pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16727 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

The Metallicity Gradient of Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Prior to Infall Constrained by S-PLUS Observations of its Tidal Stream

Andr\'e R. da Silva, Ant\^onio Kanaan, Claudia Mendes de Oliveira, Eduardo Machado-Pereira, Felipe Almeida-Fernandes, Guilherme F. Bolutavicius, Guilherme Limberg, H\'elio D. Perottoni, Jo\~ao A. S. Amarante, Kar\'in Menendez-Delmestre, Marcelo Borges-Fernandes, Rafael M. Santucci, S\'ilvia Rossi, Thais Santos-Silva, Thiago S. Gon\c{c}alves, Tiago Ribeiro, Vin\'icius Cordeiro, Vinicius M. Placco, William Schoenell

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Sagittarius streammetallicity gradienttidal streamdwarf spheroidal galaxyphotometric metallicityN-body simulationLocal Groupchemodynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations of the Sagittarius stream constrain its progenitor dwarf galaxy to a pre-infall metallicity gradient between -0.38 and -0.24 dex per kiloparsec.

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

The paper maps the metallicity distribution along the Sagittarius tidal stream by combining S-PLUS photometric metallicities with Gaia kinematics and APOGEE spectroscopy. It finds the leading arm is more metal-poor than the trailing arm by 0.15 to 0.20 dex and shows a clear negative gradient, while the trailing arm has separate inner and outer trends. These patterns are matched against N-body simulations that assign different initial radial gradients to the progenitor, yielding a narrow range for the original gradient. The result matters because it reconstructs the internal chemical structure of a dwarf galaxy before it was disrupted by the Milky Way, using data accessible to wide-field surveys.

Core claim

By comparing the observed metallicity patterns in the leading and trailing arms of the Sagittarius stream to predictions from N-body simulations in which metallicities were assigned according to a set of imprinted radial gradients in the progenitor, the paper constrains the original metallicity gradient of the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy to between -0.38 and -0.24 dex kpc^{-1} from photometric data and -0.42 to -0.10 dex kpc^{-1} from APOGEE spectroscopy. These values are consistent with gradients observed in other Local Group dwarf galaxies.

What carries the argument

N-body simulations of the Sagittarius stream with metallicities assigned according to a single radial gradient in the progenitor dwarf galaxy.

If this is right

  • The leading arm remains systematically more metal-poor than the trailing arm by 0.15-0.20 dex.
  • The trailing arm exhibits an inner negative metallicity trend and an outer positive trend.
  • The derived progenitor gradient falls within the range seen in other surviving Local Group dwarf galaxies.
  • Photometric surveys like S-PLUS can reconstruct the chemodynamical history of fully disrupted satellites.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the same simulation-matching approach to additional tidal streams could test whether most disrupted dwarfs shared similar pre-infall gradients.
  • Differences between the photometric and spectroscopic gradient ranges could be used to quantify calibration offsets between the two metallicity estimators.
  • Future simulations that allow the initial gradient to vary with radius or time could check whether a constant single-slope model is strictly required.

Load-bearing premise

The N-body simulation with a single radial metallicity gradient accurately reproduces the observed stream structure and that photometric metallicities have no large systematic offsets from the true iron abundance distribution.

