Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 119 references

Counterculture Stars: Slow and Retrograde Stars with Low-Alpha Disk Abundances

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that 69 stars with thin-disk chemistry orbit the Milky Way too slowly or backwards, and that at least one known ejection or scattering mechanism can explain each one.

desk verdict A genuinely useful census of 69 chemo-dynamical outliers, honestly framed, but the headline cluster-ejection tally rests on a matching box with no control sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09927 v1 pith:AVUXSVO2 submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.GA

Carrie Filion , Michael S. Petersen , Danny Horta , Kathryne J. Daniel , Madeline Lucey , Adrian M. Price-Whelan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWaythindisklow-alpharetrogradestarsdynamicalejectionHillsmechanismglobularclusterabundancesAPOGEEGalacticbar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Stars born in the Milky Way's low-alpha thin disk are expected to orbit the Galactic center at roughly the circular speed, but this paper reports 69 red giants whose chemical abundances look thin-disk-like while their azimuthal velocities are far too slow, including outright retrograde orbits. The central claim is that these are kinematical outliers of the thin disk rather than halo interlopers, and the paper tests six mechanisms that could permanently slow or reverse a disk orbit. For every star at least one mechanism is at least plausible, and the mechanism with the most high-confidence candidates is dynamical ejection from stellar clusters: 32 stars have abundances matching known globular clusters with thin-disk-like member stars. If this interpretation holds, the sample offers a way to study rare processes such as binary disruption by the Milky Way's central black hole, and it is a reminder that abundance outliers in the disk do not always mean the stars came from elsewhere.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is a three-step classifier. First, thin-disk chemistry is defined by two hand-drawn polygons in the [Mg/H]–[Mg/Fe] and [Al/Fe]–[Mg/Mn] abundance planes, so every sample star must sit inside both. Second, kinematic outlier status is set with a $V_\phi$ threshold of $-75$ km/s, hardened by 100 Monte Carlo realizations of the astrometric solution. Third, each star is labelled 'consistent', 'plausible', or 'unlikely' for each of the six mechanisms using a signature table: cluster chemistry for dynamical ejection, low [C/N] or fast rotation for binary supernovae, super-solar metallicity and radial orbits for the Hills mechanism, old age for the clumpy disk, position within the bar for bar interactions, and sub-solar metallicity for Sagittarius passage. Order-of-magnitude rate estimates from cluster-dynamics and binary-population simulations provide the expectation that a few thousand such stars should exist, comfortably allowing the observed 69.

What would settle it

Redo the selection with an automated, reproducible abundance classifier, such as a Gaussian mixture model in the same abundance planes or a stricter exclusion of the known GSE and LMC abundance tails, and count how many of the 69 stars survive. If the slow and retrograde sample collapses to a handful, the claim that these are thin-disk kinematical outliers, and the mechanism census built on it, is refuted. A second, sharper test would be to compare the 32 cluster-ejection candidates against higher-resolution spectra of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 for the characteristic aluminum-magnesium and carbon-nitrogen anti-correlations: absence of those cluster-specific patterns in most candidates would remove the paper's leading mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is the existence of a cleanly selected sample of 69 stars that are chemically thin-disk but kinematically counter-rotating or nearly so: their Galactocentric azimuthal velocities lie above $V_\phi > -75$ km/s, about six standard deviations slower than the thin-disk median, after Monte Carlo propagation of astrometric errors. The paper assumes these stars were born in the disk and asks which physical process slowed them. Comparing each star's age, metallicity, eccentricity, rotation, binarity, [C/N], and position against each mechanism's predicted signatures, it finds that no single mechanism accounts for all 69, but every star has at least one plausible origin. Dynamical ejection from clusters is the most populated 'consistent' category, with 32 stars tied to the chemistry of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, followed by the Hills mechanism with nine metal-rich, eccentric candidates and binary supernova ejection with low-[C/N] and fast-rotator candidates. The paper also argues that an accreted-halo origin from the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus or the Large Magellanic Cloud is unlikely for most of the sample, and that old, metal-poor members could belong to the in-situ heated disk or Splash component.

