Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Boötes III is actively being torn apart by the Milky Way, with a velocity dispersion six times smaller than previously measured.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 17:46 UTC pith:T4WHUOWL

load-bearing objection Solid S5 revision that makes Boötes III a clean, cold, actively disrupting UFD; the equilibrium mass estimator is caveated and not load-bearing. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07803 v1 pith:T4WHUOWL submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Bo\"otes III is a Tidally Disrupting Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxy on an Eccentric Polar Orbit

Ting S. Li , Denis Erkal , Andrew B. Pace , Jiaxun Yang , Sergey E. Koposov , Jo Bovy , Nathan R. Sandford , Andrew P. Li
show 15 more authors
Gustavo E. Medina Lara R. Cullinane Gary S. Da Costa Alexander P. Ji Kyler Kuehn Geraint F. Lewis Guilherme Limberg Sarah L. Martell Aldo Mura-Guzm\'an Nora Shipp Yong Yang Daniel B. Zucker Kaia R. Atzberger Joss Bland-Hawthorn John D. Dixon (the S5 Collaboration)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords ultra-faint dwarf galaxiestidal disruptionstellar streamsBoötes IIIStyx streamdark matter density profilesMilky Way satellitesvelocity dispersion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

New spectroscopy of the ultra-faint dwarf galaxy Boötes III finds that its stars move far more slowly relative to one another than earlier work claimed: the velocity dispersion is only about 1.7 km/s, not 10.7 km/s. Combined with a fresh distance and a refined center, the system sits on a highly eccentric polar orbit that brought it to within roughly 9.5 kpc of the Galactic center only 140 million years ago. At that close approach the tidal radius shrinks to about a third of the galaxy’s half-light radius, so material outside the inner core is unbound. The same low dispersion means Boötes III has either already lost most of its dark matter or harbors a cored rather than cuspy density profile, turning a single faint satellite into a laboratory for the nature of dark matter. Simulated debris tracks are broadly consistent with the long-suspected Styx stream, but Sagittarius-stream contamination still blocks a clean photometric detection of the tails, so deeper spectroscopy is required to seal the association.

Core claim

With a revised line-of-sight velocity dispersion of 1.69^{+1.03}_{-0.85} km s^{-1}, Boötes III’s tidal radius at its most recent pericenter (≈9.5 kpc, ≈0.14 Gyr ago) is only ≈0.35 of its half-light radius, and its mean half-light density lies well below twice the enclosed Milky Way density at that radius; the galaxy is therefore actively tidally disrupting.

What carries the argument

The Wolf half-light mass estimator M_{1/2} = 930 σ_v² r_h, fed by the new GMM velocity dispersion and an updated RR-Lyrae distance, supplies the satellite mass that enters the Jacobi tidal-radius formula and the density-threshold diagnostic; both place Boötes III firmly in the disrupting regime.

Load-bearing premise

The half-light mass and tidal radius treat the galaxy as if it were still in equilibrium with isotropic support, yet the paper itself notes that an actively disrupting system violates those assumptions, so the numerical factor 0.35 is only an order-of-magnitude guide.

What would settle it

Deep multi-object spectroscopy along the predicted stream track that recovers a continuous sequence of stars whose line-of-sight velocities match the particle-spray model and differ by ≳100 km s^{-1} from Sagittarius debris would confirm both the tidal tails and the Styx association; a null result or a completely different velocity track would falsify the disruption picture.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper remeasures the systemic properties of the ultra-faint dwarf Boötes III with S5 DR2 spectroscopy and Gaia DR3, identifying 21 high-probability RGB members (plus 3 RR Lyrae) via a Gaussian mixture model. The key result is a revised line-of-sight velocity dispersion σ_v = 1.69^{+1.03}_{-0.85} km s^{-1}, roughly six times smaller than Carlin & Sand (2018). Combined with an updated centroid and a five-RRL distance of 48.5±1.9 kpc, the authors integrate the orbit in MW+LMC potentials, finding a highly eccentric (e≈0.8), polar (i≈89.5°) orbit with a pericenter ~0.14 Gyr ago at r_peri≈9.5 kpc. They argue Boo III is actively tidally disrupting on the basis of three diagnostics (recent close pericenter; r_t≈164 pc≈0.35 r_h; half-light density below 2 ρ_MW at pericenter), support this with restricted N-body models, and compare particle-spray streams to the Styx track and Typhon in integrals-of-motion space. Sagittarius contamination is shown to block photometric tail detection, motivating spectroscopic follow-up.

