Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Understanding Stellar Mass-Metallicity and Size Relations in Simulated Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-resolution cosmological simulations of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies show that individually sampling supernova progenitors from the initial mass function raises average stellar metallicities by 1–1.5 dex, and that using observational…

desk verdict The metallicity story is credible and worth engaging, but the size claim is a definitional artifact: the quoted 'half-light radii' are inner-component scale radii, not the model's actual half-light radii. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14683 v2 pith:VAUHOI37 submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.GA

Minsung Go , Myoungwon Jeon , Yumi Choi , Nitya Kallivayalil , Sangmo Tony Sohn , Gurtina Besla , Hannah Richstein , Sal Wanying Fu
show 2 more authors
Tae Bong Jeong Jihye Shin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiescosmologicalsimulationsmass-metallicityrelationmetallicitydistributionfunctionhalf-lightradiussupernovafeedbackreionizationgalaxyformation
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 two long-standing mismatches between simulated and observed ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs)—too little iron and too large sizes—can be substantially reduced by changing how supernovae and galaxy sizes are treated. In six high-resolution cosmological zoom simulations with gas-particle masses near 60 solar masses, the authors replace the usual practice of releasing all supernova energy from a single stellar-population particle with a scheme that samples individual massive stars from the initial mass function and lets each one explode separately. That change raises the average stellar metallicity of the simulated galaxies by 1–1.5 dex relative to earlier simulations, bringing them closer to the observed mass-metallicity relation, though still 0.5–1 dex metal-poor. On the size side, the paper shows that fitting the same exponential density profiles observers use, especially a two-component profile, gives half-light radii of roughly 85–145 pc, considerably smaller than direct mass-based estimates and close to the upper range of observed UFDs. The paper concludes that part of the gap is real and part is a methodological artifact, while the most compact observed systems ($r_h \lesssim 50$ pc) remain unexplained.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two pieces of machinery. The first is individual IMF sampling: rather than treating a 60-solar-mass star particle as a single stellar population that releases all supernova energy at once, the code draws individual stars from a Salpeter IMF (a standard stellar mass distribution) and lets each star in the 8–40 solar-mass range explode as a separate core-collapse supernova, while pair-instability supernovae cover 140–260 solar-mass Population III stars. This discrete injection of energy and metals is what raises the average metallicity, because new stars form from gas recently enriched by one or two explosions instead of being ejected by a combined superbubble. The second is a two-component exponential surface-density profile, $\Sigma(r) \propto e^{-r/r_e} + B e^{-r/r_s}$, fitted by maximum likelihood; the inner scale radius gives a half-light radius $r_h = 1.68 r_e$, while the outer scale radius $r_s \sim 0.6$–$1.7$ kpc captures the extended stellar halo produced by dry mergers of progenitor halos. This profile converts simulated star particles into the same observable used for real UFDs and is what shrinks the derived sizes.