What would settle it

A complete spectroscopic map of metallicities along both arms of the stream that produces a best-fit progenitor gradient outside the reported range or fails to recover the observed leading-trailing arm difference would falsify the constraint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16727 by Andr\'e R. da Silva, Ant\^onio Kanaan, Claudia Mendes de Oliveira, Eduardo Machado-Pereira, Felipe Almeida-Fernandes, Guilherme F. Bolutavicius, Guilherme Limberg, H\'elio D. Perottoni, Jo\~ao A. S. Amarante, Kar\'in Menendez-Delmestre, Marcelo Borges-Fernandes, Rafael M. Santucci, S\'ilvia Rossi, Thais Santos-Silva, Thiago S. Gon\c{c}alves, Tiago Ribeiro, Vin\'icius Cordeiro, Vinicius M. Placco, William Schoenell.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a) Aitoff projection in Equatorial coordinates showing the coverage of the S-PLUS survey (DR4) indicated by the blue region. b) spatial distribution of the R+22 sample (yellow) and the crossmatch between the S-PLUS DR4 data and the R+22 sample (blue). c) Distribution of stars in the Sgr stream coordinate system, where we define the trailing arm as the region 20◦ < ΛSgr ≤ 180◦ (orange), the leading arm as t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) of pho￾tometrically selected Sagittarius stream members, based on the ANN (top) and RF (bottom) metallicity estimates. Each panel includes a cumulative distribution function (CDF, up￾per subpanel) and a kernel density estimate (KDE, lower subpanel) for stars in the leading (blue) and trailing (or￾ange) arms. The CDF plot also displays the p-value calcu￾lated from t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Metallicity distribution as a function of the coordinate ΛSGR for stars in the Sagittarius stream, considering photometric metallicities derived via ANN (top panel) and RF (middle panel) methods from S-PLUS DR4, and spectroscopic metallicities from APOGEE DR16 (bottom panel) for the C. R. Hayes et al. (2020) Sgr members. The trailing arm (ΛSGR > 20◦ ) is shown in red, the leading arm (ΛSGR < −20◦ ) in blue… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the simulated metallicity gradient along the Sgr stream. Top-left: Initial spatial distribution of particles in the progenitor, color-coded by imprinted metallicity. Top-right: Present-day sky-projected positions of the same particles after tidal disruption, showing the resulting metallicity distribution. Shaded regions mark the core (yellow), trailing arm (red), and leading arm (blue). Bot… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated present-day metallicity gradients along the leading arm of the Sagittarius stream (x-axis) as a function of the simulated progenitor radial gradient (y-axis), for the estimations from S-PLUS ANN (top-left), S-PLUS RF (bottom-left), restricted Hayes+20 sample (top-right), and full Hayes+20 sample (bottom-right). The restricted Hayes sample covers the same region as S-PLUS, while the full sample sp… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial metallicity gradients of Local Group dwarf galaxies as a function of their central metallicity. Symbol size and color reflect the total stellar mass from A. W. McConnachie (2012). The green shaded region indicates the gradient interval inferred for the Sgr progenitor based on photometric data. The vertical green line marks its central metallicity from C. R. Hayes et al. (2020). The red shaded area c… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between S-PLUS photometric metallicities and APOGEE DR17 spectroscopic metallicities for the ANN (left) and RF (right) samples. The full sample is shown as dots, while the stars belonging to our Sgr sample are shown as circles. The colored markers correspond to the stars with reliable parameters (g − i) < 1.7, while colder stars are shown as grey/black markers. A. VALIDATION OF PHOTOMETRIC METAL… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the metallicity distribution along the Sagittarius (Sgr) stream using photometric metallicities from S-PLUS DR4, combined with Gaia DR3 kinematics and APOGEE DR17 spectroscopy. Our analysis confirms that the leading arm (Galactic latitude $b > 0$) is systematically more metal-poor than the trailing arm ($b < 0$) by 0.15--0.20 dex, and reveals a clear negative metallicity gradient along the leading arm. The trailing arm shows no significant overall gradient but displays distinct inner (negative) and outer (positive) trends. These features are consistently recovered across different photometric estimators and agree with spectroscopic data. We compare these results with predictions from an $N$-body simulation, in which metallicities were assigned according to a set of imprinted radial gradients in the progenitor. We were able to constrain the original metallicity gradient of the Sgr progenitor to be between $-0.38$ and $-0.24$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ based on photometric data, and $-0.42$ to $-0.10$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ from APOGEE. These values are consistent with gradients observed in other Local Group dwarf galaxies. Our findings demonstrate that metallicity-sensitive photometric surveys such as S-PLUS are powerful tools for reconstructing the chemodynamical evolution of disrupted satellites.

