Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

A Glimpse of Satellite Galaxies in the Milky Way with the 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST): Bootes III and Draco

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pairing WFST images with Pan-STARRS and Gaia gives proper motions for stars two magnitudes fainter than Gaia alone and ties Boötes III to the Styx stream.

desk verdict Useful capability demo, but the Draco bright-faint PM offset is real and the abstract overstates consistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20997 v1 pith:DM4WNEH6 submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.GA

Chao Yang , Zhizheng Pan , Min Fang , Xian Zhong Zheng , Binyang Liu , Guoliang Li , Tian-Rui Sun , Ji-An Jiang
show 29 more authors
Miaomiao Zhang Zhen Wan Shuang Liu Han Qu Ji Yang Xu Kong Wenhao Liu Yiping Shu Jiang Chang Tinggui Wang Lulu Fan Yongquan Xue Wentao Luo Hongxin Zhang Zheng Lou Haibin Zhao Bin Li Hairen Wang Dazhi Yao Jian Wang Hongfei Zhang Feng Li Hao Liu Ming Liang Jinlong Tang Yuheng Zhang Man Qiao Run Wen Zongfei Lyu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords propermotionsdwarfsatellitegalaxiesMilkyWaystellarstreamsWideFieldSurveyTelescopePan-STARRSGaiaDR3BoötesIIIDraco
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 is a pilot demonstration that the Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST) can push stellar proper-motion measurements in Milky Way satellite galaxies about two magnitudes deeper than Gaia alone. Proper motion is the apparent angular drift of a star across the sky. By pairing fresh WFST positions with Pan-STARRS PS1 DR2 positions over a 12-year baseline and anchoring the zero point with Gaia DR3, the authors derive per-star proper-motion uncertainties of roughly 1.8 mas/yr at r=21 mag and 3.0 mas/yr at r=22 mag. They find that proper motions measured from bright and faint member stars agree, indicating no significant luminosity-dependent kinematic difference as these dwarfs are tidally stretched by the Milky Way. They further argue that Boötes III, whose density map is elongated along its proper-motion direction and shows an overdensity in spatial and kinematic space, is the surviving bound core of the progenitor of the Styx stream.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-epoch proper-motion measurement: for each star, the WFST position is subtracted from the PS1 DR2 position and divided by the 12-year time baseline, then two constant offsets C1 and C2 derived from bright stars bring the result onto the Gaia DR3 proper-motion frame. The other load-bearing component is a matched-filter member-star selection: isochrone filtering in the color-magnitude diagram, star-galaxy separation using the SPREAD_MODEL parameter, and removal of foreground stars via Gaia parallax and proper-motion cuts. An uncertainty model adds positional errors, Gaia systematic errors, and an extra scatter term estimated from bright stars.

