Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Dark Star Clusters or Ultra-Faint Dwarf galaxies? Revisiting UMa3/U1

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A black-hole-powered star cluster, not a dark-matter-dominated dwarf, can account for UMa3/U1's compactness and high mass-to-light ratio.

desk verdict A credible existence proof that a dark star cluster can mimic UMa3/U1, but the match rides on an unvaried BH-retention assumption and one post-hoc grid model — worth a serious referee, not a reclassification. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10543 v1 pith:OPDW3NYC submitted 2025-08-14 astro-ph.GA

Ali Rostami-Shirazi , Hosein Haghi , Akram Hasani Zonoozi , Pavel Kroupa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords darkstarclustersblackholesubsystemUMa3/U1UrsaMajorIII/UNIONS1mass-to-lightratioN-bodysimulationsfaintMilkyWaysatellitesglobular
topics Dark Matter
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

UMa3/U1, the faintest known Milky Way satellite, is small and old but has a measured velocity dispersion implying a dynamical mass-to-light ratio near $10^3\,M_\odot/L_\odot$, which has been read as evidence of dark matter. The paper argues this reading is not unique: a dark star cluster (DSC)—an evolved, self-gravitating star cluster whose retained black holes have segregated into a dense central subsystem—can reach the same ratios by heating and ejecting its luminous stars. Using direct N-body simulations matched to UMa3/U1's orbit and metallicity, the authors find that a cluster starting with $10^5\,M_\odot$ within an 8 pc half-mass radius enters the DSC phase about 4 Gyr ago and matches UMa3/U1's compact radius, age, and mass-to-light ratio at the observed stellar mass. If correct, UMa3/U1 is a star cluster in its final black-hole-dominated stage, not a dark-matter galaxy, and the high $M_{\rm Dyn}/L$ of other faint ambiguous satellites may also have a purely baryonic origin.

What carries the argument

The central object is the BHSub, a centrally segregated subsystem of stellar-mass black holes that assembles through Spitzer instability when natal kicks are weak enough for most black holes to be retained. The BHSub continuously injects energy into the cluster through frequent few-body encounters, accelerating the evaporation of luminous stars while the black holes remain bound; when the luminous stars become super-virial (virial coefficient $Q_* > 1$ within twice the tidal radius), the cluster is in the DSC phase. The simulations use the collisional N-body code NBODY7 with stellar evolution included, and the paper measures how long a cluster lingers in this phase with the scaled lifetime $

What would settle it

Take spectra of all ~60 stars that model M5 predicts remain bound: the model's line-of-sight velocity dispersion is about 1.9 km/s, corresponding to $M_{\rm Dyn}/L_{1/2}\sim10^3\,M_\odot/L_\odot$ at the lower end of current estimates. A measured dispersion that pushes $M_{\rm Dyn}/L_{1/2}$ above about $6\times10^3\,M_\odot/L_\odot$ (the upper end of the observed range) would exceed what a BHSub-heated cluster of this size can produce, ruling out the DSC explanation for UMa3/U1 and favoring a dark-matter-dominated microgalaxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that UMa3/U1, the faintest known Milky Way satellite, does not have to be a dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxy; it can be a dark star cluster (DSC), a self-gravitating star cluster in the late stage where a centrally segregated subsystem of retained stellar-mass black holes (the BHSub) heats the luminous stars, accelerates their evaporation, and leaves the cluster super-virial with a high dynamical mass-to-light ratio. Using direct N-body simulations calibrated to UMa3/U1's observed orbit and metallicity, the authors identify model M5 (initial mass $10^5\,M_\odot$, initial 3D half-mass radius 8 pc, canonical IMF) as a strong progenitor candidate: when its bound s

