arxiv: 2604.21646 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

An Old, Low-mass, Metal-poor Hypervelocity Star Candidate Consistent with a Galactic Center Origin

Guoyang Chen, Haozhu Fu, Huawei Zhang, Qikang Feng, Shunhong Deng, Yang Huang, Yongkang Sun

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

keywords hypervelocity starsgalactic centerHills mechanismorbit integrationmetal-poor starsold stellar populationsDESI spectroscopyGaia astrometry

0 comments

The pith

An old low-mass metal-poor star traces its path back to the galactic center.

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

The paper identifies DESI-HVS1 as a hypervelocity star candidate that is old, low-mass, and metal-poor, with an age of about 14 billion years and a mass of 0.8 solar masses. Backward integration of its orbit using spectroscopic and astrometric data places its closest approach to the galactic center at roughly 0.4 kiloparsecs about 13 million years ago, at a speed exceeding 680 km/s. The reconstructed trajectory shows a clear turning point near the center and a single midplane crossing, which the authors interpret as evidence for ejection by the Hills mechanism. This finding indicates that hypervelocity stars are not limited to young massive objects and that earlier samples were shaped by detection biases favoring brighter, hotter stars.

Core claim

DESI-HVS1 is an F-type star with mass 0.8 solar masses, age approximately 14.1 Gyr, and metallicity [Fe/H] = -1.6. Located at 3.77 kpc, it reaches a Galactocentric velocity of 523 km/s, yielding an unbound probability near 50 percent. Backward orbit integrations reveal a closest galactic-center approach of 0.40 kpc, a velocity there of 682 km/s, and a flight time of 12.9 Myr. The orbit exhibits a perigalactic turning point and only one midplane crossing, properties most consistent with ejection from the galactic center via the Hills mechanism.

What carries the argument

Backward orbit integration that reconstructs the star's trajectory from current position and velocity, revealing a close perigalactic passage to the galactic center.

If this is right

Hypervelocity stars include old low-mass metal-poor members
The Hills mechanism can eject stars from the galactic center across a wide mass and age range
The apparent dominance of young massive hypervelocity stars arises from observational selection effects
The galactic center has been producing unbound stars from its older stellar population for billions of years

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Targeted searches in large spectroscopic surveys could uncover additional old hypervelocity star candidates
Confirmation would allow mapping of the older stellar population near the galactic center black hole
The result suggests the black hole has driven ejections over long timescales
High-precision follow-up astrometry could distinguish the Hills mechanism from other ejection scenarios

Load-bearing premise

The Milky Way gravitational potential model, together with the measured distance and velocity, correctly predicts the star's past trajectory over the last 13 million years.

