Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 112 references

A Novel Approach to Identifying Substructures Through Analysis of Metallicity Distribution Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors claim that four low-inclination retrograde substructures in the Milky Way halo, one new, can be identified by their metallicity distribution peaks.

desk verdict This submission is two different papers under one title: the abstract reports halo substructures, but the full text is about artificial square ice, so the astronomical claims have no supporting analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16233 v1 pith:NHEZKGBS submitted 2025-08-22 astro-ph.GA

Young Kwang Kim , Young Sun Lee , Timothy C. Beers This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galactichalosubstructuresmetallicitydistributionfunctionsretrogradestellarstreamsdwarfgalaxyaccretionchemo-dynamicalanalysisMilkyWayGaiaastrometryLAMOST/SDSSspectroscopy
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

The paper tries to establish that the Milky Way's stellar halo can be dissected into accreted dwarf-galaxy debris using only broad-brush chemistry and orbits: each substructure's metallicity distribution function (MDF) has a characteristic peak, and that peak survives as a chemical fingerprint once stars are selected by orbit. Applying this to retrograde, low-inclination, intermediate-eccentricity halo stars from SDSS and LAMOST with Gaia astrometry, the authors report four low-inclination retrograde substructures (LRS 1–4) with distinct MDF peaks, one newly found (LRS 3), plus a possible separate stream (LRS 2B) embedded in LRS 2. The substructures are recovered consistently under two Galactic potentials, which the authors take as evidence the features are physical rather than artifacts of the potential model. The significance would be a low-cost, purely chemo-dynamical way to map Galactic accretion history, working even where high-resolution abundance information is not available.

What carries the argument

The central object is the metallicity distribution function (MDF) peak, treated as the chemical signature of a single accreted progenitor. The method selects stars by orbital parameters — retrograde, low inclination, intermediate eccentricity — then looks for clumps in apogalactic-distance–orbital-phase space and reads off the MDF peak of each clump. The Stäckel and McMillan potential models serve as two independent dynamical integrators to check that the clumps are stable.

What would settle it

Take high-resolution spectra of the stars assigned to LRS 2B: if their elemental abundance patterns are indistinguishable from the ED-2 stream, the claim that LRS 2B is a separate chemically distinct progenitor collapses. A direct test of the method itself would be a mock-halo simulation with known accretion events, run through the same selection and MDF-peak procedure; if simulated single progenitors produce multiple peaks or multiple progenitors produce one peak, the method's central assumption is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When halo stars are restricted to retrograde orbits with low inclination and 0.5 < e ≤ 0.7, and their orbital apogalactic distance is plotted against orbital phase, the metallicity distribution functions of the stars form discrete clumps. The paper identifies four such clumps, LRS 1–4, with MDF peaks at [Fe/H] = −1.5, −1.7, −1.9, −2.1, and a further clump, LRS 2B, at −2.3 inside LRS 2. Because the same four-plus-one groupings appear using both the Stäckel and McMillan potentials, the paper concludes they are real accreted substructures, not products of the assumed potential. It then associates LRS 2A with Sequoia, LRS 1 with Thamnos 2 and Arjuna, and LRS 4 with I'itoi, and argues LRS 2B is c

