Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

LMC-induced Perturbations in the Milky Way Halo:I. HaloDance Simulation Suite and Observational Forecasts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A grid of 2,848 high-resolution N-body simulations shows that combining Gaia astrometry with spectroscopic radial velocities can pin the Milky Way and LMC masses to 11% and 16% precision, provided the halo's velocity anisotropy is modeled…

desk verdict A well-built forecast paper whose central precision claims are conditional on an anisotropy assumption the paper itself shows can shift masses by ~40%. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03663 v1 pith:2F7K3UOS submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.GA

Yanjun Sheng , Yuan-Sen Ting , Xiang-Xiang Xue This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWayhaloLargeMagellanicCloudN-bodysimulationsGalaxykinematicsanddynamicsFishermatrixforecastsstellarvelocityanisotropyRRLyraestars
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 argues that the gravitational tug of the Large Magellanic Cloud leaves a measurable, parameter-dependent imprint on the mean velocities and velocity dispersions of stars in the Milky Way's outer halo (30–120 kpc), and that this imprint can be used to measure the masses and shapes of both galaxies. The authors build a suite of 2,848 self-consistent N-body simulations spanning a four-parameter grid (Milky Way mass, LMC mass, halo concentration, halo flattening), train a neural-network emulator on the kinematic summary statistics, and use Fisher-matrix forecasts to predict what current and near-future surveys can achieve. For a sample of about 4,000 RR Lyrae stars with Gaia DR3-level astrometry, 20 km/s radial velocities, and 10% distances, they forecast 1-sigma uncertainties of 11% in Milky Way mass, 16% in LMC mass, 25% in concentration, and 6% in flattening. The key practical claim is that radial velocities, not improved astrometry, are the bottleneck: adding 20 km/s radial velocities improves constraints by up to 60% over Gaia alone, while Gaia DR5 upgrades are worth only 6–38%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairing of the first velocity moment (mean velocities, which trace the reflex-motion dipole) with the second moment (velocity dispersions, which trace the equilibrium potential), evaluated through an energy-based particle-tagging scheme that converts dark-matter particles into a mock RR Lyrae stellar halo with an Einasto profile. This tagged halo is evolved in 2,848 self-consistent N-body simulations whose orbits are initialized by a neural-network inverse model that reconstructs the LMC's first-infall trajectory from present-day phase-space coordinates. A second neural network emulates the 18 kinematic summary statistics as smooth functions of the four parameters, and a Fisher matrix (validated against nested-sampling posteriors) converts observational error budgets into parameter uncertainties. The analytical dipole model (mean latitudinal velocity proportional to dipole amplitude, which scales with LMC mass) explains why the method works.

What would settle it

Measure the outer-halo velocity anisotropy beta(r) from a complete 6D sample of RR Lyrae or BHB stars beyond 30 kpc: if it matches beta=-0.15-0.2alpha(r) rather than zero, the paper's own cross-anisotropy test shows the recovered masses would be biased by ~40%, so the headline precision would not transfer to real data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the first and second velocity moments of halo stars are complementary probes of the MW–LMC system. The LMC's recent infall sets the inner Milky Way moving relative to the outer halo, producing a coherent north–south dipole in mean radial velocities and a global positive bias in latitudinal velocities; these mean-velocity signals scale strongly with LMC mass. Velocity dispersions, by contrast, respond only weakly to the perturbation (typically <5 km/s) and essentially report the equilibrium structure of the Milky Way halo, so they constrain the Milky Way mass, concentration, and flattening. By feeding 18 summary statistics (three distance bins, three velocity components, hemisphere-separated radial means) through a neural-network emulator trained on the simulation grid, the authors show that the four parameters can be recovered from mock data and forecast the precision achievable with realistic observational errors. The headline numbers—0.11×$10^{12}$ Msun in M_MW, 2.33×$10^{10}$ Msun in M_LMC, 2.38 in c, 0.06 in q at 1-$\sigma$—assume an isotropic velocity anisotropy, and the paper explicitly shows that fitting the radially-varying anisotropy model to isotropic mock data biases the masses by ~40%.