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 manuscript analyzes the metallicity distribution along the Sagittarius tidal stream using S-PLUS DR4 photometric metallicities, Gaia DR3 kinematics, and APOGEE DR17 spectroscopy. It reports that the leading arm is more metal-poor than the trailing arm by 0.15-0.20 dex, identifies a negative metallicity gradient along the leading arm (with segmented trends in the trailing arm), and compares these trends to N-body simulations in which metallicities are assigned according to radial gradients in the progenitor. This comparison is used to constrain the pre-infall metallicity gradient of the Sgr progenitor to -0.38 to -0.24 dex kpc^{-1} (photometric) and -0.42 to -0.10 dex kpc^{-1} (APOGEE).

Significance. If the N-body simulation faithfully reproduces the stream's spatial and kinematic structure and photometric [Fe/H] estimates carry no large position-dependent systematics, the work delivers a useful empirical constraint on the internal chemodynamical structure of the Sgr progenitor before infall. The result is consistent with gradients measured in other Local Group dwarfs and illustrates the value of photometric surveys for stream archaeology. The observational findings gain credibility from their recovery across independent photometric estimators and agreement with APOGEE spectroscopy.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5 (N-body comparison)] §5 (N-body comparison): The reported gradient range is obtained by varying the input progenitor radial gradient until the simulated metallicity distribution along the stream matches the observed one. This constitutes a constrained fit rather than an a priori prediction; the manuscript must supply quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics (e.g., KS-test p-values or reduced chi-squared) for the accepted models and demonstrate how the inferred interval changes when other simulation parameters (progenitor mass, orbit, or disruption time) are varied.
  2. [§4 (observational results)] §4 (observational results): No star-by-star comparison between S-PLUS photometric [Fe/H] and APOGEE spectroscopic [Fe/H] is shown for the same stream members. Such a cross-check is required to quantify any zero-point offsets or position-dependent biases that could arise from age, distance, or population gradients along the stream and thereby affect the derived progenitor gradient.
  3. [§3 (data selection)] §3 (data selection): The manuscript provides insufficient detail on the precise selection cuts, distance estimates, and error propagation used when fitting the metallicity gradients. Without these, it is difficult to assess whether the reported leading-arm gradient and arm-to-arm offset are robust to reasonable variations in the analysis pipeline.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The abstract and §5 should explicitly list the discrete gradient values tested in the simulations and the precise matching criterion employed.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for metallicity-versus-position plots should state the bin size, the number of stars per bin, and whether the displayed uncertainties are statistical only or include systematic contributions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive report. The comments have helped us strengthen the manuscript by adding quantitative statistics, direct cross-validation, and expanded methodological details. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §5 (N-body comparison): The reported gradient range is obtained by varying the input progenitor radial gradient until the simulated metallicity distribution along the stream matches the observed one. This constitutes a constrained fit rather than an a priori prediction; the manuscript must supply quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics (e.g., KS-test p-values or reduced chi-squared) for the accepted models and demonstrate how the inferred interval changes when other simulation parameters (progenitor mass, orbit, or disruption time) are varied.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics strengthen the comparison. We have added Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p-values (all >0.05) and reduced chi-squared values for the models whose gradients fall within the reported range, confirming acceptable matches to the observed metallicity distributions in both arms. Regarding variation of other simulation parameters, the adopted N-body model is taken from a published simulation tuned to reproduce the observed stream positions and kinematics; re-running the full suite with altered mass, orbit, or disruption time lies outside the scope of the present work, which focuses on metallicity constraints given a fixed dynamical framework. We have added a brief discussion noting this conditional nature of the inferred gradient. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §4 (observational results): No star-by-star comparison between S-PLUS photometric [Fe/H] and APOGEE spectroscopic [Fe/H] is shown for the same stream members. Such a cross-check is required to quantify any zero-point offsets or position-dependent biases that could arise from age, distance, or population gradients along the stream and thereby affect the derived progenitor gradient.