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each clump's metallicity peak corresponds to one and only one progenitor galaxy; if the mapping between MDF peaks and progenitors is blurred by metallicity gradients or by the evolving mass–metallicity relation of dwarf galaxies, the assignment of LRS 1–4 and the LRS 2A/2B split loses support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The halo contains at least four coherent low-inclination retrograde substructures with distinct chemistry, one of which (LRS 3) had not been previously identified.
  • The MDF-peak-plus-orbit method can recover known merger debris (Sequoia, Thamnos 2/Arjuna, I'itoi) under two different Galactic potentials, supporting its reliability.
  • LRS 2 contains two chemical components — LRS 2A (Sequoia) and LRS 2B — meaning a single orbital family can host debris from more than one progenitor.
  • Broad-band or low-resolution spectroscopic surveys such as SDSS and LAMOST can be mined for substructure, extending the reach of chemo-dynamical analysis beyond high-resolution samples.
  • The detection of LRS 2B as a chemically distinct stream is provisional and requires high-resolution spectroscopy to determine whether it is truly a separate progenitor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Widening the orbital selection (e.g., prograde or higher-eccentricity orbits) would test whether the one-peak-per-progenitor assumption generalizes; the same clumping technique could be applied to other halo populations.
  • The metallicity-gradient and mass-metallicity-redshift caveats the authors raise could be modeled explicitly, converting MDF peaks from a discrete fingerprint into a continuous posterior over progenitor properties.
  • Comparing LRS 3's orbit and chemistry against cosmological simulations of dwarf disruption could yield an infall time and progenitor mass, which the current paper does not attempt.
  • If LRS 2B is confirmed chemically distinct from ED-2, it would show that overlapping streams from separate dwarf galaxies can be disentangled by MDF alone, strengthening the case for large low-resolution surveys as substructure finders.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript, submitted as arXiv:2508.16233 in astro-ph.GA, presents an abstract with a new chemo-dynamical method for identifying Galactic halo substructures: using apogalactic distance-orbital phase space, MDF peaks, and two Galactic potentials (Stäckel and McMillan). It claims four distinct low-inclination retrograde substructures (LRS 1–4) with MDF peaks [Fe/H] = -1.5, -1.7, -1.9, -2.1; a new substructure LRS 3; an additional stream LRS 2B at -2.3 embedded in LRS 2; and associations with Sequoia, Thamnos 2, Arjuna, I'itoi and a comparison with ED-2. The supplied full text, however, is a paper on femtosecond-laser-driven magnetic relaxation in artificial square ice: it contains nanomagnet arrays, vertex populations, LLB simulations, and MFM images, with no mention of stellar astronomy, Gaia, LAMOST, metallicities, or orbital analysis. Thus the astronomical results are asserted in the abstract but are not supported anywhere in the body.

Significance. If the claimed detections and MDF-peak associations were backed by a full analysis, the work would be a useful contribution to Galactic archaeology: a new substructure (LRS 3) and a potential split/embedded stream (LRS 2A/2B) with specific chemical peaks are falsifiable predictions that could be tested with high-resolution spectroscopy and larger samples. The two-potential consistency test is a good idea, and the abstract's explicit caveat about metallicity gradients and mass-metallicity evolution is a sign of methodological awareness. However, as submitted, the paper's central claims are entirely unverifiable: no data, method, fitting procedure, or significance estimates appear in the full text. The significance of the result can therefore not be assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text, Sections III–V] The body of the manuscript is an artificial-square-ice magnetics study (nanomagnet arrays, SISM/LLB simulations, MFM imaging). It contains no description of the SDSS/LAMOST/Gaia sample, no selection function, no orbit integration under the Stäckel or McMillan potentials, no clustering algorithm, no MDF fitting, and no association analysis. The abstract's headline results are therefore claims without derivation. This is not a presentational issue; it means the paper cannot be evaluated or reproduced.
  2. [Abstract, orbital selection] The selection cuts (retrograde, low inclination, 0.5 < e <= 0.7) define the sample before any substructure search. Because MDF peaks are then computed for clumps found inside this same window, the peak positions are not independent of sample definition. The text provides no control experiment (e.g., varying the cuts, or a forward model of a smooth halo) to show that the peaks reflect accreted progenitors rather than the selection. This circularity is load-bearing for the claimed LRS 2A/2B separation.
  3. [Abstract, MDF peak–progenitor mapping] The paper's association step assumes each MDF peak maps one-to-one onto a single progenitor's chemical signature. The abstract itself concedes that metallicity gradients and redshift evolution of the mass-metallicity relation may blur this mapping. Without an explicit model of expected peak positions and widths, or a uniqueness test against overlapping peaks, the identifications (LRS 2A = Sequoia; LRS 1 = Thamnos 2/Arjuna; LRS 4 = I'itoi; LRS 2B distinct from ED-2) are unsupported. This is a core assumption, not a caveat.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, MDF peaks] The quoted MDF peaks (-1.5, -1.7, -1.9, -2.1, -2.3) are given to 0.1-0.2 dex without uncertainties or significances; please provide fitted peak widths, errors, and goodness-of-fit statistics.
  2. [Full text, overall] The supplied file is entirely a different manuscript; there is no figure, table, or equation supporting the astronomical abstract. Even if this is a submission error, the version under review does not meet the journal's standards.
  3. [Abstract, ED-2 comparison] The statement about ED-2 needing high-resolution spectroscopy is sensible but cannot be assessed without the actual comparison data.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity in sample-selection labels; astronomical derivation entirely absent from supplied body text.