Load-bearing premise

The headline precision assumes the stellar halo's velocity anisotropy is isotropic (beta=0), and the paper itself shows that fitting a radially varying anisotropy model to isotropic mock data biases the Milky Way mass high by ~40% and the LMC mass low by a similar amount, so the forecasts stand only if the real halo's anisotropy is close to what is assumed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radial velocities are the single most valuable addition: going from no radial velocities to 20 km/s precision improves the Milky Way mass, LMC mass, and concentration constraints by roughly 50–60%.
  • Doubling the halo-tracer sample from ~4,000 to ~8,000 RR Lyrae stars yields about a 30% gain in precision, with the largest gains beyond 60 kpc where current samples are sparse.
  • Distance precision is nearly irrelevant: worsening from 10% to 30% distance errors costs only ~10% in parameter precision, so numerous tracers with modest distances are preferable.
  • Improved Gaia astrometry from DR3 to DR5 gives only modest gains (6–14% for masses and concentration), so astrometric precision is approaching diminishing returns when radial velocities are available.
  • Ignoring the hemispheric dipole in radial velocities nearly doubles the forecast uncertainties on the two masses and concentration, so spatial binning carries real information.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper demonstrates that a wrong anisotropy assumption biases masses by ~40%, a real-world application should marginalize over plausible beta(r) profiles; the headline 11%/16% uncertainties would likely inflate in that case.
  • The sensitivity of the southern-hemisphere mean radial velocity to trajectory reconstruction (up to 8 km/s at 60–90 kpc) suggests that real analyses should either down-weight that statistic or propagate LMC orbital uncertainties into the likelihood.
  • The same emulation-plus-Fisher pipeline could be turned around to design target selection for future surveys: the forecasts indicate that spending spectroscopic time on stars beyond 60 kpc is worth more than improving distances or proper motions.
  • A natural next test, which the paper leaves to future work, is to feed the existing LAMOST and DESI radial-velocity catalogs plus Gaia astrometry through the pipeline and see whether the recovered masses are consistent with independent estimates; agreement would validate the framework, disagreement would point to the anisotropy or trajectory systematics.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HaloDance, a suite of 2,848 high-resolution N-body simulations of the MW-LMC interaction, varying MW virial mass, LMC virial mass, MW halo concentration, and halo flattening. The authors tag dark matter particles to build mock stellar halos, train neural-network emulators for kinematic summary statistics (mean velocities and dispersions) in three radial bins (30-60, 60-90, 90-120 kpc), validate parameter recovery with nested-sampling inference, and then use Fisher matrices to forecast constraints under different Gaia data releases, radial-velocity precisions, sample sizes, and distance errors. The headline result is that, with Gaia DR3-level astrometry, 20 km/s radial-velocity precision, 10% distance errors, and ~4,000 RR Lyrae stars, the 1-sigma uncertainties are 0.11 x 10^12 Msun in M_MW, 2.33 x 10^10 Msun in M_LMC, 2.38 in c, and 0.06 in q. The paper also demonstrates complementary sensitivity: mean velocities trace LMC-induced reflex motion, while dispersions constrain the MW potential.