What would settle it

A refined distance or velocity measurement that either keeps the star bound or moves its closest approach distance well beyond 1 kpc from the galactic center.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21646 by Guoyang Chen, Haozhu Fu, Huawei Zhang, Qikang Feng, Shunhong Deng, Yang Huang, Yongkang Sun.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The observed spectrum (black) is compared with a synthetic spectrum (red) from the G¨ottingen spectral library (Husser et al. 2013), computed with Teff = 6200 K, log g = 4.5, [Fe/H] = −1.5, and [α/Fe] = 0.40. Insets show enlarged views of the Ca ii K λ3933 and H λ3968, the Mg i b triplet λλ5167, 5173, 5184, and the Ca ii triplet λλ8498, 8542, 8662 lines. RVSpecFit pipeline classifies DESI-HVS1 as an F-typ… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Location and direction of motion of DESI-HVS1 in the Galaxy. The three panels show different projections in Galactic Cartesian coordinates. The positions of the Sun, the GC, and the Solar circle are indicated by the orange star, red cross, and gray circle, respectively. The blue line indicates the path DESI-HVS1 will travel over the next 4 Myr. The arrows show the velocity directions in each projection. 6.… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Galactocentric total velocity of DESI-HVS1 compared with escape velocity curves. The black dashed line shows observed Galactic escape velocity curve from Williams et al. (2017). The green, red, and purple dashed lines correspond to predictions from the Galactic potential models Bovy (2015), Cautun et al. (2020), and Wu et al. (2025), respectively. The blue star shows the result obtained using the parall… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Position of DESI-HVS1 on the (g −i)0 versus Mr diagram compared with theoretical stellar isochrones. The black point with error bars indicates the measured photometric location of DESI-HVS1. The background curves show PARSEC isochrones spanning ages from 5 to 15 Gyr in 1 Gyr increments, arranged from left to right in order of increasing age. The color scale denotes stellar mass, as illustrated by the colo… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The contours show the intersection regions of the backward-integrated orbits with the Galactic disk midplane in the X–Y plane for the first crossing. The gray region is derived using the parallax-based distance, while the colored region is derived using the improved distance from isochrone fitting constrained by photometric and spectroscopic measurements. The dashed and black solid lines mark the 16th, 5… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The 1000 backward-integrated orbits of DESI-HVS1 in Galactocentric cylindrical coordinates (RGC, ZGC), computed under three different Galactic potential models and sampled from the uncertainties in its position and velocity. The black dashed curve shows the fiducial orbit. The blue, red, and green points represent the current position, the perigalacticon, and the position after 50 Myr of backward orbital i… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We report the discovery of DESI-HVS1, a hypervelocity star (HVS) candidate identified from DESI DR1 spectroscopy and Gaia DR3 astrometry. DESI-HVS1 is an old, low-mass, metal-poor F-type star with a mass of $0.8\,M_\odot$, an age of $\sim14.1$~Gyr, and $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=-1.6$. It is located at a heliocentric distance of $3.77^{+0.39}_{-0.36}$~kpc and has a Galactocentric total velocity of $523^{+46}_{-47}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, marginally exceeding the local escape speed, corresponding to an unbound probability of $P_{\rm ub} \sim 50\%$. Backward orbit integrations show that DESI-HVS1 had a closest approach to the Galactic center (GC) of $0.40^{+0.23}_{-0.11}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, with a velocity of $682^{+22}_{-35}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and a flight time of $12.89^{+0.92}_{-0.74}\,\mathrm{Myr}$. The reconstructed orbit exhibits a clear perigalactic turning point and only a single crossing of the Galactic midplane ($P_{\rm cross} > 0.95$). These properties suggest that DESI-HVS1 is most naturally explained by the Hills mechanism, although alternative scenarios cannot be entirely ruled out. Its discovery provides the first strong evidence for an old, low-mass HVS candidate consistent with a GC origin, indicating that the apparent dominance of young, massive GC-origin HVSs is likely a consequence of observational selection effects.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This reports the first old low-mass metal-poor HVS candidate with a reconstructed GC-origin orbit, but the marginal unbound probability and dependence on the Galactic potential make the claim sensitive to inputs.

read the letter

The paper's main point is that DESI-HVS1 is an old (~14 Gyr), low-mass (0.8 Msun), metal-poor ([Fe/H]=-1.6) star at 3.77 kpc with a total Galactocentric speed of 523 km/s that backward integration ties to a 0.4 kpc perigalacticon and single midplane crossing. That combination has not been seen before in HVS candidates, which have mostly been young and massive, so it directly addresses selection bias in the known population and suggests the Hills mechanism can produce older ejections too. The data combination of DESI DR1 spectroscopy plus Gaia DR3 astrometry is straightforward and the reported uncertainties on distance, velocity, and orbit parameters are given explicitly. The orbit shows a clear turning point and high P_cross, which is the kind of kinematic signature that fits a GC ejection. The soft spots are real but not fatal. The unbound probability sits at only ~50%, so the star is not clearly escaping, and the closest-approach distance and flight time shift with the adopted potential, the ~10% distance error, and the ~9% velocity error. Small changes in any of those can move the perigalacticon outside the inner 0.5 kpc or alter the timing enough to weaken the GC link. The abstract does not detail the exact potential parameters or full error budget, so those need checking in the methods. Alternative origins are mentioned but not quantified. This is worth sending to a serious referee because it adds a new demographic to the HVS sample and the core data are public. A reader working on galactic dynamics or inner-Milky-Way kinematics would get value from the orbit reconstruction and the selection-bias discussion, even if revisions are needed on the potential sensitivity. I would bring it to a reading group for the kinematics part and would not cite it yet without seeing the full error analysis.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of DESI-HVS1, an old (~14.1 Gyr), low-mass (0.8 M_⊙), metal-poor ([Fe/H]=−1.6) F-type star from DESI DR1 spectroscopy and Gaia DR3 astrometry. At a heliocentric distance of 3.77^{+0.39}_{-0.36} kpc with Galactocentric speed 523^{+46}_{-47} km s^{-1}, backward integrations yield a closest GC approach of 0.40^{+0.23}_{-0.11} kpc at 682 km s^{-1} after 12.89 Myr, a single midplane crossing (P_cross > 0.95), and marginal unbound probability P_ub ~50%. The authors interpret this as the first strong evidence for an old, low-mass HVS ejected via the Hills mechanism, attributing the apparent dominance of young massive GC HVSs to selection effects.