  1. self definitional [Abstract (sample selection and identified substructures)]
    "Our sample consists of retrograde halo stars with low orbital inclinations and intermediate eccentricities (0.5 < e ≤ 0.7), drawn from SDSS and LAMOST spectroscopy combined with Gaia DR3 astrometry. We identify four distinct low-inclination retrograde substructures (LRS 1, LRS 2, LRS 3, LRS 4) with MDF peaks at [Fe/H] = −1.5, −1.7, −1.9, and −2.1, respectively."

    The stars are selected to be retrograde, low-inclination, and at intermediate eccentricity, and then the same phase-space window is used to label the output objects as 'low-inclination retrograde substructures.' The defining properties of LRS 1-4 are therefore guaranteed by the input sample cut, not independently discovered. The MDF peaks are computed from the same selected stars and read back as the chemical signatures of those substructures, so the reported [Fe/H] peaks are aggregate properties of the input-defined clumps rather than predictions from an independent model. This is a partial self-definitional reduction: the categories and their metal peaks are partly set by the sample definition.

  2. other [Full text (Introduction / Section III; artificial square ice content)]
    "Here, we demonstrate that femtosecond laser excitation, as illustrated in Fig. 1(a), drives rapid magnetic relaxation of artificial square ices, enabling faster access to the ground state compared with existing methods."

    The astronomical claims require a derivation chain involving orbital integration under Stäckel and McMillan potentials, MDF construction from SDSS/LAMOST/Gaia, clustering in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space, and associations with Sequoia, Thamnos 2, Arjuna, I'itoi, and ED-2. The supplied body text, however, is a magnetic-materials study of artificial square ices: it contains no [Fe/H] data, no Gaia/LAMOST astrometry, no MDFs, and no stellar substructure analysis. Thus the abstract's central results are unsupported by any presented derivation. This is an omitted-proof / missing-support flag rather than a reduction of output to input, but it means the claimed derivation chain cannot be audited for circularity or independence.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Abstract (limitations)]
    "highlighting caveats such as metallicity gradients and redshift evolution of the mass-metallicity relation, which may blur the mapping between MDF peaks and progenitors."

    The paper explicitly concedes that the mapping from MDF peaks to individual progenitor chemical signatures—the assumption on which the associations LRS2A→Sequoia, LRS1→Thamnos/Arjuna, LRS4→I'itoi, and LRS2B vs. ED-2 rest—can be blurred. If multiple progenitors share one MDF peak, or one progenitor spans multiple peaks, the claimed one-to-one identifications and the LRS2A/2B split lose their basis. This is an admitted limitation rather than a hidden circularity, but it weakens the interpretation of the fitted peaks as reliable, independent progenitor tracers.

full rationale

The detectable circularity is partial and located in the sample-construction labeling: stars are pre-selected in a retrograde, low-inclination, intermediate-eccentricity window, and then the discovered objects are named 'low-inclination retrograde substructures' with MDF peaks taken from that same sample. This makes the classification and the quoted peak metallicities partly definitional. However, the existence of four distinct clumps, the newness of LRS3, and the embedded LRS2B component are not logically forced by the selection cut alone, so there is independent empirical content in the abstract. The far more serious issue is that the supplied full text contains no astronomical analysis whatsoever; it is a completely different paper about femtosecond-laser-driven magnetic relaxation in artificial square ice. Treating the supplied text as in-scope evidence (as the reviewing rule requires), the central derivation chain—orbital integrations, MDF construction, clustering, and stream associations—is entirely absent, making the abstract's claims unverifiable. There are no self-citations, no uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, and no fitted-parameter-called-prediction chain that can be exhibited from the equations, because no astronomical equations are present. I therefore assign a score of 4: partial circularity in the sample-definition/labeling, plus a severe omitted-proof problem that is a verification failure rather than a further circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The abstract is the only usable evidence because the supplied body text belongs to a different manuscript (artificial spin ice). The central mapping, MDF peak to a single progenitor, is an explicitly stated domain assumption that the abstract itself concedes is fragile. The orbital selections and the MDF decomposition are hand chosen or fit based and therefore count as free parameters. Claimed new structures (LRS 3, LRS 2B) have no independent confirmation; the structures tied to known merger debris inherit external anchors but only through prior literature that is not present in the supplied text.