    Authors: We have added a new figure (and accompanying text in §4) presenting the direct star-by-star comparison for the 87 stream members with both S-PLUS photometry and APOGEE spectroscopy. The comparison yields a mean offset of +0.04 dex (photometric minus spectroscopic) with a scatter of 0.18 dex and no statistically significant trends with position along the stream or with distance. This supports that position-dependent biases are not driving the reported arm-to-arm offset or leading-arm gradient. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §3 (data selection): The manuscript provides insufficient detail on the precise selection cuts, distance estimates, and error propagation used when fitting the metallicity gradients. Without these, it is difficult to assess whether the reported leading-arm gradient and arm-to-arm offset are robust to reasonable variations in the analysis pipeline.

    Authors: We have substantially expanded §3 to include the exact selection criteria (proper-motion ellipse, parallax cut, photometric quality flags, and radial-velocity consistency with the stream), the distance estimation procedure (combination of Gaia DR3 parallaxes for nearby stars and photometric distances calibrated on the stream), and the error propagation (bootstrap resampling of the linear fits with 1000 iterations). We also added a robustness test subsection showing that the leading-arm gradient and 0.15–0.20 dex arm offset remain consistent within 1σ when the selection cuts are varied by ±20%. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the claimed constraint on Sgr progenitor gradient

full rationale

The paper's central result is obtained by forward-modeling: observed stream metallicity trends (leading-arm gradient and arm-to-arm offset) are compared against N-body runs in which a single radial gradient is imprinted as an input parameter, and the range of input values that reproduce the data is reported as the constraint. This is standard parameter inference via simulation, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The abstract and described method explicitly frame the simulation outputs as 'predictions' for different imprinted gradients and the gradient range as a 'constraint' derived from the match; no self-definitional loop, fitted quantity renamed as independent prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is present. The result remains dependent on the external validity of the N-body model and photometric zero-points, but those are stated assumptions rather than circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitting one free parameter (the progenitor gradient) inside an N-body model whose dynamical setup and metallicity assignment rule are taken as given.

free parameters (1)
  • progenitor radial metallicity gradient = -0.38 to -0.24 dex kpc^{-1} (photometric); -0.42 to -0.10 dex kpc^{-1} (APOGEE)
    The value is varied until the simulated stream reproduces the observed photometric and spectroscopic metallicity trends.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Sagittarius progenitor possessed a simple radial metallicity gradient that was preserved during tidal disruption.
    Invoked when metallicities are assigned to particles in the N-body simulation according to their initial radius.
  • domain assumption Photometric metallicities derived from S-PLUS filters are unbiased tracers of the true iron abundance distribution along the stream.
    Used to convert observed colors into [Fe/H] values that are then compared to the simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5669 in / 1404 out tokens · 44820 ms · 2026-05-10T07:09:58.073906+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

88 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  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]

    , keywords =

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  3. [3]

    R., et al

    Almeida-Fernandes, F., SamPedro, L., Herpich, F. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac284

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac284 2022

  4. [4]

    M., Rocha-Pinto, H

    Almeida-Fernandes, F., Placco, V. M., Rocha-Pinto, H. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1561

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1561 2023

  5. [5]

    Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d

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

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e

    Andrae, R., Rix, H.-W., & Chandra, V. 2023, ApJS, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 2023

  7. [7]

    2020, A&A, 635, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937145 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Antoja, T., Ramos, P., Mateu, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937145 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L.,

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937145 2020

  8. [8]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Earl, N., & et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  9. [9]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  10. [10]

    O., Chiti, A., Limberg, G., et al

    Barbosa, F. O., Chiti, A., Limberg, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03593, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03593

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03593 2025

  11. [11]

    J., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F

    Bellazzini, M., Newberg, H. J., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F. R., & Monaco, L. 2006, A&A, 457, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066002

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066002 2006

  12. [12]

    A., Chapman, S

    Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R. A., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1147, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1147 2008

  13. [13]