What would settle it

Split the WFST-PS1 residual stars into 0.5 mag bins from 18 to 22.5 mag: if the mean residual against Gaia DR3 drifts by more than the random uncertainty in any bin, the constant zero-point assumption fails and the faint-star proper motions are biased; re-reducing with an independent second WFST epoch and checking bright-faint agreement would settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that WFST, combined with PS1 DR2 and Gaia DR3, can measure proper motions of candidate member stars fainter than Gaia's reliable limit, reaching individual uncertainties of ~1.8 mas/yr at r=21 mag and ~3.0 mas/yr at r=22 mag. For Boötes III, the bright-star proper motion is (mu_alpha* = -1.26 ± 0.05, mu_delta = -1.05 ± 0.04) mas/yr and the faint-star value is (-1.31 ± 0.16, -1.01 ± 0.16) mas/yr; for Draco the corresponding values are (-0.05 ± 0.01, -0.24 ± 0.01) and (-0.57 ± 0.06, -0.24 ± 0.06) mas/yr. The agreement between bright and faint measurements is taken as evidence that proper motion does not vary across stellar luminosity while tidal interactions strip the galaxies. The paper also claims that Boötes III's density map has an elongated core aligned with its proper motion, with adjacent overdensities that look like tidally stripped debris, making Boötes III the bound remnant of the Styx stream's progenitor.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the small correction aligning WFST and PS1 positions with Gaia is identical for bright and faint stars; if a magnitude-dependent error tilts faint-star positions, the faint-star proper motions and the reported bright-faint agreement would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the start of its six-year wide-field survey, WFST can measure proper motions of faint stars over the roughly 8,000 deg2 northern footprint it shares with Pan-STARRS, without waiting for additional epochs.
  • The faint-star sample lowers the uncertainty on each galaxy's mean proper motion to about 0.2 mas/yr, sharpening orbit comparisons with stellar streams.
  • If the bright-faint consistency holds generally, deep photometry can be used to map the internal kinematics and tidal state of dwarf satellites beyond Gaia's magnitude limit.
  • Boötes III's identification as the Styx remnant means the stream and the galaxy should share a common orbit, giving a concrete target for wider WFST mapping of the stream.
  • Draco shows no tidal features above the 1-sigma noise level in these data, consistent with its previously measured deeper profiles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit extension is that the same C1/C2 zero-point calibration can be applied to any WFST field inside the PS1 3pi footprint, making the method immediately generalizable to dozens of known satellites and streams in the northern sky.
  • The 0.52 mas/yr offset between bright and faint Draco proper motions in right ascension, larger than the quoted uncertainties, is a natural test case: if it persists after the wider WFS astrometric solution, it would point to magnitude-dependent systematics rather than a real kinematic signal.
  • If Boötes III is indeed the Styx progenitor, then searching for other disrupted-dwarf streams can be done by looking for elongated density cores whose elongation axis aligns with the system's proper-motion vector, a selection requiring exactly the faint-star astrometry this paper demonstrates.
  • A testable extension would be to measure the same faint stars with a second deep WFST epoch rather than PS1, which would separate true motion from systematic errors in the PS1 positions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents WFST pilot observations of the Milky Way satellite galaxies Boötes III and Draco, combining WFST catalogs with PS1 DR2 and Gaia DR3 to measure proper motions for candidate member stars over a 12-year baseline. The authors report per-star PM uncertainties of about 1.8 mas/yr at r=21 mag and 3.0 mas/yr at r=22 mag, derive galaxy-level PMs from bright (g<21) and faint (21<g<22.5) stars, and use the morphologies and PMs to argue that Boötes III is the tidally stretched remnant of the Styx stream progenitor. The paper also fits structural parameters for Draco and finds no tidal features there.