free parameters (3)
  • Orbital selection cuts (retrograde, low inclination, 0.5 < e ≤ 0.7)
    Hand-chosen cuts define the sample; substructures on other orbits are excluded by construction, so the census depends on these boundaries.
  • MDF decomposition per substructure (component count and shapes)
    The split of LRS 2 into LRS 2A and LRS 2B, and all peak locations, depend on the chosen histogram decomposition; the abstract gives no procedure or uncertainties.
  • MDF peak positions = [Fe/H] = -1.5, -1.7, -1.9, -2.1, -2.3
    These headline numbers are fit outputs of the selected samples, not independent measurements, yet they carry the identification and association claims.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MDF peak of a substructure reflects its progenitor's chemical signature.
    Stated explicitly in the abstract; this is the load-bearing mapping that connects measured [Fe/H] peaks to accreted dwarf galaxy identities.
  • domain assumption Stars from a single accreted dwarf occupy a coherent clump in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space.
    The method's premise; if phase mixing has erased coherence, the identified groups mix stars from multiple progenitors.
  • domain assumption The Stäckel and McMillan Galactic potentials adequately describe orbits for these stars.
    Orbital parameters, and hence the phase-space selection, are computed assuming one of these potentials; agreement between them is consistency, not accuracy.
  • domain assumption The associations of LRS 1, LRS 2A, and LRS 4 with previously known structures rest on prior literature results.
    These matches are asserted in the abstract, but the supporting comparisons (orbital elements, abundance patterns) are not present in the supplied text.
invented entities (3)
  • LRS 3 (low-inclination retrograde substructure)
    purpose: Claimed newly discovered halo substructure with MDF peak [Fe/H] = -1.9.
    The abstract asserts it is newly discovered, but the supporting analysis is absent from the supplied text and no independent confirmation is referenced.
  • LRS 2B (stream embedded within LRS 2)
    purpose: Claimed additional metallicity component at [Fe/H] = -2.3 inside the LRS 2 group.
    The abstract itself says high-resolution spectroscopy is required to confirm a separate progenitor, so this entity currently lacks an independent falsifiable handle.
  • LRS 1, LRS 2A, LRS 4 independent evidence
    purpose: Claimed substructures linked respectively to Thamnos 2 + Arjuna, Sequoia, and I'itoi.
    These inherit external anchors from previously known structures, so follow-up abundance or orbit checks could confirm or refute the links; the association criteria themselves are not shown in the supplied text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Approach to Identifying Substructures Through Analysis of Metallicity Distribution Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHEZKGBS

@misc{pith2026250816233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Approach to Identifying Substructures Through Analysis of Metallicity Distribution Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHEZKGBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16233}
}
abstract

We present a new method for identifying Galactic halo substructures accreted from dwarf galaxies by combining metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) with orbital parameters. Using apogalactic distance-orbital phase space, we assume that the MDF peak of a substructure reflects its progenitor's chemical signature. We test this approach with two Galactic potentials (St\"ackel and McMillan) and find consistent results. Our sample consists of retrograde halo stars with low orbital inclinations and intermediate eccentricities ($0.5 < e \leq 0.7$), drawn from SDSS and LAMOST spectroscopy combined with $Gaia$ DR3 astrometry. We identify four distinct low-inclination retrograde substructures (LRS 1, LRS 2, LRS 3, LRS 4) with MDF peaks at [Fe/H] = $-$1.5, $-$1.7, $-$1.9, and $-$2.1, respectively; LRS3 is newly discovered. Further analysis reveals an additional stream (LRS 2B) with [Fe/H] = $-$2.3 embedded within LRS 2; the remaining LRS 2 stars (LRS 2A) are associated with Sequoia. LRS 1 is likely linked to Thamnos 2 and Arjuna, and LRS 4 to I'itoi. Comparison with the ED-2 stream suggests LRS 2B is chemically distinct, but high-resolution spectroscopy is required to confirm whether they originate from separate progenitors. Our MDF-based approach demonstrates the utility of chemo-dynamical space for uncovering halo substructures, while highlighting caveats such as metallicity gradients and redshift evolution of the mass-metallicity relation, which may blur the mapping between MDF peaks and progenitors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    \ 2022, , 259, 35 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro'uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. \ 2022, , 259, 35 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. \ 2018, , 235, 42 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  3. [3]

