pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.19858 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Probing the Milky Way Halo with RR Lyrae Stars from Gaia Data Release 3

T. Muraveva , L. Monti , D. Massari , M. De Leo , A. Garofalo , G. Clementini , E. Ceccarelli , U. Michelucci This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 20:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords RR Lyrae starsMilky Way haloaccreted substructuresmetallicity distributionsGaia Sausage/EnceladusSequoiaHelmi streamsThamnos
0
0 comments X

The pith

RR Lyrae stars from Gaia data show distinct metallicities for major accreted substructures in the Milky Way halo.

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

The Milky Way stellar halo contains debris from past galaxy mergers that can be traced by stars with distinct orbits and chemical compositions. RR Lyrae stars provide reliable distance and metallicity indicators because of their standard properties and visibility across large volumes. Researchers computed integrals of motion for 4933 such stars from Gaia Data Release 3 and applied the CLiMB clustering framework to assign them to known substructures. This produced mean metallicities near -1.6 dex for Gaia Sausage/Enceladus, Sequoia, and the Helmi streams, with a more metal-poor peak at -1.94 dex in Thamnos and evidence of thick-disk contamination in other groups. The measurements give a chemical snapshot of early hierarchical assembly and allow tests of substructure origins via mass-metallicity relations.

Core claim

Applying the CLiMB framework to the integrals of motion and orbital parameters of 4933 RR Lyrae stars identifies their membership in Milky Way substructures, enabling calculation of weighted mean metallicities of [Fe/H] = −1.57 ± 0.25 dex for Gaia Sausage/Enceladus, −1.64 ± 0.26 dex for Sequoia, −1.66 ± 0.19 dex for the Helmi streams, and a bimodal distribution in Thamnos with a metal-poor peak at −1.94 ± 0.20 dex representing the accreted population, while showing high contamination by thick disc stars in ED-1 and L-RL3 and suggesting in-situ origins for Shiva and Shakti.

What carries the argument

The CLiMB (CLustering in Multiphase Boundaries) framework, a domain-informed novelty detection clustering method applied to integrals of motion and orbital parameters of RR Lyrae stars to assign substructure membership.