Significance. If the revised low dispersion and disruption interpretation hold, Boo III becomes one of the cleanest UFD-regime laboratories for the cusp–core problem: at M_*~10^4 M_⊙, baryonic feedback is too weak to core a CDM cusp, so a core would point to dark-matter microphysics. The work also supplies a well-documented, actively stripping polar satellite for MW+LMC potential tests and stream association studies. Strengths include a clean, bimodal GMM membership that is recovered by a simple box cut; full posterior sampling of systemic parameters; explicit sensitivity scans of stream tracks to MW halo mass, LMC mass, and solar V_φ; restricted N-body models that connect remnant mass to σ_v; and a public repository that regenerates tables and figures. Caveats on the equilibrium mass estimator and the unconfirmed Styx link are stated in the text rather than oversold.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 6.1.2, Eq. (10): the tidal radius is evaluated with the circular-orbit, flat-rotation-curve formula at pericenter for a system with e≈0.8. The paper correctly labels r_t as order-of-magnitude and notes the equilibrium assumption, but the quantitative claim “r_t≈164 pc≈0.35 r_h” is still used as a primary disruption diagnostic in the abstract and conclusion. Please either (i) recompute r_t with an eccentric-orbit Jacobi/King-type expression (or cite a calibrated correction at e~0.8) and show that r_t/r_h remains ≪1 across the σ_v posterior, or (ii) demote the numerical r_t ratio relative to the density and N-body diagnostics so the abstract does not lean on a circular-orbit formula the text itself caveats.
  2. Section 6.2.3 and Table 1 rows 25–26: the observed |∇v_los|=3.28^{+2.0}_{-1.7} km s^{-1} deg^{-1} is only a ~1.8σ detection, yet it is used to place Boo III between bound (perspective) and unbound (orbital) limits and to motivate MW-halo-mass sensitivity. The text already cautions on the significance; please ensure that no claim of “partial disruption from the gradient” is presented as independent of the three stronger diagnostics in §6.1, and either drop the gradient from the main disruption argument or add a null test (e.g., scrambled-member gradient distribution) so readers can judge whether the intermediate placement is informative.
minor comments (7)
  1. Section 3.4: the non-overlap with Carlin & Sand (2018) and Geha et al. (2026) is important. A short quantitative statement of magnitude and spatial coverage differences (already partly present) would help readers assess whether the σ_v sequence 10.7→5.27→1.69 is purely improved cleaning/precision or partly sample selection.
  2. Section 6.1.4, Eq. (13): the J-factor scaling is useful context for the IceCube claim, but it is secondary. Consider moving the numerical J-factor ladder to a short appendix so the main disruption narrative stays focused.
  3. Figure 5: the Styx track is central to the association argument but is private communication. Please state explicitly in the caption and data-availability section what will be released (digitized track points) so the comparison is reproducible.
  4. Figure 7 top-right: the orbit-prediction diamonds for different MW halo factors are a nice diagnostic; adding the observed 1σ ellipse (already in the sky panel) onto that panel would make the consistency assessment immediate.
  5. Appendix A / Table A1: the two “likely tail members” at 3.7 and 5.8 r_h are intriguing. Please quote their P_mem if the GMM is re-run with an extended footprint, or state clearly that they fail a full mixture-model cut and are box-selected only.
  6. Throughout: “Boötes III” / “Boo III” / “Bo¨otes III” encoding is inconsistent in places (title vs. body). Normalize the umlaut rendering for production.
  7. Table 1 row (17): M_1/2 uses the Wolf estimator with the circularized r_h; a one-line note that using a_h instead would scale M_1/2 by √(1−ε) would prevent mis-reuse of the number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: new S5 kinematics drive the disruption claim; stream and N-body comparisons are independent model tests, not inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is observational and non-circular. Systemic velocity, dispersion, metallicity, and proper motion are measured from S5 DR2 spectra plus Gaia DR3 via a GMM that does not assume tidal disruption (Section 3; Table 1). The orbit (e≈0.8, polar, r_peri≈9.5 kpc, last pericenter ~0.14 Gyr ago) follows from those 6D coordinates in standard MW+LMC potentials (Section 5.1). The tidal-radius and density diagnostics then apply the external Wolf et al. (2010) estimator and the Pace et al. (2022) density threshold to those measured quantities; the paper itself flags that equilibrium/isotropy assumptions are not strictly valid for a disrupting system (Section 6.1.2), which is a correctness caveat, not a definitional loop. Particle-spray and restricted N-body models are compared to an independent photometric Styx track (Grillmair 2009) and to the observed σ_v; the paper does not force equality and reports sensitivity to MW halo mass, LMC mass, and solar velocity (Section 5.2; Figure 5). Typhon is compared in integrals-of-motion space and rejected as the same system on metallicity grounds (Section 6.4). Self-citations to S5 methods and related collaboration papers are methodological and not uniqueness theorems that force the central claim. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its fitted inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central disruption claim rests on standard dynamical estimators and assumed Galactic potentials applied to newly measured 6D phase-space coordinates. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free choices are potential normalizations, spray disruption time, and trial NFW masses; the main domain assumptions are equilibrium mass estimators and circular-orbit tidal radii applied to a non-equilibrium system.

