Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The angular momentum spiral of the Milky Way disc in Gaia

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A spiral in the angular momentum of stars near the Sun is a new projection of the Milky Way disc's disequilibrium, and the paper shows it can be produced by a rigid tilt of the disc about 0.45 Gyr ago.

desk verdict A real new detection of a spiral in angular-momentum space from Gaia DR3, wrapped in a by-eye generative model that overclaims a timing constraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04095 v1 pith:76GQX2DT submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.GA

Rashid Yaaqib , Aneesh P. Naik , Jorge Peñarrubia , Michael S. Petersen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords angularmomentumspiralphase-spaceGaiaDR3MilkyWaydiscgalacticdynamicstiltphasemixingdisequilibrium
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

Using Gaia DR3 radial-velocity stars near the Sun, this paper detects a clear spiral pattern in the distribution of stars in the cylindrical angular momentum plane $(L_R, L_\phi)$. It argues that this angular momentum spiral is the same disequilibrium feature as the well-known vertical $z$--$v_z$ phase spiral, connected through a local mapping derived from the definitions of angular momentum. The authors build a generative model in which a single instantaneous rigid tilt of the disc midplane displaces stars in $L_R$, and differential vertical oscillation winds the initial displacement into a spiral; the model reproduces the observed spiral's morphology across most bins of vertical angular momentum $L_z$. If right, the angular momentum view offers a six-dimensional, potential-independent projection of disc disequilibrium that can constrain both the time of the perturbation and the Milky Way potential, though these two are degenerate.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the cylindrical angular momentum pair $(L_R, L_\phi)$. For a nearly circular orbit with vertical oscillation amplitude $z_0$, a star's angular momentum trajectory is approximately an ellipse, $L_R \approx (\Omega_\phi/\Omega_z)\,L_0\sin(\Omega_z t)$ and $L_\phi \approx -L_0\cos(\Omega_z t)$, where $L_0 = R_g\,z_0\,\Omega_z$; the ellipse grows and its circulation slows as vertical energy increases. Differential circulation in this plane is the spiral-forming mechanism. The generative model rotates the initial tilted angular momentum distribution to the present using a rotation through angle $\Omega_z t_{\rm tilt}$, with frequencies computed from an assumed Milky Way potential; the tilt enters as a mean $L_R$ displacement $\mu_L = \bar{z}\,R_g\,\Omega_\phi$, where the midplane height $\bar{z}$ is given by the rigid-tilt geometry. The model has four parameters ($\sigma_L, \theta_{\rm tilt}, \varphi_{\rm tilt}, t_{\rm tilt}$) and is implemented with the gala orbit-integration package.

