Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Reevaluating UMa3/U1: star cluster or the smallest known galaxy?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read UMa3/U1 may be a star cluster, not the smallest known galaxy

desk verdict A plausible but not airtight case that UMa3/U1 is a star cluster; the velocity-dispersion match hinges on an unverified binary fraction and the headline lifetime doesn't match the paper's own table. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21301 v2 pith:2MOCNUDY submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.GA

Scot Devlin , Holger Baumgardt , Sarah M. Sweet This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords UMa3/U1ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesstarclustersN-bodysimulationsprimordialbinariescompactremnantsmasssegregationpresent-dayfunction
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 asks whether Ursa Major III/UNIONS 1, the faintest Milky Way satellite yet found, could be an ordinary star cluster rather than a dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxy. Using collisional N-body simulations with stellar evolution and the Milky Way's tidal field, the authors show that a dark-matter-free cluster can survive for about 2.7 billion more years because compact stellar remnants (mainly white dwarfs) concentrate in the core and hold the cluster together. They also find that the observed 3.7 km/s velocity dispersion can be reproduced if a high fraction of the visible stars are in binaries, removing the argument that dark matter is required. The paper concludes that present-day mass function measurements, not velocity dispersions, offer a practical way to settle the nature of UMa3/U1 and similar systems.

What carries the argument

The central tool is a set of collisional N-body simulations run with the Nbody7 code, which includes stellar evolution (through Hurley et al. fitting formulas), a realistic three-stage initial mass function, the Bovy (2015) Milky Way potential, and optional primordial binaries. Two observation-mimicking filters select stars visible to a UNIONS-like survey and to a hypothetical deep HST survey. The load-bearing mechanism is mass segregation of compact remnants: white dwarfs and stellar-mass black holes sink to the cluster core, raising the central density and binding energy, while low-mass stars are preferentially lost, which together extend the cluster's dissolution timescale and steepen the present-day mass function.

What would settle it

Measure the binary fraction of UMa3/U1's 11 member stars through a multi-epoch radial velocity campaign. If the observed binary fraction is substantially below 88%, the binary-based explanation of the 3.7 km/s dispersion fails, and the cluster interpretation would lose its main support. Alternatively, deep photometry reaching i ≈ 25 mag: if the mass function is not significantly top-heavy (slope less than about +1.5), the cluster model is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Modeling UMa3/U1 as a self-gravitating, dark-matter-free star cluster is dynamically viable: it can survive for 2.7 ± 0.4 Gyr (for 0% black-hole/neutron-star retention) chiefly because mass segregation packs invisible compact remnants into the core, deepening the potential and slowing tidal disruption. When primordial binaries are included at a realistic 50% initial fraction, the luminosity-weighted velocity dispersion of the visible stars reaches 4.75 km/s on average, bracketing the observed 3.7 km/s; without binaries the predicted dispersion is only about 0.16 km/s. Thus the high velocity dispersion does not force a dwarf-galaxy interpretation. The paper further argues that if UMa3/U1 is a cluster, its present-day mass function should be markedly top-heavy (power-law slopes around +2.5 or +1.5 depending on remnant retention), whereas a dwarf galaxy would retain its original, bottom-heavy IMF, and that photometry reaching i ≈ 25 mag can distinguish these cases.

