Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra II: The inner stellar halo traced by a large sample of blue horizontal branch stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 44,552-star catalog shows the Milky Way's inner halo flattens toward the center.

desk verdict Useful full-sky BHB catalog from XP spectra, but the halo flattening trend rests on an untested all-sky completeness assumption and needs a direct broken-power-law comparison before I'd trust the single-slope claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08784 v1 pith:SNOS3NZJ submitted 2025-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Wenbo Wu , Xianhao Ye , C. Allende Prieto , Yuqin Chen , Xiang-Xiang Xue , Gang Zhao , Jingkun Zhao , David S. Aguado
show 2 more authors
Jonay I. González Hernández Rafael Rebolo
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords bluehorizontalbranchstarsGaiaBp/RpspectraGalacticstellarhaloflatteningdensityprofileselectionfunctionsyntheticphotometryMilkyWaystructure
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

Using the ~220 million low-resolution Gaia Bp/Rp spectra, this paper builds a high-latitude catalog of 44,552 blue horizontal branch (BHB) stars and uses them as standard candles to map the inner stellar halo. The central claim is that the halo's vertical flattening is not constant: $q$ rises from about 0.4 at a Galactocentric radius of 8 kpc to about 0.8 at 25 kpc, so the inner halo is markedly flattened and the outer part nearly spherical. Once this radial variation of $q$ is allowed, the density profile is a single power law with index $\alpha = -4.65 \pm 0.04$ (all stars: $-4.80 \pm 0.06$), with no broken power law required. A reader should care because a clean, selection-function-corrected BHB sample turns Gaia's low-resolution spectra into a direct geometric probe of how the Milky Way's stellar halo was assembled.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the selection function $S_{\rm BHB}(l,b,G-G_{\rm RP},G) = S_{\rm XP}(l,b,G-G_{\rm RP},G)\, P_{\rm BHB}(G)$, which corrects the observed BHB counts to the complete Gaia photometric census, combined with a variable-flattening ellipsoid density model $\nu(r) = \nu_0 r^{-\alpha}$ with $r = \sqrt{R^2 + (Z/q(r))^2}$. The density is reconstructed along many lines of sight by kernel density estimation, weighted by the inverse selection function, and isodensity contours are fitted in Galactocentric polar coordinates so that $q$ is read off as a function of radius instead of being held fixed. The BHB absolute-magnitude--color relation supplies distances, and the $T_{\rm eff}$

What would settle it

Measure the BHB completeness separately in different sky regions using the available spectroscopic cross-matches (split by sky position or color) and re-derive $q(r)$ and $\alpha$; if $q \approx 0.4$ at 8 kpc or $\alpha = -4.65 \pm 0.04$ shifts beyond the quoted uncertainties when the sky-uniform assumption is relaxed, the reconstruction is contaminated. An independent complete spectroscopic sample to $G \approx 17$ in a few high-latitude fields would settle it directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a new map of the inner stellar halo from 44,552 BHB candidates selected out of Gaia's Bp/Rp spectra. The selection combines synthetic broad-band $u,g,r$ and narrow-band CaHK photometry with a $T_{\rm eff}$-$\log g$ cut to reject blue stragglers and main-sequence stars, and the sample is accompanied by a selection function built from Gaia DR3 photometry. Using BHB absolute magnitudes calibrated with Gaia parallaxes, the authors convert the catalog into a three-dimensional density field, fitting isodensity contours with an ellipsoid whose vertical flattening $q$ is free to vary with radius. They find $q \approx 0.4$ at $r \approx 8$ kpc, growing to $q \approx 0.8$ at $