Significance. If the kinematic reconstruction is robust, the result supplies the first observational link between an old, low-mass star and a GC origin, directly testing whether the Hills mechanism operates across the full stellar mass range near Sgr A*. This would tighten constraints on the stellar cusp population and on the ejection rate of low-mass stars, with implications for future searches in deeper surveys.

major comments (3)

[Orbit integration] § on orbit integration (inferred from abstract kinematics): the adopted Galactic potential is fixed without reported variation of its parameters (e.g., halo scale radius or disk mass); because the reported perigalacticon of 0.40 kpc lies near the boundary where small potential changes shift the distribution outside the inner 0.5 kpc, a Monte-Carlo sensitivity test to plausible potential variants is required to support the GC-origin claim.
[Kinematic results] Kinematic results paragraph: the total velocity uncertainty produces only P_ub ~50%; the manuscript must present the full joint posterior (distance, proper motions, radial velocity) and the resulting distribution of closest-approach distances to demonstrate that a majority of realizations remain consistent with a GC ejection rather than a disk or halo origin.
[Discussion] Discussion section: alternative ejection channels (supernova kicks, cluster three-body encounters) are stated to be possible but receive no quantitative comparison of expected velocity or flight-time distributions for a 0.8 M_⊙ star; without such estimates the preference for the Hills mechanism remains qualitative.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'first strong evidence' is not proportionate to the marginal P_ub ~50% and the dependence on a single potential model; rephrase to 'candidate consistent with' to match the data strength.
[Methods] Notation: the asymmetric uncertainties on distance and velocity are reported but the covariance matrix or correlation coefficients between Gaia astrometry and DESI radial velocity are not stated; add a brief note on how these were combined.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped identify areas where the robustness of our kinematic analysis can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Orbit integration] § on orbit integration (inferred from abstract kinematics): the adopted Galactic potential is fixed without reported variation of its parameters (e.g., halo scale radius or disk mass); because the reported perigalacticon of 0.40 kpc lies near the boundary where small potential changes shift the distribution outside the inner 0.5 kpc, a Monte-Carlo sensitivity test to plausible potential variants is required to support the GC-origin claim.

Authors: We agree that a sensitivity analysis to the Galactic potential is necessary given the proximity of the perigalacticon to the inner Galaxy. In the revised manuscript we will add a Monte Carlo test in which we vary the halo scale radius and disk mass within their current observational uncertainties (±15–20%). The resulting distribution of closest-approach distances will be shown; preliminary checks indicate that the majority of realizations remain within 1 kpc of the GC, supporting the Hills-mechanism interpretation. revision: yes
Referee: [Kinematic results] Kinematic results paragraph: the total velocity uncertainty produces only P_ub ~50%; the manuscript must present the full joint posterior (distance, proper motions, radial velocity) and the resulting distribution of closest-approach distances to demonstrate that a majority of realizations remain consistent with a GC ejection rather than a disk or halo origin.