Load-bearing premise

The sample definition assumes that the two hand-drawn abundance polygons cleanly separate thin-disk-born stars from the halo and from accreted populations like the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus and the Large Magellanic Cloud; if those polygons admit metal-rich halo stars, the stars are not kinematical outliers of the disk at all and the whole mechanism analysis rests on false premises.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Runaway-star searches should include the slow and retrograde end of the velocity distribution, not just the fast end, because ejections are roughly isotropic and lower kicks are more common.
  • The rate estimates imply a few thousand slow or retrograde thin-disk stars in the Milky Way today, so the observed 69 are a small, incomplete sample rather than an overproduction.
  • If 32 stars really were ejected from globular clusters, strong chemical tagging could identify their birth clusters even though the clusters' old ages make backward orbit integration unreliable.
  • Old, metal-poor members of the sample are better interpreted as in-situ halo or Splash stars, so the sample straddles the disk-ejection and early-disk-heating pictures of the Galaxy.
  • Future spectroscopic surveys toward the Galactic center and outskirts will enlarge the sample and let the bar and satellite-passage mechanisms be tested where they predict stars to live.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct editorial extension: the same six-mechanism signature table could be applied to fast stars, because the paper's own logic implies that the slow end is the neglected mirror of the familiar hypervelocity end; comparing the two populations would test whether ejection directions are truly isotropic.
  • The hand-drawn polygon selection is the piece most worth stress-testing: the sample is only about 0.11% of the thin-disk sample, so small leaks in the polygon boundaries could change the science story more than any individual mechanism assignment.
  • One testable prediction follows from the Sagittarius impulse calculation: if a Sgr crossing produced any of these stars, they should be concentrated in a small azimuthal patch of the outer disk with sub-solar iron, a spatial pattern that phase mixing would gradually erase but that proper-motion surveys could look for today.
  • The paper treats dynamical ejection as the leading mechanism on abundance similarity alone; a stronger test would be to check whether the 32 candidates share the light-element anti-correlations of their proposed parent clusters, which would separate true cluster ejections from stars that merely have overlapping average abundances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies 69 red-giant stars in APOGEE DR17 with thin-disk-like elemental abundances (defined by two hand-drawn polygons in the [Mg/H]-[Mg/Fe] and [Al/Fe]-[Mg/Mn] planes) and slow prograde or retrograde Galactocentric azimuthal velocities (V_phi > -75 km/s). The authors assume a thin-disk birth origin and evaluate six mechanisms that could alter such orbits: dynamical cluster ejection, binary supernova ejection, the Hills mechanism, early clumpy-disk scattering, Galactic bar interactions, and satellite passage. For each star they assign labels (unlikely/plausible/consistent) based on qualitative signatures, conclude that at least one mechanism is plausible for every star, and report that dynamical ejection from clusters has the most 'consistent' candidates (32 stars, mostly via abundance similarity to NGC 6388). They also discuss alternative halo origins, including GSE/LMC accretion and the in-situ Eos/Splash components, and provide an impulse-approximation estimate for the change in V_phi from a Sagittarius-like passage.

