Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Bar-driven dispersal of Galactic substructure

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's bar disperses low-energy substructure in integrals-of-motion space, so searches should use the Jacobi integral plus chemistry.

desk verdict The bar-dispersal claim holds up across three models, and the H_J plus chemistry proposal is the practical takeaway; the diffusion toy model is the weakest link, but the simulations carry the argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09117 v2 pith:I3ZX2JES submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Adam M. Dillamore , Jason L. Sanders This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticarchaeologyMilkyWaybarintegralsofmotionJacobiintegralglobularclustersstellarstreamspatternspeedsubstructuredispersal
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

This paper argues that the Milky Way's rotating bar breaks the usual assumption that integrals of motion stay conserved, so ancient star clusters and stellar streams in the inner Galaxy get smeared out in orbit space. Using an analytic diffusion model, test-particle simulations, and a cosmological simulation of a Milky Way-like galaxy, it shows that low-energy, prograde, eccentric substructure spreads by a factor of roughly 10--100 in angular momentum and energy over a few gigayears. The paper derives a criterion for when this happens and shows that about three-quarters of the Galaxy's globular clusters and a quarter of known streams lie in the affected region. It then shows that the same debris stays far more compact in the Jacobi integral $H_\mathrm{J}=E-\Omega_\mathrm{b}L_z$, and that the direction of dispersal in $(L_z,E)$ records the bar's past pattern speed. The practical proposal is to search for inner-halo substructure using chemistry plus $H_\mathrm{J}$ rather than traditional integrals of motion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jacobi integral $H_\mathrm{J}=E-\Omega_\mathrm{b}L_z$, defined in the frame corotating with the bar. In a barred potential it replaces energy and angular momentum individually as the conserved quantity, and even when the bar decelerates the relation $dE/dL_z=\Omega_\mathrm{b}(t)$ (equation 7) locks each particle's energy change to its angular-momentum change at every instant. The paper models bar encounters as a random-walk diffusion in $L_z$ (equations 8--9), whose Green's-function solution is a Gaussian in $(L_z,E)$ with a narrow, elongated covariance; the long axis has slope approximately $\langle\Omega_\mathrm{b}\rangle_D$, the diffusion-weighted average pattern speed over the substructure's lifetime (equations 21--31). The second piece of machinery is the fitted critical surface $E_\mathrm{crit}(L_z,L_\perp)$ (equation 50), a downward-curving paraboloid in the three-dimensional integral-of-motion space that marks where bar-induced spreading exceeds a factor of $e\approx2.7$.