Authors: We will include the full joint posterior (distance, proper motions, radial velocity) and the derived histogram of closest-approach distances as a new supplementary figure. This will explicitly show the fraction of realizations with perigalacticon <1 kpc, allowing readers to assess the robustness of the GC-origin claim independently of the marginal P_ub value. revision: yes
Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section: alternative ejection channels (supernova kicks, cluster three-body encounters) are stated to be possible but receive no quantitative comparison of expected velocity or flight-time distributions for a 0.8 M_⊙ star; without such estimates the preference for the Hills mechanism remains qualitative.

Authors: We will expand the Discussion to include quantitative estimates drawn from the literature. For supernova kicks we adopt the velocity distribution for 0.8 M_⊙ stars from recent binary-evolution models (typical v ~ 150–350 km s^{-1}, flight times >50 Myr). For cluster three-body encounters we use the ejection-velocity scaling of Perets & Šubr (2012) adjusted for low-mass stars. These will be compared directly to the observed 523 km s^{-1} and 13 Myr flight time, showing that the Hills channel remains the most consistent while acknowledging residual overlap. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational discovery and standard kinematic integration are self-contained

full rationale

The paper reports the discovery of DESI-HVS1 from DESI DR1 spectroscopy and Gaia DR3 astrometry, deriving stellar parameters (mass, age, metallicity, distance, velocity) via standard methods. Backward orbit integrations using an adopted Galactic potential then compute closest approach, velocity at perigalacticon, flight time, and midplane crossings as direct numerical outputs from those inputs. No equation or claim reduces a 'prediction' to a fitted parameter defined by the same data, invokes a self-citation for a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, or renames a known result as new unification. The consistency with a GC origin follows from the computed orbit properties without circular redefinition or smuggling of ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the accuracy of the Galactic potential used for orbit integration and on the derived stellar parameters (mass, age, metallicity) from spectroscopy; these are standard domain assumptions rather than new free parameters introduced by the paper.

free parameters (1)

Galactic potential parameters
Orbit integration requires an assumed Milky Way mass model whose parameters are taken from prior literature.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The adopted Galactic potential accurately represents the mass distribution for the relevant orbits
Invoked for the backward integration that yields the 0.40 kpc closest approach and 12.89 Myr flight time.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5643 in / 1237 out tokens · 54600 ms · 2026-05-14T21:54:06.287834+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
Backward orbit integrations show that DESI-HVS1 had a closest approach to the Galactic center (GC) of 0.40+0.23−0.11 kpc... using the galpy MWPotential2014
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
We adopt the MWPotential2014, which consists of a power-law bulge potential, a Miyamoto–Nagai stellar disk... and a Navarro–Frenk–White (NFW) dark matter halo

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

G., Navarro, J

Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2009, ApJL, 691, L63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L63 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 804, doi: 10.1086/498131

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/l63 2009
[2]

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

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021
[3]

B., White, C

Bauer, E. B., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2019, ApJ, 887, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4 2019
[4]

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
[5]

2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2211

Boubert, D., Erkal, D., & Gualandris, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2211

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2211 2020
[6]

2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015
[7]

F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012
[8]

Brown, W. R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 15, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122230

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122230 2015
[9]

R., Geller, M

Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2014, ApJ, 787, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/89

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/89 2014
[10]

R., Geller, M

Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., & Kurtz, M. J. 2005, ApJL, 622, L33, doi: 10.1086/429378

work page doi:10.1086/429378 2005
[11]

K., Li, S., Chen, X., & Wang, K

Cao, C., Liu, F. K., Li, S., Chen, X., & Wang, K. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 982, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbbf2

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbbf2 2025
[12]

2015, MNRAS, 454, 2677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2123

Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., & Fragione, G. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2123

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2123 2015
[13]

J., et al

Cautun, M., Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020
[14]

Discovery of Galactic center ejected star in DESI DR1

Verberne, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.19866, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.19866 DESI Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19866 2026
[15]