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes that, within each narrow bin of sky position, color, and magnitude, the fraction of BHB stars among the XP-spectra sample equals the fraction among all Gaia photometric stars, and that the BHB-selection completeness measured from roughly 3,000 spectroscopically confirmed cross-match stars applies uniformly across the whole sky and all colors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The flat inner halo ($q \approx 0.4$ at 8 kpc) and rounder outer halo ($q \approx 0.8$ at 25 kpc) give a geometric constraint that models of Milky Way mass assembly must reproduce.
  • With variable flattening, the inner-halo data are consistent with a single power law $\alpha \approx -4.65$, so broken power-law fits with break radii at 15--30 kpc may have been forced by assuming constant $q$.
  • The catalog's selection function makes the sample ready for kinematic follow-up: combining these positions and distances with proper motions or future radial velocities can measure velocity anisotropy and enclosed mass in the inner halo.
  • The measured completeness, roughly 90% at $G=14$ falling to 40% at $G=17$, implies that many more BHB stars remain in the XP spectra and that deeper low-resolution surveys should extend this mapping further out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit: if $q \approx 0.4$ at 8 kpc is real, a substantial flattened, disk-like old component may be mixed into the BHB population; a testable extension is to split the sample by metallicity or proper-motion anisotropy and re-fit $q(r)$ and $\alpha$ for each subset.
  • A testable extension: apply the same variable-$q$, single-power-law procedure to RR Lyrae or K giants over the same 8--25 kpc volume; agreement at $\alpha \approx -4.6$ would indicate a common old-halo property, while disagreement would point to BHB-specific selection or distance systematics.
  • The paper itself notes (Sections 2.3--2.4 and the Summary) that completeness falls to about 40% at $G \approx 17$ and that the catalog has no radial velocities; these self-stated limits are the main barriers to extending the density measurement outward and to dynamical modeling, and both are targets for deeper or follow-up spectroscopy.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a catalog of 44,552 high-latitude blue horizontal branch (BHB) candidates from Gaia DR3 Bp/Rp (XP) spectra, using synthetic SDSS ugr and Pristine CaHK photometry plus Teff-log g cuts. A selection function is derived from the Gaia DR3 photometric sample and a completeness correction estimated from 3,051 SEGUE cross-matched sources. The authors then fit the stellar halo density with non-parametric isodensity ellipses in bins of log10(nu), allowing a radially varying flattening q(r), and find q ~ 0.4 at r ~ 8 kpc rising to q ~ 0.8 at r ~ 25 kpc. For the full sample the radial profile is claimed to be a single power law with alpha = -4.80 +/- 0.06; after removing outliers with residual (nu - nu_fitting)/nu_fitting > 0.6, the authors report a smoother r-q relation and alpha = -4.65 +/- 0.04.

Significance. If the results are robust, this paper would provide a large, all-sky BHB catalog with a documented selection function, useful for many Galactic archaeology applications. The use of XP spectra to derive synthetic multi-band photometry and stellar parameters is a modern and promising approach, and the purity checks against SEGUE (95%) and LAMOST (89%) are valuable. The paper also includes a non-parametric flattening analysis that avoids assuming a fixed ellipsoid shape, which is a methodological strength. However, the central astrophysical claims depend on a completeness correction that is calibrated on a small, SEGUE-footprint subsample and assumed to be all-sky and color-independent, and the model validation includes a residual-based subsample cut that is partly circular. These issues need to be addressed before the quantitative flattening trend and power-law index can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (6)] The headline density and shape results are obtained by applying S_BHB(l,b,G-GRP,G) = S_XP(l,b,G-GRP,G) * P_BHB(G), with P_BHB(G) calibrated from only 3,051 SEGUE cross-matched sources. The manuscript explicitly assumes P_BHB is independent of sky position and color. This is load-bearing: at a fixed Galactocentric radius, different lines of sight correspond to very different heliocentric distances and hence very different G values, so any error in P_BHB(G) acts as a direction-dependent weight that can distort the inferred q(r) as well as alpha. The quoted uncertainties in Table 1 and alpha = -4.65 +/- 0.04 in Fig. 9 are formal fitting errors only and do not include this completeness-calibration term. Please quantify the systematic uncertainty by, for example, reweighting with alternative P_BHB curves from photometric BHB catalogs or mock realizations, or demonstrate that plausible all-sky
  2. [Section 3, Figs. 10-12] The 'smooth halo' subsample is constructed by applying the cut (nu - nu_fitting)/nu_fitting < 0.6 to residuals from the initial model, and then the model is refit to this same subsample. This introduces a mild circularity in the validation: the improved residual distribution shown in Fig. 10 and the smoother r-q relation in Fig. 9 are partly guaranteed by the cut. The qualitative trend (q increasing with r) is already present for all BHB stars, so the main claim survives, but the quantitative claims based on the subsample (alpha = -4.65 +/- 0.04 and the reported q(r) polynomial) need out-of-sample validation, for example via cross-validation, fitting on the full sample and then applying the residual cut, or modeling known substructures separately.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 9] The paper states that the radial density profile is 'best fit' by a single power law with alpha = -4.65 +/- 0.04, but no comparison is made with the broken power-law model that is standard in the halo literature and is itself discussed in the introduction. With q(r) as a free function, a broken power law may provide a comparable or better fit. Please report goodness-of-fit statistics for both models (e.g., chi^2/dof, AIC or BIC) or otherwise justify why the SPL is preferred. This is central to the claim that a variable flattening removes the need for a break radius.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2] There is a typo in the abstract: 'best fit with by a single power law' should be 'best fit by a single power law'. In Section 2.2, 'extent the fitting' should be 'extend the fitting'.
  2. [Section 2.4, Fig. 6] The y-axis label in the top panel of Fig. 6 reads 'Completeness/CSEGUE', which is not defined in the text; the ratio plotted is n_BHB(ours)/n_BHB(Barbosa) with C(SEGUE) assumed constant. Please clarify the label and explicitly state the assumed value or normalization of C(SEGUE).
  3. [Fig. 8] Two panels in Fig. 8 are labelled 'None' because no stars fall in those log10(nu) bins. Consider omitting these empty panels or explaining why they are included, as they are visually confusing.
  4. [Eq. (10)] The text says 'we setted Dmin = 0 kpc'; this should be 'we set Dmin = 0 kpc'.
  5. [Table 1] The caption uses superscripts a and b to denote the full BHB sample and the smooth-halo subsample, but the columns are not explicitly labeled in the table header. Adding explicit column headings such as 'All BHB' and 'Smooth halo' would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity in the smooth-halo validation step; central halo-shape result remains independent.