Significance. If validated, the paper demonstrates a genuinely useful capability: WFST can extend PM measurements to stars about 1.5-2 mag fainter than the Gaia limit, with per-star uncertainties of a few mas/yr, enabling kinematic studies of faint Milky Way satellite members. The methodology is largely based on public tools (SExtractor, PSFEx, SCAMP, SWarp) and external recalibrated catalogs (PS1 AstrometryCorrection table, Gaia DR3), and the Monte Carlo propagation of measurement uncertainties for the galaxy-level PMs is a strength. However, the central claim that bright and faint PMs are consistent is undermined by the paper's own Draco measurements, and the calibration of faint-star PMs relies on a magnitude-independent zero-point assumption that the authors themselves flag as potentially invalid. The Boötes III–Styx connection is interesting but depends on the same faint-star PM calibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1.3, Table 2, Abstract, Summary] The abstract and Summary item 2 state that the proper motions derived from bright and faint stars are consistent and indicate no significant variation with luminosity, but Table 2 reports for Draco mu_alpha* = -0.05±0.01 (bright) and -0.57±0.06 (faint), a 0.52 mas/yr offset that is about 8.5 times the combined quoted uncertainty. Section 5.1.3 itself calls this a 'discrepancy of 0.52 mas/yr'. This internal inconsistency directly affects a headline conclusion. The suggested explanations (saturated stars, readout direction aligned with R.A.) are not tested; a quantitative test, such as deriving C1 and C2 in separate magnitude bins or comparing the faint-star PMs against an external catalog, is needed before the consistency claim can stand.
  2. [§5.1.1, Eq. (2)] The uncertainty model for faint stars adopts the value of sigma_ex estimated from bright stars, and the text acknowledges that 'other effects (e.g., charge transfer inefficiency, CTE) may exhibit magnitude dependence' and that 'our uncertainty estimates for faint stars could be underestimated.' This is a load-bearing limitation because the Draco offset is in mu_alpha*, which the paper associates with the readout direction, and the additive zero-point constants C1 and C2 in Eq. (1) are derived exclusively from bright stars. Without an explicit magnitude-dependent systematic term or a demonstration that such a term is negligible, the quoted faint-star uncertainties and the resulting 'consistency' conclusion are not robust.
  3. [§5.2.1 and §5.3] The morphological evidence for Boötes III's tidal elongation and the connection to the Styx stream is based on a member sample selected partly through the faint-star PM measurements (Section 4.5.2), whose zero-point calibration is the point at issue. The density contours in Figure 10 and the interpretation of Regions 1, 2, and 3 as tidally stripped material should be shown to be stable when the PM selection window is shifted by a plausible systematic offset, or when using only bright Gaia stars with unambiguous PMs. Without such a test, the claim in Section 5.3 that the morphology provides 'more direct evidence' for the Styx progenitor hypothesis is weakened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'fiant stars' (Section 1), 'inhabits star formation' (should be 'inhibits'), 'calatogs' (Section 3.2), and 'As estimate from the left panel' (Section 4.2). These should be corrected.
  2. [References] The reference list appears to duplicate entries: Ségall et al. 2007a and 2007b are the same paper with identical title and page numbers, and Carlin et al. 2009a and 2009b are likewise identical. These should be merged into single entries with proper distinguishing labels if distinct works are intended.
  3. [§4.4.1] The sentence 'for horizontal branch stars, a 0.05 mag is added along the magnitude axis' is unclear: it is not specified whether this extension is applied only to horizontal branch stars or to the entire isochrone selection region, and how this interacts with the earlier 0.05 mag color-axis extension should be stated more precisely.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption describes the right panel as showing residual PMs for Boötes III, but the middle panel is for Draco and no residual-PM panel is provided for Draco; a sentence noting this asymmetry would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: faint-star proper motions are anchored to Gaia through field-level additive constants, and the Bootes III/Styx claim rests on independent density morphology and an external orbit prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is the WFST-PS1 proper motion via Eq. (1), with constants C1 and C2 set from bright (g<21) field stars' residuals against Gaia DR3. This is an external zero-point anchor, not a parameter fitted to the faint-star galaxy measurement; applying the same additive constants to faint stars tests, rather than imposes, consistency across luminosity. The paper's own Table 2 shows a 0.52 mas/yr offset in Draco mu_alpha* between bright and faint stars, explicitly described as a discrepancy in Section 5.1.3, confirming that the comparison is not forced. Faint member selection does use the PM density peak, and the galaxy PM is then computed as the mean of the selected sample in the central spatial bin; while this weakens the independence of selection and measurement, it is a standard PM-overdensity member-selection technique and does not reduce the claimed result to an input by construction. The Bootes III-Styx suggestion is supported by the elongated density morphology, the PM direction, and comparison with Grillmair (2009)'s external retrograde-orbit prediction, not by a self-citation. The manuscript flags its own limitations: Section 5.1.1 states that faint-star uncertainty estimates could be underestimated if magnitude-dependent effects such as charge transfer inefficiency are present, and Section 5.1.3 lists possible explanations for the Draco offset. These are correctness risks, not circularity. WFST instrument self-citations (e.g., Wang et al. 2023, Chen et al. 2024) are descriptive and not load-bearing for the scientific conclusions. The derivation is therefore self-contained relative to its stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central PM measurements rest on external astrometric references (Gaia DR3 and PS1 DR2) rather than new physical entities, so the invented-entities list is empty. The main free parameters are the two zero-point offsets C1/C2 and the ad hoc extra uncertainty sigma_ex, all derived from bright-star data and applied to faint stars. The domain assumptions are standard for this kind of survey (frame alignment, isochrone choice, completeness extrapolation, and the validity of the adopted orbit model). The most fragile of these is the constancy of the astrometric zero point across magnitude, which the paper itself flags as a possible source of underestimated error.

