Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 48 references

The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation II: Stellar Mass Models

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New color-based mass-to-light models allow WISE W1 fluxes to yield galaxy stellar masses consistent with Spitzer-based estimates.

desk verdict A practical WISE W1 stellar-mass calibration package, honest about being an interpolation of the authors' own SML models, but with an unresolved 0.2 dex tension against Jarrett et al. that deserves referee attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10919 v1 pith:7NCTOXCP submitted 2025-01-19 astro-ph.GA

Francis Duey , James Schombert , Stacy McGaugh , Federico Lelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords mass-to-lightratioWISEW1photometrystellarmassTully-FisherrelationpopulationmodelsAGBstarsgalaxyscalingrelations
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 tries to establish that WISE W1 infrared fluxes, converted through new color-based mass-to-light models, give galaxy stellar masses as reliable as those from Spitzer 3.6 micron photometry. The models are calibrated on star cluster colors and applied to the SPARC galaxy sample, and the resulting masses agree with independent literature estimates to a mean offset of $0.02 \pm 0.18$ dex. This matters because WISE covers the whole sky, so if the conversion is sound, stellar masses for large galaxy samples no longer depend on pointed Spitzer observations. The paper also shows that the same masses improve the high-mass end of the stellar-mass Tully-Fisher relation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the color-$\Upsilon_*$ relation: a mapping from $g-W1$ color to the stellar mass-to-light ratio in the WISE W1 band. It is generated from composite stellar population models that combine specified star formation histories and chemical enrichment scenarios, with the AGB contribution calibrated empirically on star cluster colors. This relation is what converts observed flux into stellar mass, so every comparison in the paper, whether against Spitzer, independent samples, or the Tully-Fisher relation, depends on it.

What would settle it

A resolved-star census of blue dwarf galaxies that yields stellar masses systematically lower than the $g-W1$ color-$\Upsilon_*$ prediction by more than about 0.2 dex would falsify the empirical AGB calibration, since the paper identifies blue, star-forming galaxies as the regime with the largest model uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a simple color, $g-W1$, plus a choice of bulge/disk decomposition, determines the WISE W1 mass-to-light ratio well enough to recover stellar masses consistent with Spitzer 3.6 micron masses and with independent literature stellar-mass estimates. The new $\Upsilon_*$ models replace uncertain theoretical AGB treatment with an empirical calibration on 116 LMC, SMC, and Milky Way star clusters, and they are built for three star formation history scenarios: pure disk, pure bulge, and a bulge+disk hybrid. Using these models on SPARC galaxies gives a mean offset of $0.02 \pm 0.18$ dex against Spitzer-based masses and an RMS scatter of 0.29 dex against an independent W1-W2 color relation. The authors convert WISE luminosity profiles into stellar mass density profiles that track Spitzer profiles, and they construct WISE luminosity and stellar-mass Tully-Fisher relations in which the stellar-mass version is more linear at high masses.

Load-bearing premise

The method stands or falls on the assumption that the AGB prescription calibrated on 116 Milky Way, LMC, and SMC star clusters applies to every galaxy type in the SPARC sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The all-sky WISE archive can replace pointed Spitzer 3.6 micron observations for stellar and baryonic mass studies, including total masses and radial mass profiles.
  • Stellar mass Tully-Fisher relations built from WISE masses are more linear at the high-mass end because bulge-dominated galaxies receive higher mass-to-light ratios.
  • Color-blind W1 luminosity-to-mass relations that use a constant $\Upsilon_*$ will systematically underpredict stellar masses in gas-rich, low-luminosity galaxies, inflating their gas fractions.
  • Optical-to-near-IR colors such as $g-W1$ are sufficient to determine $\Upsilon_*$; full SED fitting did not improve agreement in the tested comparison samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the AGB calibration holds up, near-IR stellar masses for dwarf galaxies may need to be revised upward relative to color-blind WISE luminosity relations, which would remove the tension between low $\Upsilon_*$ values and the stability of spiral density waves.
  • The same color-$\Upsilon_*$ machinery could be tested at high redshift by applying it to rest-frame near-IR JWST photometry, although the paper only gestures at this link.
  • A stronger test than the paper offers would compare W1-based stellar masses against dynamical masses in galaxies where the dark matter fraction is measured independently, since that would bypass stellar population assumptions entirely.
  • The 0.2 dex offset with the alternative total-flux relation could indicate that optically calibrated SED-fitting masses inherit too-low near-IR $\Upsilon_*$ values; the paper supports this indirectly through gas fraction plausibility rather than by a direct stellar population test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents new stellar mass-to-light ratio (Upsilon*) models for converting WISE W1 fluxes into stellar masses, extending the authors' earlier SML models calibrated on Magellanic Cloud and Milky Way star clusters. The models are built from assumed star formation histories and chemical evolution scenarios, with an empirical AGB correction. The authors compare masses derived from W1 photometry with those from Spitzer 3.6um, S4G, Dustpedia, Cluver et al. (2014), and Jarrett et al. (2023), and also compare W1 and 3.6um surface brightness and mass density profiles. They find good agreement with most comparisons and present WISE luminosity and stellar mass Tully-Fisher relations for the SPARC sample.