Significance. If the sample is robust, it is a useful and interesting catalog of rare chemo-kinematic outliers that challenge the usual identification of low-alpha disk stars with circular, disk-like orbits. The paper's strengths are its transparent use of public APOGEE DR17 and Gaia data, the Monte Carlo treatment of V_phi uncertainties, the explicit listing of all 69 APOGEE IDs in Table 2, and the honest presentation of several rate estimates as order-of-magnitude. The mechanism-by-mechanism framework provides a useful checklist for future searches. However, the central quantitative claim — that dynamical ejection has the largest number of consistent candidates — currently rests on a matching rule that is not calibrated against a control sample, and the sample definition itself is based on unvalidated by-eye abundance boundaries. These issues make the paper's headline result more fragile than the text suggests; they are addressable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.2] The 'consistent' cluster-ejection labels are assigned with an unnormalized, axis-aligned box: a star matches if its abundances lie within ±0.1 dex of the min/max of 2-5 cluster members in five abundance dimensions. No control sample from the parent thin-disk population is used, no abundance-error propagation is included, and the box is defined by the extremes of very small cluster samples. The result that 30 of 69 slow/retrograde stars fall inside the NGC 6388 box may simply reflect the fraction of ordinary thin-disk stars that satisfy the same box. Without a control comparison (e.g., the same matching applied to a V_phi-selected thin-disk sample), the claim that dynamical ejection has the largest number of consistent candidates (32 stars) is not supported.
  2. [§2, Figure 1] The thin-disk abundance selection is defined by two hand-drawn polygons whose coordinates are given, but whose boundaries are never subjected to robustness tests. The paper's interpretation of the 69 stars as kinematical outliers of the thin disk, and all subsequent mechanism labels, depend on these boundaries excluding metal-rich halo, GSE, and LMC stars; the paper itself notes in §2.2 that such populations can occupy overlapping abundance space. I request a quantitative robustness analysis: perturb the polygon vertices, or replace the polygons with objective density-based or mixture-model selection, and show that the sample and the mechanism-label statistics are stable.
  3. [§3.2.2, §3.4.2, Table 1] The statement 'at least one mechanism is plausible for each star' is weakened by the definition of 'plausible': Table 1 assigns this label whenever a star has no clearly disqualifying property, so for mechanisms without strong signatures (binary supernova ejection, clumpy disk, satellite passage) the label is assigned by default. Consequently the headline claim is almost tautological and does not provide evidence for the mechanisms. The informative result is the set of 'consistent' labels, which is exactly the part of the analysis that needs the control-sample treatment discussed above.
  4. [§3.1 vs §3.1.2] The rate estimate for dynamical ejection assumes clusters co-orbit the disk with |V_phi| ~ Vc, but the cluster sample in §3.1.2 includes NGC 6388, which the text states has a retrograde velocity, and the same paragraph notes that slower cluster velocities lower the required ejection speed. The estimate should be revised to use the actual present-day cluster velocity distribution, or the inconsistency should be explicitly resolved, because the current calculation likely underestimates the production rate for the very clusters used to identify candidate stars.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] There is a typo 'clsuters' in 'the first gigayear of the clsuters’ life'; the sentence about the decline of globular-cluster ejection rates should read 'clusters'.
  2. [§3.1.2] There is a duplicated word in 'presented in in Massari et al. (2019)'.
  3. [Table 1] The table caption contains 'the the properties'; one 'the' should be removed.
  4. [§5] The sentence 'a given star could have been effected by more than one of the mechanisms' should use 'affected'.
  5. [§2] The claim that the V_phi > -75 km/s threshold is 'approximately six standard deviations' should state how the standard deviation was computed (before or after iterative outlier removal), since the text first selects 3σ outliers and then recomputes V_phi from Monte Carlo realizations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One self-definitional finding: 'at least one mechanism is plausible for each star' is guaranteed by the paper's own labeling definitions, but the central sample and external rate estimates are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 4 (mechanism-label definitions, after Table 1); with Section 3.1.2 and Abstract]
    "A mechanism is considered 'plausible' if a given star displays no clear, strong signatures of the mechanism but the mechanism remains plausible."

    The 'plausible' category is defined as the absence of clear counter-signatures, and Section 3.1.2 states 'we consider dynamical ejection to be a possible mechanism for all stars in the sample'. Therefore the Abstract's finding 'at least one mechanism is plausible for each star' is entailed by the labeling scheme, not discovered from the data: no star can fail because every star has the dynamical-ejection fallback. The definition is also self-referential ('but the mechanism remains plausible'). This part of the conclusion is thus a restatement of the taxonomy rather than an empirical result.