Significance. If the underlying model assumptions are accepted, this is a valuable forecasting framework and the HaloDance suite will be a useful public resource. The paper's strengths include a large uniform simulation grid, careful validation of the emulator (residuals ~1 km/s), a Fisher-matrix forecast checked against full nested-sampling posteriors, and an explicit treatment of observational error propagation. The authors also include honest robustness tests, most notably for velocity-anisotropy misspecification and LMC trajectory reconstruction. However, the headline precision is conditional on assumptions that the paper itself shows to be fragile: the main grid fixes the halo velocity anisotropy to beta(r)=0, and Section 4.4.1 demonstrates ~40% mass biases under a plausible alternative anisotropy model. In addition, the abstract's fractional precision for M_MW is inconsistent with the fiducial mass used in the Fisher calculation. These issues materially affect the central forecast claim, so the paper needs revision before the quoted uncertainties can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4.1, Figure 16] The main forecast grid fixes the stellar halo velocity anisotropy to beta(r)=0, and the abstract's headline uncertainties are computed from this grid. The paper's own robustness test in Section 4.4.1 and Figure 16 shows that when mock data generated with beta=0 are analyzed with the radially varying beta(r) model, M_MW is overestimated by about 40%, M_LMC is underestimated by about 40%, and c moves outside the 1-sigma interval. Because the real Milky Way halo is likely radially anisotropic (Section 2.2 cites beta ~ 0.8-0.9 inside 25-30 kpc), the quoted 1-sigma uncertainties are conditional on an assumption the paper itself demonstrates is fragile. The forecast should either marginalize over beta(r) with observational priors, or the abstract and conclusion should prominently state that the precision applies only under the beta=0 assumption and provide a systematic error budget for this effect.
  2. [Section 3.3.2, Abstract] There is an internal inconsistency in the fiducial MW mass used to quote fractional uncertainties. The fiducial model throughout the paper is M_MW = 0.7 x 10^12 Msun (Section 2.2, Figure 10, Section 3.2), but Section 3.3.2 states that fractional precisions are defined 'relative to the fiducial values of M_MW = 1.0 x 10^12 Msun.' This explains the abstract's 11% figure for M_MW (0.11 / 1.0), whereas at the actual fiducial mass of 0.7 x 10^12 Msun the same absolute uncertainty gives 0.11 / 0.7 = 16%, not 11%. This discrepancy propagates into the abstract and conclusion, which both quote 11% as a headline result, and should be corrected by either moving the Fisher evaluation to M_MW = 1.0 or quoting the correct fractional precision for the 0.7 fiducial.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table C1] The Fisher forecasts do not propagate LMC trajectory reconstruction systematics. Section 4.3 and Table C1 show that Gauss-Newton refinement of the LMC initial conditions changes the southern-hemisphere mean radial velocity at 60-90 kpc by up to 8 km/s, with several cases at 3-8 km/s. This statistic is one of the direct probes of the reflex motion that drives the M_LMC constraint, and the quoted statistical uncertainty for the mean in that bin is smaller than 8 km/s. The paper's statement that 'our overall parameter constraints remain reliable' is not demonstrated; the forecast should either include this systematic in the likelihood, down-weight the affected statistic, or quantify how it shifts the inferred parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's '107 particles' should read '10^7 particles'.
  2. [Section 2.3] The description of training data as 'seven forward-simulated orbits per parameter combination' is unclear; please specify how the six perturbed orbits are generated and how the approximate backward-integration starting points are chosen.
  3. [Figure 8, right panel] The caption defines SNR as the ratio of the physical tangential velocity dispersion to the 'statistical sampling uncertainty,' while the text says each curve incorporates the fixed measurement precision of the data release; the denominator of the SNR should be stated unambiguously.
  4. [Section 2.2] The first-infall assumption is a core condition for the entire forecast, but the abstract does not mention it; consider stating the first-infall condition in the abstract, since a second-infall LMC scenario remains debated (Section 1).