Significance. If the models are reliable, they provide a practical path to stellar masses from all-sky WISE data, which is valuable now that Spitzer is no longer operational. The paper makes useful comparisons to S4G and Dustpedia that are partially independent of the authors' population synthesis, and it provides tabulated masses in machine-readable form. However, the central validation is weakened by the fact that the W1-to-Spitzer mass comparison shares the same stellar population models, and by an unresolved ~0.2 dex offset from Jarrett et al. (2023). The claimed accuracy of 0.1 dex for blue, low-mass galaxies therefore rests on assumptions that are not fully tested.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 4] The W1-to-Spitzer mass comparison is not an independent validation of the Upsilon* scale because both masses are derived from the same SML stellar population models and the same empirical AGB prescription. Any systematic error in Upsilon* largely cancels in this comparison. The agreement in Fig. 4 confirms photometric consistency and the color-color relations, but it cannot validate the absolute stellar mass scale. The statement that 'the scatter is completely explained by photometric errors' is too strong. Please either rephrase the claim or provide a test that uses a fully independent Upsilon* determination, such as dynamical masses or SED fits that do not share the same AGB treatment.
  2. [Section 2] The empirical AGB prescription is anchored using V-K colors of 116 LMC, SMC, and Milky Way star clusters, and then propagated to W1 through K-[3.6] and [3.6]-W1 color-color relations. There is no direct test of the models against W1 or g-W1 colors of star clusters or of resolved stellar populations. This is a critical extrapolation because the paper's central product is the g-W1 color-Upsilon* relation. Please quantify the systematic uncertainty introduced by this propagation chain, and if possible test the final W1 Upsilon* models on clusters with W1 photometry. If no such test is possible, state clearly that the W1 AGB behavior is an assumption.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 3] The disagreement with Jarrett et al. (2023) of roughly 0.2 dex is dismissed primarily through an argument about gas-fraction plausibility (Fig. 3). This is an indirect test: the low-Upsilon* values may indeed imply high gas fractions, but this is not a direct measurement of stellar population properties. Please provide a direct comparison with independent stellar mass estimates for the same galaxies, such as high-quality optical SED fits or dynamical mass constraints where the gas fraction is known. The unresolved 0.2 dex offset is significant relative to the claimed 0.1 dex accuracy and needs to be addressed quantitatively before the models can be adopted with confidence.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The comparison with Cluver et al. (2014) yields an RMS of 0.29 dex in log stellar mass for 58 galaxies. This scatter is much larger than the ~0.1 dex uncertainty quoted in the abstract for the Upsilon* models. The paper does not discuss whether this scatter is consistent with the quoted photometric and model errors, or whether it indicates an additional systematic floor in the W1-W2 method. Please quantify the expected scatter from the stated errors and compare it with the observed RMS.
  5. [Section 6, Fig. 7] The claim that the stellar mass TF 'improves the linearity of the entire correlation' is not supported by any quantitative fit statistics in the text. Please report the fitted slope, intercept, scatter, and the number of galaxies for both the luminosity TF and the stellar mass TF, so the reader can judge whether the improvement is significant. As written, the comparison with Ristea et al. (2023) is only qualitative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'color-$\Upsilon_*$ (mass-to-light) models' is redundant; 'mass-to-light ratio' is clearer. Please use consistent terminology throughout.
  2. [Section 2, paragraph 3] The sentence 'Our stellar population models is based on...' should be 'Our stellar population models are based on...'.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph 4] The sentence 'This may signal a systematic difference in our W1 fluxes (unlikely) or a systematic underestimate of near-IR $\Upsilon_*$ values from optically determined SED fits' contains an unsupported parenthetical 'unlikely'. Please present both possibilities neutrally.
  4. [Section 5, paragraph 2] The phrase 'A optimal course' should be 'An optimal course'.
  5. [Section 4] The sample size for the W1-vs-Spitzer comparison is not clearly stated. Section 5 says 111 galaxies have good W1 and IRAC images, and 81 have SDSS imaging, but the number used in Fig. 4 is not given. Please specify the sample size in the text.
  6. [Introduction] The reference 'Duey et al. 2024' is mentioned as Paper I but does not appear in the reference list. Please add the full citation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