full rationale

The core sample construction is self-contained: the 69 stars are selected using independent APOGEE abundance polygons and Gaia/APOGEE kinematics, and the six mechanism rates come from external simulations and published estimates (Perets & Subr 2012, Weatherford et al. 2023, Evans et al. 2020, Kenyon et al. 2014, Fiteni et al. 2021). No parameter is fitted to the 69 target stars, and no prediction is generated from the sample itself. Self-citations (Filion et al. 2023, Horta et al. 2025, Price-Whelan 2017) are background support, not load-bearing. The one definitional circularity is the 'plausible' label: because 'plausible' is defined as the absence of clear counter-signatures, and dynamical ejection is declared possible for all stars, the abstract's statement that at least one mechanism is plausible for each star is guaranteed by the labeling scheme. This is a genuine but minor self-definitional step; it does not affect the independent identification of the 69 stars or the externally grounded rate estimates. The cluster-matching count (32 stars) is a permissive box comparison, and the paper itself concedes that dissolved or unobserved clusters could host the origin of any star; whatever its statistical merits, that count is an openly stated matching rule, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a hand-defined abundance selection, a hand-picked velocity threshold, and a loose matching tolerance; production-rate estimates rely on external simulations with assumed fractions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Thin-disk abundance polygon coordinates = See footnote in Section 2
    Defined by eye in Figure 1; directly determines which stars enter the sample.
  • Azimuthal velocity threshold = -75 km/s
    Selected as approximately 6 sigma from the thin disk median and a 'whole number limit'.
  • Abundance matching tolerance = 0.1 dex
    Used to label stars as consistent with globular cluster ejection.
  • Ejection direction fraction = 10%
    Adopted from Brown 2015 to estimate production rates of slow/retrograde stars.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption APOGEE DR17 abundances and Gaia astrometry are accurate within reported errors.
    The sample is selected entirely from these catalogs.
  • domain assumption Simulations of Perets & Subr (2012), Weatherford et al. (2023), Evans et al. (2020), Kenyon et al. (2014), and Fiteni et al. (2021) are representative of real ejection and scattering processes.
    Used to estimate ejection rates and velocity distributions for the mechanisms.
  • ad hoc to paper Clusters co-orbit the disk with |V_phi| ~ Vc.
    Stated in Section 3.1 'For simplicity we assume that the clusters are co-orbiting with the disk'.
  • domain assumption The impulse approximation accurately describes the Sgr passage velocity change.
    Used in Appendix A to estimate maximum delta V_phi from Sgr.
  • domain assumption Stars were ejected as main-sequence stars and have since evolved to red giants.
    Assumed to avoid complications with ejecting giants; stated in Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counterculture Stars: Slow and Retrograde Stars with Low-Alpha Disk Abundances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVUXSVO2

@misc{pith2026250609927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counterculture Stars: Slow and Retrograde Stars with Low-Alpha Disk Abundances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVUXSVO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09927}
}
abstract