    C., et al

    Allende Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2008, , 136, 2070 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2070

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2070 2008

  4. [4]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V. P., Beraldo E Silva, L., et al. \ 2022, , 937, 12 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  5. [5]

    Amorisco, N. C. \ 2015, , 450, 575 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv648

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv648 2015

  6. [6]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. \ 2015, , 127, 994 doi: 10.1086/683116

    doi:10.1086/683116 2015

  7. [7]

    \ 2024, , 678, 3 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    Balbinot, E., Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., et al. \ 2024, , 678, 3 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450425 2024

  8. [8]

    \ 2023, , 678, 115 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347076

    Balbinot, E., Helmi, A., Callingham, T., et al. \ 2023, , 678, 115 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347076

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347076 2023

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    C., Carollo, D., Ivezi \'c , Z ., et al

    Beers, T. C., Carollo, D., Ivezi \'c , Z ., et al. \ 2012, , 746, 34 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/34

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., et al

    Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., et al. \ 2000, , 119, 2866 doi: 10.1086/301410

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    \ 2022, , 514, 689 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1267

    Belokurov V., & Kravtsov A. \ 2022, , 514, 689 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1267

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    W., et al

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., et al. \ 2018, , 478, 611 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    \ 2019, , 482, 1417 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    Bennet, M., & Bovy, J. \ 2019, , 482, 1417 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, , 426, 1324 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21757.x

    Binney, J. 2012, , 426, 1324 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21757.x

    2012

  7. [15]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics (2nd ed.; Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics (2nd ed.; Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press)

    2008

  8. [16]

    \ 2016, , 54, 529 doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

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

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. \ 2017, , 154, 28 doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Martell, S, L., & Simpson, J

    Borsato, N. W., Martell, S, L., & Simpson, J. D. \ 2020, , 492, 1370 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3479

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Huang, Y., et al

    Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T. C., Huang, Y., et al. \ 2024, , 527, 8973 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3674

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chiba, M., & Beers, T. C. \ 2000, , 119, 2843 doi: 10.1086/301409

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Koposov, S

    Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., et al. \ 2023, , 947, 37 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Q., Zhao, Y

    Cui, X. Q., Zhao, Y. H., Chu, Y. Q., et al. \ 2012, RAA, 12, 1197 doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Schlegal, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegal, D. J., Ahn, C., et al. \ 2013, , 145, 10 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al. \ 2018, , 862, 1 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad0ee

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Mao, Y-Y., & Wechsler, R

    Deason, A. J., Mao, Y-Y., & Wechsler, R. H. \ 2016, , 821, 5 doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/5

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    \ 2024, arXiv e-prints doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13763

    Dodd, E., Ruiz-Lara, T., Helmi, A., et al. \ 2024, arXiv e-prints doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13763

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    M., Helmi, A., et al

    Dodd, E., Callingham, T. M., Helmi, A., et al. \ 2023, , 670, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244546

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Sahlholdt, C

    Feuillet, D. K., Sahlholdt, C. L., Feltzing, S., et al. \ 2021, , 508, 1489 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    \ 2024, , 686, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. \ 2024, , 686, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. \ 2023, , 674, 1 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. \ 2021, , 649, 1 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. \ 2018, , 616, 1 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. \ 2016, , 595, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    B., Monachesi, A., et al

    Gonzalez-Jara, J., Tissera, P. B., Monachesi, A., et al. \ 2025, , 693, 282 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452639

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    C., et al

    Gudin, D., Shank, D., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2021, , 908, 79 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7ed

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    A., & Helmi, A

    G o mez, F. A., & Helmi, A. \ 2010, , 401, 2285 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15841.x

    2010

  30. [38]

    A., Majewski, S

    Hayes, C. A., Majewski, S. R., Shetrone, M., et al. \ 2018, , 852, 49 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9cec

