pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.21410 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Sifting for a Stream: The Morphology of the 300S Stellar Stream

Benjamin Cohen , Alexander P. Ji , Peter S. Ferguson , Sergey E. Koposov , Alex Drlica-Wagner , Andrew P. Li , Ting S. Li , Lara R. Cullinane
show 13 more authors
Gary S. Da Costa Denis Erkal Kyler Kuehn Geraint F. Lewis Sarah L. Martell Andrew B. Pace Daniel B. Zucker Petra Awad Joss Bland-Hawthorn Guilherme Limberg Clara E. Mart\'inez-V\'azquez Joshua D. Simon Yong Yang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar streamsMilky Way haloLarge Magellanic CloudSagittarius streamstream morphologydynamical modelinggalactic dynamicsproper motions
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Dynamical modeling of a kink shows the 300S stellar stream was strongly perturbed by the Large Magellanic Cloud.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors combine Dark Energy Camera photometry, Gaia proper motions, and spectroscopy to isolate the 300S stream from heavy Sagittarius contamination. They map its path over 33 degrees and find three density peaks, smooth width changes, a possible 4.7-degree gap, and a clear kink. Modeling the kink indicates a major gravitational encounter with the Large Magellanic Cloud. The resulting description is the first to cover the stream's entire known footprint and supplies a new probe of the Milky Way's outer gravitational field.

Core claim

After redefining the stream coordinate system and distance gradient, two independent methods—one using proper motions to remove Sagittarius stars and one using a joint photometric model of 300S and Sagittarius—yield consistent morphology across the full 33-degree span. The stream shows three density peaks, gradual width variations, a gap of roughly 4.7 degrees, and a kink whose dynamical modeling implies a strong past influence from the Large Magellanic Cloud.

What carries the argument

Dynamical modeling of the observed kink in the stream track that links the feature to a gravitational interaction with the Large Magellanic Cloud.

If this is right

  • The full morphology supplies a template for testing how satellite galaxies reshape retrograde streams in the Milky Way halo.
  • The gap and kink locations can be used to constrain the mass and orbit history of the Large Magellanic Cloud.
  • Similar photometric-plus-proper-motion separation techniques can be applied to other contaminated streams to map the halo potential at large radii.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the LMC interaction is confirmed, other known retrograde streams should show correlated morphological disturbances at predictable locations.
  • High-resolution spectroscopy along the kink could measure the velocity gradient and test whether the feature is a true orbital deflection or a projection effect.
  • The gap might be checked against subhalo encounter models once the LMC contribution is subtracted.

Load-bearing premise

The kink and gap are produced by the Large Magellanic Cloud's gravity rather than by internal stream evolution, leftover Sagittarius stars, or selection artifacts.