What would settle it

Measure the azimuthal dependence of the spiral amplitude in Gaia DR3: the rigid-tilt model predicts a specific sinusoidal variation of spiral amplitude with $L_z$ tied to the line of nodes, whereas a bending-wave or localised-kick perturbation predicts a different pattern, so the observed phase pattern across the sky would distinguish them. Alternatively, run a live N-body simulation of a light satellite crossing the disc and ask whether a single instantaneous tilt reproduces the simulated angular momentum spiral at the roughly 20 percent residual level seen in the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an observed spiral in $(L_R, L_\phi)$ -- defined as $L_R = -z\,v_\phi$ and $L_\phi = z\,v_R - R\,v_z$ -- in a sample of about 11.8 million Gaia DR3 stars in an annular sector around the Sun. The paper shows that under local assumptions ($v_y \gg v_x$, $x \gg y$, $L_z \approx x\,v_y$), a spiral in $L_R$--$L_\phi$ maps linearly to the $z$--$v_z$ spiral via $z \approx -L_x/v_y$ and $v_z \approx -L_y/x$. It explains the pattern dynamically: a star on a near-circular orbit traces an ellipse in $(L_R, L_\phi)$ with vertical frequency $\Omega_z$ and axis ratio $\Omega_z/\Omega_\phi$, and because $\Omega_z$ decreases with vertical amplitude, stars circulate at different rates and an initially coherent displacement winds into a spiral. A generative model with a Gaussian initial distribution, an instantaneous rigid tilt of the disc by angle $\theta_{\rm tilt}$ about a line of nodes, and subsequent differential rotation reproduces the salient features in most $L_z$ bins by eye, with a tilt time near $-0.45$ Gyr in the adopted potential.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the disc was tipped as one rigid sheet at a single instant in a static, separable potential, so each star's vertical frequency is unchanged by the perturbation; if the real event was a bending wave, lasted a finite time, or heated the disc vertically, the inferred tilt angle and timing would not transfer directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The angular momentum spiral uses all six phase-space dimensions at once, coupling radial and vertical disequilibrium projections that are usually modelled separately.
  • Because angular momenta are measured directly from astrometry and radial velocities without orbit integration in an assumed potential, the observed spiral itself is a potential-independent datum; only the model's frequency evolution requires a potential.
  • A single global tilt of the disc applied roughly 0.45 Gyr ago can produce the observed one-armed spiral, giving a concrete, testable formation scenario consistent with earlier timing estimates.
  • The clear covariance between disc scale height and tilt time means that fitting the angular momentum spiral cannot separately pin down the perturbation time without simultaneously constraining the vertical potential.
  • The framework extends to other perturbation geometries, such as a localised vertical velocity kick, allowing different perturbation scenarios to be compared in the same angular momentum space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the angular momentum spiral is as robust as the symmetrised residual suggests, applying the same analysis at off-solar azimuths would directly test the line-of-nodes geometry and could distinguish a global tilt from a bending wave.
  • The symmetrisation procedure used to subtract the background removes even-parity signals, so a two-armed breathing-mode spiral could be hiding in the data; an even-parity residual method is a natural next check.
  • The degeneracy between potential scale height and perturbation time implies that fitting the spiral morphology across $L_z$ bins may be a sensitive probe of the vertical potential itself, not just a timing clock.
  • With Gaia DR4's larger radial-velocity sample, the spiral may be resolved in individual $L_z$ bins with enough signal to map its phase and amplitude as a function of guiding radius, turning it into a tomographic probe of the disc's response.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyses Gaia DR3 RVS stars in a cylindrical annulus around the Sun and reports a spiral pattern in the (L_R, L_phi) angular-momentum plane, visible in the raw histogram and enhanced by a symmetrisation residual (Section 3). It derives a local mapping from the AM spiral to the z-v_z spiral, shows that near-circular disc stars trace ellipses in this space with frequency Omega_z, and builds a four-parameter generative model in which an instantaneous rigid tilt of the disc midplane displaces L_R and subsequent differential rotation winds the distribution into a spiral (Section 4). A hand-picked realisation is compared by eye with the data across L_z bins and yields an estimated tilt time t_tilt around -0.4 Gyr (Sections 4.2 and 5.1). The authors state that this is a 'chi-by-eye' fit, and Section 5.3 lists the main assumptions: static separable potential, conserved vertical energy, no self-gravity, and a rigid rather than bending-mode tilt.