  5. [Section 4.4.1] The claim that the radially varying anisotropy model 'brackets the plausible range' of outer-halo beta(r) values is not supported by direct citations for the region beyond 30 kpc; please add references or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecasts are self-consistency tests of a forward model, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are design-study forecasts, not empirical measurements. The derivation chain is: (i) run N-body simulations over a Latin Hypercube grid; (ii) train a neural-network emulator on the resulting summary statistics and validate it on held-out simulations (Figure 6, residuals <1 km/s); (iii) generate mock observations from the fiducial model and show MCMC recovery within 1-2 sigma (Figure 9); (iv) compute Fisher forecasts from the emulator's local derivatives and validate them against those posteriors (Figure 10). None of these steps fits a parameter to real data and then renames it a prediction; the quoted 1-sigma uncertainties are the expected statistical precision conditional on the model and noise assumptions. The first-infall assumption is supported by external references as well as the authors' prior work, and it is a scenario choice rather than a result derived from the forecast. The beta(r)=0 grid is an explicit modeling assumption, and Section 4.4.1 quantifies the resulting bias when it is misspecified, which is a robustness limitation, not a circular step. Self-citations (Sheng et al. 2024) are used for simulation design and resolution validation, but the central forecast does not reduce to those citations. The paper is self-contained as a forward-modeling forecast.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: first-infall LMC, dark matter-only dynamics, axisymmetric NFW MW halo, fixed stellar anisotropy, spherical LMC, and Gaussian independent noise. The paper acknowledges these in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, but they are not folded into the headline uncertainty estimates. No new fitted constants or physical entities are introduced; all inputs come from prior literature or stated assumptions.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The LMC is on its first infall, with only one pericentric passage and an apocenter beyond the MW virial radius within the last 5 Gyr.
    Adopted in Section 2.2; the paper excludes second-infall models, which would have weaker dynamical effects, and notes the assumption is a practical necessity for smooth orbital reconstruction.
  • domain assumption Dark matter-only N-body simulations, treating both galaxies as live collisionless systems, capture the LMC's dynamical influence on the MW halo; baryonic and hydrodynamical effects are ignored.
    Section 2 argues this based on prior work (Garavito-Camargo et al. 2019; Vasiliev et al. 2021).
  • domain assumption The MW halo is a smooth, axisymmetric NFW profile with constant flattening q aligned with the disk; no triaxiality, tilt, or radially varying shape.
    Section 2.1 and caveat in Section 4.4.1; used for initial conditions in GALIC.
  • domain assumption The stellar halo can be represented by energy-based particle tagging with Eddington inversion, using a spherically averaged potential for non-spherical halos when computing the distribution function.
    Section 2.5; the authors note this is valid for mildly flattened potentials (Natarajan et al. 1997).
  • domain assumption The halo velocity anisotropy is fixed to one of two profiles (beta=0 or Hansen-Moore), not varied as a free parameter or marginalized.
    Section 2.2; the paper later shows (Section 4.4.1) that mismatch in beta biases recovered masses by about 40%.
  • domain assumption The LMC is modeled as a spherical Hernquist dark halo with no stellar disk and no Small Magellanic Cloud.
    Section 2.1 and caveat in Section 4.4.2; the paper states the SMC mass is effectively folded into the LMC.
  • standard math Summary statistics are independent and the Fisher matrix (Laplace approximation) describes the posterior; the neural network emulator residuals (about 1 km/s) are negligible compared to observational uncertainties including sampling noise.
    Appendix A and Section 3.2; the Fisher matrix is validated against nested sampling posteriors at the fiducial point.
  • domain assumption The observational scenario (Gaia DR3/DR4/DR5 tangential errors, 20 km/s radial velocity, 10% distance, 4000 RR Lyrae in 30-120 kpc) is representative of current and near-future surveys.
    Section 3.3; used to define sigma_k in the likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LMC-induced Perturbations in the Milky Way Halo:I. HaloDance Simulation Suite and Observational Forecasts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2F7K3UOS