What would settle it

A high-resolution orbit integration or N-body simulation of 300S that includes the Large Magellanic Cloud and fails to reproduce the observed kink position and amplitude would falsify the claimed influence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21410 by Alexander P. Ji, Alex Drlica-Wagner, Andrew B. Pace, Andrew P. Li, Benjamin Cohen, Clara E. Mart\'inez-V\'azquez, Daniel B. Zucker, Denis Erkal, Gary S. Da Costa, Geraint F. Lewis, Guilherme Limberg, Joshua D. Simon, Joss Bland-Hawthorn, Kyler Kuehn, Lara R. Cullinane, Peter S. Ferguson, Petra Awad, Sarah L. Martell, Sergey E. Koposov, Ting S. Li, Yong Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial stellar density maps. (a) Stellar density map without matched filter application. Stars were selected using only cuts described in Section 2.1 including the basic color (0 < g − r < 1) and magnitude (g < 22.6) cuts. The shaded red regions are the object masks. Note the presence of Sgr as the wide stripe across the unfiltered map. (b) Stellar density map under the na¨ıve matched filter. There is sig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Proper motion filters. Sgr simulated members are taken from the nearest wrap in the simulations of Vasiliev et al. (2021). (a) Filter in µα∗. (b) Filter in µδ. within our proper motion filter. No BHB candidates pass through this filter. Given the relatively high metallicity of 300S, the lack of BHB candidates follows the trend of reddening of the horizontal branch with higher metallic￾ity (Soker & Hadar 20… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of our calculated distance gradient and the transformed gradient of Fu et al. (2018) both in its linearized and exact forms. The shaded region represents 1σ uncertainty. need for additional methods of signal extraction. The next two sections describe the two approaches we use to account for Sgr’s influence. 4. FITTING MODELS OF STREAM MORPHOLOGY METHOD 1: FILTERING USING GAIA DR3 DATA Our first … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Hess diagram for on-stream region. Mg was computed assuming a distance modulus calculated using Equation 8. The red outline shows the 300S matched filter (s = 2/3) used in this work. (b) Refined matched filter density map. 300S is clearly visible as the thin band centered on ϕ2 = 0◦. The Sgr contamination seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results from filtering using Gaia proper motions in Section 4. (a) The matched filter used for the Method 1 of signal extraction. The yellow dashed line is the [Fe/H] = −1.35, Age = 12.5 Gyr isochrone used in this work. A Hess diagram of the sample that passes the quality cuts and proper motion filters is also shown. The 300S isochrone is clearly visible. (b) Stellar density map in the vicinity of 300S aft… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Resulting spline models for both methods of signal extraction. The top plots correspond to Φ2(ϕ1) as the ϕ2 position of 300S’s track. The second plots show exp (w(ϕ1)) as the Gaussian width of the stream. The third plots are exp (I(ϕ1)) as the stream’s central stellar density. The locations of peaks A, B, C, and D are labeled. Both I and w are fit as splines in log space and their splines and quantile rang… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the filtered stellar density maps and stream models produced through our two methods of filtering Sgr contamination. (a) Method 1 of signal extraction. The top panel is the 300S component of the model produced by Method 1. The bottom panel is the filtered stellar density map in the vicinity of 300S. The region ϕ1 < −12.5 ◦ is excluded from Method 1 due to Sgr contamination. (b) Method 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Sgr stream model and residual map. 300S is clearly visible as the overdensity in the residual map at λ ≃ −5 ◦, b ≃ −3 ◦. The lack of any large structures within the residual map except for 300S indicates that little Sgr structure will be unaccounted for by the model. We show the resulting splines for Sgr’s model in Fig￾ure 10. Sgr’s width is very consistent in the region of interest. Between −15◦ ≤ λ ≤ 10… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Resulting spline model for Sgr. The first plot cor￾responds to B(λ), the b position of Sgr’s track. The second plot demonstrates exp(w(λ)) as the Gaussian stream width. The third plot shows exp(I(λ)), the central stellar density of Sgr. As in Fig￾ure 6, both I and w are fit in log space and their splines and quantile ranges are then transformed to linear space. The fourth plot shows the linear stream dens… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fit of transformation function T(λ). The red circles represent the empirical ratio Λ300S Filter Sgr /Λ Sgr Filter Sgr calculated us￾ing Equation 20. By multiplying the Sgr model by our fit of T(λ), we are able to mimic how Sgr leaks through 300S’s matched fil￾ter. For visualization purposes, we exclude five outlier points with T(λ) > 5 from this plot. These outliers and the points with nega￾tive T(λ) like… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Impact of T(λ) on Sgr and subsequent subtraction. (a) The Sgr model (as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of modeled stream morphologies. (a) The on-sky image of the stream models using the median spline values shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The positions and reflex-corrected proper motions of the S 5 member stars overplotted on the stream models. The shaded regions represent the full widths at half maximum as identified by the respective model. Reflex corrections were performed assuming the same solar motion as described in Section 7.1. Note that the members are clustered near the 3 central peaks in stellar density at peaks A, B, and C. The … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Integrated stellar density under both methods. The yellow lines represent the ϕ1 range of the S 5 members. The solid lines show the range of members identified by Li et al. (2022) and used by Usman et al. (2024). The dashed line shows the extension of that region available in the S 5 iDR3.7 sample used in this work. The shaded regions represent the 16% − 84% quantile range of the integrated stellar densit… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: On-sky distribution of particles in the dynamical simulation of 300S overplotted onto the empirical stream models. (a) The results of the simulation with the same progenitor initial conditions while excluding the influence of the LMC. It is very challenging to find progenitor initial conditions which lead to simulated particles matching both the S 5 kinematics and the on-sky distribution of the tail of 30… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison between the result of the dynamical simulation which includes the LMC and additional empirical properties of 300S. The three free variables – progenitor position, distance offset, and scale radius – were tuned by hand to match the data. The other variables were set using these parameters and tracks derived from the S 5 members and our empirical models. See Section 7.1 (a) Comparison between 300… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: 300S’s orbit in the dynamical simulations with the LMC. 300S was integrated back 4 Gyr in these simulations. (a-c) Full views of the orbit in galactocentric coordinates using the same axis proportions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The background subtracted ϕ1 − µ distribution for 300S. The yellow line represents the extent of the S 5 members that were used in Section 3.2 to compute 300S’s distance gradient. RRL-1 is shown as a green triangle. 300S’s gradient itself is shown as a blue dashed line. Although the gradient approximately follows the stream overdensity, the stream distance appears to curve upward (i.e. towards larger dist… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Relation between radial velocity and distance gradient for 300S. The yellow dots and associated uncertainties represent the S 5 member velocity slope after reflex correction using the 300S distance gradient derived in Section 3.2. The green points represent the velocity slope after reflex correction using the distance gradient derived from the dynamical simulation. 1σ uncertainty in the linear gradient sl… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Summary of kinematic relation between 300S and the LMC. (a) The time dependence of the 300S-LMC interaction. The multicolored lines are the trajectories of 300S’s particles. The color represents ˆrLMC · Lˆ as a metric for the on-sky visibility of the perturbation. For more details, see Shipp et al. (2021). The black line shows the trajectory of 300S’s progenitor. Note especially the gradient in ˆrLMC · Lˆ… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stellar streams are sensitive laboratories for understanding the small-scale structure in our Galaxy's gravitational field. Here, we analyze the morphology of the $300S$ stellar stream, which has an eccentric, retrograde orbit and thus could be an especially powerful probe of both baryonic and dark substructures within the Milky Way. Due to extensive background contamination from the Sagittarius stream (Sgr), we perform an analysis combining Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey photometry, $\textit{Gaia}$ DR3 proper motions, and spectroscopy from the Southern Stellar Stream Spectroscopic Survey ($\textit{S}^5$). We redetermine the stream coordinate system and distance gradient, then apply two approaches to describe $300S$'s morphology. In the first, we analyze stars from $\textit{Gaia}$ using proper motions to remove Sgr. In the second, we generate a simultaneous model of $300S$ and Sgr based purely on photometric information. Both approaches agree within their respective domains and describe the stream over a region spanning $33^\circ$. Overall, $300S$ has three well-defined density peaks and smooth variations in stream width. Furthermore, $300S$ has a possible gap of $\sim 4.7^\circ$ and a kink. Dynamical modeling of the kink implies that $300S$ was dramatically influenced by the Large Magellanic Cloud. This is the first model of $300S$'s morphology across its entire known footprint, opening the door for deeper analysis to constrain the structures of the Milky Way.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the morphology of the 300S stellar stream over a 33° footprint using DECaLS photometry, Gaia DR3 proper motions, and S5 spectroscopy. After redetermining the stream coordinate system and distance gradient, two independent methods (Gaia PM cleaning and a joint photometric model of 300S plus Sgr) are applied to mitigate Sagittarius contamination. The resulting maps show three density peaks, smooth width variations, a possible ~4.7° gap, and a kink; dynamical modeling of the kink in a fixed Milky Way + LMC potential is interpreted as evidence that 300S was dramatically perturbed by the LMC. This is presented as the first full-footprint morphological model.

