A Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distance to the Dark Matter Deficient Galaxy NGC 1052-DF4 from Deep Hubble Space Telescope Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have shown that the large, diffuse galaxies NGC 1052-DF2 and NGC 1052-DF4 both have populations of unusually luminous globular clusters as well as a very low dark matter content. Here we present newly obtained deep Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys imaging of one of these galaxies, NGC 1052-DF4. We use these data to measure the distance of the galaxy from the location of the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB). We find a rapid increase in the number of detected stars fainter than m F814W ∼ 27.3, which we identify as the onset of the red giant branch. Using a forward modeling approach that takes the photometric uncertainties into account, we find a TRGB magnitude of . The inferred distance, including the uncertainty in the absolute calibration, is D TRGB = 20.0 ± 1.6 Mpc. The TRGB distance of NGC 1052-DF4 is consistent with the previously determined surface brightness fluctuation distance of D SBF = 18.7 ± 1.7 Mpc to NGC 1052-DF2 and is consistent with the distance of the bright elliptical galaxy NGC 1052. We conclude that the unusual properties of these galaxies cannot be explained by distance errors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".