@misc{pith2026250703663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LMC-induced Perturbations in the Milky Way Halo:I. HaloDance Simulation Suite and Observational Forecasts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2F7K3UOS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03663}
}
abstract

The gravitational interaction between the Milky Way (MW) and the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) perturbs the MW halo's density and kinematics, encoding information about both galaxies' masses and structures. We present a suite of 2,848 high-resolution ($10^7$ particles) N-body simulations that systematically vary the mass and shape of both galaxies' haloes. We model how the mean velocities and velocity dispersions of halo stars (30--120 kpc) depend on system parameters, and forecast constraints achievable with current and future observations. Assuming Gaia DR3-level astrometry, 20 km/s radial velocity precision, 10% distance precision, and a sample of $\sim$4,000 RR Lyrae stars, we achieve 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of $0.11 \times 10^{12} M_\odot$ in MW mass, $2.33 \times 10^{10} M_\odot$ in LMC mass, 2.38 in halo concentration ($c$), and 0.06 in halo flattening ($q$). These correspond to fractional uncertainties of 11%, 16%, 25%, and 6% respectively, relative to fiducial values. Improved Gaia proper motions (DR5) yield modest gains (up to 14%), while adding radial velocities improves constraints by up to 60% relative to using Gaia astrometry alone. Doubling the sample size to $\sim$8,000 stars yields an additional 30% improvement, whereas reducing distance uncertainties has minimal impact ($\le$10%). Mean velocities trace LMC-induced perturbations, while velocity dispersions constrain MW halo properties, jointly breaking degeneracies. Our results demonstrate that combining Gaia astrometry with large spectroscopic surveys will enable precise characterization of the MW-LMC system. This methodology paper establishes the framework for interpreting observations; future work will apply these tools to existing spectroscopic datasets. The full simulation suite, HaloDance, will be made publicly available at: https://github.com/Yanjun-Sheng/HaloDance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Residuals between the neural network predictions and the simulated phase-space coordinates of the LMC relative to the MW. Each panel corresponds to one of the six phase-space dimensions: position (𝑋, 𝑌, 𝑍 in kpc) in the top row and velocity (𝑉𝑋, 𝑉𝑌 , 𝑉𝑍 in km/s) in the bottom row. The horizontal axis shows the simulated value from low-resolution N-body runs, while the vertical axis shows the difference between the p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predicted past trajectories of the LMC relative to the Galactic disk (shown as a blue circle in the x–y plane at 𝑧 = 0), generated by our trained neural network under the first-infall orbital scenario. Each orbit starts from the same initial phase-space coordinates, and the trajectories are evolved under different MW–LMC model parameters. The fiducial model adopts 𝑀MW = 0.7 × 1012M⊙, 𝑀LMC = 1.5 × 1011M⊙, concentrati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Initial properties of the mock stellar halo constructed by tagging dark matter (DM) particles in the isolated, equilibrium fiducial MW model (𝑀MW = 0.7 × 1012M⊙, 𝑐 = 9.415, 𝑞 = 1.0) prior to LMC’s infall. Left: Number density profile of the stellar halo (blue curve) compared with the analytical Einasto profile used in the tagging process (black dashed line), and the underlying DM halo profile (orange curve). Middle:… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Galactocentric sky maps of kinematic perturbations in the fiducial case (𝑀MW = 0.7 × 1012M⊙, 𝑀LMC = 1.5 × 1011M⊙, 𝑐 = 9.415, 𝑞 = 1.0, isotropic velocity profile 𝛽(𝑟 ) = 0). We show the line-of-sight velocity (top) and latitudinal velocity (bottom) maps for halo stars i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation of the neural network emulation for the kinematic sum￾mary statistics of halo stars. Each panel shows the residuals (predicted minus simulated values) as a function of the simulated value for the mean velocity (⟨𝑣𝑟,𝑏>0 ◦ ⟩, ⟨𝑣𝑟,𝑏<0 ◦ ⟩, ⟨𝑣𝑏 ⟩) and velocity d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predicted mean latitudinal velocity (⟨𝑣𝑏 ⟩, left) and velocity dispersion (𝜎𝑣𝑏 , right) of halo stars at 60–90 kpc, as functions of LMC infall mass (𝑀LMC, top row) and the MW mass (𝑀MW, bottom row), based on neural network emulation. Shaded bands show 1𝜎 emulation unce…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measurement precision of individual stellar tangential velocities and the corresponding signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)—defined here as the ratio between the physical tangential velocity dispersion and its statistical sampling uncertainty—as functions of heliocentric dista…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior distributions for 𝑀MW, 𝑀LMC, 𝑐, and 𝑞, inferred from mock observations of the mean velocity and velocity dispersion in the ra￾dial, latitudinal, and longitudinal directions for stars within 30–60, 60–90, and 90-120 kpc. The inference is based on summary stati…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Forecast 1𝜎 covariance ellipses computed using the Fisher ma￾trix across a grid of parameter combinations in the (𝑀MW, 𝑀LMC) plane, assuming the same observational uncertainties used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Forecast constraints for 𝑀MW, 𝑀LMC, 𝑐, and 𝑞 as a function of sample size, assuming Gaia DR3 astrometric precision, 10% distance uncer￾tainties, and 20 km/s radial velocity precision. The baseline in our study adopts ∼4,000 RR Lyrae stars within the 30–120 kpc range (…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Impact of photometric distance precision on parameter constraints for 𝑀MW, 𝑀LMC, 𝑐, and 𝑞, assuming Gaia DR3 astrometric precision, 20 km/s radial velocity uncertainty, and ∼4,000 RR Lyrae stars. We compare three scenarios: 5% distance uncertainty (yellow), 10% (blue;…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Impact of spatial binning on forecast parameter constraints. This figure compares Fisher matrix forecast ellipses for 𝑀MW, 𝑀LMC, 𝑐 and 𝑞 under Gaia DR3-level proper motion precision. The red contours represent forecasts obtained by separately modeling the mean radial …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LMC-induced Perturbations in the Milky Way Halo II: Bridging Field-level Inference and Summary-level Simulation-Based Inference

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A field-level flow-matching likelihood shows the raw 6D halo phase-space distribution carries 2.5-9.9x more MW-LMC parameter information than velocity moments; adding BFE+MOPED summaries recovers much of this gap.