Load-bearing premise

The CLiMB framework correctly assigns RR Lyrae stars to specific accreted substructures with minimal contamination from the thick disk or in-situ populations based on orbital parameters.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic iron-abundance measurements for stars assigned to Gaia Sausage/Enceladus that yield a mean metallicity differing by more than 0.3 dex from -1.57 or show many stars on disk-like orbits would falsify the membership assignments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19858 by A. Garofalo, D. Massari, E. Ceccarelli, G. Clementini, L. Monti, M. De Leo, T. Muraveva, U. Michelucci.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of 4933 RRLs from our sample in the E-Lz and Lz-L⊥ planes, colour-coded by the substructure to which they belong. Grey dots represent RRLs not assigned to any substructure. The top panels show RRLs identified in known substructures by cross-matching with D23, while the bottom panels display RRLs assigned to known substructures during the first phase of the CLiMB algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of 4933 RRLs from our sample in the E–Lz and Lz–L⊥ planes, colour-coded by the substructure to which they were assigned during the second phase of the CLiMB algorithm. Grey dots represent RRLs not assigned to any substructure Article number, page 4 of 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of 3614 RRLs from the reference sample, for which uncertainties in photometric metallicities are less than 0.5 dex, on the Cartesian Y- X (left) and Z-X (right) planes, colour-coded by metallicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of RRLs in the disk-like structure identified with the CLiMB algorithm in the E versus Lz (upper left), Cartesian Z versus X (upper right), and Zmax versus eccentricity (bottom left) planes, colour-coded by metallicity. The black dashed line outlines the region used to select the thin-disk RRLs. Bottom right: Metallicity distributions of RRLs in the thin and thick disks, selected based on thei… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Metallicity distribution of RRLs (light blue bins) in the known substructures of the MW halo. The dashed red line indicates the mean metallicity of RRLs in each substructure. Name of the substructure, number of RRLs with accurate metallicities, and mean metallicities are indicated in the legend. The uncertainties are calculated as the weighted standard deviation of the mean. For substructures containing on… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Metallicity distribution of RRLs in L-RL3 (left panel) and ED-1 (right panel) shown in green bins. For comparison, the metallicity distribution of thick disc RRLs, defined in Section 4.2, is shown in orange bins. Dashed green and orange lines indicate the mean metallicities of the substructures and the thick disc, respectively. disc in IoM space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RRLs in Shiva (green dots) and Shakti (cyan dots) identified by the CLiMB algorithm. Dashed green and blue lines outline the regions used by Malhan & Rix (2024, MR24) to identify members of Shiva and Shakti, respectively. event, but it is now considered an independent accretion event, unrelated to Sequoia (Oria et al. 2022; Ruiz-Lara et al. 2022; Dodd et al. 2023; Ceccarelli et al. 2024). Only one RRL from… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metallicity distribution of RRLs in Shiva (left panel) and Shakti (right panel) shown in green bins. For comparison, the metallicity distribution of thick disc RRLs, defined in Section 4.2, is shown in orange bins. Dashed green and orange lines indicate the mean metallicities of the substructures and the thick disc, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of stars from Bellazzini et al. (2023) used to identify the resonant loci on the characteristic energy versus angular momentum plane (purple dots). Cyan points represent RRLs identified in Shakti by CLiMB, while red dashed lines indicate the resonance loci. Cartesian coordinates of the centre of the NGC 6121 cluster, cal￾culated as described in Section 2, using the coordinates from Baumgardt e… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of RRLs in Shiva (green dots) shown in the energy versus Lz plane (left panel) and the Cartesian Z versus X plane (right panel). Orange open circles indicate RRLs identified as members of NGC 6121, according to the Clement et al. (2001) catalogue. The black cross identifies the centre of NGC 6121, calculated using coordinates from Baumgardt et al. (2019) and the distance from Baumgardt & Vasi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mean photometric metallicity of RRLs versus stellar mass for 14 dwarf galaxies (green circles) and the MW (blue star) from Bellazzini et al. (2025), and for the known dynamical substructures analysed in this work (red squares). The dashed black line shows the best fit to the 14 dwarfs from Bellazzini et al. (2025), while the dark and light grey areas indicate the ±1σ and ±2σ regions, respectively. 1011M⊙ … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Milky Way (MW) stellar halo, containing debris from past accretion events, serves as a fossil record of hierarchical mass assembly. Due to their distinct properties, RR Lyrae stars (RRLs) serve as excellent tracers for identifying and characterising the halo's substructures. We analysed a sample of 4933 RRLs, for which we calculated the integrals of motion and orbital parameters. We applied the domain-informed novelty detection CLustering in Multiphase Boundaries (CLiMB) framework to identify RRL membership in the MW substructures. We analysed the metallicity distributions of RRLs in major accreted system remnants as a snapshot of their chemical evolutionary status during early epochs. We calculated the weighted mean metallicity ([Fe/H]) and the corresponding standard deviation for Gaia Sausage/Enceladus ([Fe/H] = $-1.57 \pm 0.25$ dex), Sequoia ([Fe/H] =$ -1.64\pm0.26$ dex), and the Helmi streams ([Fe/H] = $-1.66\pm0.19$ dex). The metallicity distribution of RRLs in Thamnos was found to be bimodal, with the metal-poor peak likely representing the genuine accreted Thamnos population ([Fe/H] = $-1.94\pm0.20$ dex), in agreement with recent works based on spectroscopic abundances. Our analysis shows that the substructures ED-1 and L-RL3 are highly contaminated by thick disc stars. However, the metal-poor tails in their metallicity distributions may be signatures of remnants from small accreted systems. We also identify over-densities of RRLs in correspondence with the recently reported substructures Shiva and Shakti, which we suggest are of in-situ origin. Finally, we applied the RRL-based mass-metallicity relation of galaxies to test the nature of the identified dynamical substructures.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a sample of 4933 RR Lyrae stars from Gaia DR3, computes integrals of motion and orbital parameters, and applies the CLiMB novelty-detection framework to assign memberships to Milky Way halo substructures. It reports weighted mean metallicities of [Fe/H] = −1.57±0.25 dex for Gaia Sausage/Enceladus, −1.64±0.26 dex for Sequoia, −1.66±0.19 dex for the Helmi streams, and a bimodal distribution for Thamnos with a metal-poor peak at −1.94±0.20 dex, while noting thick-disk contamination in ED-1 and L-RL3, suggesting in-situ origins for Shiva and Shakti, and testing a mass-metallicity relation.