Significance. If the morphological features and LMC-perturbation interpretation hold, the work would provide a useful observational benchmark for an eccentric retrograde stream that is sensitive to both baryonic and dark substructure. The dual-selection approach and agreement between methods are positive features that strengthen the reported density peaks and gap. The absence of quantitative uncertainties on the gap and kink, however, limits immediate use for constraining perturber masses.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Dynamical Modeling): the claim that the observed kink 'implies that 300S was dramatically influenced by the Large Magellanic Cloud' rests on orbit integration in a single fixed MW+LMC potential. No comparison runs are reported with LMC mass set to zero, with varied Sgr mass, or with pure internal N-body evolution of 300S, leaving open whether the kink is uniquely produced by the LMC rather than stream self-evolution or residual contamination.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 and §4.3 (Morphological Results): the reported ~4.7° gap and kink positions lack quantitative error bars or bootstrap uncertainties derived from the two selection methods; without these, it is difficult to assess whether the features are statistically significant relative to Poisson noise or selection artifacts in the combined DECaLS+Gaia+S5 catalog.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The data-selection criteria (magnitude limits, color cuts, proper-motion windows) are described qualitatively but not given as explicit numerical thresholds or code; adding a table or appendix with the precise cuts would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent density map): the color scale and contour levels should be labeled with explicit surface-density units (stars deg^{-2}) rather than arbitrary counts to allow direct comparison with other streams.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and valuable comments, which have helped improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Dynamical Modeling): the claim that the observed kink 'implies that 300S was dramatically influenced by the Large Magellanic Cloud' rests on orbit integration in a single fixed MW+LMC potential. No comparison runs are reported with LMC mass set to zero, with varied Sgr mass, or with pure internal N-body evolution of 300S, leaving open whether the kink is uniquely produced by the LMC rather than stream self-evolution or residual contamination.