What would settle it

Rerun the Halo4 zoom-in with delayed supernova feedback and radiative transfer while keeping all other settings fixed. The paper predicts the average stellar metallicity will fall below its fiducial $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \approx -2.65$; if it instead stays level or rises, the claim that individual IMF sampling is what lifts simulated UFDs toward the observed mass-metallicity relation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the stellar metallicities and sizes of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies in cosmological simulations are governed by two things previous simulations did not handle correctly: the discrete, star-by-star nature of supernova enrichment and the method used to measure a galaxy's size. With individual IMF sampling, stars form from gas that has been enriched by one or a few nearby supernovae, rather than being overwhelmed by the combined feedback of an entire stellar population, and the simulated galaxies reach average metallicities of $\langle [\mathrm{Fe/H}]\rangle \approx -2.2$ to $-3.0$, about 1–1.5 dex higher than earlier simulation suites. The same simulations still lack the observed population of relatively metal-rich stars with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \geq -2$, because cumulative supernova feedback together with reionization quenches star formation before enough metals accumulate; the maximum values reached are $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]_{\max} \approx -1.5$ to $-1.6$ in the most favorable starbursts. For sizes, the paper argues that the discrepancy is largely a measurement artifact: direct half-mass radii are inflated when stars are spread over several merged progenitor halos, whereas the observational maximum-likelihood fit to a single exponential profile, and even better a two-component exponential profile, yields half-light radii of $r_h \approx 85$–$145$ pc that sit at the upper end of observed UFD sizes. The most compact observed UFDs, with $r_h \lesssim 50$ pc, are still not reproduced.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the assumption that the early Universe was completely reheated and reionized all at once by redshift 6, and that supernovae dump their energy instantly with no radiation transport; if real reionization was patchy or supernova feedback was delayed and radiative, the simulated metallicities could shift enough to erase the claimed agreement with observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individually sampling supernova progenitors raises average UFD metallicities by 1–1.5 dex relative to earlier simulations, so the mass-metallicity gap is roughly halved rather than closed.
  • Comparing simulations and observations with identical profile-fitting methods is necessary; single-exponential fits without background stars overestimate half-light radii by up to a factor of six.
  • A two-component exponential profile is the more faithful description of simulated UFDs, capturing both a compact inner galaxy and an extended outer halo; applying it to observed galaxies could reveal hidden outer components.
  • Dry mergers between progenitor halos, not tidal stripping, produce extended stellar structures and erase metallicity gradients in isolated UFD analogs.
  • Stars with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \geq -2$ remain hard to form because supernova feedback and reionization quench star formation quickly; reducing supernova energy can produce them but overproduces stellar mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's radiative-transfer caveat is right, then matching observed UFD metallicities may require patchy reionization or a top-heavy IMF; this predicts that UFDs with similar stellar masses but different reionization histories should differ systematically in average [Fe/H].
  • The two-component fitting result implies that single-component fits in observational catalogs may systematically miss a diffuse outer component; re-fitting existing UFD photometry with two exponentials could reveal extended structures in systems currently classified as compact.
  • The strong correlation between the number of supernovae during a starburst and the maximum metallicity reached suggests a stochastic, environment-driven ceiling on enrichment, so the scatter in the UFD mass-metallicity relation carries information about local gas density rather than only halo mass.
  • The simulated absence of a metallicity gradient—because high-density gas blobs, not stars, migrate outward—can be tested by measuring abundances of stars beyond roughly three half-light radii in galaxies like Tucana II; a confirmed gradient would require a formation channel this simulation lacks.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations of six ultra-faint dwarf galaxy (UFD) analogs with gas mass resolution ~60 M_sun, focusing on stellar metallicities and sizes. The central claim is that individually sampling supernova progenitors from the IMF raises the average stellar metallicity of the simulated UFDs by 1-1.5 dex compared to earlier simulations, bringing them closer to (though still below) the observed mass-metallicity relation. The MDFs are compared to observations after excluding [Fe/H] < -4 stars, which the authors argue align well with observed UFDs. For sizes, the authors show that applying observational profile-fitting methods, especially a two-component exponential profile, yields half-light radii substantially smaller than direct mass-based estimates, improving agreement with observations, though the most compact observed systems (r_h < 50 pc) are not reproduced. The paper also discusses the role of multiple progenitor halos and dry mergers in shaping stellar properties and extended structures.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to the ongoing problem of reconciling simulations of UFDs with observations. The individual IMF sampling for SNe is a promising methodological improvement and is honestly tested against parameter variations. The emphasis on applying consistent observational fitting methods to simulation output is timely and important, as is the comparison to the two-component profile of Jensen et al. (2024). The simulations are forward models with subgrid parameters taken from local calibrations or literature rather than fitted to the UFD data, which strengthens the credibility of the qualitative trends. However, the quantitative claims rest on a small sample of six halos, and the size comparison contains a definitional issue that undermines the strongest size-related statement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.1, Table 3, Eq. (6), Fig. 17] The quoted r_h values from the two-component fit are the effective radii of the inner component only (r_h = 1.68 r_e), not the half-light radius of the total model. In a two-component profile of the form Sigma(r) = exp(-r/r_e) + B exp(-r/r_s), the radius enclosing half the total model light is not 1.68 r_e when B > 0. Using the Table 3 parameters for Halo4 (e.g., r_e ~ 70 pc, r_s = 850 pc, B = 0.009), the outer component contains a comparable or dominant share of the light, and a direct numerical integration gives a true model half-light radius of several hundred parsecs rather than 117 pc. Comparing the inner component's scale radius to observed half-light radii (which are derived from single-component fits) is therefore not a like-for-like comparison, and the visual impression in Fig. 17 that the two-component method 'closely matches' observed sizes is largely an artifact of this definition. The authors should either compute and report the actual half-light radius of the two-component model, or explicitly frame the quoted r_h as the inner component's scale radius and restrict the comparison to observations analyzed with a two-component profile.
  2. [Section 3.3.1, paragraph on Halo6] Halo6 is excluded from the size-luminosity analysis with the stated justification 'to avoid redundancy' because its halo mass is similar to Halo5. This is not a physical or statistical selection criterion, and dropping a data point for this reason can bias the comparison, especially when the sample contains only five halos. The authors should either include Halo6 in Fig. 17 and Table 2 (showing its size alongside the others), or provide a quantitative reason (e.g., b/b_max similarity or a pre-defined selection rule) for the exclusion.
  3. [Section 3.2.1 and Fig. 8] The claim of an 'excellent match' with observed MDF parameters is conditional on excluding stars with [Fe/H] < -4, which is an observational completeness limit. While the authors are transparent about this, the central MZR improvement claim (Fig. 6) is based on only six halos, and the simulated averages remain 0.5-1 dex below observed values for all but Halo1. The paper should more prominently separate the two statements: (i) the IMF-sampling mechanism raises metallicities relative to previous simulations, which is supported by the internal comparison, and (ii) the simulated UFDs actually match the observed MZR, which is not supported by the current data because the offsets and small sample size prevent a statistically meaningful match. The discussion in Section 4 partially addresses this, but the abstract and conclusions should be calibrated to the evidence.
  4. [Sections 2.1, 2.3, and 4] The modeling assumptions of uniform reionization at z=6 and instantaneous SN feedback (no delay time, no radiative transfer) are acknowledged by the authors, who state that including radiative transfer would likely lower the average metallicity and that their values may be an upper limit. This is an honest and important caveat, but it also means that the claimed improvement over previous simulations could be reduced or reversed under a more complete feedback treatment. The authors should consider adding a direct quantitative estimate of the sensitivity to the delay-time treatment (e.g., a test run with delayed SNe but no RT) or at least clearly mark the metallicity predictions as upper limits in the abstract and in Fig. 6, since the current abstract presents the higher metallicities as the main result without this qualification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, bullet list] The two bullets beginning 'We find extended structures of varying degrees in all halos of our UFD analogs' are duplicated verbatim; one of them should be removed.
  2. [Section 3.3.1, Eq. (3) and Table 2] The artificial background star density Sigma_b,0 = 0.1 arcmin^-2 is described as 'arbitrary but representative.' Since the resulting r_h,fit(w/) depends on this choice and the paper also shows that the fitted size varies with background density, the authors should provide a short sensitivity test or a literature-based justification for the adopted value beyond the Draco reference.
  3. [Section 3.2.2, Fig. 8] The comparison of sigma_[Fe/H] for observed UFDs is made against values derived from a two-dimensional Gaussian likelihood on the simulation MDFs, but the observed sample has small number statistics and detection limits; the authors could state whether the observational uncertainties are comparable to the reported differences of ~0.2 dex.
  4. [Section 3.3.3] The uniform V-band mass-to-light ratio of 2 applied to simulated galaxies is a simplification; a brief comment on the uncertainty this introduces in the luminosity values used in Fig. 17 would be helpful.
  5. [Throughout] The paper would benefit from a table explicitly listing all subgrid parameters (epsilon_ff, n_H,th, Z_crit, IMF slopes, mass ranges, SN energy, and the adopted background density) so that the reader can quickly assess the free parameters. Many are already given in the text, but a consolidated summary table would improve readability.
  6. [Section 2.2, Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), n_H is used without explicitly stating its units; the text later refers to n_H,th = 100 cm^-3, but the equation should include the normalization unit for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the size 'match' reduces to reporting 1.68 r_e of the inner component as the half-light radius; the metallicity analysis is self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3.1 (Eq. 6, Table 3) and Section 3.3.3 (Fig. 17)]
    "Σ(𝑟)∝𝑒 −𝑟/𝑟e+𝐵𝑒−𝑟/𝑟s,(6) ... r_h: the half-stellar mass radius, calculated as r_h =1.68 r_e, representing the inner density profile ... we utilize the half-light radius of the inner profile as the representative size of our UFD analogs."