Load-bearing premise

Near-complete retention of black holes after supernova kicks: the simulations assume most black holes stay in the cluster because at [Fe/H]≈−2.2 about 75% of black-hole mass is expected to be kick-free, but if actual natal kicks are larger, no central black-hole subsystem assembles and the heating/evaporation mechanism that produces the high mass-to-light ratio collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UMa3/U1 can be classified as a self-gravitating star cluster in the DSC phase; no dark matter is required, and model M5's initial conditions are consistent with a post-gas-expulsion embedded cluster with a canonical IMF.
  • The system is short-lived: the remaining ~62 bound luminous stars should escape within about 1 Gyr (and UNIONS-detectable stars within about 820 Myr), followed by disruption of the BHSub, so UMa3/U1 is seen at a special final stage.
  • In the $M_{\rm Dyn}/L$–$L$ plane, DSCs trace a rising channel from $M_{\rm Dyn}/L_{1/2}\approx2$ to $10^4\,M_\odot/L_\odot$, bridging globular clusters and dwarf galaxies and covering the region occupied by faint ambiguous satellites.
  • The scarcity of systems in the luminosity gap between globular clusters and faint satellites ($10^3\lesssim L/L_\odot\lesssim10^4$) is a natural outcome: DSCs pass through that luminosity range quickly (about 5.5% of their lifetime) and linger in the faint regime.
  • The scenario implies low natal kicks for black holes and possibly a top-heavy IMF in some clusters, tying DSCs to black-hole merger formation and black-hole-driven stellar streams.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If M5 is representative, UMa3/U1's remaining luminous stars should show a velocity-dispersion profile dominated by the BHSub core rather than a dark-matter cusp; this can be tested by obtaining velocities for the roughly 60 predicted members, something the current 11-member sample cannot do.
  • A census that counts every compact, high-$M_{\rm Dyn}/L$ system as a dwarf galaxy would include dissolving star clusters as contamination, potentially biasing dark-matter scaling relations at the faint end.
  • The same BHSub mechanism may also explain systems like Eridanus III and DELVE 1, whose velocity-dispersion upper limits permit either interpretation; looking for compact, ancient, metal-poor populations there could reveal whether they too are near the end of their cluster life.
  • If DSCs are common, the rapid passage through luminosity $10^3$–$10^4\,L_\odot$ predicts that surveys should find few systems in that regime; extending survey selection functions there would test the expected ratio of intermediate-to-faint systems.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that the recently discovered faint Milky Way satellite UMa3/U1, which has a compact half-light radius (R_h = 3 ± 1 pc), an ancient (>11 Gyr) stellar population, and a high inferred dynamical mass-to-light ratio (M_Dyn/L ~ 1900^{+4400}_{-1600} in solar units), can be explained as a dark star cluster (DSC): an evolved self-gravitating star cluster whose central, retained black-hole subsystem heats the luminous stars, accelerates their evaporation, and produces a super-virial velocity dispersion without requiring dark matter. The authors use direct N-body simulations with NBODY7 for a grid of eight models, varying initial mass, half-mass radius, and IMF slope, with UMa3/U1-like metallicity and orbit, and all models assuming near-complete black-hole retention. They report that model M5 (M_i = 10^5 M_sun, r_h,i = 8 pc, canonical IMF) reproduces the observed R_h, M_Dyn/L, and age when the bound stellar mass drops to M* = 16 M_sun. The paper also maps DSC evolutionary tracks in the R_h-L and M_Dyn/L-L planes, arguing that DSCs occupy the region of faint, ambiguous satellites and naturally explain the scarcity of systems at intermediate luminosities.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a purely baryonic formation channel for UMa3/U1 and similar faint ambiguous satellites, with concrete, falsifiable consequences: the system should be in a short-lived phase with a central black-hole subsystem and should dissolve within roughly 1–2 Gyr. The strengths of the work are the use of a state-of-the-art collisional N-body code with stellar evolution, a UMa3/U1-calibrated orbit, and mock-observed velocity dispersions using the same mass estimator as the observations. The paper also provides evolutionary tracks that make the DSC interpretation testable against larger samples. However, the existence proof rests on an assumed near-complete retention of black holes that is not varied or directly constrained, and the successful model is selected from a small grid. These issues do not invalidate the scenario but make the current evidence conditional rather than definitive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, BH natal-kick/retention assumption] The central mechanism and the success of model M5 depend on the assumption of 'near-complete retention of BHs formed in our models' (Sec. 2). This assumption is shared by all eight models in Table 1 and is not varied. The cited support—about 75% of BH mass being kick-free at [Fe/H]=-2.2—concerns the fraction of BH mass receiving negligible natal kicks, not the retained fraction after subsequent dynamical evolution; few-body encounters and binary recoil can eject BHs before the Spitzer instability assembles the BHSub. Because the claim that UMa3/U1 can be explained without dark matter is load-bearing on this input, I request either additional simulations with a fallback-regulated kick prescription that reduces retention, or a quantitative estimate of the minimum retained BH fraction for which M5 still matches R_h=3±1 pc and M_Dyn/L~10^3 at M*=16 M_sun. Without such a test, the conclusion
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Table 1 and Fig. 1] M5 is the only model in the grid satisfying all three thresholds simultaneously (R_h within 3±1 pc, M_Dyn/L within the observed range, and age >11 Gyr). The paper calls M5 'a strong progenitor candidate' and states that this 'reinforces' the classification of UMa3/U1 as a star cluster, but it does not quantify how finely tuned the initial conditions are, nor the prior probability of observing a system in the short DSC phase at exactly M*=16 M_sun (M5 spends only ~1 Gyr near this mass after ~13 Gyr of evolution). Because the claim goes beyond a bare existence proof, the authors should use their own residence-time analysis (Sec. 3.2) to give at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of the probability of catching UMa3/U1 in this phase, or explicitly limit the conclusion to 'one viable model exists' rather than 'the classification is reinforced.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Table 1] The sentence 'all modeled clusters reach the M_Dyn/L threshold of UMa3/U1' is inconsistent with Table 1: the final M_Dyn/L values of M1–M3 (0.009, 0.024, 0.065 × 10^3 M_sun/L_sun) are far below the observed lower limit (~0.3 × 10^3), and M4 (0.28 × 10^3) is marginal. Please clarify whether this statement refers to the evolutionary peak rather than the final snapshot, or correct the text.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] The IMF normalization and several numerical details (initial binary fraction, remnant-mass and kick prescriptions used by NBODY7) are not specified. Please add a sentence or reference so that the simulations are reproducible in detail.
  3. [Data Availability] The statement 'The data underlying this paper are available in the paper' is insufficient for a numerical study. At minimum, the M5 initial conditions and the final snapshot used for the UMa3/U1 comparison should be released, or a repository link provided.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4] The comparison of the residence-time ratio (1:2) with the observed number ratio (1:3) is presented without uncertainties or a discussion of selection effects. This is illustrative, not a quantitative test, and should be labeled as such.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: M5's compactness is achieved by setting r_h,i against the target R_h, so the compactness match is a selected outcome rather than an independent prediction; M_Dyn/L and age remain emergent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (discussion of model grid and Table 1)]
    "Consequently, the canonical IMF models were set as low density to accelerate the dominance of BHSub over luminous stars and increase M_Dyn/L, while ensuring that r_h,i remained constrained to match the final compactness of UMa3/U1."