What would settle it

Identify an ancient, chemically tagged dissolved globular cluster in the inner halo (with $E<E_\mathrm{crit}$) and measure the distribution of its member stars in $(L_z,E)$. If the stars are not elongated along a line whose slope lies between the present and time-averaged bar pattern speed, or if they remain compact after several gigayears, the diffusion picture and its slope prediction would be ruled out. A population-level version: measure the slope distribution across many chemically tagged low-energy substructures; it should cluster between the current $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$ and the time-averaged $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$, peaking where the paper's weighted average sits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a rotating bar turns the traditional integrals of motion ($L_z$, $L_\perp$, $E$, and the actions) into non-conserved quantities for substructure on low-energy prograde orbits, so dissolved globular clusters and accreted debris cannot remain tightly clustered in the usual integral-of-motion spaces. In the $(L_z,E)$ plane the dispersal proceeds along lines of slope $dE/dL_z=\Omega_\mathrm{b}(t)$: with a steadily rotating bar this is exact conservation of the Jacobi integral $H_\mathrm{J}=E-\Omega_\mathrm{b}L_z$, and with a slowing bar the present-day slope equals a diffusion-weighted time average of the pattern speed, equation (30). The paper quantifies a critical surface $E_\mathrm{crit}(L_z,L_\perp)$ such that structures below it have their angular-momentum spread amplified by more than a factor of $e\approx2.7$ (often 10--100), and it finds that roughly three-quarters of Milky Way globular clusters and a quarter of known stellar streams fall below it. All three models agree that the debris remains substantially more concentrated in the space of metallicity and $H_\mathrm{J}$, so the paper proposes using $H_\mathrm{J}$ plus chemistry when searching for inner-halo substructure, and using the measured slopes of bar-dispersed debris to constrain the bar's past pattern-speed evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion model assumes that each encounter with the bar gives an independent, unbiased random kick, ignoring resonant trapping and coherent transport; the paper's own test-particle simulations show a population of stars trapped at the corotation resonance ($L_z\sim1000$ kpc km/s, $E\sim-1.4\times10^5$ (km/s)$^2$) that could shift the angular momenta coherently and change the predicted spreading direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Traditional clustering searches in $(L_z,L_\perp,E)$ will miss most ancient inner-halo substructure, because the bar smears it into overlapping diffuse clouds; abundant 'bar-dispersed' debris is predicted to exist.
  • The observed lack of low-energy stellar streams is naturally explained as bar-driven dispersal of globular-cluster debris, rather than requiring that such streams never existed.
  • The slope of bar-dispersed substructure in $(L_z,E)$ is a fossil of the bar's pattern-speed history; comparing measured slopes with the present-day $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$ gives a direct test of whether the Milky Way's bar has been decelerating.
  • Searching in the combined space of $H_\mathrm{J}$ and metallicity keeps dissolved globular clusters identifiable even where they have been heavily dispersed, and remains useful for clusters dissolved up to a few gigayears ago.
  • The fitted surface $E_\mathrm{crit}(L_z,L_\perp)$ provides a rule of thumb for any realistic Milky Way potential to decide when the bar can be ignored and when it must be included.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, the same slope-memory argument should apply to any rotating non-axisymmetric perturbation, so the method could in principle measure the pattern speed of transient spiral structure, though the paper only tests bars.
  • A population-level prediction that follows is that chemically tagged low-energy halo stars should show many small elongated clumps in $(L_z,E)$ oriented at a common angle; measuring the scatter in these orientations across clumps would quantify how much the pattern speed changed during the dispersal.
  • Because most in-situ globular clusters lie below $E_\mathrm{crit}$, their debris is preferentially dispersed, so the diffuse high-[N/O] stars in the inner halo may be the surviving bar-smeared remnants of multiple clusters rather than a single progenitor — a scenario the paper's picture supports but does not explicitly claim.
  • If the bar has indeed been slowing, the predicted slopes should systematically exceed the current $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$; a first test could be made with existing data by measuring the elongation of known low-energy structures whose orbital fits are reliable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper quantifies the dispersal of Galactic substructure in integrals-of-motion (IoM) space by a rotating bar, using three complementary approaches: an analytical diffusion model in (L_z,E), test-particle simulations with steady and slowing bars, and the Auriga 18 cosmological zoom-in simulation. The central claim is that low-energy, prograde, eccentric substructure is dispersed by a factor of roughly 10--100 in angular-momentum/energy spread, so that traditional IoM clustering becomes ineffective in the inner halo, while clustering in the Jacobi integral H_J = E - Omega_b L_z together with chemical abundances remains effective. A paraboloid survival criterion E_crit(L_z,L_perp) is fitted to the test-particle simulations, and the paper applies this criterion to observed globular clusters, stellar streams, and halo stars, concluding that a large fraction of known substructure is affected by the bar. The paper also proposes that the gradient dE/dL_z of dispersed substructure encodes the past evolution of the bar's pattern speed.