    The reported r_h is defined as 1.68 r_e of the inner exponential component, not as the radius enclosing half the light of the two-component model in Eq. (6). With the fitted B and r_s values, the outer component carries a comparable or dominant share of the total light (e.g., B(r_s/r_e)^2 ≈ 1.3 for Halo4 and ≈16 for Halo5), so the true model half-light radius is much larger than the quoted r_h. Quoting r_h=1.68 r_e as the 'half-stellar mass radius' and comparing it to observed single-component half-light radii in Fig. 17 makes the apparent agreement with observed compact sizes an artifact of the definition; the same simulated galaxies have much larger half-light radii when the full two-component profile is integrated.

full rationale

The MZR and MDF results are derived from the simulations' star formation and feedback implementation, not fitted to the observed UFD relations; subgrid parameters such as eps_ff=0.01, n_H,th=100 cm^-3, and Z_crit come from literature or local calibration, and the IMF-sampling effect is demonstrated in the paper's own runs. The Jeon & Ko (2024) citation is self-referential but not load-bearing: it is invoked only as additional demonstration of a mechanism already present in the current simulations, and the comparison with other simulation suites is direct. The one substantive circularity is in the size analysis: the two-component profile's reported r_h is defined as 1.68 r_e of the inner component, and the paper explicitly uses that inner-profile radius as 'the representative size' when comparing to observations. Because the same profile's actual half-light radius (integrating both components) is much larger for the tabulated B and r_s values, the claimed match to observed UFD sizes is forced by the definition of the quoted quantity rather than by the simulations. The paper's other size conclusions, such as the inability to produce r_h < 50 pc systems, are independent and not circular. Overall, the metallicity results are self-contained, but the central size comparison partially reduces to a definitional choice, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a suite of literature-calibrated subgrid parameters and domain assumptions: the star formation recipe, IMF and yield choices, the instantaneous SN feedback approximation, and a uniform reionization background. No parameters were fitted to the observed UFD MZR or sizes being explained, so the circularity burden is low, but the unverified subgrid choices carry most of the scientific risk.