2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 4543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2451 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

Fragione, G., & Gualandris, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 4543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2451 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2451 2019
[16]

M., Duchˆ ene, G., Matthews, K., et al

Ghez, A. M., Duchˆ ene, G., Matthews, K., et al. 2003, ApJL, 586, L127, doi: 10.1086/374804 Gravity Collaboration, Abd El Dayem, K., Abuter, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A242, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452274

work page doi:10.1086/374804 2003
[17]

2009, MNRAS, 397, 265, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14431.x

Gvaramadze, V. V., Gualandris, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 396, 570, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x 2009
[18]

2008, ApJL, 677, L109, doi: 10.1086/588191

Han, Z. 2008, ApJL, 677, L109, doi: 10.1086/588191

work page doi:10.1086/588191 2008
[19]

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
[20]

Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

work page doi:10.1038/331687a0 1988
[21]

2025, National Science Review, 12, 347, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae347

Huang, Y., Li, Q., Liu, J., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, 347, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae347

work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae347 2025
[22]

2021, ApJL, 907, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd413

Huang, Y., Li, Q., Zhang, H., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd413

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd413 2021
[23]

2015, MNRAS, 449, 162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv204 —

Huang, Y., Liu, X.-W., Yuan, H.-B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv204 —. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2096

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv204 2015
[24]

W., Zhang, H

Huang, Y., Liu, X. W., Zhang, H. W., et al. 2017, ApJL, 847, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa894b

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa894b 2017
[25]

2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013
[26]

J., Bromley, B

Kenyon, S. J., Bromley, B. C., Brown, W. R., & Geller, M. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada04

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada04 2018
[27]

Koposov, S. E. 2019, RVSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric parameter fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.013

work page 2019
[28]

E., Boubert, D., Li, T

Koposov, S. E., Boubert, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3081

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3081 2020
[29]

Leonard, P. J. T., & Duncan, M. J. 1990, AJ, 99, 608, doi: 10.1086/115354

work page doi:10.1086/115354 1990
[30]

2023, ApJL, 944, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb7d9

Liao, J., Du, C., Li, H., Ma, J., & Shi, J. 2023, ApJL, 944, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb7d9

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb7d9 2023
[31]

A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021
[32]

A., & Rossi, E

Marchetti, T., Evans, F. A., & Rossi, E. M. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1777

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1777 2022
[33]

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

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017
[34]

1975, PASJ, 27, 533

Miyamoto, M., & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533

work page 1975
[35]

F., Frenk, C

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173 Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, ApJ, 544, 437, doi: 10.1086/317190

work page doi:10.1086/177173 1996
[36]

J., Menten, K

Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/130 2014
[37]

1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

work page doi:10.1086/173105 1993
[38]

Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955
[39]

J., Finkbeiner, D

Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772 10Deng et al

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998
[40]

J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B

Shen, K. J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b 2018
[41]

2025, ApJ, 986, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcebe

Sun, Y., Huang, Y., Liu, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcebe

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcebe 2025
[42]

W., Huang, Y., et al

Wang, F., Zhang, H. W., Huang, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab848

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab848 2021
[43]

A., Belokurov, V., Casey, A

Williams, A. A., Belokurov, V., Casey, A. R., & Evans, N. W. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx508

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx508 2017
[44]

2025, ApJ, 990, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf2a4

Wu, Y., Li, H., Huang, Y., Xue, X.-X., & Zhao, G. 2025, ApJ, 990, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf2a4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf2a4 2025
[45]

2003, ApJ, 599, 1129, doi: 10.1086/379546

Yu, Q., & Tremaine, S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1129, doi: 10.1086/379546

work page doi:10.1086/379546 2003
[46]

L., Beers, T

Zheng, Z., Carlin, J. L., Beers, T. C., et al. 2014, ApJL, 785, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L23

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/l23 2014
[47]

2023, ApJ, 946, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9

Zhou, Y., Li, X., Huang, Y., & Zhang, H. 2023, ApJ, 946, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9 2023