Significance. If correct, the paper's conclusions have substantial impact on Galactic archaeology: they directly challenge the common practice of searching for ancient substructure using (L_z,L_perp,E) clustering in the inner halo, and they offer a concrete alternative (H_J plus chemistry). The paper is strong in using three independent model families that agree qualitatively, in deriving an exact differential relation dE/dL_z = Omega_b(t) (Eq. 7), and in making falsifiable predictions about the slope of dispersed debris and the relative compactness in H_J space. The code is made publicly available, and the Auriga-based mock-cluster test is a valuable external check. The main significance is conditional on the robustness of the dispersal amplitude and the survival criterion, which currently rest on the diffusion approximation and on a fit with no quoted uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. The diffusion model assumes that bar encounters are random, unbiased, and uncorrelated impulses, and Section 2.2 explicitly restricts this to substructure away from resonances. However, the test-particle simulation with a slowing bar in Section 3.1 produces a prominent corotation-resonance-trapped population (the excess near L_z ~ 1000 kpc km/s and E ~ -1.4e5 (km/s)^2), whose orbits receive coherent, biased angular-momentum kicks. Because the headline dispersal factor of 10--100 and the fitted survival boundary E_crit (Eq. 50) are calibrated on simulations that include this trapped population without separating it from diffusive trajectories, the universal 'cannot remain tightly clustered' claim and the survival criterion are not yet cleanly separated from resonant transport. I ask the authors to quantify the fraction of trapped particles, to recompute the dispersion ratio excluding them or with a resonance-aware treatment, and to state explicitly how the conclusions depend on that separation.
  2. The survival criterion is an empirical paraboloid fit with no quoted parameter uncertainties, no sensitivity analysis, and an arbitrary threshold e = 2.7. The fit uses a Gaussian weight with sigma = 0.1 in log dispersion and no cross-validation against an independent simulation or a different bar model. This criterion is load-bearing for the observational statements that about 3/4 of globular clusters and 1/4 of known streams lie below E_crit, and for the recommendation to use H_J in that region. I request that the authors report the covariance of the fitted parameters, show how the classification changes as e is varied over a reasonable range, and test the fitted boundary against the Auriga simulation or a barred potential with different strength/pattern speed.
  3. The cosmological simulation shows that the oldest mock clusters have low-energy gradients steeper than any value of Omega_b in the simulation, and the paper attributes this to mass growth and violent relaxation. Since the proposed pattern-speed-history diagnostic targets bar-dispersed substructure, and since the most interesting ancient globular-cluster debris is old, this complication directly limits the central predictive claim in the abstract that bar-dispersed substructure should allow the past evolution of Omega_b to be constrained. The current text acknowledges the effect but does not quantify it; I ask the authors to provide a quantitative decomposition of the gradient excess in Au-18 (e.g., bar-driven versus potential-growth-driven contributions) or to restrict the pattern-speed claim to age-selected populations where the bar dominates.
minor comments (4)
  1. The text says the points in Fig. 2 are coloured by circularity eta and the caption mentions red/blue, but the colour scale is not defined in the caption; please state explicitly which colour corresponds to prograde versus retrograde orbits.
  2. The paraboloid form has units that mix kpc and km/s; it would be clearer to define all variables with explicit units in the equation caption, as done in Eq. (50).
  3. The mock clusters are constructed by selecting the 50 particles nearest to a progenitor in IoM space; this procedure is reasonable, but the choice of 50 particles and the dependence on the unit conversion factor Omega_0 should be justified or tested, since it directly sets the initial compactness of the mock clusters.
  4. The table lists streams below the critical boundary, but for a few entries the quoted |E - E_crit| values are very small compared to likely energy uncertainties in orbit fits; a brief caveat about this would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model predictions are tested against independent test-particle and cosmological simulations; fitted quantities are presented as empirical calibrations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The diffusion model (Section 2.2, Eq. 9) is introduced as an explicit toy model whose Appendix A derivation assumes unbiased random kicks with Delta E = Omega_b(t) Delta L_z, an assumption the paper states is only valid away from resonances. The resulting slope prediction (Eq. 30) follows mathematically from that ansatz plus the exact identity dE/dL_z = Omega_b(t) (Eq. 7), but it is then confronted with two independent simulations: a test-particle setup with a Hunter et al. (2024)/Sormani et al. (2022) barred potential (Section 3) and the cosmological Au-18 simulation (Section 4), neither of which is fitted to the diffusion model's outputs. The predicted factor ~10-100 increase in L_z/E spread is measured rather than imposed, and the Auriga results are external to the analytic model. The E_crit paraboloid (Eq. 50) is admittedly 'fit to the simulation data' (Section 3.3), so its later use to classify observed globular clusters and streams is a calibration, not a hidden prediction. The only near-circular element is that in a steadily rotating bar the dispersal direction dE/dL_z = Omega_b follows exactly from Jacobi-integral conservation, so agreement of the diffusion model with the steady-bar simulation is partly built in; however, the paper does not rely on the steady-bar slope as independent confirmation, and the slowing-bar gradient and dispersal amplitudes are nontrivial predictions verified against independent simulations. Self-citations (Dillamore et al. 2024a,b, 2025) supply potential parameters and prior context, but the trapping phenomenon cited from Dillamore et al. (2024b) is also reproduced in the present test-particle simulations, so the argument does not reduce to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; 'bar-dispersed substructure' is a predicted stellar population, not a new entity. The free parameters listed are either standard Milky Way model inputs from prior literature or coefficients of an empirical fit to the authors' own simulations. The axioms capture the main modeling assumptions that the dispersal predictions rest on, most notably the random-encounter diffusion picture and the paraboloid form of the survival boundary.