W1–Spitzer mass agreement is partly internal because both filters use the same SML population models; the central Upsilon* relation still has independent support from S4G, Dustpedia, and Cluver.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4 and Fig. 4 caption; Sec. 7 Summary item 1]
    "While the same population models are used to deduce the stellar masses through the W1 or IRAC 3.6µm filters, the calibrations depend on the accuracy of the photometry ... Using the models from Fig. 1, the IRAC 3.6 µm and WISE W1 total luminosities are converted into total stellar masses in an independent fashion. This is a simple interpolation from our previous models, empirically tied to the Spitzer IRAC 3.6 µm colors and calibrated to stellar cluster colors to correct for short-lived AGB populations..."

    The W1 color–Upsilon* models are constructed by interpolation from the authors' Spitzer-tied SML models and share the same AGB prescription. Therefore the W1-vs-Spitzer mass comparison in Fig. 4 is not an independent test of the stellar-population modeling: any systematic error in the AGB treatment, SFH, or chemical-enrichment assumptions enters both bands and largely cancels in the ratio. What the comparison genuinely tests is the W1-to-[3.6] photometric conversion and color-color propagation, not the absolute Upsilon* scale. Calling this 'independent' overstates the evidential weight; the paper's own wording acknowledges the models are similar. The truly external checks are S4G, Dustpedia, and Cluver et al., while the Jarrett et al.

full rationale

This manuscript is mostly self-contained as an empirical calibration paper: the color–Upsilon* relations are built from an explicitly stated SFH/chemical-enrichment recipe plus a cluster-calibrated AGB correction, and they are not fitted to W1 masses. The external comparisons (S4G/Eskew, Dustpedia, Cluver) provide independent anchoring, so the central claim is not reduced to a self-citation. The main circular element is that the headline W1-vs-Spitzer agreement is partly internal: both bands use the same SML population models and AGB prescription, so the agreement validates photometry/color-color propagation rather than the absolute Upsilon* scale. The paper itself concedes the models are similar and that a constant-Upsilon (Jarrett-type) solution is rejected on gas-fraction plausibility rather than by a direct stellar-population test. Score 4 reflects one partially by-construction validation embedded in an otherwise externally tested derivation.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central product rests on a set of chosen star formation histories, a chosen age-metallicity relation, and an empirically adjusted AGB prescription, all carried over from the authors' prior papers. These choices are the price of admission for the color-to-Upsilon* relations, and they are the main source of model uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial star formation epoch = 12 Gyr ago (z_f between 8 and 12)
    Chosen in Section 2 to anchor all SFH models; affects the old stellar population and hence Upsilon*.
  • Star formation decline timescale = burst declines or levels off by 4 Gyr
    Chosen in Section 2; the shape of the SFH sets the composite stellar population and the color-Upsilon* mapping.
  • Pre-enrichment metallicity floor = [Fe/H] = -1.5
    Chosen in Section 2 as the starting point of the age-metallicity relation.
  • Metallicity growth saturation = 80% of final metallicity, final value from mass-metallicity relation
    Chosen in Section 2; the AMR shape determines how red and metal-rich populations map to Upsilon*.
  • AGB empirical correction = not given numerically
    Empirical adjustment tabulated from 116 star clusters in Section 2; it is the largest model uncertainty and is calibrated to cluster colors rather than derived from isochrones.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard stellar population synthesis codes (BC03, CG10) and their isochrones are a valid basis for building composite stellar populations.
    Invoked throughout Section 2 as the foundation of the SSP and CSP construction.
  • domain assumption All models assume an initial epoch of star formation 12 Gyr ago followed by a rapid burst that declines or levels off by 4 Gyr.
    Section 2 states this as the adopted SFH framework; it limits the range of possible stellar populations.
  • domain assumption The mass-metallicity and mass-SFR relations are narrow enough that color uniquely determines Upsilon*.
    Section 3 relies on this to justify using g-W1 color as a proxy for the stellar population.
  • domain assumption The empirical AGB correction calibrated on LMC, SMC and MW star clusters applies to all SPARC galaxies.
    Section 2 extrapolates cluster-based AGB colors to the full galaxy sample.
  • ad hoc to paper A sudden drop in AGB luminosity at near-solar metallicity creates the jump in Upsilon* at g-W1 = 3.3.
    Section 2 introduces this feature, stated as confirmed by the colors of high-mass ellipticals, to match the red sequence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation II: Stellar Mass Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NCTOXCP

