ner_tags: O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Model O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O
tokens: to the GCs in M20, we derive a dynamical mass enclosed within the outermost GC (i.e. 2.2 kpc) of 3.48 (± 0.84) × 10 8 M ⊙ , with the uncertainty given by the range in potential and orbital anisotropy described above. Our TME dynamical mass is larger than the GC-based half mass, but agrees within the uncertainties. Allowing for a reasonable range in γ would increase the uncertainty to around ±50 per cent; where assuming a lower (higher) value of γ would lead to a reduced (increased) TME mass. The resulting mass-to-light ratio from our TME analysis is M 1/2 /L 1/2 = 12.7 ± 3.7. Forbes et al. ( 2019 ) detected 20 GC candidates associated with NGC 5846_UDG1. If we assume the same mean GC luminosity function turnover magnitude (i.e. M V = –7.3) and width as found by Miller Lotz ( 2007 ) for dE galaxies in the Virgo cluster, then the inferred total GC population is around 45. For this count, the Burkert Forbes ( 2020 ) relation between the number of GCs and the halo mass implies a total halo mass of ∼2 × 10 11 M ⊙ . Given that there are several unknowns in translating the detection of GC candidates into an estimate of the total GC system, it is useful to note that M20 confirmed at least a dozen GCs associated with NGC 5846_UDG1. This gives a lower limit on the total halo mass with this relation, of 0.6 × 10 11 M ⊙ . Both of these total halo mass estimates far exceed the total stellar mass of 1.1 × 10 8 M ⊙ . For comparison, M33 has the same inferred total halo mass of 2 × 10 11 M ⊙ (Seigar 2011 ) but its stellar mass is some 50× larger. Thus, NGC 5846_UDG1 can be described as having a dwarf-like stellar mass with an overly massive dark matter halo. Assuming a total halo mass of 2 × 10 11 M ⊙ as described above, we can compare our half mass and TME mass with different halo mass profiles. We chose three profiles, namely the universal NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk White 1996 ), the mass profile resulting from the dwarf galaxy simulations of Di Cintio et al. ( 2014 ), which resembles a core-NFW profile, and the observationally motivated mass profile for dwarf galaxies from Burkert ( 1995 ). For details of the NFW and Di Cintio et al. profiles, see the appendix of Di Cintio et al. ( 2014 ). We show these three profiles, with the same total halo mass, compared to our half and TME masses measured at small radii in Fig. 5 . The plot shows that our mass measurements lie between the Di Cintio and Burkert mass profiles for a total halo mass as given by the total number of GCs. This suggests that NGC 5846_UDG1 may be better represented by a core mass profile as predicted in some simulations (e.g. Carleton et al. 2019 ) than a cuspy one. However, we cannot, at this stage, rule out other mass profiles and/or different total halo masses. Similar conclusions, favouring a cored mass profile, were reached by Gannon et al. ( 2020 ) for VCC 1287, and by Wasserman et al. ( 2019 ) for DF44. Figure 5. Halo mass profiles. Three halo mass profiles (Navarro et al. 1996 ,