free parameters (7)
  • Bar strength A = 0.02
    Quadrupole bar potential amplitude in Eq. (37)-(38); chosen to represent the Milky Way bar, not fitted to the dispersal result.
  • Bar shape parameter b = 0.28
    In Eq. (38), sets the radial profile of the quadrupole bar.
  • Isochrone potential parameters M and a = M=2.35e11 Msun, a=3 kpc
    Base spherical potential in Eq. (36); chosen to match MW circular speed, from Dillamore et al. (2024a).
  • Initial pattern speed and deceleration (Omega_b0, eta, t_f) = 80 km/s/kpc, 0.003, 5.4 Gyr
    Pattern speed evolution in Eq. (43); taken from literature estimates (Chiba et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2025).
  • Cluster mass M_c and velocity dispersion sigma = 1e5 Msun, 1 km/s
    For tidal debris release in test particle sims (Section 3.1), typical GC values.
  • Criterion fit coefficients (a, b, c, d) in E_crit = a=4.8e4 (km/s)^2, b=0.018, c=505 km/s, d=0.005
    Fit to test-particle simulation ratios in Section 3.3, Eq. (50); empirical boundary, not derived.
  • Threshold e for 'significantly affected' = e=2.7
    Arbitrarily chosen factor for dispersion increase in Section 3.3.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bar interactions are random, uncorrelated, unbiased impulses (no resonant trapping)
    Assumed in Section 2.2 to derive the diffusion equation; violates for resonant orbits, which the paper notes for clusters trapped at corotation (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Impulse approximation replaces the true orbit with the unperturbed axisymmetric orbit when computing Delta E
    Used in Eq. (33)-(34), Section 2.3; standard but approximate for slow encounters.
  • domain assumption The phase angles (Omega, omega) are uniformly distributed for phase-mixed substructure
    In Section 2.3, averaging D over orientations assumes a fully phase-mixed population.
  • ad hoc to paper The survival boundary has the form of a paraboloid in (L_z, E, L_perp)
    Chosen in Section 3.3, Eq. (48) as a simple fitting function; not derived from the dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Bar length scales with corotation radius as S(t)=Omega_b(t_f)/Omega_b(t)
    Simulation setup in Section 3.1, modifying the Hunter et al. (2024) potential.
  • domain assumption Mock clusters in Auriga are represented by the 50 stars closest in IoM space to a random old star
    Section 4.2; assumes a phase-mixed cluster would look like a compact IoM clump initially, which is the very thing in question.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bar-driven dispersal of Galactic substructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I3ZX2JES

@misc{pith2026250609117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bar-driven dispersal of Galactic substructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I3ZX2JES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09117}
}
abstract

