pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13482 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Substructures of the Milky Way's Retrograde Halo: Evidence for Multiple Accretion Events

Young Kwang Kim , Young Sun Lee , Timothy C. Beers

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky Wayhalo starsretrograde substructuresaccretion eventsmetallicity distribution functionsdwarf galaxy progenitorsorbital dynamicsGaia astrometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Milky Way's retrograde halo was assembled through multiple accretion events from dwarf galaxies rather than a single progenitor.

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

The paper analyzes stars in the Milky Way's halo on low-inclination retrograde orbits using metallicity and orbital data from spectroscopy and Gaia. It locates substructures by finding peaks in metallicity distributions at different apogalactic distances and orbital phases for low and intermediate eccentricity groups. These substructures indicate that the halo built up from several separate dwarf galaxy accretions. One main system provides most of the stars, which follow a linked pattern of metallicity and orbital energy from successive stripping. Other substructures come from additional independent progenitors, some sharing metallicities but separated by dynamics.

Core claim

We identify four substructures in the low-eccentricity retrograde halo with MDF peaks at [Fe/H] ≈ -1.5, -1.9, -2.1, and -2.3, and five in the intermediate-eccentricity range spanning similar metallicities. Combining chemical and dynamical information shows that substructures with identical MDF peaks can form coherent structures or remain distinct, proving that MDF similarity alone cannot uniquely identify progenitors. The retrograde halo was assembled through multiple accretion events rather than a single progenitor, with the dominant contribution from a primary progenitor whose debris traces a coherent metallicity-energy sequence consistent with hierarchical tidal stripping and core bifurc

What carries the argument

Metallicity distribution function peaks mapped in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space, augmented by orbital eccentricity and energy to separate progenitor contributions.

If this is right

  • Multiple distinct progenitors are needed to explain the range of substructures observed in the retrograde halo.
  • The primary progenitor's debris forms a continuous sequence in metallicity versus energy, supporting gradual tidal stripping over time.
  • Some substructures with the same metallicity peak are dynamically linked across eccentricity ranges, while others are not.
  • The [Fe/H] ≈ -1.7 substructures likely arise from two separate accretion events at different times.
  • Dynamical information must supplement chemical data to correctly group stars from the same progenitor.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the same MDF and phase-space analysis to prograde halo stars could show if that component also has a multi-progenitor origin.
  • High-resolution spectroscopy for additional elements would test if the substructures have unique chemical fingerprints supporting separate origins.
  • Comparing these observations with numerical simulations of galaxy mergers would help determine the masses and accretion times of the identified progenitors.
  • The core bifurcation in the main progenitor implies that denser central parts of the dwarf galaxy survived longer before full disruption.

Load-bearing premise

Peaks in the metallicity distribution functions at different apogalactic distances and orbital phases mark debris from separate progenitor galaxies.