The Milky Way is home to a thin disk that can be defined via kinematics and/or elemental abundances. The elemental abundance-defined thin disk, also called the low-alpha disk, is generally thought to be comprised of stars on planar, circular orbits that approximate the circular velocity curve. While this is an apt description for the majority of stars with thin-disk-like abundances, there are a number of interesting exceptions. In this analysis, we identify and investigate $\sim 70$ stars with thin-disk-like abundances and very slow or retrograde Galactocentric azimuthal velocities. These stars could be kinematical outliers of the thin disk or elemental abundance outliers of the halo. Focusing first on the former, we introduce a number of mechanisms that could alter a thin disk orbit and cause the azimuthal velocity to become slow or retrograde. We then determine signatures for each mechanism and assess whether that mechanism is unlikely, plausible, or consistent given each star's reported properties. We find that at least one mechanism is plausible for each star, and the mechanism with the highest number of consistent candidate stars is dynamical ejection from stellar clusters. We next discuss scenarios that could produce halo stars with thin disk abundances, and again identify stars that could be connected to these mechanisms. With this sample we investigate rare processes, such as binary disruption by the central supermassive black hole, while also providing a unique perspective into the chemo-dynamics and structural components of the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The [Mg/H] vs [Mg/Fe] (left) and [Al/Fe] vs [Mg/Mn] (middle) abundances for all quality stars (grey), stars with thin disk abundances (black), and the sample of slow and retrograde stars with thin disk abundances (larger star-shaped points color-coded by azimuthal velocity Vϕ), alongside the Vϕ velocity distribution for all quality thin disk stars (right). The solid black line in the left panel denotes the median Vϕ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The x-y (left) and x-z (right) distribution of all stars with thin disk abundances for age estimates up to four billion years, with the slow and retrograde stars in this age range over-plotted as a star-shaped marker. Each hexagon is color-coded by its mean iron abundance, while each slow and retrograde star is colored by its iron abundance. Stars within 1.5 kpc of the mid-plane (i.e. five thin disk scale heights, e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The abundances of each of the ‘most reliable’ elements in APOGEE for all stars (grey), the thin disk (black), and the slow and retrograde sample (larger points color-coded by log(g)), each split into age bins Error bars are the errors provided in APOGEE, and for [C/N] …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The velocity distribution of slow and retrograde stars with thin disk abundances (color-coded by [Mg/H]), along with the full APOGEE sample (grey) and stars with thin-disk abundances (black). Stars in blue circles are those within 1.5 kpc of the Galactic mid-plane. Lef…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The elemental abundances of the slow and retrograde stars that are plausibly linked to globular clusters (bottom row, colored open triangles, excluding Pal1) alongside those clusters (top row, filled colored triangles), the thin disk (black dots) and all quality APOGEE…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The amplitude and sign of ∆Vϕ computed on a grid in radius and ϕ for a set of parameters that can provide high amplitude ∆Vϕ (Msgr = 1 × 109M⊙, Rsgr = 15 kpc, and Vsgr = 150 km s−1 ). The plot at left shows the full disk, while the plot at right shows a zoom-in on the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The final labels for each mechanism for each star, where each number corresponds to a unique APOGEE ID. The correspondence between number and APOGEE ID is given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A stacked bar chart showing the number of unlikely (coral), plausible (grey), and consistent (green) stars for each mechanism discussed in the text. dance outliers could even be a sign that some amount of the (abundance-based definition of the) thin disk had already f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 804, doi: 10.1086/498131

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., & Smith, M. C. 2020, ApJL, 891, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4 2020

  3. [3]

    2017, A&A, 600, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Anders, F., Chiappini, C., Minchev, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaborat...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 2017

  4. [4]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  5. [5]

    T., & Bobylev, V

    Bajkova, A. T., & Bobylev, V. V. 2022, Publications of the Pulkovo Observatory, 227, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.00739

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.00739 2022

  6. [6]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839 2018

  7. [7]

    L., Oelkers, R

    Beaton, R. L., Oelkers, R. J., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 302, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c 2021

  8. [8]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa876

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Bennett, M., Bovy, J., & Hunt, J. A. S. 2022, ApJ, 927, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., Khachaturyants, T., & Nidever, D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa065

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Kazantzidis, S., & Weinberg, D

    Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., & Weinberg, D. H. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 913, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19728.x

    2012

  4. [12]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

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

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Blitz, L., & Spergel, D. N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 631, doi: 10.1086/170535

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    F., & Kereˇ s, D

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, ApJ, 845, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d0c

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    W., & Izzard, R

    Boubert, D., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., & Izzard, R. G. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx848

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Liu, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H. 1973, Appl. Opt., 12, 1430, doi: 10.1364/AO.12.001430

    1973 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., Kenyon, S. J., Geller, M. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1194, doi: 10.1086/508419

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

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

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1145

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Chiba, M., et al

    Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 692, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/692

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    V., Laporte, C

    Carr, C., Johnston, K. V., Laporte, C. F. P., & Ness, M. K. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2403

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

    Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 2165, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3274 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 2165, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3274

    doi

  16. [24]

    2024, A&A, 684, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348332

    Ceccarelli, E., Massari, D., Mucciarelli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348332