Significance. The observational detection is interesting and, if confirmed, provides a genuinely new projection of Galactic disequilibrium that uses all six phase-space coordinates and can be measured without orbit integration. The orbit derivation in Section 4.1 is transparent and the local mapping in Section 3 is correctly obtained under the stated assumptions. The authors deserve credit for explicitly acknowledging the limitations of the model. However, the paper does not currently deliver a quantitative test: the model-data agreement is by-eye and the parameters are hand-picked, so the quoted timing and the 'successfully describes' claim are not yet supported. The framework is a promising proof of concept rather than a constraint.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Fig. 4, Section 5.1] The central claim of the paper, that the tilt model successfully describes the AM spiral and yields t_tilt approximately -0.4 Gyr, rests entirely on a by-eye comparison. Eq. (10) defines a likelihood for the four model parameters, but it is never optimized: there is no best-fit parameter set, no credible interval, no goodness-of-fit statistic, and no quantitative comparison across the L_z bins of Fig. 4. Because the plotted model realisation uses parameters chosen to resemble the data, Fig. 4 does not provide an independent test of the tilt scenario. The authors should either fit the model to the binned or unbinned data and report uncertainties, including the covariance with potential parameters noted in Section 5.1, or explicitly re-frame the model section as a proof-of-concept and remove the quantitative timing statement from Section 5.1.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Eq. (11)] The forward model evolves stars at fixed Omega_z, i.e. it assumes a separable, static potential and conservation of vertical energy. The paper itself states in Section 5.3 that this assumption 'does not generally hold' in realistic discs. This is not a peripheral caveat: the winding rate of the spiral, and hence the inferred t_tilt, is determined by how Omega_z changes with vertical energy. If the perturbation is a bending wave or if there is vertical heating, Omega_z changes during the response and the spiral morphology, and the inferred time, will change. To make the timing claim robust, the model should be tested against an N-body simulation of a tilted disc, or the analysis should quantify how much t_tilt shifts when Omega_z is computed self-consistently in a time-dependent potential. At minimum, the paper should state that t_tilt is a model-dependent illustration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The definition of L'_phi is self-referential ('L'_phi ≡ (Omega_phi/Omega_z) L'_phi'); it should presumably read L'_phi ≡ (Omega_phi/Omega_z) L_phi, or equivalently scale L_R. If the likelihood in Eq. (10) is ever optimized, the Jacobian of this scaling should also be specified.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Fig. B1] The captions contain placeholder labels 'MWpot(ttilt = □0.9Gyr)' and 'MWpot(tkick = □0.9Gyr)'; the box should be a minus sign.
  3. [Section 6 and Section 2] In Section 6, 'the affect of timing and potential' should be 'the effect'; in Section 2, 'reduced weighted uniter error' should be 'reduced weighted unit error'.
  4. [Section 3 and Fig. 1] A quantitative significance estimate for the spiral residual, for example a bootstrap noise level or a comparison with an axisymmetric smooth model, would strengthen the detection claim in light of the acknowledged sensitivity of the symmetrisation procedure to the assumed mid-plane position.
  5. [Section 5.1] There is a typo in 'which we stress shouldare only by-eye estimates', and the later sentence beginning 'whether, in a given L_z bin a spiral will be observed' is grammatically tangled; please rewrite it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Tilt-model 'success' is a by-eye fit to the same data; detection and orbit derivation are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Eq. 10), Figure 4; timing claim in Section 5.1]
    "By eye, the MWpot model (second column in Figure 4 appears to give a good match to the observed spiral... It is worth emphasising that this is simply an approximate, 'chi-by-eye' fit, and not the result of a more rigorous optimisation, which we reserve for future work. As such, the parameter choice should not be over-interpreted."

    The generative model's free parameters {sigma_L, theta_tilt, phi_tilt, t_tilt} are assigned by eye so that the simulated L_R-L_phi residuals resemble the observed ones, and the same figure is then cited as evidence that a rigid tilt with t_tilt about -0.4 Gyr explains the data. The agreement is therefore partly an input (the hand-picked parameter values) rather than an independent output. The paper's own admission that the fit is 'chi-by-eye' and not a rigorous optimisation confirms that the model-data match does not independently confirm the tilt scenario or the timing. This is a mild fitted-input-called-prediction: a by-eye fit is presented as a 'successful description' and as a timing constraint, although the empirical detection and the analytic orbit derivation remain independent.

full rationale

The paper's empirical detection of an AM spiral is a genuine, model-independent result: the symmetrised-histogram residuals in Figs. 1-2 involve no fitting to the theory. The analytic mapping between (L_R, L_phi) and (z, v_z) (Eqs. 2-3) and the single-star orbit derivation (Eqs. 4-8) are first-principles calculations within their stated assumptions. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem occurs. The one circular element is the validation of the generative tilt model: the four model parameters are not optimised but chosen by eye to produce Figure 4, and the paper then describes the model as successfully describing the spiral and uses it to quote t_tilt around -0.4 Gyr. Since the same data informed the parameter choice, the agreement is not an out-of-sample prediction. The paper's transparency about the 'chi-by-eye' nature keeps this from being severe, but the timing claim is nevertheless supported only by a hand-tuned forward model. The stated physical limitations (Sec. 5.3: non-conservation of vertical energy, bending modes) are correctness risks rather than circularity.

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

The model introduces 4 hand-picked free parameters (sigma_L, theta_tilt, phi_tilt, t_tilt) and relies on a static separable potential, circular orbits, a rigid instantaneous tilt, and a Gaussian initial distribution. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_L (initial AM Gaussian width) = 80 km/s kpc
    Chosen by hand for the model realisations; controls the spread of the spiral contrast.
  • theta_tilt (disc tilt angle) = tan^{-1}(9/800) ~ 1.2 deg
    Chosen by eye to match the observed spiral amplitude.
  • phi_tilt (line-of-nodes azimuth) = -pi/4
    Chosen by eye; sets the spatial phase of the spiral.
  • t_tilt (time since tilt) = -0.45 Gyr (also -0.9 Gyr in another realisation)
    Chosen by eye; controls the number of spiral wraps.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The disc potential is separable and static, so vertical energy and the vertical frequency Ω_z are conserved during the perturbation.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 (Eqs. 4-8) and acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.3; vertical energy is not generally conserved in realistic discs.
  • ad hoc to paper The perturbation is an instantaneous rigid tilt of the disc midplane.
    Section 4.2 assumes a rigid tilt at time t_tilt; the paper notes real disturbances are more like bending modes.
  • domain assumption Stars are on nearly circular orbits, so the eccentricity epsilon is small and the perturbation changes only L_R via delta L_R = -z_bar v_phi.
    Used to derive Eq. 7/8 and the generative model in Eq. 9-11; the paper shows non-circular orbits still give approximately elliptical tracks in AM space.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial AM distribution is a 2D Gaussian with standard deviation sigma_L.
    Assumed in Section 4.2 as a rotationally symmetric equilibrium; no empirical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The angular momentum spiral of the Milky Way disc in Gaia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76GQX2DT