free parameters (6)
  • Particle-spray disruption time = 3 Gyr
    Set by hand to 3 Gyr for the Fardal spray model (Section 5.2 / Table 5); not fitted to data.
  • LMC total mass (fiducial) = 1.38e11 M_sun
    Adopted from Erkal et al. (2019) as 1.38e11 M_sun; varied by factors 0.5–2 and removed in sensitivity tests.
  • MW halo mass scale factor = fiducial McMillan17 (×0.5–2 scan)
    McMillan17 halo amplitude scaled by 0.5–2 (and compared to MWPotential2014) to show stream-track and gradient sensitivity; not a unique fit.
  • Initial NFW DM halo masses in restricted N-body = 1e6 / 1e7 / 1e8 M_sun
    Three discrete trial masses 1e6, 1e7, 1e8 M_sun at second-most-recent apocenter; only 1e6 matches observed σ_v.
  • Solar V_phi = 245.6 km/s (fiducial)
    Fiducial 245.6 km/s (astropy v4.0); scanned at 233 and 258 km/s for stream tracks.
  • Stellar Plummer mass and scale = 3.573e4 M_sun; a=0.466 kpc
    Stellar mass 3.573e4 M_sun from luminosity with M/L=2; scale radius set to observed r_h=0.466 kpc.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Wolf et al. (2010) half-light mass estimator M_1/2 = 930 σ_v² r_h applies for dynamical mass and progenitor mass.
    Used in Section 6.1.2 and as spray progenitor mass; paper notes equilibrium/isotropy assumptions are not strictly valid for a disrupting system.
  • domain assumption Tidal (Jacobi) radius formula for circular orbit in flat rotation curve, r_t = r (m / 2M(<r))^{1/3}, evaluated at pericenter.
    Section 6.1.2; authors caution circular-orbit and equilibrium assumptions and treat r_t as order-of-magnitude.
  • domain assumption McMillan17 (and MWPotential2014) plus Hernquist LMC with non-inertial MW reflex adequately describe the potential for orbit/stream integration.
    Sections 5.1–5.2; standard practice, with explicit one-parameter sensitivity scans.
  • domain assumption GMM with weakly informative priors and four observables (v_los, [Fe/H], μ_α cos δ, μ_δ) correctly separates members from MW field.
    Section 3; validated by identical box-cut recovery and bimodal P_mem.
  • domain assumption Garofalo et al. (2022) period-independent M_G–[Fe/H] RRL calibration at system-mean [Fe/H] gives the distance.
    Section 4; compared to Muraveva et al. (2018) with ~1.8 kpc offset.
  • domain assumption Restricted multipole N-body technique reproduces full N-body remnant kinematics sufficiently for σ_v and gradient comparisons.
    Section 6.2.1, citing Vasiliev et al. and related work; not re-validated here against full N-body for Boo III.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 52753 in / 3886 out tokens · 46122 ms · 2026-07-10T17:46:22.460356+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present updated systemic properties of the ultra-faint dwarf galaxy Bo\"otes III from the Southern Stellar Stream Spectroscopic Survey (S$^5$). We identify 21 high-probability members and measure a velocity dispersion of $\sigma_{v} = 1.69^{+1.03}_{-0.85}$ km s$^{-1}$, about six times smaller than the previously reported $10.7 \pm 3.5$ km s$^{-1}$, and a mean metallicity of [Fe/H] $= -2.34 \pm 0.11$. The revised dispersion brings