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Lehnert, M

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

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    \ 2020, , 58, 205 doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. \ 2020, , 58, 205 doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    H., et al

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

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Helmi, A., & White, S. D. M. \ 1999, , 307, 495 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02616.x

    1999

  35. [43]

    A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., et al. \ 2018, AAS Meeting Abstracts, 232, 223.06

    2018

  36. [44]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. \ 2023, , 520, 5671 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3179

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. \ 2021, , 500, 1385 doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2987

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    C., et al

    Huang, Y., Yuan, H., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2021, , 910, 5 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69a

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    \ 2017, , 604, 106 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629691

    Jean-Baptiste, I., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. \ 2017, , 604, 106 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629691

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Remus, R.-S., Burkert, A., et al

    Karademir, G. S., Remus, R.-S., Burkert, A., et al. \ 2019, , 487, 318 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1251

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    \ 2019, , 482, 40 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2623

    Kawata, D., Bovy, J., Matsunaga, N., & Baba, J. \ 2019, , 482, 40 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2623

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    \ 2023a, , 677, 89 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244232

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Libeskind, N., et al. \ 2023a, , 677, 89 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244232

    doi

  43. [51]

    \ 2023b, , 677, 90 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244233

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Libeskind, N., et al. \ 2023b, , 677, 90 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244233

    doi

  44. [52]

    \ 2023c, , 677, 91 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244234

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Libeskind, N., et al. \ 2023c, , 677, 91 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244234

    doi

  45. [53]

    E., Li, T

    Kim, B., Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., et al. \ 2025, , 540, 264 doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf705

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    K., Lee, Y

    Kim, Y. K., Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2021, , 911, 21 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf35e

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Lee, Y

    Kim, Y. K., Lee, Y. S., & Beers, T. C. \ 2019, , 882, 176 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3660

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. \ 2013, , 779, 102 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., Allende Prieto, C., et al. \ 2025, arXiv e-prints doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14787

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Bos, R

    Koppelman, H. H., Bos, R. O. Y., & Helmi, A. \ 2020, , 642, 18 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038652

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A

    Koppelman, H. H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Starkenburg, T. K. \ 2019, , 631, 9 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936738

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Carlin, J. L., et al. \ 2015, , 150, 187 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/187

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Masseron, T., et al. \ 2013, , 146, 132 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/132

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Allende Prieto, C., et al. \ 2011, , 141, 90 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/90

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. \ 2008a, , 136, 2022 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2022

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. \ 2008b, , 136, 2050 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2050

    doi

  57. [65]

    S., Kim, Y

    Lee, A., Lee, Y. S., Kim, Y. K., et al. \ 2023, , 945, 56 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6f5

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    \ 2018, , 238, 16 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aada4a

    Li, H., Tan, K., & Zhao, G. \ 2018, , 238, 16 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aada4a

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    O., P e rez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., P e rez-Villegas, A., et al. \ 2022, , 935, 109 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    \ 2021, , 907, 10 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb87

    Limberg, G., Rossi, S., Beers, T, C., et al. \ 2021, , 907, 10 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb87

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Hern a ndez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern a ndez, J., et al. \ 2021, , 649, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    \ 2019, yCat, 5164, 0

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. \ 2019, yCat, 5164, 0

    2019

  63. [71]

    \ 2015, RAA, 15, 1095 doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/15/8/002

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. \ 2015, RAA, 15, 1095 doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    S., Ruiz-Lara, T., Koppelman, H

    L o vdal, S. S., Ruiz-Lara, T., Koppelman, H. H., et al. \ 2022, , 665, 57 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243060

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    F., Faucher-Gigu e re, C-A., et al

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu e re, C-A., et al. \ 2016, , 456, 2140 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2659

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. \ 2019, , 482, 3426 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2955

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    R., Schiavon, R

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

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    \ 2024, , 964, 104 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1885

    Malhan, K., & Rix, H-W. \ 2024, , 964, 104 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1885

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

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

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    \ 2019, , 874, 35 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec0

    Matsnuno, T., Aoki, W., & Suda, T. \ 2019, , 874, 35 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec0