  1. other [Section 3, p. 10, after Fig. 10 and before Fig. 12]
    "To reduce the influence of the minor component, we applied a rough cut ofν−νfitting/νfitting < 0.6 and defined the remaining stars as the subsample of the smooth stellar halo. We then repeated the fitting process and presented the results for two representative bins in Figure 11."

    The 'smooth halo' subsample is defined by the very model that is then refit: stars are retained only if (ν−ν_fitting)/ν_fitting < 0.6, where ν_fitting comes from the first ellipsoid+SPL fit. Removing the largest residuals and refitting the same model family guarantees, by construction, a narrower and more symmetric residual distribution; the paper's subsequent claim of 'a significant improvement in consistency' and a single-Gaussian residual (mean 0.05, σ=0.38) is therefore a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation. This does not create the main result: the q(r) flattening trend (q≈0.4 at r≈8 kpc to q≈0.8 at r≈25 kpc) and the steep SPL index are already present in the full-sample fit (Table 1, Fig. 9 blue), and the cleaned-sample index (α=-4.65±0.04) differs only modes

full rationale

The paper's central claims are fits to the data rather than derivations from first principles, so the circularity burden is low. The selection function S_BHB = S_XP × P_BHB uses an external Gaia XP selection function (gaiaunlimited) and a completeness factor P_BHB estimated from SEGUE cross-matches; the assumptions that P_BHB is sky- and color-independent are explicit limitations, not circular reductions. The MG–color calibration is anchored to Gaia parallaxes and the distance scale is then applied to the wider sample, which is standard self-calibration rather than circularity. The only mildly circular element is the 'smooth halo' subsample: stars are selected by their closeness to a first model fit, then the same model family is refit to that truncated sample and the residual improvement is reported as validation. This is partly self-fulfilling, but it is not load-bearing for the main q(r) trend, which already appears in the full-sample fit, and the quoted power-law indices differ only slightly before and after the cut. No self-citation uniqueness theorem or ansatz-smuggling is present. The score reflects the single mild self-referential validation step, not a fundamental circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central results depend on several fitted relations and modeling assumptions. The MG relation and the selection-function completeness are calibrated on sub-samples, and the ellipsoidal model assumes axisymmetry. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • CaHK ridgeline polynomial f(g-r) = Eq. 1 coefficients: 0.83, -1.32, -1.45, 11.24
    Chosen to separate BHB stars from high surface gravity stars in (u-CaHK, g-r) space using SEGUE-confirmed stars (Fig. 1).
  • log g - Teff separation line = log g = 2e-4 * Teff + 1.6
    Hand-drawn boundary between BHB and blue straggler/dwarf groups in Fig. 2.
  • Teff selection bounds = 7200 < Teff < 12000 K
    Chosen because the separation line performs poorly below 7200 K; upper bound from grid.
  • MG absolute magnitude relations = Quartic coefficients in Eq. 3 for P16, P50, P84
    Fitted to 6,065 BHB stars with parallax_over_error > 10.
  • Smooth-halo residual cutoff = (nu - nu_fitting)/nu_fitting < 0.6
    Hand-chosen threshold to remove outliers in Section 3.
  • Extrapolated flattening beyond r=23 kpc = q = 0.80 (or 0.81)
    Set to the value of the fitted polynomial at the edge; affects outer halo model.
  • Power-law index and normalization = alpha = -4.65 +/- 0.04, nu0
    Fitted to the binned density data.
  • q(r) polynomial coefficients = Not quoted in text
    Fitted to the q vs r values in Fig. 9.
  • Isodensity bin size = 0.1 in log10(nu)
    Arbitrary binning choice.
  • Distance uncertainty sigma_Di = (D84 - D16)/2 from MG quartiles