Bo\"otes III in line with other tidally disrupting dwarfs such as Antlia II and Crater II. Orbit integrations in a Milky Way (MW) + Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) potential confirm a highly eccentric ($e \approx 0.8$), polar ($i \approx 89.5^\circ$) orbit with a recent pericentric passage $\sim 0.14$ Gyr ago at $r_{\rm peri} \approx 9.5$ kpc. Bo\"otes III is thus likely actively tidally disrupting, as its tidal radius at pericenter, $r_t \approx 164$ pc, is only $\sim 0.35$ of its half-light radius. The unusually low dispersion also implies that Bo\"otes III has either lost most of its dark matter to tides or hosts a cored inner density profile, making it a probe of the nature of dark matter. Simulated tidal streams are broadly consistent with the Styx stellar stream, though the predicted track and kinematics are sensitive to the MW halo mass, LMC mass, and solar velocity. Bo\"otes III overlaps the Typhon stream in integrals-of-motion space but has a much lower mean metallicity, suggesting the two are not the same system but may have had a common group infall origin. Sagittarius-stream contamination prevents a direct tidal-tail detection, so deep spectroscopic follow-up remains essential, both to confirm Styx as a genuine stream and to establish it as Bo\"otes III's tidal tail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07803 by Aldo Mura-Guzm\'an, Alexander P. Ji, Andrew B. Pace, Andrew P. Li, Daniel B. Zucker, Denis Erkal, Gary S. Da Costa, Geraint F. Lewis, Guilherme Limberg, Gustavo E. Medina, Jiaxun Yang, Jo Bovy, John D. Dixon (the S5 Collaboration), Joss Bland-Hawthorn, Kaia R. Atzberger, Kyler Kuehn, Lara R. Cullinane, Nathan R. Sandford, Nora Shipp, Sarah L. Martell, Sergey E. Koposov, Ting S. Li, Yong Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Membership analysis of Boo III based on 𝑆 5 DR2, in four observational spaces. Gray dots show the 120-star updated-center input catalog (Section 2.2): non-RRL 𝑆 5 DR2 stars inside the 3 𝑟ℎ ellipse and the 4 × 4 mas yr−1 proper-motion box. Blue filled circles mark the 21 GMM members (𝑃mem > 0.95). Red triangles mark three Gaia DR3 RRL kinematically and photometrically consistent with Boo III, removed from t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distributions of Boo III’s seven systemic GMM parameters (Section 3), fit jointly to the 120-star (updated-center) input catalog of Section 2.2: the membership fraction 𝑓mem, the systemic heliocentric velocity ¯𝑣los, the line-of-sight velocity dispersion 𝜎𝑣, the mean metallicity [Fe/H] and its intrinsic dispersion 𝜎[Fe/H] , and the two systemic proper-motion components ¯𝜇𝛼 cos 𝛿 and ¯𝜇𝛿. The four… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Boo III orbit integrated 4 Gyr backwards from the present, with and without the LMC, using the McMillan17 model as base potential. The orbits are plotted in Galactocentric Cartesian coordinates: the dashed black line shows the integrated orbit using the median 6D parameters, while the semi-transparent blue lines show 1000 realizations drawn from the 6D error distribution to indicate uncertainty on the