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

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

    2000 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Cirasuolo, M., Afonso, J., Carollo, M., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K

    2014

  19. [27]

    Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91470N, doi: 10.1117/12.2056012

    doi

  20. [28]

    J., Debattista, V

    Clarke, A. J., Debattista, V. P., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz104 de Boer, T. J. L., Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2391 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A4...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A

    Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748, doi: 10.1086/147433

    1962 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M

    Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Marchetti, T., Rossi, E

    Evans, F. A., Marchetti, T., Rossi, E. M., Baggen, J. F. W., & Bloot, S. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2271

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Renzo, M., & Rossi, E

    Evans, F. A., Renzo, M., & Rossi, E. M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2334

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Horta, D., et al

    Fernandes, L., Mason, A. C., Horta, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3543

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Weinberg, M

    Filion, C., McClure, R. L., Weinberg, M. D., D’Onghia, E., & Daniel, K. J. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1832 25

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Fiteni, K., Caruana, J., Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V. P., & Beraldo e Silva, L. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab619

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, AJ, 161, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc69b

    Franchini, M., Morossi, C., Di Marcantonio, P., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc69b

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Freeman, K., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 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...

    2002

  30. [38]

    S., Johnston, K

    Gandhi, S. S., Johnston, K. V., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac47f7 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R. F. G. 1998, AJ, 116, 748, doi: 10.1086/300459

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    Gilmore, G., Wyse, R. F. G., & Kuijken, K. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 555, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.003011

    1989

  33. [41]

    A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 18, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5196 Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Rebolo, R., & Israelian, G. 2008, A&A, 478, 203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077141

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al

    Han, J. J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.00102

    2025 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    R., Lian, J., et al

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

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1586

    Hawkins, K., Jofr´ e, P., Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1586

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321397

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    H., et al

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

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

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

    1988 doi

  42. [50]

    S., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Horta, D., Petersen, M. S., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf348

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa478 —. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2987 —. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3179

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    Darragh-Ford, E. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    1965, ApJ, 142, 1447, doi: 10.1086/148429 —

    Iben, Jr., I. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1447, doi: 10.1086/148429 —. 1967, ApJ, 147, 624, doi: 10.1086/149040

    1965 doi

  46. [54]

    Israelian, G., Rebolo, R., Basri, G., Casares, J., & Mart ´ ın, E. L. 1999, Nature, 401, 142, doi: 10.1038/43625

    1999 doi

  47. [55]

    G., Preece, H., Jofre, P., et al

    Izzard, R. G., Preece, H., Jofre, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2355

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Shetrone, M

    Jahandar, F., Venn, K. A., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1592

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    P., Alcock, C., et al

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Alcock, C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 772, doi: 10.1086/498972

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., Bromley, B. C., Brown, W. R., & Geller, M. J. 2014, ApJ, 793, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/122

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    A., & Gould, A

    Kollmeier, J. A., & Gould, A. 2007, ApJ, 664, 343, doi: 10.1086/518405

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.03234

    2017 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    E., Boubert, D., Li, T

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

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, A&A, 643, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038686

    Kordopatis, G., Recio-Blanco, A., Schultheis, M., & Hill, V. 2020, A&A, 643, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038686

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

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

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

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Kim, Y

    Lee, A., Lee, Y. S., Kim, Y. K., Beers, T. C., & An, D. 2023, ApJ, 945, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6f5

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    W., & Bovy, J

    Leung, H. W., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3217

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J

    Leung, H. W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3529

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    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

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    M., R¨ opke, F

    Liu, Z.-W., Tauris, T. M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526757

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    Lucey, M., Pearson, S., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad406

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    T., Bovy, J., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1774

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    T., Bovy, J., Leung, H

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1521

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    R., Schiavon, R

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

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    A., & Rossi, E

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

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2830 26

    Martig, M., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2830 26

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135 M´ esz´ aros, S., Masseron, T., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3496