Galactic archaeologists often assume that integrals of motion (IoMs) such as $L_z$ and $E$ are conserved, so substructure remains frozen in IoM space over many Gyr. However, this is not true in the Milky Way due in part to its rotating bar. In this study we quantify the effects of the bar on the dynamics of substructure. We employ three different theoretical models: an analytical toy model; a set of test particle simulations with steady and slowing bars; and a cosmological zoom-in simulation of a Milky Way-like galaxy. Each model predicts that the bar increases the angular momentum and energy spread of low-energy substructures by a factor of $\sim10-100$, so they cannot remain tightly clustered. We derive a criterion for determining when this effect is important. The most affected orbits are low energy ($E\lesssim E_\odot$, $r_\mathrm{apo}<40$ kpc), prograde, eccentric, or low inclination. This includes $\sim3/4$ of Galactic globular clusters and $\sim1/4$ of known stellar streams. We predict the presence of abundant bar-dispersed substructure. The structures remain much more tightly clustered in the space of metallicity and Jacobi integral $H_\mathrm{J}=E-\Omega_\mathrm{b}L_z$. We therefore propose using $H_\mathrm{J}$ and chemistry instead of traditional IoMs when searching for inner halo substructure. In $(L_z,E)$ space the dispersal of the structures is along a principal direction with gradient $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}L_z$ equal to the bar's pattern speed $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$. Bar-dispersed substructure should therefore allow the past evolution of $\Omega_\mathrm{b}$ to be constrained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Predictions of the diffusion model. Left-hand panel: predicted angular momentum spread of substructure as a function of 𝐿𝑧 and 𝐸. The ⊙ symbol indicates a circular orbit at the Sun’s radius 𝑟0. The bar heavily affects prograde substructure at around the Sun’s energy 𝐸⊙ and below. Middle panel: (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐸) distributions of 150 randomly chosen substructures. The ellipses represent the 1𝜎 levels of the Gaussian distributi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gradients of the major axes of the substructure Gaussian distribu￾tions versus energy. The points are coloured by the circularity of the progenitor orbits. The dashed black and red lines indicate the current and mean pattern speeds Ωb; in most cases the gradient lies between these two values. 2.3 Diffusion Coefficient According to our model the debris from each substructure will spread into a Gaussian with axis leng… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of globular clusters in (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐸) space. Left-hand panel: Initial distribution of mock clusters drawn from a DoublePowerLaw distribution function. Middle panel: final distribution of mock clusters in the simulation with the slowing bar. Right-hand panel: distribution of observed globular clusters in the Vasiliev & Baumgardt (2021) catalogue. points indicate prograde (retrograde) orbits. The black and re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final snapshots of the test particle simulations in (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐸) space (top row) and (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐿⊥ ) space (bottom row). Left-hand column: The axisymmetric potential, in which 𝐿𝑧 and 𝐸 are conserved for all particles. Middle column: the potential with a steadily rotating bar of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Slopes of the best-fit lines to the debris from each cluster in the final simulation snapshots. The top and middle panels show the simulations with the steady and slowing bars respectively. The black dashed lines indicates the final pattern speed Ωb = 34.5 km/s/kpc, wh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Standard deviation of 𝐿𝑧 for each substructure in the barred potentials 𝜎𝐿𝑧 ,bar compared to the axisymmetric potential 𝜎𝐿𝑧 ,axi. The top and bottom rows show the steady and slowing bars respectively. The colour scale runs from white (unaffected by the bar) to dark blu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the ratio 𝜎𝐿𝑧 ,bar/𝜎𝐿𝑧 ,axi for substructure above (blue) and below (red) the critical energy, again for the steady (top panel) and slowing (bottom panel) bars. A large majority of the substructure above (below) the critical energy is dispersed by a facto…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observed substructure compared to the slice of the critical boundary for orbits in the Galactic plane, 𝐸crit(𝐿𝑧 , 0). Left-hand panel: globular clusters from the Vasiliev & Baumgardt (2021) catalogue. The points are coloured blue (red) if they lie above (below) the cri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mock metallicities [Fe/H] vs the Jacobi integral 𝐻J . From left to right, the three panels show the axisymmetric, steady bar and slowing bar potentials. The bar is much less destructive to the clusters in this space than in traditional integral of motion space (see [P…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution in (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐸) space of mock phase-mixed clusters of stars in Au-18. Each column shows a different snapshot with the lookback time 𝑡L labelled above. Each row corresponds to sets of stars selected from small regions of integral of motion space at different snap…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Gradients in (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐸) space of different mock clusters at the present day, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Metallicity vs Jacobi integral at the present day for the mock clusters in Au-18. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The chemodynamical memory of a major merger in a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue -- I. A golden thread through time and space

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a Milky Way analogue simulation, accreted stars from the last major merger retain a measurable memory of their birth radius: core-born stars are more bound and metal-rich, outer-born stars less bound and metal-poor...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Andrae R., Rix H.-W., Chandra V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267....8A 267, 8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 2023

  3. [3]

    Baumgardt H., Hilker M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1520B 478, 1520

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1057 2018

  4. [4]

    Baumgardt H., Hilker M., Sollima A., Bellini A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.5138B 482, 5138

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2997 2019

  5. [5]

    Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..689B 514, 689

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1267 2022

  6. [6]

    Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.4456B 525, 4456

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2241 2023

  7. [7]

    Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3198B 528, 3198

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3920 2024

  8. [8]

    W., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Erkal D., Evans N. W., Koposov S. E., Deason A. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..611B 478, 611

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Binney J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..895B 495, 895

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  3. [11]

    E., Stark A

    Binney J., Gerhard O. E., Stark A. A., Bally J., Uchida K. I., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/252.2.210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.252..210B 252, 210

    1991 doi

  4. [12]

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..529B 54, 529

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    N., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379..631B 379, 631

    Blitz L., Spergel D. N., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379..631B 379, 631

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NewAR.10001713B 100, 101713

    Bonaca A., Price-Whelan A. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NewAR.10001713B 100, 101713

    2025

  7. [15]

    W., Hunt J

    Bovy J., Leung H. W., Hunt J. A. S., Mackereth J. T., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Roman-Lopes A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.4740B 490, 4740