orbi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the Boo III orbital parameters: pericenter and apocenter (both in kpc), and eccentricity. The nominal value and its uncertainties are obtained from the median, 16th percentile, and 84th percentile of the 1000 realizations of the orbit parameters. Left: the orbital parameters with McMillan17 only. Right: the orbital parameters with the modified potential that accounts for the LMC’… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Boo III predicted tidal stream from particle spray simulations using galpy’s fardal15spraydf, with progenitor mass 𝑀1/2 = 1.24 × 106 M⊙, 1000 particles per arm, 𝑡disrupt = 3 Gyr, and galpy’s streamTrack interpolation evaluated with smoothing factor = 4. Rows: Dec, 𝜇𝛼 cos 𝛿, 𝜇𝛿, 𝑣los, distance modulus, all vs. RA. The blue + marker indicates the updated Boo III center (this work) in every panel; the red sta… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the orbital pericenter and the average density within the half-light radius for MW dwarf galaxies (blue) and Boo III (orange), adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Velocity-gradient diagnostic for Boo III. Top-left: the 21 𝑆 5 members on the sky, color-coded by 𝑣los, with arrows indicating the apparent proper-motion direction (red), the solar-reflex-corrected intrinsic proper-motion direction (orange), the Galactic-Center direction (black), and the observed velocity gradient (yellow); the 1𝜎 uncertainty ellipse on the observed gradient is shown in yellow. The cyan cu… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Predicted heliocentric 𝑣los (top) and heliocentric distance (bottom) versus 𝜙1, the great-circle stream coordinate aligned with the Boo III orbit (Appendix D). Top panel: particle spray model in the fiducial McMillan17 + LMC potential (blue scatter = raw spray particles; colored solid curves = leading + trailing streamTrack). The solid curves scale the Milky Way halo mass relative to the fiducial McMillan1… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the Typhon stream stars and other dwarf galaxies in terms of action, energy, apocenter and pericenter. In these panels, the black star markers show the individual Typhon stars obtained from Gaia DR3. The other data points are systemic values of different dwarf galaxies, computed from their 6D parameters with 50 MC realizations. The small dots clustered around each system’s marker (red for Boo… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of Boo III with the Typhon stream and the stellar streams in 𝑆 5 , in terms of action, energy, apocenter and pericenter. Refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the Boo III mock stream and the Sgr stream. The blue points are from the fiducial particle spray model (Section 5.2), and the orange points are highly probable Sgr stream members from Vasiliev et al. (2021). The red star in each panel marks the present-day systemic Boo III value ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Semi-analytic Inference of Satellite Densities in the Cold Dark Matter Model Part I. Comparison to Ultra-faint Dwarf Kinematics