free parameters (7)
  • epsilon_ff (star formation efficiency per free-fall time) = 0.01
    Sets the star formation timescale via tau_* = tau_ff/epsilon_ff. Calibrated from local-Universe observations (Leroy et al. 2008), not from UFD data, but directly controls stellar mass and hence the MZR.
  • n_H,th (density threshold for star formation) = 100 cm^-3
    Gas particles above this density form stars. The paper tested 500 cm^-3 in one run; the choice affects the timing and sites of star formation in shallow progenitor halos.
  • Z_crit (critical metallicity for Pop III/Pop II transition) = 10^-5.5 Z_sun
    Determines whether a star particle is Pop III or Pop II, changing the IMF and metal yields. This directly shapes the MDF low-metallicity tail.
  • Pop III IMF parameters (slope -1.3, m_char = 30 M_sun) = m_char = 30 M_sun, slope = -1.3, range [1,260] M_sun
    Assumed top-heavy IMF for Population III stars from Wise et al. (2012). Sets the masses and explosion energies of the first stars, affecting early metal enrichment.
  • Pop II IMF (Salpeter slope 1.35, [0.1,100] M_sun) = alpha = 1.35, range [0.1,100] M_sun
    Used for individual sampling of SN progenitors from 60 M_sun SSP particles. The discrete SN injection is the paper's key numerical change and drives the higher average metallicities.
  • Background star density for single-exponential fits (Sigma_b,0) = 0.1 arcmin^-2
    The paper calls this arbitrary but representative of Draco. It controls how many extended simulated stars are treated as background, and lowering or raising it changes the derived half-light radius.
  • Assumed V-band mass-to-light ratio = M/L_V = 2
    Uniformly applied to simulated and other theoretical galaxies to place them on the size-luminosity diagram. Affects the luminosity comparison with observed UFDs.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Lambda-CDM cosmology with WMAP/Planck parameters (Omega_m=0.265, Omega_b=0.0448, H0=71, n_s=0.963, sigma8=0.8)
    Used to generate zoom-in initial conditions with music; underpins the halo mass functions and merger histories of the six analogs.
  • domain assumption Uniform, complete reionization by z=6 with Haardt & Madau (2012) UV background turning on at z=7
    Quenches all star formation in the analogs before z=6. The paper acknowledges patchy reionization could allow later, more metal-rich star formation; this assumption directly shapes the MZR and MDF results. Location: Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous SN feedback with no delay time and no radiative transfer, treated as a compensating approximation
    The paper states that including radiative transfer would reduce clustering of SNe and likely lower average metallicity, making their metallicity values an upper limit. This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed improvement over other models. Location: Section 4.
  • domain assumption Standard stellar yield tables apply at low metallicity (Portinari et al. 1998; Heger & Woosley 2002, 2010; Marigo 2001; Forster et al. 2006)
    Metal production and ejection from Pop II CCSNe, AGB stars, and Type Ia SNe follow these tables; uncertainties in yields directly propagate into the simulated [Fe/H] values. Location: Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Greif et al. (2009) subgrid metal diffusion scheme captures unresolved mixing
    The degree of metal mixing within the SPH kernel affects the metallicities of subsequently formed stars and the MDF width; this is an unresolved subgrid model. Location: Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Stochastic Schmidt-law star formation with epsilon_ff=0.01 and n_H,th=100 cm^-3 applies in minihalos at high redshift
    The star formation recipe is calibrated from local observations and assumed to hold in the low-metallicity, high-redshift progenitor halos; the paper tests only a few parameter variations for one halo. Location: Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Mass conservation bookkeeping for individual IMF sampling correctly represents discrete SN progenitors
    The method assigns leftover mass to the next SSP particle to conserve the 60 M_sun gas mass; this numerical construction underlies the central MZR improvement. Location: Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding Stellar Mass-Metallicity and Size Relations in Simulated Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VAUHOI37

@misc{pith2026241114683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding Stellar Mass-Metallicity and Size Relations in Simulated Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VAUHOI37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14683}
}
abstract