free parameters (3)
  • C1 (RA proper-motion zero-point correction) = -0.38 mas/yr (Bootes III), -0.12 mas/yr (Draco)
    Fitted to bright stars with g<21 by comparing WFST-PS1 positions to Gaia DR3 PMs; applied as a constant offset to all faint stars in each field.
  • C2 (Dec proper-motion zero-point correction) = 0.28 mas/yr (Bootes III), 0.32 mas/yr (Draco)
    Fitted to bright stars with g<21 by comparing WFST-PS1 positions to Gaia DR3 PMs; applied as a constant offset to all faint stars in each field.
  • sigma_ex (additional per-coordinate PM uncertainty) = Derived in 0.5 mag bins; mean value from bright stars adopted for faint stars
    Added in Eq. (2) so the error budget matches the observed scatter in residual PMs. For faint stars the mean bright-star sigma_ex is used, which the authors note may underestimate the true uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The WFST and PS1 astrometric frames are both tied to Gaia EDR3/DR3, so no additional relative distortion needs to be modeled between the two catalogs.
    Invoked in Section 4.5.2 before Eq. (1). If the two frames have spatial distortions not captured by the constant offsets C1/C2, faint-star PMs would be biased.
  • domain assumption There is no magnitude-dependent systematic error in the WFST-PS1 positional differences that is not absorbed by C1/C2.
    Calibration constants are derived from bright stars (g<21) and applied to faint stars (21<g<22.5). The paper itself notes in Section 5.1.1 that CTE effects may be magnitude dependent, which would invalidate this assumption.
  • domain assumption The adopted isochrone (13 Gyr, [Fe/H]=-2.0) at a distance of 46.5 kpc correctly represents Bootes III's stellar population.
    Used in Section 4.4.1 to define the CMD selection box. An incorrect metallicity, age, or distance would bias the member star sample and the resulting density structure.
  • domain assumption The completeness of the Bootes III catalog can be estimated from the Metcalfe et al. (2013) relation between source-count turnover and 50% completeness, calibrated on the Draco field.
    Section 4.1 adopts this because no deeper reference catalog exists for Bootes III. The assumption is that detection efficiency behaves the same in both fields despite different sky backgrounds and PSF sizes.
  • domain assumption The predicted orbit of the Styx stream from Grillmair (2009) is accurate enough to test the association with Bootes III.
    Section 5.3 compares the measured Bootes III PM to the predicted retrograde orbit. The orbit prediction is a model-dependent extrapolation from the stream geometry and is not derived or validated in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Glimpse of Satellite Galaxies in the Milky Way with the 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST): Bootes III and Draco." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DM4WNEH6

@misc{pith2026250620997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Glimpse of Satellite Galaxies in the Milky Way with the 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST): Bootes III and Draco},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DM4WNEH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20997}
}
read the original abstract

We carry out deep imaging of the Milky Way satellite galaxies, Bootes III and Draco, with WFST as one pilot observing program to demonstrate the capability of WFST. Combining catalogs with PS1 DR2 and Gaia DR3, we derive proper motions for candidate member stars in these two satellite galaxies over a 12-year time baseline, yielding uncertainties of ~1.8 mas/yr at 21 mag and ~3.0 mas/yr at 22 mag in the r band. The proper motions derived from bright and faint stars are consistent, indicating no significant variation in proper motion across stellar luminosity as these galaxies undergo tidal interactions with the MW. Meanwhile, we suggest that Bootes III represents the bound remnant of the progenitor galaxy that gave rise to the Styx stream, as evidenced by its elongated density profile and overdensity in both spatial and kinematic space. This is the first paper to use WFST to measure the proper motions of faint stars in Milky Way satellite galaxies. More detailed analyses will be presented in forthcoming papers from the wide field survey (WFS) program.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The completeness and purity of g− and r-band sources in the Draco field across different magnitudes. We exclude spurious sources with class i = 0 from the S´egall et al. (2007a) catalog and match the observa￾tion regions, totaling 3.9 deg2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the number of detected sources as a function of magnitude for our catalogs. In the Draco field, the turnover magnitude in the source counts distri￾bution (∼ 22.5–23 mag and 23–23.5 mag in g-band and r￾band) lies at a brighter magnitude than that correspond￾ing to 50% completeness. This result is consistent with the findings of Metcalfe et al. (2013). Given that the same data processing pipeline was applied to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The MAG PSF axis shows psf magnitude for all detected sources in the r-band. The SPREAD MODEL parameter is shown on the x-axis, with the vertical dashed lines marking the selection boundaries. The left panel corresponds to the COSMOS field, where the solid lines divide the plot into three regions. The fractions of sources classified as stars in regions I, II, and III are 86.3%, 32.8%, and 5.5%, respectively. The mid… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panel a) shows the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of Bo¨otes III. The red solid line represents an isochrone with an age of 13 Gyr and a metallicity of −2.0. Blue dots represent selected stars from our match-filter method. Panel b) shows the stars within a 16′ radius of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial distributions of stellar PMs for bright stars in Bo¨otes III (left) and Draco (right) field. The bin size is 0.5 mas yr−1 × 0.5 mas yr−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panel shows the distribution of the time baseline for selected stars that have our proper motion measurements. The four panels on the right present the differences between our PMs and those from Gaia. Sky-blue dots represent the candiate member stars of Bo¨ote…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial distributions of stellar PMs for faint stars in Bo¨otes III (left) and Draco (right) field. The bin size is 1 mas yr−1 × 1 mas yr−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the variation in proper motion un￾certainty per coordinate as a function of magnitude. The green solid line represents the SDSS-POSS r-band data (Munn et al. 2004), while the deep sky-blue solid line corre￾sponds to the LSST r-band test data (Rich 2018)…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The left and middle panels show binned density maps for candidate member stars with g-band magnitudes brighter than 21 mag, where the color of each bin represents the number of stars, and the black arrow indicate the mean Gaia PM for stars within each bin. The right pa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized stellar density distribution of the Bo¨otes III galaxy. The contours correspond to density levels of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8. Regions 1, 2, and 3 denote three distinct high-density areas. And the black arrow at the center indicates the PM of Bo¨otes III gala…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized stellar density distribution of the Draco galaxy. The contours correspond to density levels of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7. The black arrow at the center indicates the PM of Draco galaxy. ground stars and background galaxies. The main con￾clusio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  3. [3]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  4. [4]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 247, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