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The central dark-matter densities of Milky Way ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, inferred from stellar kinematics, are more variable and appear shallower in their radius scaling than cold dark matter expectations from semi-...

  2. Characterizing the disruption of B\"ootes III: a missing link in the Galactic halo?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5

    Extensive Gaia, CaHK, UNIONS, SDSS, and DELVE searches find no observational evidence that Boötes III is the progenitor of the Styx stream.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 2018

  2. [2]

    Abdollahi, S., Baldini, L., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2026, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2026, 035, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/035

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/035 2026

  3. [3]

    Stringent Constraints on Self-Interacting Dark Matter Using Milky-Way Satellite Galaxies Kinematics

    Ando, S., Hayashi, K., Horigome, S., Ibe, M., & Shirai, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13650. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13650

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A., & Bovy, J

    Armstrong, I., Evans, F. A., & Bovy, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc449 Ben´ıtez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc449 2025

  5. [5]

    MNRAS , author =

    Binney, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1324, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21757.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21757.x 2012

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1601

    Bonnivard, V., Combet, C., Daniel, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1601 2015

  7. [7]

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

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 —. 2026, Dynamics and Astrophysics of Galaxies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  8. [8]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  9. [9]

    1995, ApJ, 447, L25, doi: 10.1086/309560

    Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25, doi: 10.1086/309560

    work page doi:10.1086/309560 1995

  10. [10]

    G., Mateo, M., et al

    Caldwell, N., Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa688e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa688e 2017

  11. [11]

    L., Grillmair, C

    Carlin, J. L., Grillmair, C. J., Mu˜noz, R. R., Nidever, D. L., & Majewski, S. R. 2009, ApJ, 702, L9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L9

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/l9 2009

  12. [12]

    L., & Sand, D

    Carlin, J. L., & Sand, D. J. 2018, ApJ, 865, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8c1

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad8c1 2018

  13. [13]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    2023, A&A, 674, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243964

    Clementini, G., Ripepi, V., Garofalo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243964

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243964 2023

  15. [15]

    Collins, M. L. M., Tollerud, E. J., Rich, R. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3252 2020

  16. [16]

    Collins, M. L. M., Read, J. I., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1624

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1624 2021

  17. [17]

    Correa, C. A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab506

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab506 2021

  18. [18]

    Correnti, M., Bellazzini, M., & Ferraro, F. R. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L26, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00677.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00677.x 2009

  19. [19]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Cullinane, L. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3055 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stw641 2020

  20. [20]

    and Lang, Dustin and Blum, Robert and Burleigh, Kaylan and Fan, Xiaohui and Findlay, Joseph R

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Macci`o, A. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1891

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  21. [21]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    work page doi:10.1086/589654 2008

  22. [22]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 210, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b

    Drimmel, R., & Poggio, E. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 210, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b 2018

  23. [23]

    S., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/109 2015

  24. [24]

    A., & Macci`o, A

    Dutton, A. A., & Macci`o, A. V. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu742 2014

  25. [25]

    Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. A. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1238

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1238 2020

  26. [26]

    S., Koposov, S

    Erkal, D., Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2518

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2518 2018

  27. [27]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1371

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1371 2019

  28. [28]

    F., Pe˜narrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Pe˜narrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3499

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3499 2023

  29. [29]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv012

    Errani, R., Pe˜narrubia, J., & Tormen, G. 2015, MNRAS, 449, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv012

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv012 2015

  30. [30]

    W., Ferrer, F., & Sarkar, S

    Evans, N. W., Ferrer, F., & Sarkar, S. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 123501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.123501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.123501 2004

  31. [31]

    A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1198

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1198 2015

  32. [32]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , date =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018a, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. ...

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  33. [33]

    E., Sarro, L

    Garofalo, A., Delgado, H. E., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac735

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac735 2022

  34. [34]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10202, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10202

    Geha, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10202, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10202

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10202 2026

  35. [35]

    X., et al

    Geha, M., Pelliccia, D., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae290d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae290d 2026

  36. [36]

    M., & Walker, M

    Geringer-Sameth, A., Koushiappas, S. M., & Walker, M. 2015, ApJ, 801, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/74 G´omez, F. A., Besla, G., Carpintero, D. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/74 2015

  37. [37]

    MNRAS , author =

    Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20696.x 32 Li et al. (𝑆 5 Collaboration)

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20696.x 2012

  38. [38]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1118

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1118 2009

  39. [39]

    Guerra, J., Geha, M., & Strigari, L. E. 2023, ApJ, 943, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca8a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca8a5 2023

  40. [40]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    work page doi:10.1086/168845 1990

  41. [41]

    P., Koposov, S

    Ji, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 2021

  42. [42]

    P., Li, T

    Ji, A. P., Li, T. S., Wang, M.-Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4467, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2757

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2757 2023

  43. [43]

    Possible High-Energy Neutrino Emission from Dark Matter Annihilation in the Disrupting Dwarf Galaxy Bo\"{o}tes~III