  2. The Milky Way - Large Magellanic Cloud Interaction with Simulation Based Inference

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Simulation-based inference on outer-halo star velocities gives a Milky Way reflex speed of 26.4 km/s and an LMC enclosed mass of 9.2×10^10 solar masses within 50 kpc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Alsing J., Charnock T., Feeney S., Wandelt B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4440A 488, 4440

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1960 2019

  3. [3]

    Amarante J. A. S., Koposov S. E., Laporte C. F. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.166A 690, A166

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450351 2024

  4. [4]

    C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2882A 464, 2882

    Amorisco N. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2882A 464, 2882

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2229 2017

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    H., Hearin A

    Behroozi P., Wechsler R. H., Hearin A. P., Conroy C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3143B 488, 3143

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437..116B 437, 116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1862 2014

  8. [8]

    J., Erkal D., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Deason A. J., Erkal D., Koposov S. E., Carballo-Bello J. A., Smith M. C., Jethwa P., Navarrete C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488L..47B 488, L47

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz101 2019

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    J., van der Marel R

    Besla G., Kallivayalil N., Hernquist L., Robertson B., Cox T. J., van der Marel R. P., Alcock C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..949B 668, 949

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Cox T

    Besla G., Kallivayalil N., Hernquist L., van der Marel R. P., Cox T. J., Kere s D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721L..97B 721, L97

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  4. [12]

    A., Xue X.-X., Liu C., Shen J., Flynn C., Yang C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aafd2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..104B 157, 104

    Bird S. A., Xue X.-X., Liu C., Shen J., Flynn C., Yang C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aafd2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..104B 157, 104

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..529B 54, 529

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    arXiv:2410.09149

    Bystr \"o m A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241009149B p. arXiv:2410.09149

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chandra V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..110C 956, 110

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    arXiv:2406.01676

    Chandra V., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240601676C p. arXiv:2406.01676

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chandrasekhar S., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1943ApJ....97..255C 97, 255

    1943 doi

  11. [19]

    Chen R. T. Q., Rubanova Y., Bettencourt J., Duvenaud D., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1806.07366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180607366C p. arXiv:1806.07366

    2018 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    D., Katz N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15556.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.1247C 400, 1247

    Choi J.-H., Weinberg M. D., Katz N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15556.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.1247C 400, 1247

    2009

  13. [21]

    Cioni M. R. L., Habing H. J., Israel F. P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...358L...9C 358, L9

    2000 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    G., Wishart J., 1934, @doi [Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society] 10.1017/S0305004100016595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934PCPS...30..178C 30, 178

    Cochran W. G., Wishart J., 1934, @doi [Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society] 10.1017/S0305004100016595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934PCPS...30..178C 30, 178

    1934 doi

  15. [23]

    O'Reilly

    Collette A., 2013, Python and HDF5. O'Reilly

    2013

  16. [24]

    Conroy C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..107C 883, 107

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Conroy C., Naidu R. P., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.592..534C 592, 534

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Correa Magnus L., Vasiliev E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2610C 511, 2610

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Cranmer K., Brehmer J., Louppe G., 2020, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] 10.1073/pnas.1912789117 , 117, 30055

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898....4C 898, 4

    Cunningham E. C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898....4C 898, 4

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..363D 54, 363

    D'Onghia E., Fox A. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..363D 54, 363

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    S., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI

    De Jong R. S., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI. pp 473--490

    2016

  23. [31]

    J., Belokurov V., Koposov S

    Deason A. J., Belokurov V., Koposov S. E., G \'o mez F. A., Grand R. J., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1259D 470, 1259

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Moore B., Quinn T., Kazantzidis S., Maas R., Mayer L., Read J., Stadel J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1076D 681, 1076

    Debattista V. P., Moore B., Quinn T., Kazantzidis S., Maas R., Mayer L., Read J., Stadel J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1076D 681, 1076

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    Erkal D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.2685E 487, 2685

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Erkal D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2677E 506, 2677

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A...1E 697, A1

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..163F 954, 163

    Foote H. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..163F 954, 163

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Laporte C. F. P., Johnston K. V., G \'o mez F. A., Watkins L. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...51G 884, 51