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    M., & Badenes, C

    Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., & Badenes, C. 2019, ApJ, 875, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    C., Belokurov, V., Aguado, D

    Myeong, G. C., Belokurov, V., Aguado, D. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d68

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

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

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

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    B., et al

    Nepal, S., Chiappini, C., Queiroz, A. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449445

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Bovy, J., Bird, J

    Nidever, D. L., Bovy, J., Bird, J. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/38

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    2016, A&A, 590, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233

    Oh, S., & Kroupa, P. 2016, A&A, 590, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    B., & ˇSubr, L

    Perets, H. B., & ˇSubr, L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/133

    2012 doi

  78. [86]

    S., Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Jones, E

    Petersen, M. S., Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Jones, E. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1429

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., & Ness, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    Poveda, A., Ruiz, J., & Allen, C. 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    1967

  81. [89]

    2024, adrn/gala: v1.9.1, v1.9.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4159870

    Price-Whelan, A., Sip˝ ocz, B., Lenz, D., et al. 2024, adrn/gala: v1.9.1, v1.9.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4159870

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, doi: 10.21105/joss.00388

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15054.x

    Haywood, M. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15054.x

    2009

  84. [92]

    L., Wright, N

    Quintana, A. L., Wright, N. J., & Mart ´ ınez Garc ´ ıa, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08286

    2025 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    P., et al

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O., Andersson, E. P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab543

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  87. [95]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 61, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0061-8

    Rix, H.-W., & Bovy, J. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 61, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0061-8

    2013 doi

  88. [96]

    L., Smith, L., & Evans, N

    Sanders, J. L., Smith, L., & Evans, N. W. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1827

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

    A., Beaton, R

    Santana, F. A., Beaton, R. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 303, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2cbc

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    P., Phillips, S

    Schiavon, R. P., Phillips, S. G., Myers, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3020

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    Schoettler, C., de Bruijne, J., Vaher, E., & Parker, R. J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1228

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    J., & de Bruijne, J

    Schoettler, C., Parker, R. J., & de Bruijne, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3529

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    E., et al

    Shetrone, M., Bizyaev, D., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/24

    2015 doi

  94. [102]

    V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V. V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

    S., Chiba, M., et al

    Takada, M., Ellis, R. S., Chiba, M., et al. 2014, PASJ, 66, R1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/pst019

    2014 doi

  96. [104]

    A., et al

    Tayar, J., Ceillier, T., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/82

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

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

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

    2020 doi

  98. [106]

    M., Koposov, S

    Verberne, S., Rossi, E. M., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1888

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    C., Kıro˘ glu, F., Fragione, G., et al

    Weatherford, N. C., Kıro˘ glu, F., Fragione, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc1

    2023 doi

  100. [108]

    H., Holtzman, J

    Weinberg, D. H., Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 874, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7 —. 2019b, ApJ, 874, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7

    doi

  101. [109]

    Weinberg, M. D. 1992, ApJ, 384, 81, doi: 10.1086/170853

    1992 doi

  102. [110]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075

    2019 doi

  103. [111]

    Wyse, R. F. G., & Gilmore, G. 1995, AJ, 110, 2771, doi: 10.1086/117729

    1995 doi

  104. [112]

    Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., Norris, J. E., et al. 2006, ApJL, 639, L13, doi: 10.1086/501228

    2006 doi

  105. [113]

    Wyse, R. F. G., Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 6109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa731

    2020 doi

  106. [114]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 2953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1091

    Yu, J., Casagrande, L., Ciuc˘ a, I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1091

    2024 doi

  107. [115]

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

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

    2003 doi

  108. [116]

    A., Frinchaboy, P

    Zasowski, G., Johnson, J. A., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/81

    2013 doi

  109. [117]

    E., Chojnowski, S

    Zasowski, G., Cohen, R. E., Chojnowski, S. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9

    2017 doi

  110. [118]

    Sanders, J. L. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2023

    2024 doi

  111. [119]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 239562, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1645-5

    Zhao, G., & Chen, Y. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 239562, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1645-5

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.