    The initial half-mass radius r_h,i is an input parameter, and the final projected half-light radius R_h is a derived output. The paper states explicitly that r_h,i was chosen to match the final compactness of UMa3/U1. Therefore M5's R_h=3.5 pc (observed 3±1 pc) is not an independent emergent prediction; it is a calibrated/selected outcome. The paper then uses this agreement, together with M_Dyn/L, to claim that M5 'successfully reproduces' UMa3/U1. The M_Dyn/L and age values are still computed from the N-body evolution and are not directly set by the input, so the circularity is partial rather than complete.

full rationale

The central derivation is a direct N-body simulation: initial masses, radii, IMF, metallicity, and orbit are specified, and the code evolves the cluster. The reported M_Dyn/L, age, and R_h are outputs of the dynamics, not input constants. There is no equation-level identity between an input and the claimed prediction. However, the paper explicitly states that the initial r_h,i for the canonical-IMF models was chosen 'to match the final compactness' of UMa3/U1. Thus the compactness match of the preferred model M5 is partly built into the initial conditions, and the abstract's claim that the model 'successfully reproduces both its compact structure and elevated M_Dyn/L' uses a fitted/selected quantity as supporting evidence. The high M_Dyn/L is also enabled by the explicit assumption of near-complete BH retention; this is a physically motivated but unvaried input, which limits the generality of the scenario but is not a circular reduction because the simulated M_Dyn/L still emerges from the N-body evolution. Overall, the paper is a plausible scenario study rather than a first-principles prediction, and the circularity is limited to the calibration of the initial radius/selection of the matching model.