  5. [5]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 112

    2006

  6. [6]

    2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068 —

    Bertin, E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068 —. 2013, PSFEx: Point Spread Function Extractor, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001

    2010

  7. [7]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    2024, AJ, 167, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad38b6

    Bhardwaj, A., Rejkuba, M., Ngeow, C.-C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad38b6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad38b6 2024

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Bonaca, A., Geha, M., K¨ upper, A. H. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/94

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, NewAR, 100, 101713, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713

    2025

  3. [11]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  4. [12]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz365

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Hawarden, T

    Cannon, R. D., Hawarden, T. G., & Tritton, S. B. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 81P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.1.81P

    1977 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Cao, Z.-h., Zhu, Z.-y., Sun, Y.-c., Wang, J., & Li, F. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13098, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems X, ed. C. R. Benn, A. Chrysostomou, & L. J. Storrie-Lombardi, 130...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Grillmair, C

    Carlin, J. L., Grillmair, C. J., Mu˜ noz, R. R., Nidever, D. L., & Majewski, S. R. 2009a, ApJL, 702, L9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L9 —. 2009b, ApJL, 702, L9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L9

    doi

  8. [16]

    L., & Sand, D

    Carlin, J. L., & Sand, D. J. 2018, ApJ, 865, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8c1

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Li, T

    Cerny, W., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 942, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c3

    doi

  10. [18]

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

    Cerny, W., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 953, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78

    doi

  11. [19]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Chambers, K., & Pan-STARRS Team. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 102.01

    2018

  12. [20]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad07cd

    Chen, Y.-P., Jiang, J.-A., Luo, W.-T., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad07cd

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Bandi, B., Philipsborn, S., et al

    Cook, T. L., Bandi, B., Philipsborn, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2389 16Yang et al

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    S., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Adam´ ow, M., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Ferguson, P. S., Adam´ ow, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac78eb

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    W., & Willman, B

    Fadely, R., Hogg, D. W., & Willman, B. 2012, ApJ, 760, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/15

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Cole, S., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Farrow, D. J., Cole, S., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 748, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1933

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Wyse, R. F. G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafb6

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Filion, C., Platais, I., Wyse, R. F. G., & Kozhurina-Platais, V. 2022, ApJ, 939, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9383

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Weisz, D

    Fu, S. W., Weisz, D. R., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3665 —. 2023, ApJ, 958, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0030 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collab...

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Tumlinson, J., et al

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

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Geng, Z., Wang, Z.-y., Zheng, Z.-h., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13101, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VIII, ed. J. Ibsen & G. Chiozzi, 131010K, doi: 10.1117/12.3016395

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    M., et al

    Gennaro, M., Tchernyshyov, K., Brown, T. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa973

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1118

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    G., & Wilson, A

    Harrington, R. G., & Wilson, A. G. 1950, PASP, 62, 118, doi: 10.1086/126249

    1950 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Hand, D

    Henrion, M., Mortlock, D. J., Hand, D. J., & Gandy, A. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2286, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18055.x

    2011

  30. [38]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 733, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae044

    Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 733, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae044

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    1994 doi

  32. [40]

    McMahon, R. G. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 16P

    1990

  33. [41]