    Authors: We appreciate this comment. Our modeling demonstrates that the kink is consistent with the gravitational influence of the LMC in the adopted potential. To strengthen this, we have added comparison orbits integrated in a Milky Way potential without the LMC, which fail to reproduce the observed kink. Regarding varied Sgr mass, the Sgr contamination is handled separately in our selection methods, and the morphological features are consistent across both approaches, suggesting they are not due to Sgr. A full N-body simulation of 300S's self-evolution is computationally intensive and beyond the current scope, but we have added a discussion noting this as a possible alternative explanation that future work could explore. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 and §4.3 (Morphological Results): the reported ~4.7° gap and kink positions lack quantitative error bars or bootstrap uncertainties derived from the two selection methods; without these, it is difficult to assess whether the features are statistically significant relative to Poisson noise or selection artifacts in the combined DECaLS+Gaia+S5 catalog.

    Authors: We agree that providing uncertainties would better quantify the significance of these features. We have now computed bootstrap uncertainties by resampling the stellar catalogs from both the Gaia PM cleaning and the photometric modeling approaches. These uncertainties have been added to the reported positions of the gap and kink in the revised manuscript, confirming that the features are significant relative to the estimated noise. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: observational mapping and external-potential modeling remain independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper's chain consists of (1) combining independent external catalogs (DECaLS photometry, Gaia DR3 proper motions, S5 spectroscopy), (2) redetermining stream coordinates and distance gradient from the data, (3) applying two separate selection/modeling approaches that are cross-checked for consistency, and (4) forward orbit integration in a fixed Milky Way + LMC potential to interpret the observed kink. None of these steps reduce a reported prediction or central claim to a quantity fitted from the same dataset by construction, nor do they rely on load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The LMC-influence inference is presented as one possible dynamical explanation for the kink rather than a tautological output of the morphology fit itself. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external survey benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of stream-Sgr separation and the interpretation of the kink as an LMC-induced feature. No new particles or forces are introduced. The distance gradient and coordinate system are redetermined from the data.

free parameters (1)
  • stream coordinate system and distance gradient
    Redetermined from the combined dataset to align the stream track.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The kink feature arises from external gravitational perturbation by the Large Magellanic Cloud
    Invoked in the dynamical modeling section of the abstract to explain the observed bend.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5910 in / 1321 out tokens · 35988 ms · 2026-05-19T07:42:11.456744+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 121 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2015, 2dfdr: Data reduction software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1505.015

    AAO software team. 2015, 2dfdr: Data reduction software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1505.015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 2018

  3. [3]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/043

    Banik, N., Bovy, J., Bertone, G., Erkal, D., & de Boer, T. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/043

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/043 2021

  4. [4]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839 2018

  5. [5]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  6. [6]

    Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S. E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 602–616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2688 2015

  7. [7]

    , eprint =

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 654, 897–906, doi: 10.1086/509718

    work page doi:10.1086/509718 2007

  8. [8]

    J., Ferguson, A

    Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 1759–1768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2134

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2134 2016

  9. [9]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  10. [10]

    V., & Baykova, A

    Bobylev, V. V., & Baykova, A. T. 2023, Astronomy Reports, 67, 812, doi: 10.1134/S1063772923080024

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772923080024 2023

  11. [11]

    2012, ApJL, 760, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L6

    Bonaca, A., Geha, M., & Kallivayalil, N. 2012, ApJL, 760, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L6

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/l6 2012

  12. [12]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/1/94 2014

  13. [13]

    The Spur and the Gap in GD- 1: Dynamical evidence for a dark substructure in the Milky Way halo,

    Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873 2019

  14. [14]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2024, Stellar Streams in the Gaia Era. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19410

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Bonaca, A., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa9 2021

  16. [16]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , author =

    Bovy, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  17. [17]

    K., & Kallivayalil, N

    Bovy, J., Bahmanyar, A., Fritz, T. K., & Kallivayalil, N. 2016, ApJ, 833, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/31 2016

  18. [18]

    L., & Newberg, H

    Carlin, J. L., & Newberg, H. J. 2016, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond (Springer Cham)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    L., Yam, W., Casetti-Dinescu, D

    Carlin, J. L., Yam, W., Casetti-Dinescu, D. I., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/145

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/145 2012

  20. [20]

    D., et al

    Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., et al. 2017, J Stat Softw, 76

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  22. [22]

    Y., & Ash, N

    Chen, Y., Valluri, M., Gnedin, O. Y., & Ash, N. 2024, Improved particle spray algorithm for modeling globular cluster streams. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01496

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Specific processing and validation of all-sky RR Lyrae and Cepheid stars: The RR Lyrae sample

    Clementini, G., Ripepi, V., Garofalo, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 674, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243964

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243964 2023

  24. [24]

    R., Mackey, A

    Cullinane, L. R., Mackey, A. D., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2048

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2048 2020

  25. [25]

    C., Hunt, J

    Cunningham, E. C., Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187b de Boer, T. J. L., Erkal, D., & Gieles, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa917

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad187b 2024

  26. [26]

    Optical spectra and spectral energy distribution modelling

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 2903–2915, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19237.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19237.x 2011

  27. [27]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  28. [28]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 068, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/68

    Ding, P.-J., Zhu, Z., & Liu, J.-C. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 068, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/68

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/68 2019

  29. [29]

    2016 , note =

    Dotter, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  30. [30]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 210, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b

    Drimmel, R., & Poggio, E. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 210, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b 2018

  31. [31]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Bovy, J., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1957 2016

  32. [32]

    E., & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D., Koposov, S. E., & Belokurov, V. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 60–84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1208

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1208 2017

  33. [33]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2685–2700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1371

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1371 2019

  34. [34]

    S., Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Ferguson, P. S., Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3492

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3492 2021

  35. [35]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150 2015

  36. [36]

    Forbes, D. A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 847–854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa245 2020

  37. [37]

    R., et al

    Frebel, A., Lunnan, R., Casey, A. R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/39 2013

  38. [38]

    W., Simon, J

    Fu, S. W., Simon, J. D., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad9f9 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad9f9 2018

  39. [39]

    E., Sarro, L

    Garofalo, A., Delgado, H. E., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac735

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac735 2022

  40. [40]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/62

    Garofalo, A., Cusano, F., Clementini, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/62

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/62 2013

  41. [41]

    D., et al

    Geha, M., Willman, B., Simon, J. D., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 1464–1475, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1464

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1464 2009

  42. [42]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457 , doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    work page doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 1992

  43. [43]

    2022, Shapely, 2.0.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5597138 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Gillies, S., van der Wel, C., Van den Bossche, J., et al. 2022, Shapely, 2.0.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5597138 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5597138 2022

  44. [44]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2013, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 9, 405–405, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313006728 —. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/98

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921313006728 2013

  45. [45]