Load-bearing premise

The velocity dispersion match requires that almost all (88–100%) of the UNIONS-visible stars currently belong to binaries, a fraction that is assumed to result from a 50% primordial binary fraction but is not directly measured; if the true binary fraction is lower, the model predicts a dispersion around 0.16 km/s, far below the observed 3.7 km/s.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If UMa3/U1 is a star cluster, it will remain visible as an exceptionally small cluster for roughly 1–2 Gyr before fading, so its discovery today is not statistically improbable.
  • A high present-day binary fraction among the visible stars (80–100%) would explain the observed velocity dispersion without dark matter, making binary monitoring a key observational test.
  • Deep imaging to i ≈ 25 mag could classify UMa3/U1: a top-heavy mass function indicates a cluster, while a bottom-heavy IMF indicates a dwarf galaxy.
  • Mass segregation is not a practical discriminator for this object because the faint compact remnants that carry the signal are undetectable at 10 kpc.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same modeling logic should apply to other ultra-faint satellites with small half-light radii; for these, binary fractions and mass functions may be more robust classifiers than velocity dispersions alone.
  • If confirmed as a cluster, UMa3/U1 would set a lower bound on how compact a surviving star cluster can be in the Milky Way's halo, sharpening models of cluster disruption.
  • A concrete next step is an astrometric or spectroscopic campaign to measure the binary fraction of the 11 member stars; detecting a binary fraction near unity would directly support the cluster interpretation.
  • The predicted top-heavy mass function could also be searched for in existing deep Hubble or JWST archival images, avoiding the need for new observations.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models UMa3/U1 as a dark-matter-free star cluster using collisional N-body simulations (Nbody7) with stellar evolution, an external Milky Way potential, and, in a subset of runs, primordial binaries. The authors find that a cluster initially containing about 6000-7200 stars can still have 21 UNIONS-visible stars at an age near 12 Gyr, with a remaining lifetime of about 1.9-2.7 Gyr depending on the assumed retention fraction of black holes and neutron stars. They further argue that the observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion of 3.7 km/s can be reproduced if a large fraction of the visible stars are in binaries, and they propose a present-day mass function test (observable with photometry reaching i ~ 25) as a future classification tool. On this basis they conclude that UMa3/U1 being a star cluster is a viable possibility, contrary to the dark-matter-dominated UFD interpretation favored by earlier work.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper is significant: it directly challenges the prevailing interpretation of the faintest known Milky Way satellite and offers a falsifiable observational discriminator (the top-heavy present-day mass function). The use of a collisional N-body code with stellar evolution and compact remnants is a material improvement over the collisionless simulations of Errani et al. (2024), and the paper is commendably explicit about the limitations of mass segregation as a diagnostic. However, the strength of the central claims is currently undermined by an internal numerical inconsistency in the headline lifetime and by the dependence of the velocity-dispersion match on an unverified and extreme present-day binary fraction. These issues are fixable but require revision before the paper can fully support its abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1, Abstract] The abstract and Section 4 quote a remaining lifetime of 2.7 ± 0.4 Gyr for the 0% retention, no-primordial-binary set (simulations 1-10), but summing the T_diss,U entries in Table 1 for simulations 1-10 gives a mean of 2402 Myr and a sample standard deviation of 333 Myr, not 2694 ± 432 Myr. This arithmetic inconsistency affects the headline number of the paper; the corrected mean of about 2.4 Gyr still exceeds the Errani et al. (2024) estimate, but the abstract and the highlighted value must be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.3, Table 1 (simulations 21-24)] The claim that the observed σ_los = 3.7 km/s can be reproduced by a dark-matter-free cluster rests entirely on four runs initialized with a 50% primordial binary fraction. At UNIONS time these runs have f_b,U = 88-100% of UNIONS-visible stars in binaries (Table 1) and produce σ_lum,U values between 2.64 and 7.20 km/s, while the 20 runs without primordial binaries give σ_lum,U ≈ 0.16 km/s. Since no binarity data exist for the 11 member stars, the kinematic match is conditional on an unverified and extreme present-day binary fraction; a materially lower binary fraction would bring the predicted dispersion far below the observed value and revive the dark-matter interpretation. The paper should present the velocity-dispersion result as a function of the present-day binary fraction and explore the sensitivity to the assumed primordial binary fraction and binary orbital parameters.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 1 (simulations 11-20)] The 10% retention runs, which the paper itself regards as an upper bound on the true retention rate, give T_diss,U values of 120, 240, 680, 1460, 1600, 1680, 1880, 2380, 2740, and 4400 Myr, with four runs dissolving in under 1 Gyr. The mean of 1906 ± 1348 Myr is therefore not a robust 'substantial' lifetime, and the paper's reliance on the 0% retention subset for its headline number should be justified more carefully, including a discussion of how the conclusions depend on the uncertain retention fraction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The caption states that T_diss,U is 'from 21 to 0 stars visible to the UNIONS survey', but Section 2.4 defines dissolution as the time when fewer than 8 bound stars remain for the density-centre calculation; these two definitions should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The text reports a mean compact-remnant fraction of 74 ± 1%, but the f_cr entries in Table 1 range from 59% to 82% with a sample standard deviation of about 7%; please clarify whether the quoted uncertainty is the standard error of the mean and correct the value if needed.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to using luminosity-weighted average velocities of binary pairs, but Figure 3 shows the runs without primordial binaries, for which f_b,U ≈ 0.5%; this sentence appears to be a leftover from the binary discussion and should be removed or clarified.