Reproducing the physical characteristics of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs) in cosmological simulations is challenging, particularly with respect to stellar metallicity and galaxy size. To investigate these difficulties in detail, we conduct high-resolution simulations ($M_{\rm gas} \sim 60 \, M_{\odot}$, $M_{\rm DM} \sim 370 \, M_{\odot}$ ) on six UFD analogs ($M_{\rm vir} \sim 10^8 - 10^9 \, M_{\odot}$, $M_{\rm \star} \sim 10^3 - 2.1 \times 10^4 \, M_{\odot}$). Our findings reveal that the stellar properties of UFD analogs are shaped by diverse star-forming environments from multiple progenitor halos in the early Universe. Notably, our UFD analogs exhibit a better match to the observed mass-metallicity relation (MZR), showing higher average metallicity compared to other theoretical models. The metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) of our simulated UFDs lack high-metallicity stars ($[\rm Fe/H] > -2.0$) while containing low-metallicity stars ($[\rm Fe/H] < -4.0$). Excluding these low-metallicity stars, our results align well with the MDFs of observed UFDs. However, forming stars with higher metallicity ($-2.0 \leq [\rm Fe/H]_{\rm max} \leq -1.5$) remains a challenge due to the difficulty of sustaining metal enrichment during their brief star formation period before cosmic reionization. Additionally, our simulations show extended outer structures in UFDs, resulting from dry mergers between progenitor halos. To ensure consistency, we adopt the same fitting method commonly used in observations to derive the half-light radius. We find that this method tends to produce lower values compared to direct calculations and struggles to accurately describe the extended outer structures. To address this, we employ a two-component density profile to obtain structural parameters, finding that it better describes the galaxy shape, including both inner and outer structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DM projections along the z-direction at 𝑧 ∼ 6, a point when star formation in all progenitor halos is quenched due to the combined effects of reionization and SNe feedback. The length scale is differently applied to best present the structure of progenitors, but for comparison purposes, a 10 kpc scale is indicated at the bottom of each panel. Progenitors identified as to-be-accreted are marked with circles, with the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The virial (solid) and stellar (dashed) mass evolution of progenitor halos for each UFD analog as a function of cosmic time. Since all progenitors cease their star formation prior to 𝑧 ∼ 6, we track their evolution up to that point and consider only Pop II SSP stars for stellar mass, as they are the only ones to survive to 𝑧 = 0. Each progenitor begins Pop II star formation when its virial mass reaches 𝑀vir ∼ 106 M⊙… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The stellar mass contribution of each progenitor, showing the total stellar mass of halos and distinguishing the stellar mass of each progenitor. The numbering and color-coding are consistent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The stellar mass-halo mass relation for all progenitor halos at 𝑧 = 6 (circles) and the final UFD analogs at 𝑧 = 0 (crosses). Progenitor halos with stellar masses contributing less than 5% are also included to explore the lower mass range. Progenitor halos that constit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass-metallicity relation for progenitor halos, rep￾resented by the same symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the MZR for our simulated UFD analogs with observational data and other theoretical studies, spanning a stellar mass range from 𝑀★ ≈ 102.5 M⊙ to 108.5 M⊙. Grey symbols represent observed galaxies from McConnachie (2012) and Fu et al. (2023), while simulat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MDFs for our UFD analogs. To determine the average metallicity, ⟨[Fe/H]⟩, and metallicity dispersion, 𝜎[Fe/H] , for Pop II SSP particles consisting of stars below 8 M⊙ (top panels), we utilize maximum likelihood estimation with a two-dimensional Gaussian likelihood fun…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average metallicity, ⟨[Fe/H]⟩, versus metallicity disper￾sion, 𝜎[Fe/H] , for our UFD analogs, compared with observed UFDs from Fu et al. (2023) and Simon (2019). For our simulations, two values are presented for each set: one including all stars across the entire metal…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the normalized composite MDF between our simulated UFDs (cyan) and the observational data from Fu et al. (2023) (grey) and Simon (2019) (black). Our composite MDF aligns well with the peak location, but it depicts a lower fraction of high￾metallicity star…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The procedure describing high-metallicity star formation during a starburst in prog2 of Halo5. Top Panel: The evolution of gas (solid lines) and metals (dotted lines) over cosmic time within spheres of radius 0.1 (cyan), 0.3 (grey), and 1 𝑅vir (black). Mid￾dle Panel: …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of stellar metallicity for progenitor halos, with colors matching those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Correlations between maximum metallicity and physical quantities during starbursts are shown clockwise from the upper left: maximum hydrogen number density (𝑛H,max), the number of SNe (𝑁SN), virial mass (𝑀vir), and gas mass (𝑀gas). Here, 𝑀vir and 𝑀gas refer to the vir…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: Surface brightness map of the UFD analog, with star particles overlaid and color-coded by their progenitor halo. Artificial background stars used for fitting are excluded from this plot. Bottom panel: The surface brightness density profile, calculated by bi…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The representative surface brightness profile of Halo4 is modeled using a two-component approach. The actual density profile is shown as black-filled circles at binned radii. The inner component is depicted in red, while the outer component, charac￾terized by a scale …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top panels: Projections of stellar distributions for UFD analogs at 𝑧 = 0. Star particles from different progenitors are color-coded. Circles in the central region represent 5 and 10 times the half-light radii, 𝑟h. This demonstrates that the extended stars likely orig…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Merger histories along the virial mass growth of the UFD analogs, illustrating the merger times when progenitor halos accreted onto the traced progenitor. Each progenitor halo within the same UFD analog is represented by the same symbol, with different colors used to …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: V-Band luminosity versus 2D projected half-light radius for simulated and observed galaxies. We compare our results with updated catalogs of observed UFD and dwarf galaxies from Mc￾Connachie (2012), Simon (2019), and Richstein et al. (2022, 2024). Simulated galaxies f…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Stellar metallicity as a function of 2D elliptical radius from the center at 𝑧 = 0. Here, the metallicity gradient is not observed in any simulated UFDs; rather, these galaxies exhibit a wide range of metallicity distributions, reflecting the diverse origins of stars …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The time sequences from left to right depicting the distribution of stars over cosmic time in prog5 of Halo5. Top Panel: MDFs of stars formed within the progenitor. Newly formed stars are represented in blue, while the cumulative MDF of all stars is shown in grey. Ove…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Global properties of the simulated UFD analogs at 𝑧 = 0, displaying luminosity versus line-of-sight velocity dispersion (left panel), and luminosity versus mass-to-light ratio within the half-light radius (right panel). These properties are derived by adopting two dif…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The resultant MDFs of Halo4 under varying SN energies. From left to right, each panel corresponds to runs with 0.5 𝐸SN, 1.0 𝐸SN, and 2.0 𝐸SN for 𝐸SN = 1.0 × 1051ergs, respectively, with the middle panel representing the fiducial run of Halo4. As SN energy increases, t…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: [Mg/Fe] vs.[Fe/H] distribution for simulated UFD analogs, with stars represented as circles colored according to their progenitor halos, compared with observed data shown in grey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The surface brightness profiles of UFD analogs are modeled using a two-component approach. The actual density profile is shown as black-filled circles at binned radii. The inner component is depicted in red, while the outer component is illustrated in blue. A vertical…

