.9%. The combination of extreme GC richness and extreme dark matter content establishes DF44 as one of the clearest examples of a failed galaxy: a system that assembled a massive halo and rich GC population early, but never formed the field stellar mass expected for its halo. Although clustered star formation in high-pressure, early-collapsing halos offers a promising starting point, no current model or simulation reproduces failed galaxies as a class, making DF44 a critical benchmark for future models of galaxy formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between previous and new HST imaging of Dragonfly 44. The left panels show the ACS imaging obtained by P. van Dokkum et al. (2017) and reanalysed by T. Saifollahi et al. (2021, 2022): the upper panel corresponds to the combined F606W image and the lower panel to the shallower F814W image. The large panel on the right shows the new WFC3/UVIS F350LP data presented in this work. All panels are displayed usin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Galaxy subtraction of DF44. Left: Sky subtracted F350LP mosaic after masking compact sources and background galaxies. Middle: Best fit elliptical isophotal model constructed with photutils Ellipse. Right: Smoothed residual image after subtraction of the model and masking of all sources that are not well fitted by a PSF model. Numerous compact sources become clearly visible after subtraction. non-negligible backgroun… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution and radial surface density profile of GC candidates around DF44. Left: Residual F350LP mosaic showing all compact sources satisfying the PSF selection criteria, marked with red circles. Dashed ellipses indicate multiples of the galaxy effective radius. The inset highlights the central region of the galaxy. Right: Radial surface density profile measured in elliptical annuli aligned with the stell… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GCLF of DF44. Left: Raw GC candidate counts, estimated background counts, and completeness curve derived from artificial star tests. The vertical dotted line marks the canonical GCLF turnover magnitude at MV = −7.4 mag. Right: Background subtracted and completeness cor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  2. [2]

    C., & Loeb, A

    Amorisco, N. C., & Loeb, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw055

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw055 2016

  3. [3]

    E., Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., et al

    Barbosa, C. E., Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7660

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7660 2020

  4. [4]

    A., Romanowsky, A

    Beasley, M. A., Romanowsky, A. J., Pota, V., et al. 2016, ApJL, 819, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l20 2016

  5. [5]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink, & A. H. Rots, 435

    2011

  6. [6]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  7. [7]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.13989456 2024

  8. [8]

    Burkert, A., & Forbes, D. A. 2020, AJ, 159, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b0e 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    L., van Dokkum, P., Hilker, M., et al

    Buzzo, M. L., van Dokkum, P., Hilker, M., et al. 2026, Dark matter-deficient twins: FCC 224 and FCC 240 as possible analogues of NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4, https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24099

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2442

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Jarrett, T. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae564

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2025a, A&A, 695, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453522

    doi

  5. [13]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Jarrett, T. H., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 536, 2536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2700

    doi

  6. [14]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz383

    Carleton, T., Errani, R., Cooper, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz383

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

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

    Chan, T. K., Kereˇ s, D., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1153

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, FSPS: Flexible Stellar Population Synthesis,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.043 http://ascl.net/1010.043

    2010

  9. [17]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJL, 874, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e8c

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, ApJL, 927, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac590a Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

    Danieli, S., van Dokkum, P., Trujillo-Gomez, S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac590a Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw210

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Sales, L

    Doppel, J. E., Sales, L. V., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2818 Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., Gannon, J., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453393 Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., Gannon, J. S., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 52...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Jones, M

    Fielder, C. E., Jones, M. G., Sand, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf0c3

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Alabi, A., Romanowsky, A

    Forbes, D. A., Alabi, A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., & Arimoto, N. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa180

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Buzzo, M

    Forbes, D. A., Buzzo, M. L., Ferre-Mateu, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2675

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    A., & Gannon, J

    Forbes, D. A., & Gannon, J. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4004

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    S., & Hook, R

    Fruchter, A. S., & Hook, R. N. 2002, PASP, 114, 144, doi: 10.1086/338393

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Di Cintio, A., Forbes, D

    Gannon, J. S., Di Cintio, A., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1954

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., & Forbes, D

    Gannon, J. S., Ferr´ e-Mateu, A., & Forbes, D. A. 2026, PASA, 43, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2026.10169

    2026

  21. [29]

    A., Gannon, J

    Haacke, L., Forbes, D. A., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf559

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Dencheva, N., Fruchter, A

    Hack, W. J., Dencheva, N., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2012, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 220, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #220, 135.15

    2012

  23. [31]

    Harris, W. E. 2001, in Star Clusters, Vol. 28, 223, doi: 10.1007/3-540-31634-5 2

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Blakeslee, J

    Harris, W. E., Blakeslee, J. P., & Harris, G. L. H. 2017, ApJ, 836, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/67 10

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Harris, G

    Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., & Alessi, M. 2013, ApJ, 772, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/82

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Romanowsky, A

    Janssens, S. R., Romanowsky, A. J., Abraham, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2717

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/226.4.747

    1987 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.13732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.13732

    Kravtsov, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.13732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.13732

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Lim, S., Peng, E. W., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb81

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, Nature, 636, 332, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 332, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    W., & Lim, S

    Peng, E. W., & Lim, S. 2016, ApJL, 822, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L31

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Buzzo, M

    Pfeffer, J., Janssens, S. R., Buzzo, M. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4914, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae850 Rom´ an, J., & Trujillo, I. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx694

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Knapen, J. H. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3016

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac328

    Saifollahi, T., Zaritsky, D., Trujillo, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac328

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, A&A, 703, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554667

    Saifollahi, T., Lan¸ con, A., Cantiello, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554667

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    V., Navarro, J

    Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., Pe˜ nafiel, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa854

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa70

    Shen, Z., van Dokkum, P., & Danieli, S. 2023, ApJ, 957, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa70

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    Silk, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz090

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Gannon, J

    Tang, Y., Romanowsky, A. J., Gannon, J. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae11

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Brooks, A

    Tremmel, M., Wright, A. C., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2015

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Trujillo-Gomez, S., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Reina-Campos, M. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3401 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Abraham, R., Conroy, C., &

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019a, ApJL, 874, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92 van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., Brodie, J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L6 van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 844, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7ca2...

    doi

  43. [51]

    J., Brodie, J., et al

    Villaume, A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac341e

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Villaume, A., Laine, S., et al

    Webb, K. A., Villaume, A., Laine, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2417

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Wright, A. C. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1208, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01485-y

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.