  4. [Section 2.4] When 21 UNIONS-range stars are reached at multiple time steps, the half-light radius is used as a secondary selection criterion; this selection should be stated in the quoted lifetime uncertainties, since the chosen snapshot need not be representative of the distribution of possible present-day states.
  5. [Section 4] The 10% retention simulations have a mean total lifetime of 11.7 Gyr, slightly below the target age of 12 Gyr; the paper acknowledges this, but the resulting small bias on the fitted initial mass (N = 7200 versus about 7350) should be propagated into the quoted lifetimes or shown to be negligible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model's lifetime and velocity-dispersion results are forward outputs conditioned on independently motivated inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are forward outputs of collisional N-body simulations. The progenitor mass N is calibrated to reproduce the observed 21-star count in the UNIONS range (Section 2.3), which is a boundary-condition fit, but the remaining lifetime (T_diss,U) and the luminosity-weighted velocity dispersion (sigma_lum,U) are not fitted to the observed 3.7 km/s; they are computed at the UNIONS-time epoch. The primordial binary fraction f_b0=50% is adopted from external field-star multiplicity data (Offner et al. 2023), not tuned to the target dispersion. Equation (4) is a definition of the measured quantity, not a reduction of the prediction to an input. The compact-remnant retention that extends the lifetime is a consequence of stellar-evolution prescriptions (Hurley et al. 2000) and the chosen BH/NS retention fractions, not a self-defined outcome. Self-citations to Baumgardt et al. (2023, 2022) provide standard IMF and mass-segregation criteria and are not load-bearing for the main conclusions. The only flagged issue is an internal arithmetic inconsistency: the quoted mean <T_diss,U> = 2694±432 Myr for simulations 1-10 does not match the Table 1 entries (computed mean 2402±333 Myr). This is a numerical accuracy concern, not a circularity, because the lifetime is still an independent forward prediction. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard astrophysical modeling assumptions: a King-model progenitor, a chosen IMF, a 12 Gyr age, a Milky Way potential, and fixed retention and binary fractions. The initial mass and half-light radius are calibrated to match UMa3/U1's observed star count and size. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial cluster size N_prog = 6000 (0% retention), 7200 (10% retention)
    Section 2.3: trial simulations selected so the cluster has 21 UNIONS-range stars at 10-14 Gyr, matching Smith et al. (2024). This calibration directly affects the predicted remaining lifetime.
  • Initial half-light radius r_h = 3 pc
    Section 2.3: set equal to the observed half-light radius; trial runs confirm the final r_h remains near 3 pc, so this is a matched boundary condition rather than a free prediction.
  • NS/BH retention fraction = 0% and 10% (two scenarios)
    Section 2.3: assumed based on natal kick expectations; the 0% case is highlighted in the abstract, while the 10% case yields shorter and more variable lifetimes.
  • Primordial binary fraction f_b0 = 50% in simulations 21-24
    Section 2.5: chosen from field-star multiplicity (Offner et al. 2023), not measured for U1; drives the velocity dispersion match.
  • Matching time window = 10-14 Gyr
    Section 2.3: hand-chosen to reflect age uncertainty; simulations reaching 21 UNIONS stars outside this window are discarded, which can bias the lifetime distribution.
  • King concentration parameter c = 1
    Section 2.3: assumed; no direct constraint for U1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The cluster can be initialized as a King (1962) model with concentration c=1, isotropic velocities, and no primordial mass segregation.
    Section 2.3; standard for globular cluster modeling but unverified for U1's formation.
  • domain assumption The initial mass function follows Baumgardt et al. (2023), with slopes -0.3, -1.65, and -2.3 below 0.4, 0.4-1.0, and above 1.0 Msun.
    Section 2.3, equation 1; assumed input from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The cluster formed 12 Gyr ago and follows the orbit obtained by backward integration in the Bovy (2015) Milky Way potential.
    Section 2.1; age and orbit are inputs from Smith et al. (2024) and Galpy integration, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Compact remnants (WDs, NSs, BHs) are retained according to fixed 0% or 10% fractions for NSs and BHs, with white dwarfs always retained.
    Section 2.3; retention fraction is a scenario parameter, not measured for U1.
  • domain assumption The UFD comparison mass function is the unevolved Baumgardt et al. IMF, i.e., a dark-matter-dominated UFD suffers negligible mass segregation and mass loss.
    Section 3.5; assumption that UFD mass functions remain close to the IMF, motivated by references but not demonstrated for U1.
  • domain assumption Binaries are unresolved and their velocity contribution is the luminosity-weighted mean of the components (Rastello et al. 2020, method 3).
    Section 2.5, equations 3-4; necessary to compare with single-epoch line-of-sight velocities.
  • domain assumption The tidal radius formula for a circular orbit (King 1962) applies instantaneously on U1's eccentric orbit using instantaneous V_G and R_G.
    Section 2.4, equation 2; approximation for an eccentric orbit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reevaluating UMa3/U1: star cluster or the smallest known galaxy?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MOCNUDY