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. How invisible stellar halos bias our understanding of ultra-faint galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Applying a realistic surface brightness cutoff to simulated ultra-faint galaxies shrinks their inferred sizes and masses, improves agreement with observed dwarfs, but biases dynamical mass estimates so that dark matte...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, , 259, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro'uf , Accetta , K., Aerts , C., et al. 2022, , 259, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    I., et al

    Agertz , O., Pontzen , A., Read , J. I., et al. 2020, , 491, 1656, 10.1093/mnras/stz3053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3053 2020

  3. [3]

    Constraining SN Ia Progenitors from the Observed Fe-peak Elemental Abundances in the Milky Way Dwarf Galaxy Satellites

    Alexander , R. K., & Vincenzo , F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07443, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07443

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07443 2024

  4. [4]

    P., Rey , M

    Andersson , E. P., Rey , M. P., Pontzen , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08073, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08073

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.08073 2024

  5. [5]

    M., Christensen , C

    Applebaum , E., Brooks , A. M., Christensen , C. R., et al. 2021, , 906, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa 2021

  6. [6]

    M., Quinn , T

    Applebaum , E., Brooks , A. M., Quinn , T. R., & Christensen , C. R. 2020, , 492, 8, 10.1093/mnras/stz3331

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3331 2020

  7. [7]

    Bursting with Feedback: The Relationship between Feedback Model and Bursty Star Formation Histories in Dwarf Galaxies

    Azartash-Namin , B., Engelhardt , A., Munshi , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.06041, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.06041

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.06041 2024

  8. [8]

    Bate , M. R. 2019, , 484, 2341, 10.1093/mnras/stz103

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz103 2019

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    S., Conroy , C., & Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Conroy , C., & Wechsler , R. H. 2010, , 717, 379, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., & Conroy , C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2002, , 333, 378, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05400.x

    Binney , J., & Knebe , A. 2002, , 333, 378, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05400.x

    2002

  4. [12]

    S., & Ricotti , M

    Bovill , M. S., & Ricotti , M. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1859, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1859

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Bromm , V., & Larson , R. B. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 79, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134034

    2004

  6. [14]

    M., Tumlinson , J., Geha , M., et al

    Brown , T. M., Tumlinson , J., Geha , M., et al. 2014, , 796, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    V., Dutton , A

    Buck , T., Macci \`o , A. V., Dutton , A. A., Obreja , A., & Frings , J. 2019, , 483, 1314, 10.1093/mnras/sty2913

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

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

    Cerny , W., Mart \' nez-V \'a zquez , C. E., Drlica-Wagner , A., et al. 2023, , 953, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00981, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00981

    Cerny , W., Chiti , A., Geha , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00981, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00981

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    D., et al

    Chiti , A., Frebel , A., Simon , J. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 392, 10.1038/s41550-020-01285-w

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    P., et al

    Chiti , A., Frebel , A., Ji , A. P., et al. 2023, , 165, 55, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca416

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 140, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x

    Dalla Vecchia , C., & Schaye , J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 140, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x

    2012

  14. [22]

    J., Bose , S., Fattahi , A., et al

    Deason , A. J., Bose , S., Fattahi , A., et al. 2022, , 511, 4044, 10.1093/mnras/stab3524

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    1986, , 303, 39, 10.1086/164050

    Dekel , A., & Silk , J. 1986, , 303, 39, 10.1086/164050

    1986 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    O., Johnson , J

    Dubay , L. O., Johnson , J. A., & Johnson , J. W. 2024, , 973, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61df

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    N., et al

    Escala , I., Wetzel , A., Kirby , E. N., et al. 2018, , 474, 2194, 10.1093/mnras/stx2858

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2006, AJ, 131, 1203, 10.1086/500296

    Fan et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1203, 10.1086/500296

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Korista , K

    Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., Verner , D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761, 10.1086/316190

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    S., et al

    Fitts , A., Boylan-Kolchin , M., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2018, , 479, 319, 10.1093/mnras/sty1488

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    Frebel , A., & Norris , J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    W., Weisz , D

    Fu , S. W., Weisz , D. R., Starkenburg , E., et al. 2023, , 958, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0030

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, , 965, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25ed

    ---. 2024, , 965, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25ed

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    M., Tumlinson , J., et al

    Geha , M., Brown , T. M., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2013, , 771, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/29

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    I., No \"e l , N

    Goater , A., Read , J. I., No \"e l , N. E. D., et al. 2024, , 527, 2403, 10.1093/mnras/stad3354

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    H., Glover , S

    Greif , T. H., Glover , S. C. O., Bromm , V., & Klessen , R. S. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1381, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14169.x

    2009

  29. [38]

    E., & Peterson , B

    Gunn , J. E., & Peterson , B. A. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1633, 10.1086/148444

    1965 doi

  30. [39]

    Y., Offner , S

    Guszejnov , D., Grudi \'c , M. Y., Offner , S. S. R., et al. 2022, , 515, 4929, 10.1093/mnras/stac2060

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt , F., & Madau , P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn , O., & Abel , T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    2011

  33. [42]

    T., Simon , J

    Hansen , T. T., Simon , J. D., Li , T. S., et al. 2024, , 968, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a52

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    K., Holtzman , J., et al