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

The simulation framework is standard, but reaching UMa3/U1 specifically requires a grid of initial masses and radii, a choice of IMF slope, and an assumption of near-full BH retention. The strongest non-fitted anchor is that M5's 8 pc half-mass radius is consistent with post-gas-expulsion embedded cluster radii cited in Section 3.1. No fundamentally new entity is introduced; the BH subsystem and DSC concept come from prior work.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial cluster mass M_i = M5: 1.0e5 Msun; suite range 0.2e5 to 1.0e5 Msun
    Grid of initial masses chosen; M5 selected because at M* = 16 Msun it matched UMa3/U1's age and size.
  • Initial half-mass radius r_h,i = M5: 8 pc; suite range 1 to 12 pc
    Tuned so that BH-driven expansion and late contraction put the final R_h near the observed 3-4 pc.
  • IMF high-mass slope alpha3 = 2.3 (canonical) for M5; 1.7 for M7/M8
    Controls the number and mass of black holes; selected to make the DSC phase reachable.
  • BH natal kick retention fraction = Near-complete retention; about 75% of BH mass kick-free
    Adopted to maximize the probability of reaching the DSC phase; the central mechanism fails if BH retention is low.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NBODY7 accurately models stellar evolution, binary interactions, and black hole dynamics.
    All central results depend on the code's prescriptions from Hurley et al. 2000 and Belczynski et al. 2008, 2010.
  • domain assumption Low BH natal kicks allow near-complete BH retention in metal-poor clusters.
    Assumed in Section 2 to maximize DSC formation; not independently measured or varied in this paper.
  • domain assumption UMa3/U1's observed orbit can be integrated backward in a static Milky Way potential.
    Initial orbital conditions use observed position and velocity in a fixed bulge, disc, and dark halo, ignoring dynamical friction and Galactic mass evolution.
  • domain assumption An initial Plummer model in virial equilibrium represents an embedded cluster after gas expulsion.
    This is the starting point for all simulations; different initial density profiles would change the timing and outcome of the DSC phase.
  • domain assumption The observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion of UMa3/U1 is intrinsic rather than inflated by binaries or an outlier.
    The UMa3/U1 M/L anchor uses sigma_los = 1.9 km/s after outlier removal; the paper acknowledges binary uncertainty but does not model it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Star Clusters or Ultra-Faint Dwarf galaxies? Revisiting UMa3/U1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPDW3NYC

@misc{pith2026250810543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Star Clusters or Ultra-Faint Dwarf galaxies? Revisiting UMa3/U1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPDW3NYC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10543}
}
read the original abstract

Owing to sparse spectroscopic observations, the classification of faint satellites as either dark matter-dominated dwarf galaxies or self-gravitating star clusters remains unresolved. The recently discovered Ursa Major III/UNIONS 1 (UMa3/U1) object, with its measured velocity dispersion, provides a rare observational anchor in this regime. Despite its cluster-like compactness, its inferred dynamical mass-to-light ratio (M_dyn/L) suggests a dark matter-dominated nature, prompting interpretations of UMa3/U1 as a microgalaxy, though current measurements remain inconclusive. Thousand-level M_dyn/L values are not unique to galaxies; self-gravitating dark star clusters (DSCs) can reach comparable levels via energy injection driven by a centrally segregated black hole subsystem (BHSub), which accelerates the evaporation of luminous stars and leads to a super-virial appearance with elevated velocity dispersion. To assess whether UMa3/U1 is a DSC, we conducted direct N-body simulations and identified a model that successfully reproduces both its compact structure and elevated M_dyn/L, supporting a self-gravitating cluster origin. We find the cluster entered the DSC phase around 4 Gyr ago, with its luminous stars expected to be depleted within the next 1 Gyr, followed by the gradual disruption of the central BHSub over the subsequent Gyr. We broaden our analysis by mapping DSC evolutionary tracks in the size versus total luminosity (L) and M_dyn/L-L spaces, showing that DSCs occupy a region overlapping with faint, ambiguous satellites. In the M_dyn/L-L diagram, DSCs trace a transitional channel bridging globular clusters and dwarf galaxies as they rise from M_dyn/L ~ 2 to 10^4 M_sun/L_sun.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    X., da Costa, L., et al

    Balbinot, E., Santiago, B. X., da Costa, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/101 Banerjee,S.2017,MNRAS,467,524,doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/101 2013

  2. [3]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 371, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15880.x

    Banerjee, S., Baumgardt, H., & Kroupa, P. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 371, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15880.x

    arXiv 2010

  3. [4]

    L., et al

    Banerjee, S., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935332

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935332 2020

  4. [5]

    2011, ApJL, 741, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L12

    Banerjee, S., & Kroupa, P. 2011, ApJL, 741, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L12

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/l12 2011

  5. [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

  6. [7]

    2020, PASA, 37, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.38

    Baumgardt, H., Sollima, A., & Hilker, M. 2020, PASA, 37, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.38

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.38 2020

  7. [8]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1217

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1217 2010

  8. [9]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

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

    2008

  2. [11]

    G., & Heggie, D

    Breen, P. G., & Heggie, D. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt628