@misc{pith2026250421301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reevaluating UMa3/U1: star cluster or the smallest known galaxy?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MOCNUDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21301}
}
abstract

Ursa Major III/UNIONS 1 (UMa3/U1) is the faintest Milky Way satellite discovered to date, exhibiting a half-light radius of 3 $\pm$ 1 pc and an absolute V-band magnitude of +2.2 $\pm$ 0.4. Previous studies suggest UMa3/U1 is a dwarf galaxy, based on its large internal velocity dispersion and the improbability (indicated by dynamical cluster simulations) of its long-term survival if it were a dark-matter-free star cluster. In this paper, we model the evolution of UMa3/U1 as a star cluster using collisional N-body simulations that include a description of stellar evolution and the external tidal field of the Milky Way, with some simulations including primordial binaries. We find that UMa3/U1 has a substantial remaining lifetime of 2.7 $\pm$ 0.4 Gyr, primarily due to the retention of compact stellar remnants within the cluster. This retention is facilitated by mass segregation and the preferential loss of low-mass stars. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the observed large velocity dispersion of UMa3/U1 can be successfully reproduced. These results support the possibility that UMa3/U1 is a self-gravitating star cluster. Our simulations reveal that modelling UMa3/U1 as a dark matter free star cluster produces a markedly altered present-day mass function, driven by a strong depletion of low-mass stars. However, the degree of mass segregation among the visible stars is not statistically significant. We therefore recommend that future observations of UMa3/U1 and other very small Milky Way satellites focus on measuring their present-day mass functions to determine their nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of bound stars in simulation 12 (top panels) and simulation 17 (bottom panels). The green lines represent the number of bright stars visible to a UNIONS-like survey, the orange line represents the number of bound main-sequence and giant stars, and the blue line represents the total number of bound stars as a function of time. The red vertical dashed lines bounding the red shaded area mark the remaining lifeti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left hand side: Distribution of the remaining lifetimes of the ten simulations with a 10% black hole retention fraction and no primordial bi￾naries. Right hand side: The same for the ten simulations with a 0% black hole retention fraction and no primordial binaries. The blue and yellow lines, are kernel density estimate trend lines. The 10% retention simulations have a greater variability in their remaining lifetime… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of velocity dispersion values of the clusters without pri￾mordial binaries, simulation 1 to 20, at UNIONS time in the UNIONS range. The smooth curves represent the kernel density estimates of the velocity dispersion distributions. To simulate observed velocity dispersions, individ￾ual velocity dispersion values are calculated using the luminosity-weighted average velocity of binary pairs in place of the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative radial distribution of bound stars in simulation 3 at UNIONS time, T=12140 Myr. The left panel shows the distribution of HST range stars while the right panel shows the distribution of all bound stars (including compact remnants). The lower curves show the c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative mass function of HST range stars. The lowermost curve shows the stacked simulations with 10% black hole and neutron star retention and no primordial binaries. The middle curve shows the stacked simulations with 0% retention and no primordial binaries. The to…

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. Updated bounds on ultra-light dark matter from the tiniest galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    If Ursa Major III/UNIONS 1 is a galaxy, ultra-light dark matter particles must be heavier than 8 x 10^-18 eV, the strongest such bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2248 , 508, 1788

    Amôres E. B., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2248 , 508, 1788

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2248 2021

  2. [2]

    Dark Matter searches in Dwarf Galaxies with the Southern Wide-field Gamma-ray Observatory

    Andrade M., Viana A., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2309.10102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230910102A p. arXiv:2309.10102

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.10102 2023

  3. [3]

    Balbinot E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..101B 767, 101

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/101 2013

  4. [4]

    L., Berczik P., Hurley J

    Banerjee S., Belczynski K., Fryer C. L., Berczik P., Hurley J. R., Spurzem R., Wang L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..41B 639, A41