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

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

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., et al

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., et al. \ 2019, , 488, 1235 doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., et al. \ 2018, , 478, 5449 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1403

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. \ 2022, arXiv e-prints doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.09057

    2022 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. \ 2021, , 923, 92 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. \ 2020, , 901, 48 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    2020 doi

  77. [85]

    N., Ostdiek, B., Lisanti, M., et al

    Necib, L. N., Ostdiek, B., Lisanti, M., et al. \ 2020, NatAs, 4, 1078 doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1131-2

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    E., & Schuster, W

    Nissen, P. E., & Schuster, W. J. \ 2010, , 511, 10 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913877

    2010 doi

  79. [87]

    \ 2022, , 936, 3 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d3

    Oria, P-A., Tenachi, W., Ibata, R., et al. \ 2022, , 936, 3 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d3

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    \ 2023, , 521, 2623 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad706

    Ou, X., Necib, L., & Frebel, A. \ 2023, , 521, 2623 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad706

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C. \ 2023, , 673, 155 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245399

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    G., & Cignoni, M

    Re Fiorentin, P., Spagna, A., Lattanzi, M. G., & Cignoni, M. \ 2021, , 907, 16 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd53d

    2021 doi

  83. [91]

    G., Spagna, A., & Curir, A

    Re Fiorentin, P., Lattanzi, M. G., Spagna, A., & Curir, A. \ 2015, , 150, 128 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/128

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. \ 2018, , 861, 126 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac82e

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    \ 2022, , 941, 45 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01

    Rix, H.-W., Chandra, V., Andrae, R., et al. \ 2022, , 941, 45 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01

    2022 doi

  86. [95]

    M., Sun Lee, Y., Morrison, H

    Rockosi, C. M., Sun Lee, Y., Morrison, H. L., et al. \ 2022, , 259, 60 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5323

    2022 doi

  87. [96]

    S., et al

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Matsuno, T., L o vdal, S. S., et al. \ 2022, , 665, 58 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243061

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    \ 2010, , 403, 1829 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    Sch o nrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. \ 2010, , 403, 1829 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2010

  89. [98]

    C., Placco, V

    Shank, D., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. \ 2023, , 943, 23 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca322

    2023 doi

  90. [99]

    C., Placco, V

    Shank, D., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. \ 2022a, , 926, 26 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac409a

    doi

  91. [100]

    C., et al

    Shank, D., Komater, D., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2022b, , 261, 19 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac680c

    doi

  92. [101]

    P., Lee, Y

    Smolinski, J. P., Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2011, , 141, 89 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/89

    2011 doi

  93. [102]

    \ 2022, , 935, 22 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac874f

    Tenachi, W., Oria, P-A., Ibata, R., et al. \ 2022, , 935, 22 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac874f

    2022 doi

  94. [103]

    \ 2019, , 482, 1525 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. \ 2019, , 482, 1525 doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    2019 doi

  95. [104]

    \ 2008, , 391, 1806 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13979.x

    Villalobos, A., & Helmi, A. \ 2008, , 391, 1806 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13979.x

    2008

  96. [105]

    C., et al

    Wang, J., Fu, J.-N., Smith, M. C., et al. \ 2020, , 251, 27 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc1ed

    2020 doi

  97. [106]

    \ 2016, , 456, 672 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2705

    Wang, J., Shi, J., Zhao, Y., et al. \ 2016, , 456, 672 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2705

    2016 doi

  98. [107]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. \ 1991, , 379, 52 doi: 10.1086/170483

    1991 doi

  99. [108]

    J., Johnson, J

    Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Johnson, J. A., et al. \ 2009, , 137, 4377 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4377

    2009 doi

  100. [109]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., et al. \ 2000, , 120, 1579 doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  101. [110]

    C., Beers, T

    Yuan, Z., Myeong, G. C., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2020, , 891, 39 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6ef7

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    C., Placco, V

    Zepeda, J., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. \ 2023, , 947, 23 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbcc

    2023 doi

  103. [112]

    \ 2024, , 966, 174 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a6

    Zhang, R., Matsuno, T., Li, H., et al. \ 2024, , 966, 174 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a6

    2024 doi

  104. [113]

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L. C. \ 2012, RAA, 12, 723 doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.