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1391B 449, 1391

    Bowden A., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1391B 449, 1391

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Cautun M., Deason A

    Callingham T. M., Cautun M., Deason A. J., Frenk C. S., Grand R. J. J., Marinacci F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.4107C 513, 4107

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Chiba R., Sch \"o nrich R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.2412C 505, 2412

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Chiba R., Friske J. K. S., Sch \"o nrich R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.4710C 500, 4710

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Gerhard O., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2171C 512, 2171

    Clarke J. P., Gerhard O., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2171C 512, 2171

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Dehnen W., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119..800D 119, 800

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    Dehnen W., Semczuk M., Sch \"o nrich R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2712D 518, 2712

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Belokurov V., Font A

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Font A. S., McCarthy I. G., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1867D 513, 1867

    doi

  16. [24]

    M., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Price-Whelan A. M., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1685D 516, 1685

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Davies E. Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3596D 524, 3596

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.4389D 532, 4389

    doi

  19. [27]

    M., Monty S., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Dillamore A. M., Monty S., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L...4D 971, L4

    doi

  20. [28]

    M., Sanders J

    Dillamore A. M., Sanders J. L., Belokurov V., Zhang H., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250302926D p. arXiv:2503.02926

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    M., Helmi A., Matsuno T., Ruiz-Lara T., Balbinot E., L \"o vdal S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L...2D 670, L2

    Dodd E., Callingham T. M., Helmi A., Matsuno T., Ruiz-Lara T., Balbinot E., L \"o vdal S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L...2D 670, L2

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Einstein A., 1905, @doi [Annalen der Physik] 10.1002/andp.19053220806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1905AnP...322..549E 322, 549

    1905 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Huang S., Weinberg M

    Fardal M. A., Huang S., Weinberg M. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..301F 452, 301

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Fattahi A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4471F 484, 4471

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Fragkoudi F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5936F 494, 5936

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Gibbons S. L. J., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3788G 445, 3788

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Halle A., Di Matteo P., Haywood M., Combes F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...578A..58H 578, A58

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Arzamasskiy L., Duarte V

    Hamilton C., Tolman E. A., Arzamasskiy L., Duarte V. N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd69b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...12H 954, 12

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1487H 112, 1487

    Harris W. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1487H 112, 1487

    1996 doi

  32. [40]

    E., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1012.3224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1012.3224H p

    Harris W. E., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1012.3224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1012.3224H p. arXiv:1012.3224

    2010 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460..497H 460, 497

    Hattori K., Erkal D., Sanders J. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460..497H 460, 497

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Helmi A., White S. D. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02616.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.307..495H 307, 495

    1999

  35. [43]

    T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03895.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.319..657H 319, 657

    Helmi A., de Zeeuw P. T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03895.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.319..657H 319, 657

    2000

  36. [44]

    Helmi A., White S. D. M., de Zeeuw P. T., Zhao H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1038/46980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.402...53H 402, 53

    1999 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A

    Helmi A., Babusiaux C., Koppelman H. H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A. G. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563...85H 563, 85

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Horta D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.5462H 500, 5462

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.216H 692, A216

    Hunter G. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.216H 692, A216

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Belokurov V., Cranmer M., Monty S., Zhang H., Ardern-Arentsen A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.2507K 536, 2507

    Kane S. G., Belokurov V., Cranmer M., Monty S., Zhang H., Ardern-Arentsen A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.2507K 536, 2507

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    Kim B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp..685K

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    H., Helmi A., Massari D., Roelenga S., Bastian U., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A...5K 625, A5

    Koppelman H. H., Helmi A., Massari D., Roelenga S., Bastian U., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A...5K 625, A5

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Kruijssen J. M. D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2472K 498, 2472

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    O., Saracino S., Dreizler S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.248L 694, A248

    Latour M., Kamann S., Martocchia S., Husser T. O., Saracino S., Dreizler S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.248L 694, A248

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    W., Bovy J., Mackereth J

    Leung H. W., Bovy J., Mackereth J. T., Hunt J. A. S., Lane R. R., Wilson J. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519..948L 519, 948

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Liu H., Du C., Ye D., Zhang J., Deng M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976..161L 976, 161

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Ruiz-Lara T., Koppelman H

    L \"o vdal S. S., Ruiz-Lara T., Koppelman H. H., Matsuno T., Dodd E., Helmi A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A..57L 665, A57