    Harbeck , D., Grebel , E. K., Holtzman , J., et al. 2001, , 122, 3092, 10.1086/324232

    2001 doi

  35. [44]

    L., Woosley , S

    Heger , A., Fryer , C. L., Woosley , S. E., Langer , N., & Hartmann , D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  36. [45]

    Heger , A., & Woosley , S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, 10.1086/338487

    2002 doi

  37. [46]

    2010, ApJ, 724, 341, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    ---. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    2010 doi

  38. [47]

    M., Wells , A., Norman , M

    Hicks , W. M., Wells , A., Norman , M. L., et al. 2021, , 909, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda3a

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    Hirano , S., Hosokawa , T., Yoshida , N., Omukai , K., & Yorke , H. W. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 568, 10.1093/MNRAS/stv044

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Sestito , F., et al

    Jensen , J., Hayes , C. R., Sestito , F., et al. 2024, , 527, 4209, 10.1093/mnras/stad3322

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    2017, , 848, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c80

    Jeon , M., Besla , G., & Bromm , V. 2017, , 848, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c80

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    2021 a , , 506, 1850, 10.1093/mnras/stab1771

    ---. 2021 a , , 506, 1850, 10.1093/mnras/stab1771

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    2021 b , , 502, 1, 10.1093/mnras/staa4017

    Jeon , M., Bromm , V., Besla , G., Yoon , J., & Choi , Y. 2021 b , , 502, 1, 10.1093/mnras/staa4017

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    H., Bromm , V., & Milosavljevi \'c , M

    Jeon , M., Pawlik , A. H., Bromm , V., & Milosavljevi \'c , M. 2014, , 444, 3288, 10.1093/mnras/stu1980

    2014 doi

  45. [54]

    D., & Ricotti , M

    Kang , H. D., & Ricotti , M. 2019, , 488, 2673, 10.1093/mnras/stz1886

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    2023, , 959, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe08

    Kim , J., Jeon , M., Choi , Y., et al. 2023, , 959, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe08

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Simon , J. D., et al. 2017, , 838, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6570

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    N., Lanfranchi , G

    Kirby , E. N., Lanfranchi , G. A., Simon , J. D., Cohen , J. G., & Guhathakurta , P. 2011, , 727, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/78

    2011 doi

  50. [59]

    N., Simon , J

    Kirby , E. N., Simon , J. D., & Cohen , J. G. 2015, , 810, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/56

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    M., Dunkley , J., et al

    Komatsu , E., Smith , K. M., Dunkley , J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    2011 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, , 527, 1257, 10.1093/mnras/stad3198

    Lee , T., Jeon , M., & Bromm , V. 2024, , 527, 1257, 10.1093/mnras/stad3198

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    K., Walter , F., Brinks , E., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Brinks , E., et al. 2008, , 136, 2782, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    2008 doi

  54. [63]

    2022, , 516, 2348, 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    Longeard , N., Jablonka , P., Arentsen , A., et al. 2022, , 516, 2348, 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    D., Schaye , J., & Bower , R

    Ludlow , A. D., Schaye , J., & Bower , R. 2019 a , , 488, 3663, 10.1093/mnras/stz1821

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., & Richings , J

    Ludlow , A. D., Schaye , J., Schaller , M., & Richings , J. 2019 b , , 488, L123, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz110

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    2001, A&A, 370, 194, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000247

    Marigo , P. 2001, A&A, 370, 194, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000247

    2001 doi

  59. [68]

    F., de Jong , J

    Martin , N. F., de Jong , J. T. A., & Rix , H.-W. 2008, , 684, 1075, 10.1086/590336

    2008 doi

  60. [69]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    J., Bullock , J

    Mercado , F. J., Bullock , J. S., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al. 2021, , 501, 5121, 10.1093/mnras/staa3958

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    M., et al

    Munshi , F., Governato , F., Brooks , A. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/56

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    2000, ApJ, 534, 809, 10.1086/308776

    Omukai , K. 2000, ApJ, 534, 809, 10.1086/308776

    2000 doi

  64. [73]

    F., & McConnachie , A

    Pe \ n arrubia , J., Navarro , J. F., & McConnachie , A. W. 2008, , 673, 226, 10.1086/523686

    2008 doi

  65. [74]

    2016, A&A, 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    Planck Collaboration . 2016, A&A, 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  66. [75]

    1998, A&A, 334, 505

    Portinari , L., Chiosi , C., & Bressan , A. 1998, A&A, 334, 505

    1998

  67. [76]

    P., Andersson , E

    Prgomet , M., Rey , M. P., Andersson , E. P., et al. 2022, , 513, 2326, 10.1093/mnras/stac1074

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    I., Iorio , G., Agertz , O., & Fraternali , F

    Read , J. I., Iorio , G., Agertz , O., & Fraternali , F. 2017, , 467, 2019, 10.1093/mnras/stx147

    2017 doi

  69. [78]

    2023, , 679, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347239

    Revaz , Y. 2023, , 679, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347239

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    2018, , 616, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832669

    Revaz , Y., & Jablonka , P. 2018, , 616, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832669

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al

    Rey , M. P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al. 2019, ApJL, 886, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53dd

    2019 doi

  72. [81]