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Laporte C. F. P., Price-Whelan A. M., Cunningham E. C., Johnston K. V., Weinberg M., G \'o mez F. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..109G 919, 109

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Sarro L

    Garofalo A., Delgado H. E., Sarro L. M., Clementini G., Muraveva T., Marconi M., Ripepi V., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..788G 513, 788

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Besla G., Carpintero D

    G \'o mez F. A., Besla G., Carpintero D. D., Villalobos \'A ., O'Shea B. W., Bell E. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802..128G 802, 128

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Ting Y.-S., Kamdar H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca3a7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...26G 942, 26

    Green G. M., Ting Y.-S., Kamdar H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca3a7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...26G 942, 26

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    J., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..249H 164, 249

    Han J. J., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..249H 164, 249

    doi

  36. [44]

    J., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...14H 934, 14

    Han J. J., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...14H 934, 14

    doi

  37. [45]

    H., Moore B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2005.09.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NewA...11..333H 11, 333

    Hansen S. H., Moore B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2005.09.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NewA...11..333H 11, 333

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    Harris J., Zaritsky D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1243H 138, 1243

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

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

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

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Hernitschek N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...31H 859, 31

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Hernquist L., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...356..359H 356, 359

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    arXiv:2005.04849

    Hu P., Yang W., Zhu Y., Hong L., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2005.04849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200504849H p. arXiv:2005.04849

    2020 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

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

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

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Iorio G., Belokurov V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5686I 502, 5686

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Chemin L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..51J 688, A51

    Jim \'e nez-Arranz \'O ., Roca-F \`a brega S., Romero-G \'o mez M., Luri X., Bernet M., McMillan P. J., Chemin L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..51J 688, A51

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Jin S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2688J 530, 2688

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    P., Besla G., Anderson J., Alcock C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..161K 764, 161

    Kallivayalil N., van der Marel R. P., Besla G., Anderson J., Alcock C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..161K 764, 161

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4936K 521, 4936

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4936K 521, 4936

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    Kravtsov A., Winney S., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.120316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..50K 7, 50

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Laporte C. F. P., White S. D. M., Naab T., Gao L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435..901L 435, 901

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    Laporte C. F. P., G \'o mez F. A., Besla G., Johnston K. V., Garavito-Camargo N., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1218L 473, 1218

    doi

  52. [60]

    Laporte C. F. P., Johnston K. V., G \'o mez F. A., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..286L 481, 286

    doi

  53. [61]

    C., Johnson B

    Leja J., Carnall A. C., Johnson B. D., Conroy C., Speagle J. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....3L 876, 3

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Levi M., et al., 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. p. 57 ( @eprint arXiv 1907.10688 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1907.10688

    2019 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3508L 490, 3508

    Li T. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3508L 490, 3508

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    C., Zhang H.-W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...88L 944, 88

    Li X.-Y., Huang Y., Liu G.-C., Beers T. C., Zhang H.-W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...88L 944, 88

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    H., Putney E., Buckley M

    Lim S. H., Putney E., Buckley M. R., Shih D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...01..021L 2025, 021

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..196L 853, 196

    Loebman S. R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..196L 853, 196

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921L..36L 921, L36

    Lucchini S., D'Onghia E., Fox A. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921L..36L 921, L36

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    Massana P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513L..40M 513, L40

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    D., Beckman R

    McKay M. D., Beckman R. J., Conover W. J., 1979, Technometrics, 21, 239

    1979

  62. [70]

    J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18564.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.2446M 414, 2446

    McMillan P. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18564.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.2446M 414, 2446

    2011

  63. [71]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...76M 465, 76

    McMillan P. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...76M 465, 76

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    W., Moore B., Diemand J., Terzi \'c B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.2685M 132, 2685

    Merritt D., Graham A. W., Moore B., Diemand J., Terzi \'c B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.2685M 132, 2685

    2006 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Monelli M., Stetson P

    Meschin I., Gallart C., Aparicio A., Hidalgo S. L., Monelli M., Stetson P. B., Carrera R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1067M 438, 1067

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    Miyamoto M., Nagai R., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975PASJ...27..533M 27, 533

    1975

  67. [75]

    E., Clementini G., Sarro L

    Muraveva T., Delgado H. E., Clementini G., Sarro L. M., Garofalo A., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2241 , 481, 1195