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935332 2020

  5. [5]

    Baumgardt H., Makino J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.340..227B 340, 227

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Baumgardt H., Sollima A., Hilker M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2020.38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASA...37...46B 37, e046

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.38 2020

  7. [7]

    Baumgardt H., Faller J., Meinhold N., McGovern-Greco C., Hilker M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3531B 510, 3531

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3629 2022

  8. [8]

    Baumgardt H., H \'e nault-Brunet V., Dickson N., Sollima A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.3991B 521, 3991

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad631 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/509718 , 654, 897

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L103 , 712, L103

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Turok N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556...93B 556, 93

    Bode P., Ostriker J. P., Turok N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556...93B 556, 93

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...29B 216, 29

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    Casertano S., Hut P., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...298...80C 298, 80

    1985 doi

  6. [15]

    Cerny W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953....1C 953, 1

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L.139E 482, L139

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    Errani R., Peñarrubia J., Tormen G., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv010 , 449, L46

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    G., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2565 , 481, 5073

    Errani R., Peñarrubia J., Walker M. G., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2565 , 481, 5073

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    F., Smith S

    Errani R., Navarro J. F., Smith S. E. T., McConnachie A. W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...20E 965, 20

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    Fattahi A., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2974 , 457, 844

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Spurzem R., Wassmer N., 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 305

    Fellhauer M., Kroupa P., Baumgardt H., Bien R., Boily C. M., Spurzem R., Wassmer N., 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 305

    2000

  13. [22]

    L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D

    Fryer C. L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D. E., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91 , 749, 91

    2012 doi

  14. [23]

    C., 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 268, 257

    Giersz M., Heggie D. C., 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 268, 257

    1994

  15. [24]

    E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1487H 112, 1487

    Harris W. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1487H 112, 1487

    1996 doi

  16. [25]

    C., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MNRAS.173..729H 173, 729

    Heggie D. C., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MNRAS.173..729H 173, 729

    1975 doi

  17. [26]

    Hilker M., Baumgardt H., Infante L., Drinkwater M., Evstigneeva E., Gregg M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...463..119H 463, 119

    2007 doi

  18. [27]

    R., Lyne A

    Hobbs G., Lorimer D. R., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.360..974H 360, 974

    2005

  19. [28]

    R., Pols O

    Hurley J. R., Pols O. R., Tout C. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.315..543H 315, 543

    2000

  20. [29]

    Hut P., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PASP..104..981H 104, 981

    1992 doi

  21. [30]

    C., Zakamska N

    Hwang H.-C., Ting Y.-S., Schlaufman K. C., Zakamska N. L., Wyse R. F. G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4329H 501, 4329

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    Khalaj P., Baumgardt H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.3236K 434, 3236

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    P., Mackey D., Da Costa G

    Kim D., Jerjen H., Milone A. P., Mackey D., Da Costa G. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...63K 803, 63

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    S., Milone A

    Kim D., Jerjen H., Mackey D., Da Costa G. S., Milone A. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820..119K 820, 119

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    King I., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1086/108756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AJ.....67..471K 67, 471

    1962 doi

  26. [35]

    R., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/109857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966AJ.....71...64K 71, 64

    King I. R., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/109857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966AJ.....71...64K 71, 64

    1966 doi

  27. [36]

    M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..517K 431, 517

    Kroupa P., Theis C., Boily C. M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..517K 431, 517

    2005 doi

  28. [37]

    R., McKee C

    Krumholz M. R., McKee C. F., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..227K 57, 227

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    Reine Angew

    Kustaanheimo P., Stiefel E., 1965, J. Reine Angew. Math., 218, 204

    1965

  30. [39]

    J., Lada E

    Lada C. J., Lada E. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41...57L 41, 57

    2003 arXiv

  31. [40]

    F., de Jong J

    Martin N. F., de Jong J. T. A., Rix H. W., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/587860 , 684, 1075

    2008 doi

  32. [41]

    W., C \^o t \'e P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722L.209M 722, L209

    McConnachie A. W., C \^o t \'e P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722L.209M 722, L209

    2010 doi

  33. [42]

    C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s001590050008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&ARv...8....1M 8, 1

    Meylan G., Heggie D. C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s001590050008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&ARv...8....1M 8, 1

    1997 doi

  34. [43]