What would settle it

Demonstrating that a single dwarf galaxy with a metallicity gradient and multiple pericentric passages could produce all the observed MDF peaks and coherent sequences would challenge the need for multiple accretion events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13482 by Timothy C. Beers, Young Kwang Kim, Young Sun Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) of the identified substructures. The left panels show substructures in the low-e range (0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3), and the right panels exhibit those in the intermediate-e range (0.3 < e ≤ 0.5). In each panel, the left and right columns correspond to the Sta¨ckel and McMillan potentials, respectively. Dotted-black vertical lines indicate the MDF peaks of the identified substruc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of the identified substructures in the Etot–LZ plane. The left panels show substructures in the low-e range (0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3), including low-e LRS 1 and 5 (top), low-e LRS 4 (middle), and low-e LRS 3 (bottom). The right panels show substructures in the intermediate-e range (0.3 < e ≤ 0.5), including intermediate-e LRS 1, 4, and 5 (top), intermediate-e LRS 2 (middle), and intermediate-e LRS 3 (bot… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scatter distributions (left panels) and density contours (right panels) in the Etot–LZ plane for stars belonging to each substructure. The contours represent the 10%, 30%, and 70% cumulative distributions derived from Gaussian kernel density estimates. Substructures with identical MDF peaks but belonging to different eccentricity ranges are shown in the same panels to examine their dynamical association. T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of substructures with identical MDF peaks across different eccentricity ranges, restricted to their common energy regions (see text for details). The leftmost panels show the Vϕ–Vr distributions, while the three right panels present the corresponding density contours in IoM space derived from Gaussian kernel density estimates. The contours represent the 10%, 30%, and 70% cumulative density le… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy-metallicity relation of the identified substructures. Each point represents the MDF peak ([Fe/H]) and the median orbital energy of a given substructure. Circles and triangles denote substructures in the low-e and intermediate-e ranges, respectively, while symbols of the same color indicate groups associated with the same progenitor. The cyan line shows the best-fit relation defined by low-e LRS 3, i… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the progenitors of low-inclination retrograde substructures in the Milky Way (MW) halo, which are remnants of accreted dwarf galaxies on retrograde orbits. Our sample consists of halo stars with low orbital inclinations and eccentricities ($0 \le e \le 0.5$), constructed by combining spectroscopic data with $\it Gaia$ astrometry. We identify substructures using metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space. In the low-eccentricity range ($0 \le e \le 0.3$), we find four substructures with MDF peaks at [Fe/H] $\approx -1.5$, $-1.9$, $-2.1$, and $-2.3$. In the intermediate-eccentricity range ($0.3 < e \le 0.5$), we identify five substructures that span [Fe/H] $\approx -1.5$ to $-2.3$. By combining chemical and dynamical information, we show that substructures with identical MDF peaks in the two eccentricity regions can either form coherent structures or remain dynamically distinct. This shows that MDF similarity alone is insufficient to uniquely identify progenitor systems and must be combined with dynamical information. We find that the retrograde halo was assembled through multiple accretion events rather than a single progenitor. The dominant contribution arises from a primary progenitor whose debris traces a coherent metallicity-energy sequence, consistent with hierarchical tidal stripping and core bifurcation. In addition, we identify independent progenitors that contribute to other substructures. In particular, the components with [Fe/H] $\approx -1.7$ are interpreted as a dual-origin population, likely associated with systems accreted at different epochs. These results highlight the complex, multi-progenitor origin of the retrograde stellar halo of the MW.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the progenitors of low-inclination retrograde substructures in the Milky Way halo by combining spectroscopic data with Gaia astrometry for stars with low orbital inclinations and eccentricities (0 ≤ e ≤ 0.5). Substructures are identified using metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space. In the low-eccentricity bin (0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3), four substructures are found with MDF peaks at [Fe/H] ≈ -1.5, -1.9, -2.1, and -2.3. In the intermediate-eccentricity bin (0.3 < e ≤ 0.5), five substructures spanning [Fe/H] ≈ -1.5 to -2.3 are identified. The authors conclude that the retrograde halo was assembled through multiple accretion events from distinct progenitors, with a dominant primary progenitor exhibiting a coherent metallicity-energy sequence indicative of hierarchical tidal stripping and core bifurcation, and note that dynamical information is required to distinguish progenitors beyond MDF similarity alone.

Significance. If the substructure identifications are statistically robust, this work would provide valuable observational support for the multi-progenitor assembly of the Milky Way's retrograde halo, moving beyond single-event interpretations. The explicit demonstration that MDF peaks alone cannot uniquely identify progenitors, and must be combined with dynamical coherence in phase space, is a useful methodological contribution. The identification of a primary progenitor with a metallicity-energy sequence consistent with tidal stripping adds to constraints on hierarchical accretion models.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] In the results section presenting the low-eccentricity MDFs, the peaks at [Fe/H] ≈ -1.5, -1.9, -2.1, and -2.3 are identified without reported statistical significance tests, such as Gaussian mixture model BIC comparisons, bootstrap resampling of peak positions, or null-hypothesis p-values against a single broad MDF. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the multiple-accretion conclusion depends on these peaks tracing distinct progenitors rather than selection or binning artifacts.
  2. [§3.2] The definition of eccentricity bins (0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3 and 0.3 < e ≤ 0.5) and substructure boundaries in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space (described in the methods) is presented without sensitivity analysis to alternative thresholds or binning schemes. Different choices could merge or split the reported substructures, directly affecting the number of independent progenitors inferred.
  3. [§5.1] No forward modeling against single-progenitor simulations or mock catalogs is included to test whether the observed MDF peak structure and dynamical distinctions in the two eccentricity ranges can arise from incomplete phase mixing of one accretion event under the low-inclination and eccentricity selection. This test is required to rule out the null hypothesis that underpins the multiple-event interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract sentence stating that MDF similarity alone is insufficient would be clearer if it explicitly named the substructures being compared across the low-e and intermediate-e ranges.
  2. [§2] The data section would benefit from quantitative details on sample completeness, metallicity error distributions, and propagation of uncertainties into the orbital parameters used for phase-space binning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have prompted us to enhance the statistical support and robustness checks in our analysis of the retrograde halo substructures. We respond to each major comment below, indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.1] In the results section presenting the low-eccentricity MDFs, the peaks at [Fe/H] ≈ -1.5, -1.9, -2.1, and -2.3 are identified without reported statistical significance tests, such as Gaussian mixture model BIC comparisons, bootstrap resampling of peak positions, or null-hypothesis p-values against a single broad MDF. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the multiple-accretion conclusion depends on these peaks tracing distinct progenitors rather than selection or binning artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that formal statistical tests strengthen the peak identifications. In the revised manuscript, we have added Gaussian mixture model fits using BIC to compare one- versus multi-component models, bootstrap resampling (1000 iterations) to derive uncertainties on the peak metallicities, and a likelihood ratio test against a single broad MDF null hypothesis. These yield p < 0.01 for the low-eccentricity sample, confirming that the four peaks are statistically preferred over a single distribution. The updated §4.1 now includes these results and a supporting figure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] The definition of eccentricity bins (0 ≤ e ≤ 0.3 and 0.3 < e ≤ 0.5) and substructure boundaries in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space (described in the methods) is presented without sensitivity analysis to alternative thresholds or binning schemes. Different choices could merge or split the reported substructures, directly affecting the number of independent progenitors inferred.