@misc{pith2026250104095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The angular momentum spiral of the Milky Way disc in Gaia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76GQX2DT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04095}
}
abstract

Data from the Gaia mission shows prominent phase-space spirals that are the signatures of disequilibrium in the Milky Way (MW) disc. In this work, we present a novel perspective on the phase-space spiral in angular momentum (AM) space. Using Gaia DR3, we detect a prominent AM spiral in the solar neighbourhood. We demonstrate the relation of AM to the $z-v_z$ spiral and show that we can map to this space from angular momentum through simplifying assumptions. By modelling the orbit of stars in AM, we develop a generative model for the spiral where the disc is perturbed by a bulk tilt at an earlier time. Our model successfully describes the salient features of the AM spiral in the data. Modelling the phase spiral in AM is a promising method to constrain both perturbation and MW potential parameters. Our AM framework simplifies the interpretation of the spiral and offers a robust approach to modelling disequilibrium in the MW disc using all six dimensions of phase space simultaneously.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04095 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Gaia AM spiral in cylindrical coordinates. The left panel show the raw data histogram, while the right panels show residuals against a symmetric model. A spiral-shaped over-/under-density is clearly visible, at around the 20% level. 2 THE GAIA RVS SAMPLE To build the parent sample, we query the Gaia DR3 (Gaia Collabo￾ration et al. 2023) catalogue, accepting stars that have radial velocity measurements, a reduced… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 𝐿𝑅 − 𝐿𝜑 spiral split across 𝐿𝑧 bins, as labelled. Left: raw histograms. Right: fractional residuals against symmetrised distributions. The phase, winding, and prominence of the spiral change appreciably with 𝐿𝑧. only 𝐿𝑥, 𝐿𝑦 and solving for 𝑧, 𝑣𝑧 the following relations between AM and phase space coordinates are found 𝑧 = −𝑥𝐿𝑥 − 𝑦𝐿𝑦 𝐿z 𝑣𝑧 = −𝑣𝑥 𝐿𝑥 − 𝑣𝑦𝐿𝑦 𝐿z (2) We can further simplify the relations by assuming th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Disc orbits in AM space. Left: the trajectories in the meridional plane of 6 stars, labelled ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’ (various colours), and ‘5a’ (grey). All stars have the same vertical AM 𝐿𝑧 but differ in their vertical energies with the exception of ‘5a’, which has the same vertical energy as ‘5’, but with a much larger radial oscillation. Right: the corresponding 𝐿𝑅 − 𝐿𝜑 trajectories of the same stars (coloured e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The AM residuals in 𝐿𝑅 − 𝐿𝜑 binned in 𝐿𝑧. First column: The Gaia data. Second column: A realisation of the MWpot model defined in 4.2, sampled at the location of the data. Third column: A realisation of the MWpot model with 𝑡tilt = −0.9 Gyr, the larger time shows a mor…

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. Formation of the Two-Armed Phase Spiral from Multiple External Perturbations

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

    The two-armed phase spiral seen in Gaia's inner-disk stars is likely the overlap of two one-armed spirals created by two external perturbations separated by roughly 180 Myr.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Bensby T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..46A 678, A46

    Alinder S., McMillan P. J., Bensby T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..46A 678, A46

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346560 2023

  2. [2]

    Antoja T., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 , 561, 360

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2018

  3. [3]

    Antoja T., Ramos P., López-Guitart F., Anders F., Bernet M., Laporte C. F. P., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244064 , 668, A61

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244064 2022

  4. [4]

    Antoja T., Ramos P., Garc \' a-Conde B., Bernet M., Laporte C. F. P., Katz D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.115A 673, A115