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Natarajan P., Hjorth J., van Kampen E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/286.2.329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.286..329N 286, 329

    1997 doi

  69. [77]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    1997 doi

  70. [78]

    Ogiya G., Burkert A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2164O 457, 2164

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3825P 464, 3825

    Patel E., Besla G., Sohn S. T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3825P 464, 3825

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    Patel E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893..121P 893, 121

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    A., Besla G., Erkal D., Ma Y.-Z., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456L..54P 456, L54

    Pe \ n arrubia J., G \'o mez F. A., Besla G., Erkal D., Ma Y.-Z., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456L..54P 456, L54

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

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

    Perez F., Granger B. E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    2007 doi

  75. [83]

    S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..11P 494, L11

    Petersen M. S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..11P 494, L11

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01254-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..251P 5, 251

    Petersen M. S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01254-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..251P 5, 251

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    S., Pe \ n arrubia J., Jones E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1266P 514, 1266

    Petersen M. S., Pe \ n arrubia J., Jones E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1266P 514, 1266

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    F., Jenkins A., Frenk C

    Power C., Navarro J. F., Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Springel V., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.338...14P 338, 14

    2003

  79. [87]

    M., 2017, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JOSS....2..388P 2, 388

    Price-Whelan A. M., 2017, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JOSS....2..388P 2, 388

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018AJ....156..123T 156, 123

    Price-Whelan A. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018AJ....156..123T 156, 123

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    Riello M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...3R 649, A3

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    Sch \"o nrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1829S 403, 1829

    2010

  83. [91]

    Shen J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3a7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925....1S 925, 1

    2022 doi

  84. [92]

    Sheng Y., Ting Y.-S., Xue X.-X., Chang J., Tian H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2694S 534, 2694

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    Shipp N., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..149S 923, 149

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    Springel V., Pakmor R., Zier O., Reinecke M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2871S 506, 2871

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    Sun Y., Deng D.-S., Yuan H.-B., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/4/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21...92S 21, 092

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    R., Capelo P

    Tamfal T., Mayer L., Quinn T. R., Capelo P. R., Kazantzidis S., Babul A., Potter D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916...55T 916, 55

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    The VIA Project Collaboration 2025, The Via Project, https://via-project.org/

    2025

  91. [99]

    Vasiliev E., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11020059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...59V 11, 59

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    Vasiliev E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..437V 527, 437

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    Vasiliev E., Belokurov V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.4162V 497, 4162

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    Vasiliev E., Belokurov V., Erkal D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2279V 501, 2279

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

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

    2020 doi

  96. [104]

    N., 2020, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-019-1541-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SCPMA..6309801W 63, 109801

    Wang W., Han J., Cautun M., Li Z., Ishigaki M. N., 2020, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-019-1541-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SCPMA..6309801W 63, 109801

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    Wang Y., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928....1W 928, 1

    2022 doi

  98. [106]

    L., van der Marel R

    Watkins L. L., van der Marel R. P., Bennet P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1f58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963...84W 963, 84

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    D., Katz N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11306.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..425W 375, 425

    Weinberg M. D., Katz N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11306.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..425W 375, 425

    2007

  100. [108]

    Wetzel A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acb99a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...44W 265, 44

    2023 doi

  101. [109]

    S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3524Y 531, 3524

    Yaaqib R., Petersen M. S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3524Y 531, 3524

    2024 doi

  102. [110]

    Yurin D., Springel V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444...62Y 444, 62

    2014 doi

  103. [111]

    Zaritsky D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abcb83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905L...3Z 905, L3

    2020 doi

  104. [112]

    Zhao G., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., Jing Y.-P., Deng L.-C., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12..723Z 12, 723

    2012 doi

  105. [113]

    P., Cioni M.-R

    van der Marel R. P., Cioni M.-R. L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1807V 122, 1807

    2001 doi

  106. [114]

    P., Kallivayalil N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781..121V 781, 121

    van der Marel R. P., Kallivayalil N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781..121V 781, 121

    2014 doi

  107. [115]

    P., Alves D

    van der Marel R. P., Alves D. R., Hardy E., Suntzeff N. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124.2639V 124, 2639

    2002 doi

Pith tools

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