    Authors: We have performed the requested sensitivity analysis by re-running the substructure identification with alternative eccentricity splits (at 0.25 and 0.35) and varying apogalactic distance bin widths by ±0.5 kpc. The main MDF peaks and their dynamical distinctions persist across most choices, though some boundary cases show minor merging in the intermediate-eccentricity bin. These tests are now described in revised §3.2 with results summarized in a new appendix figure; the multi-progenitor conclusion remains unchanged. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§5.1] No forward modeling against single-progenitor simulations or mock catalogs is included to test whether the observed MDF peak structure and dynamical distinctions in the two eccentricity ranges can arise from incomplete phase mixing of one accretion event under the low-inclination and eccentricity selection. This test is required to rule out the null hypothesis that underpins the multiple-event interpretation.

    Authors: We recognize that tailored single-progenitor forward modeling would provide a direct test of the null hypothesis. However, this would require custom N-body simulations that fully incorporate our low-inclination/eccentricity selection function, spectroscopic metallicity uncertainties, and Gaia orbital errors—efforts that exceed the scope of the present observational paper. We have added explicit discussion of this limitation in revised §5.1 and the conclusions, while emphasizing that the observed dynamical coherence (distinct phase-space structures despite overlapping MDFs) already disfavors complete mixing from a single event. We recommend such simulations for future work. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: conclusions follow from empirical MDF clustering in phase space

full rationale

The paper identifies substructures via observed peaks in metallicity distribution functions binned by apogalactic distance and orbital eccentricity, then interprets them as multiple progenitors based on chemical-dynamical distinctions. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present that would force the multi-progenitor result by construction. The central claim rests on data patterns rather than any reduction to inputs or prior author work invoked as uniqueness theorem. This is a standard observational analysis with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that MDF peaks in orbital phase space map to distinct accreted progenitors and that dynamical separation can resolve degeneracies when MDFs coincide; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Metallicity distribution function peaks in apogalactic distance-orbital phase space correspond to distinct progenitor dwarf galaxies
    Invoked when identifying the four and five substructures from MDF peaks.
  • domain assumption Dynamical information can distinguish progenitors even when MDF peaks are identical
    Used to conclude that MDF similarity alone is insufficient and multiple events occurred.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5641 in / 1377 out tokens · 48470 ms · 2026-05-10T13:16:55.487061+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42 doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a Allende Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., Beers, T. C., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2070 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2070

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  3. [3]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  4. [4]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv648 2015

  5. [5]

    C., Carollo, D., Ivezi´c, Ž., et al

    Beers, T. C., Carollo, D., Ivezi´c, Ž., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 34 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/34 2012

  6. [6]

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

    Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y ., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 2866 doi: 10.1086/301410 Belokurov V ., & Kravtsov A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 SUBSTRUCTURES IN THERETROGRADEHALO13

    work page doi:10.1086/301410 2000

  7. [7]