    L., Majewski, S

    Carlin, J. L., Majewski, S. R., Casetti-Dinescu, D. I., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/25 2012

  14. [14]

    L., Sheffield, A

    Carlin, J. L., Sheffield, A. A., Cunha, K., & Smith, V. V. 2018, ApJL, 859, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac3d8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac3d8 2018

  15. [15]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014924

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014924 2010

  16. [16]

    J., Moles, M., Crist´ obal-Hornillos, D., et al

    Cenarro, A. J., Moles, M., Crist´ obal-Hornillos, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833036 2019

  17. [17]

    R., et al

    Chou, M.-Y., Cunha, K., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1290, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1290

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1290 2010

  18. [18]

    R., Cunha, K., et al

    Chou, M.-Y., Majewski, S. R., Cunha, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 346, doi: 10.1086/522483 Cordeiro da Silva, M. V. E. 2023, Master’s thesis, Observat´ orio Nacional

    work page doi:10.1086/522483 2007

  19. [19]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 D´ enes, H., Kilborn, V

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

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

  20. [20]

    C., Hunt, J

    Cunningham, E. C., Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187b De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327

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

  21. [21]

    Dierickx, M. I. P., & Loeb, A. 2017, ApJ, 836, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/92

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/92 2017

  22. [22]

    M., & Gallagher, J

    Faber, S. M., & Gallagher, J. S. 1979, ARA&A, 17, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.17.090179.001031

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.17.090179.001031 1979

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

    Fardal, M. A., van der Marel, R. P., Law, D. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3428 Ferreira Lopes, C. E., Guti´ errez-Soto, L. A., Ferreira

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3428 2019

  24. [24]

    S., et al

    Alberice, V. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A306, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451491 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451491 2025

  25. [25]

    A., Daflon, S., Placco, V

    Galarza, C. A., Daflon, S., Placco, V. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141717

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141717 2022

  26. [26]

    Gibbons, S. L. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2328 G´ omez, F. A., Besla, G., Carpintero, D. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2328 2017

  27. [27]

    Harris, K

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

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

  28. [28]

    R., Lian, J., et al

    Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., Lian, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f9 2021

  29. [29]

    R., Majewski, S

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

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

  30. [30]

    Helmi, A., & White, S. D. M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 529, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04238.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04238.x 2001

  31. [31]

    Martin and Nick Kaiser and Klaus Hodapp and Kenneth C

    Hernitschek, N., Sesar, B., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa960c 2017

  32. [32]

    R., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Oliveira Schwarz, G

    Herpich, F. R., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Oliveira Schwarz, G. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A249, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449725

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449725 2024

  33. [33]

    C., Xiao, K., et al

    Huang, Y., Beers, T. C., Xiao, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b94 2024

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  35. [35]

    A., Keller, S., Zucker, D

    Hyde, E. A., Keller, S., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/189

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/189 2015

  36. [36]

    2020, ApJL, 891, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab77c7

    Ibata, R., Bellazzini, M., Thomas, G., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab77c7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab77c7 2020

  37. [37]

    F., & Stolte, A

    Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G. F., & Stolte, A. 2001, ApJL, 547, L133, doi: 10.1086/318894

    work page doi:10.1086/318894 2001

  38. [38]

    A., Gilmore G., Irwin M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    work page doi:10.1038/370194a0 1994

  39. [39]

    D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R

    Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab08 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab08 2020

  40. [40]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.1.201

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/264.1.201 1993

  41. [41]

    C., Yong, D., & Da Costa, G

    Keller, S. C., Yong, D., & Da Costa, G. S. 2010, ApJ, 720, 940, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/940

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/940 2010

  42. [42]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    Garavito-Camargo, N., & Besla, G. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1574 2018

  43. [43]

    R., Johnston, K

    Law, D. R., Johnston, K. V., & Majewski, S. R. 2005, ApJ, 619, 807, doi: 10.1086/426779

    work page doi:10.1086/426779 2005

  44. [44]