Significance. If the CLiMB assignments prove reliable, the work supplies chemical characterizations of accreted halo substructures using RR Lyrae tracers, which offer precise distances and thus improved orbital constraints; the reported metallicities and the identification of a metal-poor Thamnos component align with spectroscopic studies and could constrain early galaxy assembly models.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and CLiMB application section] The weighted-mean [Fe/H] values and their uncertainties for GSE, Sequoia, Helmi streams, and the Thamnos peaks are load-bearing results that depend directly on the correctness of the CLiMB membership assignments; however, the manuscript provides no purity/completeness metrics, simulation-based validation, or cross-matches against independent membership catalogs, leaving open the possibility that thick-disk or in-situ contamination (explicitly flagged for ED-1 and L-RL3) shifts the reported means at the quoted precision level.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract lists specific [Fe/H] values and standard deviations but does not indicate how photometric or spectroscopic metallicities were obtained or how uncertainties were propagated into the weighted means.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment regarding validation of the CLiMB membership assignments below, and we will incorporate additional checks in the revised version to strengthen the presentation of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and CLiMB application section] The weighted-mean [Fe/H] values and their uncertainties for GSE, Sequoia, Helmi streams, and the Thamnos peaks are load-bearing results that depend directly on the correctness of the CLiMB membership assignments; however, the manuscript provides no purity/completeness metrics, simulation-based validation, or cross-matches against independent membership catalogs, leaving open the possibility that thick-disk or in-situ contamination (explicitly flagged for ED-1 and L-RL3) shifts the reported means at the quoted precision level.

    Authors: We agree that explicit purity/completeness metrics and simulation-based validation for the CLiMB assignments are not presented in the current manuscript, and that this leaves room for discussion of possible contamination effects on the reported metallicities. The CLiMB framework relies on domain-informed boundaries in integrals-of-motion space to reduce contamination, and we already flag thick-disk contamination explicitly for ED-1 and L-RL3 while noting that the metal-poor tails may trace accreted material. For the primary structures (GSE, Sequoia, Helmi streams, and the metal-poor Thamnos peak), the derived means are consistent with independent spectroscopic studies. To address the referee's concern directly, we will add cross-matches against published membership catalogs (e.g., from APOGEE or other spectroscopic surveys) and report overlap fractions in the revised manuscript. We will also include a brief discussion of how residual contamination could affect the quoted uncertainties. We do not have new simulation-based validation to add at this stage, but the cross-matches will provide an empirical check on assignment reliability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct computations from Gaia data and external CLiMB assignments

full rationale

The derivation applies the CLiMB framework (described as domain-informed novelty detection on integrals of motion and orbital parameters) to assign 4933 RRLs to substructures, then computes weighted mean [Fe/H] values and standard deviations from those assignments. No equations, definitions, or steps in the provided text reduce the reported metallicities to fitted inputs or self-referential constructions. CLiMB is invoked as an external method without load-bearing self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems from the same authors. The analysis is self-contained against public Gaia observations and standard orbital calculations, with no renaming of known results or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that RR Lyrae stars are reliable halo tracers and that the CLiMB framework can separate accreted members from disk contamination using phase-space information alone.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption RR Lyrae stars serve as excellent tracers for identifying and characterising the halo's substructures due to their distinct properties.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the basis for the analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5686 in / 1404 out tokens · 85418 ms · 2026-05-15T20:34:18.289628+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

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    S., Belokurov, V ., Myeong, G

    Aguado, D. S., Belokurov, V ., Myeong, G. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, L8

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V . P., & Smith, M. C. 2020, ApJ, 891, L30

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V . P., Beraldo e Silva, L., Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    2024, A&A, 687, L3

    Balbinot, E., Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, L3

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5138

    Baumgardt, H., Hilker, M., Sollima, A., & Bellini, A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5138

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    & Vasiliev, E

    Baumgardt, H. & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    2023, A&A, 674, A194

    Bellazzini, M., Massari, D., De Angeli, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A194

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04925

    Bellazzini, M., Muraveva, T., & Garofalo, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04925

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V ., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    J., et al

    Belokurov, V ., Vasiliev, E., Deason, A. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6200 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V . P., Nidever, D., Amarante, J. A. S., & Garver, B. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 260

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12196

    Bobrick, A., Iorio, G., Belokurov, V ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12196

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1097

    Bono, G., Caputo, F., Castellani, V ., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1097

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    K., et al

    Buder, S., Lind, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2407

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T. C., Huang, Y ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8973

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    J., & Smith, H

    Catelan, M., Pritzl, B. J., & Smith, H. A. 2004, ApJS, 154, 633

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    2024, A&A, 684, A37

    Ceccarelli, E., Massari, D., Mucciarelli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A37

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06332

    Ceccarelli, E., Massari, D., Palla, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06332

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    M., Muzzin, A., Dufton, Q., et al

    Clement, C. M., Muzzin, A., Dufton, Q., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2587

    work page 2001

  23. [23]

    2003, AJ, 125, 1309

    Clementini, G., Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1309

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    2023, A&A, 674, A18

    Clementini, G., Ripepi, V ., Garofalo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A18

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 107

    Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 107

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    F., et al

    Crestani, J., Fabrizio, M., Braga, V . F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 20

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y .-H., Chu, Y .-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Davies, D. L. & Bouldin, D. W. 2009, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, PAMI-1, 224

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Y ., Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N

    Davies, E. Y ., Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N. W., & Dillamore, A. M. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 530 De Leo, M., Massari, D., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.05655 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604 Deepak. 2024, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 45, 25 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M....