@misc{pith2026250110919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation II: Stellar Mass Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NCTOXCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10919}
}
abstract

We present new color-$\Upsilon_*$ (mass-to-light) models to convert WISE W1 fluxes into stellar masses. We outline a range of possible star formation histories and chemical evolution scenarios to explore the confidence limits of stellar population models on the value of $\Upsilon_*$. We conclude that the greatest uncertainties (around 0.1 dex in $\Upsilon_*$) occur for the bluest galaxies with the strongest variation in recent star formation. For high mass galaxies, the greatest uncertainty arises from the proper treatment of bulge/disk separation in which to apply different $\Upsilon_*$ relations appropriate for those differing underlying stellar populations. We compare our deduced stellar masses with those deduced from {\it Spitzer} 3.6$\mu$m fluxes and stellar mass estimates in the literature using optical photometry and different $\Upsilon_*$ modeling. We find the correspondence to be excellent, arguing that rest-frame near-IR photometry is still more advantageous than other wavelengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10919 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Updated Υ∗ models from Schombert, McGaugh & Lelli (2022). The three models shown (dis￾cussed in the text) represent pure bulge and disk star formation histories, which are then combined to produce a bulge+disk (B+D) scenario guided by the main sequence relation (Speagle et al. 2014) and a chemical enrichment model. Standardized to the g-W1 or g-[3.6] color, at the 3.5µm wavelength the differ￾ence between Υ∗ is only … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of stellar masses deduced by g−W1 colors (SPARC) versus W1−W2 color relation (Cluver et al. 2014). The WISE sample was selected for only those galaxies in the SPARC sample with W2 fluxes with S/N greater than 20. Typical errors in stellar mass are shown and the RMS for the comparison of 58 galaxies is 0.29 in log. The right panel displays the log LW1 versus stellar mass relationship outlined in Jarrett … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A comparison of W1 luminosity versus gas fraction, Mgas/Mbar, for the WISE SPARC sample. The left panel displays gas fractions using the color relation presented in this paper, while the right panel uses a constant value of 0.2 proposed by Jarrett et al. (2023). Hubble types are indicated such that early￾types spirals are red symbols, Sc’s are green and late-type dwarfs are blue. The prediction of gas fraction as a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Using the models from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The WISE W1 surface brightness profiles (blue symbols) are compared to Spitzer IRAC 3.6µm (red symbols) and SDSS i (black lines) profiles for six SPARC galaxies of varying mass, morphological type and scale length. The W1 and 3.6µm profiles are in excellent agreement w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The comparison of three SPARC galaxies mass density profiles using WISE W1 surface brightness profiles versus Spitzer IRAC 3.6µm profiles. Deviations at the low luminosity end are more than likely due to differences in photometric assign￾ment to a total luminosity valu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The luminosity and stellar mass TF relations for the SPARC WISE sample. Blue symbols indicate galaxies with Hubble flow distances, red symbols are galaxies with redshift-independent distances (typical Cepheids or TRGB estimates). The luminosity TF is key as a distance …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Mould, J

    Aaronson, M. & Mould, J. 1983, ApJ, 265,

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    M., Maiolino, R., Belfiore, F., et al

    doi:10.1086/160648 Baker, W. M., Maiolino, R., Belfiore, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518,

    work page doi:10.1086/160648 2023

  3. [3]

    2009, The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, 254,

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/3 Prantzos, N. 2009, The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, 254,

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/3 2009

  4. [5]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154,

    work page 2004

  5. [15]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122,

    work page 2001

  6. [18]

    Bruzual, A. G. 1993, RMxAA, 26, 126 Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 Bruzual, A. G. 2009, arXiv:0911.0791. Cassata, P., Guzzo, L., Franceschini, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172,

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  7. [22]

    E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788,

    work page 2014

  8. [41]

    2006, MNRAS, 370,

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370,

    work page 2006

Show all 48 references
  1. [42]

    S., Liao, T

    Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Liao, T. X., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633,

    2005

  2. [45]

    R., Dalcanton, J

    19 Weisz, D. R., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739,

    2011

  3. [47]

    Robotham, A. S. G., Bellstedt, S., Lagos, C. del P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495,

    2020

  4. [48]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236,

    2018

  5. [49]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140,

    2010

  6. [77]

    S., Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., & Lelli, F. 2017, ApJ, 851,

    2017

  7. [82]