    W., Koposov, S

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  8. [8]

    Vertical waves in the solar neighbourhood in Gaia DR2

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  9. [9]

    2025, A&A, 700, 160 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555272

    Berni, L., Spina, L., Magrini, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, 160 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555272

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555272 2025

  10. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 2002, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20431.x

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21757.x 2012

  11. [11]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics (2nd ed

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics (2nd ed

    2008

  12. [12]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 Bogd´ an,´A., Forman, W

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

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

  13. [13]

    R., Bershady, M

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  14. [14]

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

    Borsato, N. W., Martell, S, L., & Simpson, J. D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1370 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3479 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T. C., Huang, Y ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8973 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3674

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3479 2020

  15. [15]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/301409 2000

  16. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 2013

  18. [18]

    J., Belokurov V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NewAR..9901706D 99, 101706

    Deason, A. J., & Belokurov, V . 2024, NewAR, 99, 101706 doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 2024

  19. [19]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451978

    Dodd, E., Ruiz-Lara, T., Helmi, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, 277 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451978

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451978 2025

  20. [20]

    M., Helmi, A., et al

    Dodd, E., Callingham, T. M., Helmi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, 1 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, 1 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Va...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 2023

  21. [21]

    C., et al.\ 2021, , 908, 79

    Gudin, D., Shank, D., Beers, T. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 79 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7ed G´ omez, F. A., & Helmi, A. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2285 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15841.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd7ed 2021

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  23. [23]

    H., et al

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

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

  24. [24]

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02616.x 1999

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629691 2017

  26. [26]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2623 2019

  27. [27]

    S., Kim, Y

    Kang, G., Lee, Y . S., Kim, Y . K., & Beers, T. C., ApJL, 954, L43 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace32b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace32b 2041

  28. [28]

    E., Li, T

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf705 2025

  29. [29]

    K., Lee, Y

    Kim, Y . K., Lee, Y . S., & Beers, T. C. 2025, ApJ, 992, 6 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfd58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfd58 2025

  30. [30]

    K., Lee, Y

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf35e 2021

  31. [31]

    K., Lee, Y

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3660 2019

  32. [32]

    N., Cohen, J

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/102 2013

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936738 2019

  34. [34]

    S., Kim, Y

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb6f5 2023

  35. [35]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y . S., Beers, T. C., Hirai, Y .., et al. 2025, ApJL, 991, L42 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0641

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0641 2025

  36. [36]

    S., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/187 2015

  37. [37]

    S., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/132 2013

  38. [38]

    S., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/90 2011

  39. [39]

    S., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2022 2022

  40. [40]

    S., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2050 2050

  41. [41]

    The astrometric solution

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, 2 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

  42. [42]

    2019, yCat, 5164, 0

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

    2019

  43. [43]

    2015, RAA, 15, 1095 doi: 10.1088/16744527/15/8/002 L¨ ovdal, S

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y .-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, RAA, 15, 1095 doi: 10.1088/16744527/15/8/002 L¨ ovdal, S. S., Ruiz-Lara, T., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, 57 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243060

    work page doi:10.1088/16744527/15/8/002 2015

  44. [44]

    R., Schiavon, R

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

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

  45. [45]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1885 2024

  46. [46]

    A., Sharma, S., et al.\ 2022, , 926, 107

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

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

  47. [47]

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  48. [48]

    C., Evans, N

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1403 2018

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 14 KIM ET AL

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 2020

  50. [50]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad706 2023

  51. [51]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01 2022

  52. [52]

    M., Lee, Y

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5323 2022

  53. [53]

    S., et al

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Matsuno, T., L¨ ovdal, S. S., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, 58 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243061 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243061 2022

  54. [54]

    C., Placco, V

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac409a

  55. [55]

    C., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac680c

  56. [56]

    P., Lee, Y

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/89 2011

  57. [57]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629 doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03597 2005

  58. [58]

    2019a, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2672 2019

  59. [59]

    C., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc1ed 2020

  60. [60]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2705 2016

  61. [61]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/170483 1991

  62. [62]

    SEGUE: A Spectroscopic Survey of 240,000 stars with g=14-20

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4377 2009

  63. [63]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

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

    work page doi:10.1086/301513 2000

  64. [64]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a6 2024

  65. [65]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 2012