    2022, , 933, 217, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7226

    Richstein , H., Patel , E., Kallivayalil , N., et al. 2022, , 933, 217, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7226

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    D., et al

    Richstein , H., Kallivayalil , N., Simon , J. D., et al. 2024, , 967, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad393c

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    2022, , 515, 302, 10.1093/mnras/stac1485

    Ricotti , M., Polisensky , E., & Cleland , E. 2022, , 515, 302, 10.1093/mnras/stac1485

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Safranek-Shrader , C., Gnat , O., Milosavljevi \'c , M., & Bromm , V

    Ritter , J. S., Safranek-Shrader , C., Gnat , O., Milosavljevi \'c , M., & Bromm , V. 2012, , 761, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/56

    2012 doi

  76. [85]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2aa3

    Sacchi, E., Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2aa3

    2021 doi

  77. [86]

    H., Milosavljevi \'c , M., & Bromm , V

    Safranek-Shrader , C., Montgomery , M. H., Milosavljevi \'c , M., & Bromm , V. 2016, , 455, 3288, 10.1093/mnras/stv2545

    2016 doi

  78. [87]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  79. [88]

    2023, , 669, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244309

    Sanati , M., Jeanquartier , F., Revaz , Y., & Jablonka , P. 2023, , 669, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244309

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    R., Weinberg , D

    Sandford , N. R., Weinberg , D. H., Weisz , D. R., & Fu , S. W. 2024, , 530, 2315, 10.1093/mnras/stae1010

    2024 doi

  81. [91]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243, 10.1086/146614

    Schmidt , M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243, 10.1086/146614

    1959 doi

  82. [93]

    A., Irwin , M

    S \'e gall , M., Ibata , R. A., Irwin , M. J., Martin , N. F., & Chapman , S. 2007, , 375, 831, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11356.x

    2007

  83. [94]

    A., et al

    Sestito , F., Zaremba , D., Venn , K. A., et al. 2023, , 525, 2875, 10.1093/mnras/stad2427

    2023 doi

  84. [95]

    Sharda , P., & Krumholz , M. R. 2022, , 509, 1959, 10.1093/mnras/stab2921

    2022 doi

  85. [96]

    Simon , J. D. 2019, , 57, 375, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  86. [97]

    D., Li , T

    Simon , J. D., Li , T. S., Erkal , D., et al. 2020, , 892, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccb

    2020 doi

  87. [98]

    D., Wise , J

    Smith , B. D., Wise , J. H., O'Shea , B. W., Norman , M. L., & Khochfar , S. 2015, , 452, 2822, 10.1093/mnras/stv1509

    2015 doi

  88. [99]

    1904, The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72

    Spearman, C. 1904, The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1412159

    1904

  89. [100]

    2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  90. [101]

    Springel , V., White , S. D. M., Tormen , G., & Kauffmann , G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  91. [102]

    2021, , 914, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024e

    Tarumi , Y., Yoshida , N., & Frebel , A. 2021, , 914, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024e

    2021 doi

  92. [103]

    A., Vivas , A

    Tau , E. A., Vivas , A. K., & Mart \' nez-V \'a zquez , C. E. 2024, , 167, 57, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1509

    2024 doi

  93. [104]

    Ting , Y.-S., & Ji , A. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06807, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06807

    2024 doi arXiv

  94. [105]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy , E., Hill , V., & Tosi , M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  95. [106]

    G., Mateo , M., Olszewski , E

    Walker , M. G., Mateo , M., Olszewski , E. W., et al. 2006, , 131, 2114, 10.1086/500193

    2006 doi

  96. [107]

    A., Sestito , F., et al

    Waller , F., Venn , K. A., Sestito , F., et al. 2023, , 519, 1349, 10.1093/mnras/stac3563

    2023 doi

  97. [108]

    H., Andrews , B

    Weinberg , D. H., Andrews , B. H., & Freudenburg , J. 2017, , 837, 183, 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/183

    2017 doi

  98. [109]

    R., Dolphin , A

    Weisz , D. R., Dolphin , A. E., Skillman , E. D., et al. 2014, , 789, 147, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/147

    2014 doi

  99. [110]

    F., Pace , A

    Wheeler , C., Hopkins , P. F., Pace , A. B., et al. 2019, , 490, 4447, 10.1093/mnras/stz2887

    2019 doi

  100. [111]

    Wiersma , R. P. C., Schaye , J., Theuns , T., Dalla Vecchia , C., & Tornatore , L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 574, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x

    2009

  101. [112]

    H., Turk , M

    Wise , J. H., Turk , M. J., Norman , M. L., & Abel , T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/50

    2012 doi

  102. [113]

    D., Bullock , J

    Wolf , J., Martinez , G. D., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2010, , 406, 1220, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x

    2010

  103. [114]

    Yang , Y., Hammer , F., Jiao , Y., & Pawlowski , M. S. 2022, , 512, 4171, 10.1093/mnras/stac644

    2022 doi

  104. [115]

    C., Dierks , A., & Langer , N

    Yoon , S. C., Dierks , A., & Langer , N. 2012, , 542, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117769

    2012 doi

  105. [116]

    I., & Gonzalez , A

    Zaritsky , D., Zabludoff , A. I., & Gonzalez , A. H. 2008, , 682, 68, 10.1086/529577

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.