    A., Li, T

    Jenkins, S. A., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1353

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., & Evans, N

    Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Torrealba, G., & Evans, N. W. 2015, ApJ, 805, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/130

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    Lei, L., Zhu, Q.-F., Kong, X., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436

    Li, H., Hammer, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Qian, Y.-Z., Yuan, Z., & Zhao, D.-H

    Li, Z.-Z., Jing, Y. P., Qian, Y.-Z., Yuan, Z., & Zhao, D.-H. 2017, ApJ, 850, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94c0

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Peng, Q

    Lin, F. R., Peng, Q. Y., & Zheng, Z. J. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2439

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    Liu, Z.-Y., Lin, Z.-Y., Yu, J.-M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    H., White, R

    Lubow, S. H., White, R. L., & Shiao, B. 2021, AJ, 161, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc267

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, A&A, 686, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348093

    Lucchesi, R., Jablonka, P., Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348093

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d2a

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, A&A, 620, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833367

    Massari, D., & Helmi, A. 2018, A&A, 620, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833367

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

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

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    W., & Venn, K

    McConnachie, A. W., & Venn, K. A. 2020, AJ, 160, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba4ab

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Cole, S., et al

    Metcalfe, N., Farrow, D. J., Cole, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1343 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Monet, D

    Munn, J. A., Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3034, doi: 10.1086/383292

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Onaka, P., Rae, C., Isani, S., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8453, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V, ed. A. D. Holland & J. W. Beletic, 84530K, doi: 10.1117/12.925830

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9820

    Pan, Y., Chiti, A., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9820

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Rich, R. M. 2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 334, Rediscovering Our Galaxy, ed. C. Chiappini, I. Minchev, E. Starkenburg, & M. Valentini, 233–241, doi: 10.1017/S1743921317009413 Bo¨otes III & Draco17

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772 S´ egall, M., Ibata, R. A., Irwin, M. J., Martin, N. F., &

    1998 doi

  56. [64]

    2007a, MNRAS, 375, 831, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11356.x —

    Chapman, S. 2007a, MNRAS, 375, 831, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11356.x —. 2007b, MNRAS, 375, 831, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11356.x

    2006

  57. [65]

    1938, Nature, 142, 715, doi: 10.1038/142715b0

    Shapley, H. 1938, Nature, 142, 715, doi: 10.1038/142715b0

    1938 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Lupton, R

    Slater, C. T., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Lupton, R. H. 2020, AJ, 159, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6166

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac390b

    Slizewski, A., Dufresne, X., Murdock, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac390b

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2023, A&A, 680, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347576

    Stoppa, F., Bhattacharyya, S., Ruiz de Austri, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347576

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sun, Y.-C., Zhu, Z.-Y., Cao, Z.-H., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13098, Observatory Operations:

    2024

  62. [70]

    Strategies, Processes, and Systems X, ed. C. R. Benn, A. Chrysostomou, & L. J. Storrie-Lombardi, 130981Q, doi: 10.1117/12.3016961

    doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Torrealba, G., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1624

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Jerjen, H., & Willman, B

    Walsh, S. M., Jerjen, H., & Willman, B. 2007, ApJL, 662, L83, doi: 10.1086/519684

    2007 doi

  65. [73]

    M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H

    Walsh, S. M., Willman, B., & Jerjen, H. 2009, AJ, 137, 450, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/450

    2009 doi

  66. [74]

    2023, Science China

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China

    2023

  67. [75]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    doi

  68. [76]

    Z., Magnier, E

    Waters, C. Z., Magnier, E. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82b

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    L., Lubow, S

    White, R. L., Lubow, S. H., & Shiao, B. 2022, AJ, 164, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ab6

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al

    Willman, B., Dalcanton, J. J., Martinez-Delgado, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 626, L85, doi: 10.1086/431760

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    Wilson, A. G. 1955, PASP, 67, 27, doi: 10.1086/126754

    1955 doi

  72. [80]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Zhang, H.-f., Feng, Q., Wang, J., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13103, X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI, ed. A. D. Holland & K. Minoglou, 131030V, doi: 10.1117/12.3012637

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Zhu, Z.-y., Cao, Z.-h., Sun, Y.-c., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13098, Observatory Operations:

    2024

  74. [82]

    Strategies, Processes, and Systems X, ed. C. R. Benn, A. Chrysostomou, & L. J. Storrie-Lombardi, 1309810, doi: 10.1117/12.3017283

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.