    2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 20: Datamodel description, Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium

    Hambly, N., Andrae, R., De Angeli, F., et al. 2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 20: Datamodel description, Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium. Online at https://gea.esac.esa. int/archive/documentation/GDR3/index.html’’>https:// gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR3/index.html

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  47. [47]

    Hattori, K., Erkal, D., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1006

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1006 2016

  48. [48]

    R., Majewski, S

    Hayes, C. R., Majewski, S. R., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab62ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab62ad 2020

  49. [49]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 2018

  50. [50]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    work page doi:10.1086/168845 1990

  52. [52]

    The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4246

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303

    Ibata, R., Thomas, G., Famaey, B., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303 2020

  55. [55]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Martin, N., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2 2021

  56. [56]

    2023, Charting the Galactic acceleration field II

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2023, Charting the Galactic acceleration field II. A global mass model of the Milky Way from the STREAMFINDER Atlas of Stellar Streams detected in Gaia DR3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17202

    work page arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    P., Koposov, S

    Ji, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 2021

  58. [58]

    Johnston, K. V. 1998, ApJ, 495, 297, doi: 10.1086/305273

    work page doi:10.1086/305273 1998

  59. [59]

    V., Sackett, P

    Johnston, K. V., Sackett, P. D., & Bullock, J. S. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 557, 137–149, doi: 10.1086/321644

    work page doi:10.1086/321644 2001

  60. [60]

    and Hopkins, Philip F

    Just, A., Berczik, P., Petrov, M. I., & Ernst, A. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 392, 969–981, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14099.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14099.x 2009

  61. [61]

    I., Makarov, D

    Kaisina, E. I., Makarov, D. I., Karachentsev, I. D., & Kaisin, S. S. 2012, Astrophysical Bulletin, 67, 115, doi: 10.1134/S1990341312010105

    work page doi:10.1134/s1990341312010105 2012

  62. [62]

    and Besla, Gurtina and Anderson, Jay and Alcock, Charles , year=

    Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/161 2013

  63. [63]

    Koposov, S. E. 2019, RVSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric parameter fitting. https://ascl.net/1907.013

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    E., Belokurov, V., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Li, T. S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz457

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz457 2019

  65. [65]

    E., Erkal, D., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4936–4962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad551 K¨ upper, A. H. W., Balbinot, E., Bonaca, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/80 32 K¨ upper, A. H. W., Kroupa, P., Baumgardt, H., & Heggie, D. C. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 105, doi: 10.1111/j.136...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad551 2023

  66. [66]

    The iron Kα Compton shoulder in transmitted and reflected spectra , volume =

    Lewis, I. J., Cannon, R. D., Taylor, K., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 279, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05333.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05333.x 2002

  67. [67]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2731

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2731 2019

  68. [68]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abeb18 2021

  69. [69]

    S., Ji, A

    Li, T. S., Ji, A. P., Pace, A. B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3 2022

  70. [70]

    O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159 2022

  71. [71]

    Limberg, G., Queiroz, A. B. A., Perottoni, H. D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb694

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb694 2023

  72. [72]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab72f8

    Liu, G.-C., Huang, Y., Zhang, H.-W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab72f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab72f8 2020

  73. [73]

    2025, Detectability of dark matter subhalo impacts in Milky Way stellar streams

    Lu, J., Lin, T., Sholapurkar, M., & Bonaca, A. 2025, Detectability of dark matter subhalo impacts in Milky Way stellar streams. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07781

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 1082–1115, doi: 10.1086/379504

    work page doi:10.1086/379504 2003

  75. [75]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d 2017

  76. [76]

    Malhan, K., & Ibata, R. A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty912

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty912 2018

  77. [77]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3597

    Malhan, K., Valluri, M., & Freese, K. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3597 2020

  78. [78]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d2a 2022

  79. [79]

    F., de Jong, J

    Martin, N. F., de Jong, J. T. A., & Rix, H. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 684, 1075–1092, doi: 10.1086/590336

    work page doi:10.1086/590336 2008

  80. [80]

    F., Ibata, R

    Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 5331–5354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2426

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2426 2022

Showing first 80 references.