    2013 doi

  3. [13]

    D., Li, T

    Cerny, W., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 942, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c3

    doi

  4. [14]

    S., et al

    Cerny, W., Drlica-Wagner, A., Li, T. S., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 953, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aced84

    doi

  5. [15]

    E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Cerny, W., Martínez-Vázquez, C. E., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2023c, ApJ, 953, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd78

    doi

  6. [16]

    C., Jerjen, H., Kim, D., & Schirmer, M

    Conn, B. C., Jerjen, H., Kim, D., & Schirmer, M. 2018, ApJ, 852, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9eda 10

    2018 doi

  7. [17]

    Devlin, S., Baumgardt, H., & Sweet, S. M. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf572

    2025 doi

  8. [18]

    2020, A&A, 640, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936572

    Dinnbier, F., & Kroupa, P. 2020, A&A, 640, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936572

    2020 doi

  9. [19]

    F., Peñarrubia, J., & Walker, M

    Errani, R., Ibata, R., Navarro, J. F., Peñarrubia, J., & Walker, M. G. 2024a, ApJ, 968, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad402d

    doi

  10. [20]

    F., Smith, S

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Smith, S. E. T., & McConnachie, A. W. 2024b, ApJ, 965, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2267

    doi

  11. [21]

    Errani, R., Peñarrubia, J., & Walker, M. G. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2505

    2018 doi

  12. [22]

    2011, AJ, 142, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/88

    Fadely, R., Willman, B., Geha, M., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/88

    2011 doi

  13. [23]

    A., & Kroupa, P

    Forbes, D. A., & Kroupa, P. 2011, PASA, 28, 77, doi: 10.1071/AS10029

    2011 doi

  14. [24]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    2012 doi

  15. [25]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 1475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2212

    Haghi, H. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2212

    2024 doi

  16. [26]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2

    Gieles, M., Erkal, D., Antonini, F., Balbinot, E., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2

    2021 doi

  17. [27]

    Gieles, M., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.03791, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.03791

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [28]

    H., Kroupa, P., Banerjee, S., & Baumgardt, H

    Haghi, H., Zonoozi, A. H., Kroupa, P., Banerjee, S., & Baumgardt, H. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2207

    2015 doi

  19. [29]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    1996 doi

  20. [30]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000

  21. [31]

    1976, ApJ, 204, 73, doi: 10.1086/154152

    Illingworth, G. 1976, ApJ, 204, 73, doi: 10.1086/154152

    1976 doi

  22. [32]

    N., Cohen, J

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

    2013 doi

  23. [33]

    Koposov, S., de Jong, J. T. A., Belokurov, V., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 337, doi: 10.1086/521422 Koposov,S.E.,Belokurov,V.,Torrealba,G.,&Evans,N.W.2015, ApJ, 805, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/130

    2007 doi

  24. [34]

    1997, NewA, 2, 139, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00012-2

    Kroupa, P. 1997, NewA, 2, 139, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00012-2

    1997 doi

  25. [35]

    1998, MNRAS, 300, 200, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01892.x

    Kroupa, P. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 200, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01892.x

    1998

  26. [36]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  27. [37]

    2008, in The Cambridge N-Body Lectures, ed

    Kroupa, P. 2008, in The Cambridge N-Body Lectures, ed. S. J

    2008

  28. [38]

    Aarseth, C. A. Tout, & R. A. Mardling, Vol. 760, 181, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8431-7_8

    doi

  29. [39]

    2013, in

    Kroupa, P., Weidner, C., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., et al. 2013, in

    2013

  30. [40]

    Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed

    Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, Vol. 5, 115, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_4

    doi

  31. [41]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2452 Leaman,R.2012,AJ,144,183,doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/183

    2020 doi

  32. [42]

    D., Wilkinson, M

    Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Davies, M. B., & Gilmore, G. F. 2007, MNRAS, 379, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00330.x

    2007

  33. [43]

    D., Wilkinson, M

    Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Davies, M. B., & Gilmore, G. F. 2008,MNRAS,386,65,doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13052.x

    2008

  34. [44]

    Marks, M., Kroupa, P., Dabringhausen, J., & Pawlowski, M. S. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2246, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20767.x

    2012

  35. [45]

    Massana, P., Ruiz-Lara, T., Noël, N. E. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac030

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135

    2019 doi

  37. [47]

    Mateo, M. L. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.435

    1998 doi

  38. [48]