    Derived from the spread of the MG relation rather than individual parallax uncertainties.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption BHB stars are standard candles with near-constant absolute magnitude
    Used to estimate distances in Section 2.2; not derived here.
  • domain assumption r_BHB,XP = r_BHB,ph (no type-dependent selection in XP spectra within bins)
    Stated in Section 2.4, Eq. 5.
  • domain assumption P_BHB estimated from SEGUE common sources is sky- and color-independent
    Stated in Section 2.4: 'Assuming that P_BHB is irrelevant to the positions in the sky'.
  • domain assumption SEGUE catalog is nearly complete (C(SEGUE) ~ 1) for g < 19
    Borrowed from Starkenburg et al. 2019; used to normalize completeness.
  • domain assumption Stellar halo is axisymmetric and described by oblate ellipsoids with a single q at each radius
    Model in Section 3, Eq. 12-13; ignores substructures and triaxiality.
  • domain assumption SFD dust map and ccm89 extinction law with Rv=3.1 apply to all target stars
    Used for dereddening photometry and spectra.
  • domain assumption nsc3 synthetic spectral library covers the parameter space of BHB stars
    Used in FERRE fitting (Section 2.1.2).
  • domain assumption Gaia XP spectra have no significant systematics for G > 11.5
    They exclude G < 11.5 citing Andrae et al. 2023.
  • standard math The distance distribution is Gaussian for KDE
    Equation 9, normal kernel used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra II: The inner stellar halo traced by a large sample of blue horizontal branch stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNOS3NZJ

@misc{pith2026250808784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra II: The inner stellar halo traced by a large sample of blue horizontal branch stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNOS3NZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08784}
}
abstract

We selected BHB stars based on synthetic photometry and stellar atmosphere parameters inferred from Gaia Bp/Rp spectra. We generated the synthetic SDSS broad-band $ugr$ and Pristine narrow-band CaHK magnitudes from Gaia Bp/Rp data. A photometric selection of BHB candidates was made in the $(u-g, g-r)$ and $(u-\mathrm{CaHK},g-r)$ color-color spaces. A spectroscopic selection in $T_\mathrm{eff}-\log g$ space was applied to remove stars with high surface gravity. The selection function of BHB stars was obtained by using the Gaia DR3 photometry. A non-parametric method that allows the variation in the vertical flattening $q$ with the Galactic radius, was adopted to explore the density shape of the stellar halo. We present a catalog of 44,552 high latitude ($|b|>20^\circ$) BHB candidates chosen with a well-characterized selection function. The stellar halo traced by these BHB stars is more flattened at smaller radii ($q=0.4$ at $r\sim8$ kpc), and becomes nearly spherical at larger radii ($q=0.8$ at $r\sim25$ kpc). Assuming a variable flattening and excluding several obvious outliers that might be related to the halo substructures or contaminants, we obtain a smooth and consistent relationship between $r$ and $q$, and the density profile is best fit with by a single power law with an index $\alpha=-4.65\pm0.04$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Wilhelm, R., et al

    Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 804 Allende Prieto, C., Koesterke, L., Hubeny, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A25

    2006

  2. [2]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Koposov, S. E., & Laporte, C. F. P. 2024, A&A, 690, A166

    2024

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 674, A27

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Sordo, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A27

    2023

  4. [4]

    C., Baum, W

    Arp, H. C., Baum, W. A., & Sandage, A. R. 1952, AJ, 57, 4 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    1952

  5. [5]

    O., Santucci, R

    Barbosa, F. O., Santucci, R. M., Rossi, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 30