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Lynden-Bell D., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967MNRAS.136..101L 136, 101

    1967 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Grebel E

    Martell S. L., Grebel E. K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...519A..14M 519, A14

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Helmi A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630L...4M 630, L4

    Massari D., Koppelman H. H., Helmi A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630L...4M 630, L4

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Mateu C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5225M 520, 5225

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    McInnes L., Healy J., Astels S., 2017, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JOSS....2..205M 2, 205

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    Merrow A., Grand R. J. J., Fragkoudi F., Martig M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1520M 531, 1520

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Mowla L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08293-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.636..332M 636, 332

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Evans N

    Myeong G. C., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., Sanders J. L., Koposov S. E., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856L..26M 856, L26

    doi

  56. [64]

    C., Evans N

    Myeong G. C., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., Sanders J. L., Koposov S. E., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..28M 863, L28

    doi

  57. [65]

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

    Myeong G. C., Vasiliev E., Iorio G., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1235M 488, 1235

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Naidu R. P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., Ting Y.-S., Caldwell N., Zaritsky D., Cargile P. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...48N 901, 48

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Ou X., Necib L., Frebel A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2623O 521, 2623

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Johnston K

    Pearson S., Price-Whelan A. M., Johnston K. V., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0220-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1..633P 1, 633

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..16P 571, A16

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    Portail M., Gerhard O., Wegg C., Ness M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.1621P 465, 1621

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    Posti L., Binney J., Nipoti C., Ciotti L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.3060P 447, 3060

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Sesar B., Johnston K

    Price-Whelan A. M., Sesar B., Johnston K. V., Rix H.-W., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..104P 824, 104

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    Qin Y.-J., Shen J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfdb2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913L..22Q 913, L22

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Rix H.-W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941...45R 941, 45

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Smith L., Evans N

    Sanders J. L., Smith L., Evans N. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4552S 488, 4552

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    L., Kawata D., Matsunaga N., Sormani M

    Sanders J. L., Kawata D., Matsunaga N., Sormani M. C., Smith L. C., Minniti D., Gerhard O., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2972S 530, 2972

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..501S 465, 501

    Schiavon R. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..501S 465, 501

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Binney J

    Sellwood J. A., Binney J. J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336..785S 336, 785

    2002

  71. [79]

    C., Gerhard O., Portail M., Vasiliev E., Clarke J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514L...1S 514, L1

    Sormani M. C., Gerhard O., Portail M., Vasiliev E., Clarke J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514L...1S 514, L1

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401..791S 401, 791

    2010

  73. [81]

    Z., Mateo M., Udalski A., Szymanski M., Kaluzny J., Kubiak M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429L..73S 429, L73

    Stanek K. Z., Mateo M., Udalski A., Szymanski M., Kaluzny J., Kubiak M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...429L..73S 429, L73

    1994 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Brogaard K., Leaman R., Casagrande L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..134V 775, 134

    VandenBerg D. A., Brogaard K., Leaman R., Casagrande L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..134V 775, 134

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

    O., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...91V 232, 91

    Vandervoort P. O., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...91V 232, 91

    1979 doi

  76. [84]

    Vasiliev E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1525V 482, 1525

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Vasiliev E., Baumgardt H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5978V 505, 5978

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    Wang J., Hammer F., Yang Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2242W 510, 2242

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    L., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425L..81W 425, L81

    Weiland J. L., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425L..81W 425, L81

    1994 doi

  80. [88]

    White S. D. M., Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.183..341W 183, 341

    1978 doi

  81. [89]

    30, Variable Stars and Galaxies, in honor of M

    Whitelock P., 1992, in Warner B., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 30, Variable Stars and Galaxies, in honor of M. W. Feast on his retirement. p. 11

    1992

  82. [90]

    C., Helmi A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250520143W p

    Woudenberg H. C., Helmi A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250520143W p. arXiv:2505.20143

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    arXiv:2503.19221

    Yang Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319221Y p. arXiv:2503.19221

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    W., Kane S

    Zhang H., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Kane S. G., Sanders J. L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3395Z 533, 3395

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    arXiv:2502.02642

    Zhang H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.02642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250202642Z p. arXiv:2502.02642

    2025 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    J., ed., Proc

    de Vaucouleurs G., 1964, in Kerr F. J., ed., Proc. IAU Symp. Vol. 20, The Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds. p. 195

    1964

Pith tools

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