    Ji, S., & Wang, Z. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.01853, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.01853

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.01853 2026

  44. [44]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad557

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad557 2024

  45. [45]

    P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/161 2013

  46. [46]

    Kaplinghat, M., & Strigari, L. E. 2008, ApJ, 682, L93, doi: 10.1086/591052

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591052 2008

  47. [47]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/102 2013

  48. [48]

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

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    F., Percival , W

    Lewis, I. J., Cannon, R. D., Taylor, K., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 279, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05333.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05333.x 2002

  50. [50]

    S., Simon, J

    Li, T. S., Simon, J. D., Kuehn, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf91

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadf91 2018

  51. [51]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2731

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2731 2019

  52. [52]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3 2022

  53. [53]

    F., Percival , W

    Limberg, G., Ji, A. P., Li, T. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02177. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02177 Lokas, E. L. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 697, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05457.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05457.x 2025

  54. [54]

    M., et al

    McDaniel, A., Ajello, M., Karwin, C. M., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063024

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063024 2024

  55. [55]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  56. [56]

    The DESI Y1 RR Lyrae catalog I: Empirical modeling of the cyclic variation of spectroscopic properties and a chemodynamical analysis of the outer halo

    Medina, G. E., Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3800 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02924

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3800 2023

  57. [57]

    G., & Walker, M

    Moskowitz, A. G., & Walker, M. G. 2020, ApJ, 892, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459 2020

  58. [58]

    E., Clementini, G., Sarro, L

    Muraveva, T., Delgado, H. E., Clementini, G., Sarro, L. M., & Garofalo, A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2241 2018

  59. [59]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a 2020

  60. [60]

    O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.091101 2021

  61. [61]

    Pace, A. B. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 142, doi: 10.33232/001c.144859

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.144859 2025

  62. [62]

    B., Erkal, D., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b 2022

  63. [63]

    B., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., & Li, T. S. 2019, ApJ, 875, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0aee

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0aee 2019

  64. [64]

    B., & Strigari, L

    Pace, A. B., & Strigari, L. E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2839

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2839 2019

  65. [65]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75 Pe˜narrubia, J., Benson, A

    Patel, E., Kallivayalil, N., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75 Pe˜narrubia, J., Benson, A. J., Walker, M. G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1290, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16762.x Pe˜narrubia, J., Navarro, J. F., McConnachie, A. W., & Martin, N. F. 2009, ApJ, 698, 222, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/222 Pe˜narrub...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75 2020

  66. [66]

    S., & Pe˜narrubia, J

    Petersen, M. S., & Pe˜narrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01254-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01254-3 2021

  67. [67]

    It's Not Just Star Formation: A trend of low dark matter densities in the Andromeda dwarf galaxy system

    Pickett, C. S., Collins, M. L. M., Read, J. I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.00221, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.00221 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.00221 2026

  68. [68]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac238

    Qian, Y., Arshad, Y., & Bovy, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac238

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac238 2022

  69. [69]

    H., Shipp, N., Simpson, C

    Riley, A. H., Shipp, N., Simpson, C. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1350

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1350 2025

  70. [70]

    R., Li, T

    Sandford, N. R., Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fe5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fe5 2026

  71. [71]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  72. [72]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

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

  73. [73]

    R., Cohen, J

    Sesar, B., Banholzer, S. R., Cohen, J. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/135 2014

  74. [74]

    2006, Proc

    Sharp, R., Saunders, W., Smith, G., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6269, 62690G, doi: 10.1117/12.671022

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671022 2006

  75. [75]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab 2018

  76. [76]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc582

    Shipp, N., Panithanpaisal, N., Necib, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc582

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc582 2023

  77. [77]

    H., Simpson, C

    Shipp, N., Riley, A. H., Simpson, C. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 1109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1283 2025

  78. [78]

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453 2019

  79. [79]

    D., Li, T

    Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be7 2017

  80. [80]

    N., & Steinhardt, P

    Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3760, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.3760 2000

Showing first 80 references.