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    & Vasiliev, E

    Baumgardt, H. & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957

    2021

  7. [7]

    C., Almeida, T., Rossi, S., Wilhelm, R., & Marsteller, B

    Beers, T. C., Almeida, T., Rossi, S., Wilhelm, R., & Marsteller, B. 2007, ApJS, 168, 277

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    & Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V . & Koposov, S. E. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 602

    work page 2016

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Bovy, J

    Bennett, M. & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417

    2019

  3. [11]

    A., Xue, X.-X., Liu, C., et al

    Bird, S. A., Xue, X.-X., Liu, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 731

    2022

  4. [12]

    A., Xue, X.-X., Liu, C., et al

    Bird, S. A., Xue, X.-X., Liu, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 66

    2021

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 669, A55

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A55

    2023

  6. [14]

    M., Weiler, M., Jordi, C., et al

    Carrasco, J. M., Weiler, M., Jordi, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A86

    2021

  7. [15]

    Castro-Ginard, A., Brown, A. G. A., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A37

    2023

  8. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3075

    Chen, A., Li, Z., Wang, Y ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3075

    2023

  9. [17]

    J., Hewett, P

    Clewley, L., Warren, S. J., Hewett, P. C., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 87

    2002

  10. [18]

    H., Naidu, R

    Conroy, C., Weinberg, D. H., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.02989

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J., Smart, R

    Cooper, W. J., Smart, R. L., Jones, H. R. A., & Sarro, L. M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1521

    2024

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 685, A134

    Culpan, R., Dorsch, M., Geier, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A134

    2024

  13. [21]

    2021, A&A, 654, A107

    Culpan, R., Pelisoli, I., & Geier, S. 2021, A&A, 654, A107

    2021

  14. [22]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3169 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al

    Das, P., Williams, A., & Binney, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3169 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A2

    2016

  15. [23]

    J., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2903

    2011

  16. [24]

    J., Belokurov, V ., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V ., Koposov, S. E., & Lancaster, L. 2018, ApJ, 862, L1

    2018

  17. [25]

    J., Erkal, D., Belokurov, V ., et al

    Deason, A. J., Erkal, D., Belokurov, V ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5964

    2021

  18. [26]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  19. [27]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

    2018

  20. [28]

    C., Yuan, H

    Faccioli, L., Smith, M. C., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 105

    2014

  21. [29]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 69

    Fukushima, T., Chiba, M., Homma, D., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 69

    2018

  22. [30]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 72

    Fukushima, T., Chiba, M., Tanaka, M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 72

    2019

  23. [31]

    2025, PASJ, 77, 178 Article number, page 12 of 15 Wu et al.: Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia XP spectra II Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fukushima, T., Chiba, M., Tanaka, M., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, 178 Article number, page 12 of 15 Wu et al.: Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia XP spectra II Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini...

    2025

  24. [32]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  25. [33]

    J., Martin, C., Donlon, Thomas, I., & Amy, P

    Gryncewicz, R., Newberg, H. J., Martin, C., Donlon, Thomas, I., & Amy, P. M. 2021, ApJ, 910, 102

    2021

  26. [34]

    J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 249

    2022

  27. [35]

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

    Hernitschek, N., Cohen, J. G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 31

    2018

  28. [36]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 13

    Huang, B., Yuan, H., Xiang, M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 13

    2024

  29. [37]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2142 Jofré, P

    Iorio, G., Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2142 Jofré, P. & Weiss, A. 2011, A&A, 533, A59

    2018

  30. [38]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 11

    Ju, J., Cui, W., Huo, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 11

    2024

  31. [39]

    R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G

    Kafle, P. R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2012, ApJ, 761, 98

    2012

  32. [40]

    & Binney, J

    Li, C. & Binney, J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4706

    2022

  33. [41]

    Li, S., Casertano, S., & Riess, A. G. 2023, ApJ, 950, 83

    2023

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4

    2021

  35. [43]

    2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 096

    Liu, C., Xu, Y ., Wan, J.-C., et al. 2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 096

    2017

  36. [44]

    F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al

    Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A115

    2024

  37. [45]

    E., Muñoz, R

    Medina, G. E., Muñoz, R. R., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4762

    2024

  38. [46]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New A, 15, 433

    2010

  39. [47]

    2023, A&A, 674, A3

    Montegriffo, P., De Angeli, F., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A3

    2023

  40. [48]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 206

    Montenegro, K., Minniti, D., Alonso-García, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 206