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 2023

  5. [5]

    D., van den Bosch F

    Banik U., Weinberg M. D., van den Bosch F. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..135B 935, 135

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff9 2022

  6. [6]

    Bennett M., Bovy J., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 , 482, 1417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2018

  7. [7]

    Bennett M., Bovy J., Hunt J. A. S., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021 , 927, 131

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021 2022

  8. [8]

    Binney J., Sch \"o nrich R., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2378 , 481, 1501

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2378 2018

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    N., Smith R., Fellhauer M., Gibson B

    Candlish G. N., Smith R., Fellhauer M., Gibson B. K., Kroupa P., Assmann P., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt2166 , 437, 3702

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    Cao C., Li Z.-Y., Sch \"o nrich R., Antoja T., 2024, @doi [APJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0e , 975, 292

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    B., 2021, Jupyter Book , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4539666 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4539666

    Community E. B., 2021, Jupyter Book , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4539666 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4539666

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1050D 484, 1050

    Darling K., Widrow L. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1050D 484, 1050

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Darragh-Ford E., Hunt J. A. S., Price-Whelan A. M., Johnston K. V., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf1fc , 955, 74

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Slone O., Lisanti M., Cohen T., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3249 , 518, 2870

    Dodge B. C., Slone O., Lisanti M., Cohen T., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3249 , 518, 2870

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Earp S. W. F., Debattista V. P., Macci \`o A. V., Cole D. R., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1143 , 469, 4095

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Rix H.-W., Ness M

    Eilers A.-C., Hogg D. W., Rix H.-W., Ness M. K., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 , 871, 120

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    W., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad908 , 521, 5917

    Frankel N., Bovy J., Tremaine S., Hogg D. W., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad908 , 521, 5917

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Tremaine S., Price-Whelan A., Shen J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240707149F p

    Frankel N., Hogg D. W., Tremaine S., Price-Whelan A., Shen J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240707149F p. arXiv:2407.07149

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040208 , 647, A59

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Grand R. J. J., Pakmor R., Fragkoudi F., G \'o mez F. A., Trick W., Simpson C. M., van de Voort F., Bieri R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524..801G 524, 801

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Guo R., Li Z.-Y., Shen J., Mao S., Liu C., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad037b , 960, 133

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    G., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/303977 , 480, 503

    Huang S., Carlberg R. G., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/303977 , 480, 503

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    Hunt J. A. S., Stelea I. A., Johnston K. V., Gandhi S. S., Laporte C. F. P., B \'e dorf J., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab2580 , 508, 1459

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Hunt J. A. S., Price-Whelan A. M., Johnston K. V., Darragh-Ford E., 2022, @doi [MNRAS: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082 , 516, L7

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Hunt J. A. S., Price-Whelan A. M., Johnston K. V., McClure R. L., Filion C., Cassese B., Horta D., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3918 , 527, 11393

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    H., McMillan P

    J \'o nsson V. H., McMillan P. J., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449744 , 688, A38

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Khoperskov S., Di Matteo P., Gerhard O., Katz D., Haywood M., Combes F., Berczik P., Gomez A., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834707 , 622, L6

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Laporte C. F. P., Minchev I., Johnston K. V., G \'o mez F. A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz583 , 485, 3134

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    M., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab574 , 503, 1586

    Li H., Widrow L. M., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab574 , 503, 1586

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Barros D

    Michtchenko T. A., Barros D. A., P \'e rez-Villegas A., L \'e pine J. R. D., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11cd , 876, 36

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    P\'erez F., Granger B. E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    M., 2017, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00388 , 2

    Price-Whelan A. M., 2017, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00388 , 2

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Schönrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x , 403, 1829

    2010

  30. [38]

    A., Sch \"o nrich R., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20712.x , 422, 1363

    Solway M., Sellwood J. A., Sch \"o nrich R., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20712.x , 422, 1363

    2012

  31. [39]

    Tremaine S., Frankel N., Bovy J., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad577 , 521, 114

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Vera-Ciro C., D'Onghia E., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/39 , 824, 39

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Widmark A., Laporte C. F. P., Monari G., 2022a, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142819 , 663, A15

    doi

  35. [43]

    M., Naik A., 2022b, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244453 , 668, A95

    Widmark A., Widrow L. M., Naik A., 2022b, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244453 , 668, A95

    doi

Pith tools

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