    B., et al

    Mau, S., Cerny, W., Pace, A. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6c67

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

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

    2012 doi

  40. [50]

    E., & van der Marel, R

    McLaughlin, D. E., & van der Marel, R. P. 2005, ApJS, 161, 304, doi: 10.1086/497429

    2005 doi

  41. [51]

    1999, MNRAS, 310, 745, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x

    Mikkola, S., & Tanikawa, K. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 745, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x

    1999

  42. [52]

    1975, PASJ, 27, 533 Muñoz, R

    Miyamoto, M., & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533 Muñoz, R. R., Geha, M., Côté, P., et al. 2012, ApJL, 753, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L15

    1975 doi

  43. [53]

    2024, Universe, 10, 143, doi: 10.3390/universe10030143

    Oehm, W., & Kroupa, P. 2024, Universe, 10, 143, doi: 10.3390/universe10030143

    2024 doi

  44. [54]

    C., & Latham, D

    Peterson, R. C., & Latham, D. W. 1986, ApJ, 305, 645, doi: 10.1086/164278

    1986 doi

  45. [55]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460

    1911 doi

  46. [56]

    I., Wilkinson, M

    Read, J. I., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., Gilmore, G., & Kleyna, J. T. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 387, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09959.x

    2006

  47. [57]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2553

    Roshan, M., Ghafourian, N., Kashfi, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2553

    2021 doi

  48. [58]

    H., Ghasemi, S

    Rostami-Shirazi, A., Baumgardt, H., Zonoozi, A. H., Ghasemi, S. M., & Haghi, H. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2644

    2025 doi

  49. [59]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1070

    Zonoozi, A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1070

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    2024a, MNRAS, 531, 4166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae936

    Kroupa, P. 2024a, MNRAS, 531, 4166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae936

    doi

  51. [61]

    2024b, MNRAS, 531, 2563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3046 11

    Rostami-Shirazi, A., Khalaj, P., & Haghi, H. 2024b, MNRAS, 531, 2563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3046 11

    doi

  52. [62]

    H., Haghi, H., & Rabiee, M

    Rostami-Shirazi, A., Zonoozi, A. H., Haghi, H., & Rabiee, M. 2024c, MNRAS, 535, 3489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2365

    doi

  53. [63]

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

    2019 doi

  54. [64]

    D., Li, T

    Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., Ji, A. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 256, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85dd

    2024 doi

  55. [65]

    Smith, S. E. T., Cerny, W., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0d9f

    2024 doi

  56. [66]

    Spitzer, L. S. 2014, in Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters (Princeton University Press)

    2014

  57. [67]

    H., Larsen, S., Brodie, J

    Strader, J., Smith, G. H., Larsen, S., Brodie, J. P., & Huchra, J. P. 2009, AJ, 138, 547, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/547

    2009 doi

  58. [68]

    A., Puzia, T

    Taylor, M. A., Puzia, T. H., Gomez, M., & Woodley, K. A. 2015, ApJ, 805, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/65

    2015 doi

  59. [69]

    Torrealba, G., Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S. E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz071

    2019 doi

  60. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3179

    Wang, L. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3179

    2020 doi

  61. [71]

    S., & Tanikawa, A

    Wang, L., Fujii, M. S., & Tanikawa, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5778, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1157

    2021 doi

  62. [72]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3033

    Wang, L., Kroupa, P., Takahashi, K., & Jerabkova, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3033

    2020 doi

  63. [73]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw274

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw274

    2016 doi

  64. [74]

    C., Fragione, G., Kremer, K., et al

    Weatherford, N. C., Fragione, G., Kremer, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd79c

    2021 doi

  65. [75]

    2012, AJ, 144, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/3/76

    Willman, B., & Strader, J. 2012, AJ, 144, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/3/76

    2012 doi

  66. [76]

    R., West, A

    Willman, B., Blanton, M. R., West, A. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2692, doi: 10.1086/430214

    2005 doi

  67. [77]

    D., Bullock, J

    Wolf, J., Martinez, G. D., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1220, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x

    2010

  68. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 5155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1174

    Wu, W., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 5155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1174

    2024 doi

  69. [79]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa081

    Wu, X., & Kroupa, P. 2018, ApJ, 853, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa081

    2018 doi

  70. [80]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1519

    Wu, X., & Kroupa, P. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1519

    2019 doi

  71. [81]

    X., Rix, H

    Xue, X. X., Rix, H. W., Zhao, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1143, doi: 10.1086/589500

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.