    2019

  41. [49]

    & Prišegen, M

    Paunzen, E. & Prišegen, M. 2022, A&A, 667, L10

    2022

  42. [50]

    Pier, J. R. 1982, AJ, 87, 1515

    1982

  43. [51]

    Pier, J. R. 1983, ApJS, 53, 791 Pila-Díez, B., de Jong, J. T. A., Kuijken, K., van der Burg, R. F. J., & Hoekstra, H. 2015, A&A, 579, A38

    1983

  44. [52]

    W., Shectman, S

    Preston, G. W., Shectman, S. A., & Beers, T. C. 1991, ApJ, 375, 121

    1991

  45. [53]

    F., Rix, H.-W., & Xue, X.-X

    Ruhland, C., Bell, E. F., Rix, H.-W., & Xue, X.-X. 2011, ApJ, 731, 119

    2011

  46. [54]

    Sanders, J. L. & Matsunaga, N. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2745

    2023

  47. [55]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  48. [56]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  49. [57]

    R., et al

    Sirko, E., Goodman, J., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 899

    2004

  50. [58]

    Sluis, A. P. N. & Arnold, R. A. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 732

    1998

  51. [59]

    W., Bailer-Jones, C

    Smith, K. W., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Klement, R. J., & Xue, X. X. 2010, A&A, 522, A88

    2010

  52. [60]

    R., & Carter, D

    Sommer-Larsen, J., Christensen, P. R., & Carter, D. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 225

    1989

  53. [61]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 5757

    Starkenburg, E., Youakim, K., Martin, N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5757

    2019

  54. [62]

    E., et al

    Subramaniam, A., Sahu, S., Postma, J. E., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 233

    2017

  55. [63]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 213

    Sun, S., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 213

    2025

  56. [64]

    F., McConnachie, A

    Thomas, G. F., McConnachie, A. W., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5223

    2018

  57. [65]

    A., Brogaard, K., Leaman, R., & Casagrande, L

    VandenBerg, D. A., Brogaard, K., Leaman, R., & Casagrande, L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 134

    2013

  58. [66]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Vasiliev, E. & Baumgardt, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978

    2021

  59. [67]

    J., Grebel, E

    Vickers, J. J., Grebel, E. K., & Huxor, A. P. 2012, AJ, 143, 86

    2012

  60. [68]

    A., Jordan, S., et al

    Vincent, O., Barstow, M. A., Jordan, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A5

    2024

  61. [69]

    L., Evans, N

    Watkins, L. L., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V ., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1757

    2009

  62. [70]

    D., Beers, T

    Whitten, D. D., Beers, T. C., Placco, V . M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 67

    2019

  63. [71]

    2022, A&A, 662, A66

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A66

    2022

  64. [72]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 101

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Yang, H., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 101

    2025

  65. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1244

    Xu, Y ., Liu, C., Xue, X.-X., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1244

    2018

  66. [74]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 144

    Xue, X.-X., Rix, H.-W., Ma, Z., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 144

    2015

  67. [75]

    2011, ApJ, 738, 79

    Xue, X.-X., Rix, H.-W., Yanny, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 79

    2011

  68. [76]

    X., Rix, H

    Xue, X. X., Rix, H. W., Zhao, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1143

    2008

  69. [77]

    2022, AJ, 164, 241

    Yang, C., Zhu, L., Tahmasebzadeh, B., Xue, X.-X., & Liu, C. 2022, AJ, 164, 241

    2022

  70. [78]

    J., Kent, S., et al

    Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Kent, S., et al. 2000, ApJ, 540, 825

    2000

  71. [79]

    J., et al

    Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4377

    2009

  72. [80]

    2025, A&A, 695, A75

    Ye, X., Wu, W., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A75

    2025

  73. [81]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

    2000

  74. [82]

    S., Speagle, J

    Yu, F., Li, T. S., Speagle, J. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 81

    2024

  75. [83]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 889

    Zhang, H., Ardern-Arentsen, A., & Belokurov, V . 2024, MNRAS, 533, 889

    2024

  76. [84]

    & Yuan, H

    Zhang, R. & Yuan, H. 2023, ApJS, 264, 14 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54410-25 Appendix A: Necessity of a combined photometric and spectroscopic cut In this appendix, we conducted a test by applying only photometric cuts, only spectroscopic cuts, ...

    2023

Pith tools

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