    J., 1989, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/BF00051012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989CeMDA..47..375M 47, 375

    Mikkola S., Aarseth S. J., 1989, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/BF00051012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989CeMDA..47..375M 47, 375

    1989 doi

  35. [44]

    J., 1993, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/BF00695714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..439M 57, 439

    Mikkola S., Aarseth S. J., 1993, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/BF00695714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..439M 57, 439

    1993 doi

  36. [45]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..16M 540, A16

    Milone A. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..16M 540, A16

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    Mohandasan A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..42M 681, A42

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    A., Umbreit S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800....9M 800, 9

    Morscher M., Pattabiraman B., Rodriguez C., Rasio F. A., Umbreit S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800....9M 800, 9

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Christensen C., Applebaum E., Holley-Bockelmann K., Quinn T

    Munshi F., Brooks A. M., Christensen C., Applebaum E., Holley-Bockelmann K., Quinn T. R., Wadsley J., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0085 , 874, 40

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    Offner S. S. R., Moe M., Kratter K. M., Sadavoy S. I., Jensen E. L. N., Tobin J. J., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 275 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.100...

    2023 doi arXiv

  41. [51]

    Pavl \' k V., Je r \'a bkov \'a T., Kroupa P., Baumgardt H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A..69P 617, A69

    2018 doi

  42. [52]

    S., Pflamm-Altenburg J., Kroupa P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1109P 423, 1109

    Pawlowski M. S., Pflamm-Altenburg J., Kroupa P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1109P 423, 1109

    2012

  43. [53]

    S., Kroupa P., Jerjen H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.1928P 435, 1928

    Pawlowski M. S., Kroupa P., Jerjen H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.1928P 435, 1928

    2013 doi

  44. [55]

    H., Teukolsky S

    Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., Vetterling W. T., Flannery B. P., 1992, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press

    1992

  45. [56]

    M., Nidever D

    Price-Whelan A. M., Nidever D. L., Choi Y., Schlafly E. F., Morton T., Koposov S. E., Belokurov V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4bdd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...19P 887, 19

    2019 doi

  46. [57]

    Rastello S., Carraro G., Capuzzo-Dolcetta R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..152R 896, 152

    2020 doi

  47. [58]

    E., 1955, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/145971 , 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/145971 , 121, 161

    1955 doi

  48. [59]

    R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973L..15S 973, L15

    S \'a nchez Almeida J., Trujillo I., Plastino A. R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973L..15S 973, L15

    2024 doi

  49. [60]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  50. [62]

    S., Wilk M

    Shapiro S. S., Wilk M. B., 1965, @doi [Biometrika] 10.2307/2333709 , 52, 591

    1965 doi

  51. [63]

    D., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453 , 57, 375–415

    Simon J. D., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453 , 57, 375–415

    2019 doi

  52. [64]

    D., Geha M., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/521816 , 670, 313

    Simon J. D., Geha M., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/521816 , 670, 313

    2007 doi

  53. [65]

    Smith S. E. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0d9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961...92S 961, 92

    2024 doi

  54. [66]

    R., Fusi Pecci F., Sarajedini A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12116.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..781S 380, 781

    Sollima A., Beccari G., Ferraro F. R., Fusi Pecci F., Sarajedini A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12116.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..781S 380, 781

    2007

  55. [67]

    Space Telescope Science Institute 2023, WFC3/UVIS Exposure Time Calculator -- Imaging, https://etc.stsci.edu/etc/input/wfc3uvis/imaging/

    2023

  56. [68]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Spitzer L., 1987, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    1987

  57. [69]

    Trenti M., Ardi E., Mineshige S., Hut P., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11189.x , 374, 857

    2006

  58. [70]

    C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/289.4.898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.289..898V 289, 898

    Vesperini E., Heggie D. C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/289.4.898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.289..898V 289, 898

    1997 doi

  59. [71]

    Willman B., 2010, @doi [Advances in Astronomy] 10.1155/2010/285454 , 2010, 1

    2010 doi

  60. [72]

    E., Simon J

    Willman B., Geha M., Strader J., Strigari L. E., Simon J. D., Kirby E., Ho N., Warres A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..128W 142, 128

    2011 doi

  61. [73]

    D., Bullock J

    Wolf J., Martinez G. D., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., Geha M., Mu \ n oz R. R., Simon J. D., Avedo F. F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1220W 406, 1220

    2010

  62. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.