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    M., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N. W., & Davies, E. Y . 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3596

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    M., Helmi, A., et al

    Dodd, E., Callingham, T. M., Helmi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L2

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.17353

    Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., Helmi, A., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.17353

    work page arXiv

  33. [33]

    2025b, A&A, 698, A277 D’Orazi, V ., Storm, N., Casey, A

    Dodd, E., Ruiz-Lara, T., Helmi, A., et al. 2025b, A&A, 698, A277 D’Orazi, V ., Storm, N., Casey, A. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 137 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023a, A...

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    K., Chaboyer, B., Marengo, M., et al

    Gilligan, C. K., Chaboyer, B., Marengo, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4719 Gómez, F. A., Helmi, A., Cooper, A. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3602 González-Koda, Y . K., Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20439 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    & de Zeeuw, P

    Helmi, A. & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657

    work page 2000

  40. [40]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53

    work page 1999

  41. [41]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1385

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

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

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194

    work page 1994

  44. [44]

    V ., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M

    Johnston, K. V ., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M. 1996, ApJ, 465, 278

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    & Kovacs, G

    Jurcsik, J. & Kovacs, G. 1996, A&A, 312, 111

    work page 1996

  46. [46]

    A., Morrison, H

    Kepley, A. A., Morrison, H. L., Helmi, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 1579

    work page 2007

  47. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 860, L11

    Koppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, ApJ, 860, L11

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    H., Bos, R

    Koppelman, H. H., Bos, R. O. Y ., & Helmi, A. 2020, A&A, 642, L18

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    2017, AJ, 153, 75

    Kunder, A., Kordopatis, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 75

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    M., et al

    Kunder, A., Pérez-Villegas, A., Rich, R. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 270

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.01515

    Kunder, A., Prudil, Z., Skaggs, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.01515

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    M., Koch, A., et al

    Kunder, A., Rich, R. M., Koch, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, L25

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Lane, J. M. M., Bovy, J., & Mackereth, J. T. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1209

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    C., & Zhang, H.-W

    Li, X.-Y ., Huang, Y ., Liu, G.-C., Beers, T. C., & Zhang, H.-W. 2023, ApJ, 944, 88

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    C., Huang, Y ., Zhang, H

    Liu, G. C., Huang, Y ., Zhang, H. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 68

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    J., Fernley, J

    Longmore, A. J., Fernley, J. A., & Jameson, R. F. 1986, MNRAS, 220, 279 Lövdal, S. S., Ruiz-Lara, T., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A57

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    & Rix, H.-W

    Malhan, K. & Rix, H.-W. 2024, ApJ, 964, 104

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    2019, ApJ, 874, L35

    Matsuno, T., Aoki, W., & Suda, T. 2019, ApJ, 874, L35

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    H., Helmi, A., et al

    Matsuno, T., Koppelman, H. H., Helmi, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A103

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    A., Lane, J

    Monty, S., Venn, K. A., Lane, J. M. M., Lokhorst, D., & Yong, D. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1236

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4687

    Chaves-Velasquez, L. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4687

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Moreno, E., Pichardo, B., & Schuster, W. J. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 705

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    M., Wahl, J

    Morgan, S. M., Wahl, J. N., & Wieckhorst, R. M. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1421

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    2024, A&A, 690, A136

    Mori, A., Di Matteo, P., Salvadori, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A136

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13408

    Mori, A., Di Matteo, P., Salvadori, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13408

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    E., Clementini, G., Sarro, L

    Muraveva, T., Delgado, H. E., Clementini, G., Sarro, L. M., & Garofalo, A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1195

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 2749

    Muraveva, T., Giannetti, A., Clementini, G., Garofalo, A., & Monti, L. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2749

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V ., Sanders, J. L., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, ApJ, 863, L28

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V . 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

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

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    B., et al

    Nepal, S., Chiappini, C., Queiroz, A. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A167

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    2022, ApJ, 936, L3

    Oria, P.-A., Tenachi, W., Ibata, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L3

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T

    Rey, M. P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 995

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    S., et al

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Matsuno, T., Lövdal, S. S., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A58

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    K., Heiger, M., Badenes, C., et al

    Sarbadhicary, S. K., Heiger, M., Badenes, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 140 Skúladóttir, Á., Ernandes, H., Feuillet, D. K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, L21

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    Sollima, A., Cacciari, C., Arkharov, A. A. H., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1583 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., Szyma´nski, M. K., et al. 2014, Acta Astron., 64, 177 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., Wrona, M., et al. 2019, Acta Astron., 69, 321

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.