    R., & Majewski, S

    Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2010, ApJ, 714, 229, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/229

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/229 2010

  45. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ef

    Li, J., Liu, C., Xue, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ef 2019

  46. [46]

    C., Zhong, J., et al

    Li, J., Smith, M. C., Zhong, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/59

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/59 2016

  47. [47]

    O., P \'e rez-Villegas A., Rossi S., Perottoni H

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159 17

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

  48. [48]

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

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

  49. [49]

    Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082, doi: 10.1086/379504

    work page doi:10.1086/379504 2003

  50. [50]

    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

  51. [51]

    W., & Morrison, H

    Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., & Morrison, H. L. 1998, ApJL, 508, L55, doi: 10.1086/311720

    work page doi:10.1086/311720 1998

  52. [52]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4 2012

  53. [53]

    D ata S tructures for S tatistical C omputing in P ython

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1985 Met Office. 2010 - 2015, Cartopy: a cartographic Python library with a Matplotlib interface, Exeter, Devon. https://cartopy.readthedocs.io

    work page doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  54. [54]

    2024, A&A, 691, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451059

    Molina-Jorquera, F., Damke, G., Fern´ andez-Olivares, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451059

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451059 2024

  55. [55]

    2007, A&A, 464, 201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066228

    Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066228

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066228 2007

  56. [56]

    2005, A&A, 441, 141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053333

    Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2005, A&A, 441, 141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053333 2005

  57. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.20165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20165

    Muraveva, T., Bellazzini, M., Garofalo, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.20165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20165

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.20165 2025

  58. [58]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.07424 2024

  59. [59]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  60. [60]

    D., Placco, V

    Perottoni, H. D., Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348801

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348801 2024

  61. [61]

    M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Arentsen, A., et al

    Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Arentsen, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7ab0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7ab0 2022

  62. [62]

    M., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Roederer, I. U., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 912, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf93d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf93d 2021

  63. [63]

    M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E

    Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad077e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad077e 2023

  64. [64]

    2011, Nature, 477, 301, doi: 10.1038/nature10417

    Chakrabarti, S. 2011, Nature, 477, 301, doi: 10.1038/nature10417

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10417 2011

  65. [65]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1230

    Quispe-Huaynasi, F., Roig, F., Daflon, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1230

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1230 2023

  66. [66]

    M., et al

    Quispe-Huaynasi, F., Roig, F., Placco, V. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3610 2024

  67. [67]

    2020, A&A, 638, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037819

    Ramos, P., Mateu, C., Antoja, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037819

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037819 2020

  68. [68]

    2022, A&A, 666, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142830

    Ramos, P., Antoja, T., Yuan, Z., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142830 2022

  69. [69]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  70. [70]

    B., Chen, Y

    Shi, W. B., Chen, Y. Q., Carrell, K., & Zhao, G. 2012, ApJ, 751, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/130 2012

  71. [71]

    H., Dotter, A., Majewski, S

    Siegel, M. H., Dotter, A., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2007, ApJL, 667, L57, doi: 10.1086/522003

    work page doi:10.1086/522003 2007

  72. [72]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453 2019

  73. [73]

    and White, Simon D

    Springel, V., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 2006, Nature, 440, 1137, doi: 10.1038/nature04805

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04805 2006

  74. [74]

    2022, A&A, 665, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243508

    Taibi, S., Battaglia, G., Leaman, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243508

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243508 2022

  75. [75]

    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

  76. [76]

    & Hut, P

    Vasiliev, E., & Baumgardt, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1475

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1475 2021

  77. [77]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 4162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2114

    Vasiliev, E., & Belokurov, V. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2114

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2114 2020

  78. [78]

    , keywords =

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3673 2021

  79. [79]

    2013, ApJL, 773, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L4 Verˇ siˇ c, T., Rejkuba, M., Arnaboldi, M., et al

    Vera-Ciro, C., & Helmi, A. 2013, ApJL, 773, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L4

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/l4 2013

  80. [80]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., & et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

Showing first 80 references.