    2011, Ap&SS, 331,

    Walcher, J., Groves, B., Budav´ ari, T., et al. 2011, Ap&SS, 331,

    2011

  8. [90]

    1996, ApJS, 103,

    Courteau, S. 1996, ApJS, 103,

    1996

  9. [102]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3407 Brown, M. J. I., Moustakas, J., Smith, J.-D. T., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212,

    2014 doi

  10. [139]

    2005, MNRAS, 362,

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362,

    2005

  11. [143]

    J., S´ anchez, S

    Ibarra-Medel, H. J., S´ anchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463,

    2016

  12. [144]

    C., Sheth, K., Regan, M., et al

    Mu˜ noz-Mateos, J. C., Sheth, K., Regan, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219,

    2015

  13. [152]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484,

    2019

  14. [154]

    L., et al

    Sheth, K., Regan, M., Hinz, J. L., et al. 2010, PASP, 122,

    2010

  15. [157]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836,

    2017

  16. [174]

    B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 138,

    2009

  17. [214]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1496 Schombert, J., McGaugh, S., & Lelli, F

    Schombert, J., McGaugh, S., & Lelli, F. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1496 Schombert, J., McGaugh, S., & Lelli, F. 2022, AJ, 163,

    2019

  18. [253]

    G., Baugh, C

    Gonzalez-Perez, V., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439,

    2014

  19. [264]

    Graham, A. W. & Worley, C. C. 2008, MNRAS, 388,

    2008

  20. [270]

    Clark, C. J. R., Verstocken, S., Bianchi, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A37. Cluver, M. E., Jarrett, T. H., Hopkins, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782,

    2018

  21. [287]

    C., Worthey, G., Faber, S

    Trager, S. C., Worthey, G., Faber, S. M., et al. 1998, ApJS, 116,

    1998

  22. [289]

    2023, MNRAS, 519,

    Bell, R., Said, K., Davis, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519,

    2023

  23. [290]

    McGaugh, S. S. & Schombert, J. M. 2014, AJ, 148,

    2014

  24. [323]

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/323 Tully, R. B. 2023, arXiv:2305.11950. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.11950 Villaume, A., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2015, ApJ, 806,

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [363]

    2019, A&A, 627, A42

    18 Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., & Curti, M. 2019, A&A, 627, A42. Conroy, C. & Gunn, J. E. 2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:1010.043 Consolandi, G., Gavazzi, G., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A38. de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., et al. 19...

    2019

  26. [381]

    Rakos, K. D. & Schombert, J. M. 1995, ApJ, 439,

    1995

  27. [469]

    J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A

    Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136,

    1962

  28. [547]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1978, Structure and Properties of Nearby Galaxies, 77, 15 Tinsley, B. M. 1980, FCPh, 5,

    1978

  29. [646]

    2005, Multiwavelength Mapping of Galaxy Formation and Evolution,

    Maraston, C. 2005, Multiwavelength Mapping of Galaxy Formation and Evolution,

    2005

  30. [748]

    2012, AJ, 143,

    Eskew, M., Zaritsky, D., & Meidt, S. 2012, AJ, 143,

    2012

  31. [905]

    M., Madhav, K., Stoll, A., et al

    Roth, M. M., Madhav, K., Stoll, A., et al. 2023, Proc. SPIE, 12424, 124240B. Salaris, M., Weiss, A., Cassar` a, L. P., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A9. Schombert, J. M. & McGaugh, S. 2014, PASA, 31, e011. Schombert, J. M. 2016, AJ, 152,

    2023

  32. [1106]

    & Bell, E

    Gallazzi, A. & Bell, E. F. 2009, ApJS, 185,

    2009

  33. [1397]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214,

    2014

  34. [1587]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1968, ApJ, 151,

    1968

  35. [1708]

    Hogg, D. W. 2022, arXiv:2206.00989. Hosek, M. W., Lu, J. R., Lam, C. Y., et al. 2020, AJ, 160,

    2022 arXiv

  36. [1861]

    N., Hopkins, A

    Taylor, E. N., Hopkins, A. M., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418,

    2011

  37. [2799]

    H., Cluver, M

    Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Taylor, E. N., et al. 2023, arXiv:2301.05952. Korsaga, M., Famaey, B., Freundlich, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L41. Lee, J. H., Pak, M., Jeong, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521,

    2023 arXiv

  38. [3267]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz205 Lin, C. C. & Shu, F. H. 1964, ApJ, 140,

    1964 doi

  39. [4207]

    S., & Schombert, J

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad814 Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, AJ, 152,

    2016 doi

  40. [4767]

    F., McIntosh, D

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3413 Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 149,

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.