Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 76 references

The phase spiral's origin and evolution: indications from its varying properties across the Milky Way disk

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's phase spiral was likely set by a global perturbation, because its rotation phase is uniform across the disk.

desk verdict Genuinely new maps of phase-spiral morphology across the disk, with a plausible but not airtight case for a global-perturbation origin; worth refereeing, but it needs error bars and a harder look at selection systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19579 v1 pith:RDBIOTYU submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.GA

Axel Widmark , Kiyan Tavangar , Josh Kalish , Kathryn V. Johnston , Jason A. S. Hunt This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords phasespiralMilkyWaydiskGaiaDR3verticalspaceperturbationwindingtimemixing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper maps the phase spiral—a spiral pattern in the distribution of stars' height and vertical velocity in the Milky Way disk—across a region several kiloparsecs wide. Using two complementary samples, one based on Gaia proper motions out to 4 kpc and one based on nearby line-of-sight velocities binned by orbit, the authors fit the spiral's shape in hundreds of small volumes. They find that two shape parameters, the winding and the rotation phase, vary smoothly and are nearly flat as functions of Galactocentric radius, even though the disk's vertical gravity changes considerably from the inner to the outer disk. The near-uniform rotation phase is presented as evidence that the spiral was produced by one or several global perturbations, rather than by many small local events. If that conclusion holds, the inferred winding time rises steeply with radius, from roughly 150 million years at 7 kpc to 600 million years at 9 kpc.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a morphological parametrization of the spiral that avoids degeneracies between physical quantities. The model writes the spiral as a small relative overdensity on a smooth background, with a phase function $\varphi(E_z)=\varphi_{\rm init.}+2\pi t_\omega/P(E_z)$ that advances with vertical period $P(E_z)$; the fitted parameters are the vertical potential scaling $A_\Phi$, the winding $\omega$ between anchor heights 300 and 800 pc, the rotation phase $\varphi_{600}$ at 600 pc, and the one- and two-armed amplitudes $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The data side uses two complementary binnings: a hexagonal spatial grid with 400 pc spacing reaching 4 kpc, built from Gaia proper motions plus neural-network-predicted line-of-sight velocities where needed, and a nearby sample split in $v_R$ and $v_\phi$ into 508 phase-space bins. Selection effects are handled by renormalizing each vertical phase-space histogram to a fixed density profile in $z$, under the assumption that incompleteness is mostly a function of height. This lets the authors extract the spiral's shape even where dust and crowding remove many stars, and then interpret the fitted morphology in terms of winding time using the vertical potential at each radius.

What would settle it

Restrict the analysis at distances beyond 1.6 kpc to stars with directly measured line-of-sight velocities, or redo the fit with a deeper future data release, and compare the inferred $\varphi_{600}$ radial profile to the one obtained with predicted velocities; a flat profile that persists would support the global-perturbation claim, while a radial trend appearing in the velocity-confirmed sample would show the flatness was a selection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the phase spiral's present-day morphology is set by a globally sourced perturbation. Fitting the relative density perturbation $S(E_z,\theta_z)=\alpha\cos(\theta_z-\varphi(E_z))+\beta\cos(2\theta_z-2\varphi(E_z))$, with vertical energy $E_z$ and phase angle $\theta_z$, the authors measure the winding $\omega$ between heights 300 and 800 pc and the rotation phase $\varphi_{600}$ at height 600 pc across the disk. Both parameters are close to flat in Galactocentric radius over roughly 6 to 11 kpc, with only small-scale excursions, most notably a high-winding band near $R\simeq 9$ kpc that lines up with the Local Arm. The uniformity of $\varphi_{600}$ is the paper's key evidence that the spiral was sourced by one or many global perturbations: local stochastic sources would not produce a correlated rotation phase over such a large area. A direct corollary is that the winding time has a strong radial slope, increasing from roughly 150 Myr at 7 kpc to 600 Myr at 9 kpc, which the paper notes cannot be explained by a single uniform perturbation time in one-dimensional vertical dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The flat radial profile of the rotation phase, and with it the global-perturbation conclusion, assumes that dust extinction, stellar crowding, and the 25–30 km/s uncertainties of predicted line-of-sight velocities bias only the spiral's amplitude and not its measured phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rotation phase is truly uniform, the phase spiral was seeded by a global event or several events acting coherently, rather than by many independent small-scale perturbations; this disfavors dark-matter subhalo or gas-turbulence sourcing as the dominant mechanism.
  • The inferred winding-time gradient means the same spiral is younger in the inner disk: about 150 Myr at 7 kpc versus 600 Myr at 9 kpc, so simple uniform-age models for the spiral must be revised.
  • The high-winding band near $R\simeq 9$ kpc, aligned with the Local Arm, implies that local variations in the vertical potential's anharmonicity, possibly from cold gas, modulate how quickly the spiral winds.
  • The maps give quantitative benchmarks: any self-consistent simulation of a satellite or bar perturbation should reproduce the smooth rotation phase and the steep winding-time gradient, not just the spiral's existence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the global-perturbation interpretation is right, the smooth gradient of rotation phase across azimuth could encode the propagation of the perturbation through the disk; comparing it with back-propagated star positions might pin down the event time more precisely than current estimates.
  • A perturbation time that scales inversely with disk surface density would naturally produce flat $\omega$ and $\varphi_{600}$ profiles; this is a concrete, testable rule for self-consistent simulations of satellite encounters.
  • Because the winding responds to the vertical potential's anharmonicity, the measured winding map could be inverted, in combination with density maps, to constrain the cold-gas distribution across the disk.
  • The same analysis applied to deeper proper-motion catalogs could extend the flat-rotation-phase test beyond 4 kpc and separate the global source from outer-disk warps or tidal effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper maps the vertical phase spiral's properties across the Milky Way disk using Gaia DR3 proper motions with BNN-predicted line-of-sight velocities, together with a spatially local sample requiring measured line-of-sight velocities. For each spatial or phase-space bin, the authors fit a mixture-model background plus a spiral perturbation, extracting the potential scaling AΦ, winding ω, rotation phase φ600, and single/double-arm amplitudes. They report that ω and especially φ600 vary smoothly with close-to-flat radial profiles over roughly 6 kpc in Galactocentric radius, which they interpret as evidence that the phase spiral was sourced by one or many global perturbations. They further derive that the implied winding time increases strongly with radius, from about 150 Myr at 7 kpc to about 600 Myr at 9 kpc. The paper includes comparisons with a test-particle simulation and with prior observational work, and emphasizes the complementary nature of the spatial and phase-space binning schemes.

Significance. If the reported uniformity of the rotation phase is real, it is a strong and direct observational constraint on the origin of the phase spiral, favoring global perturbations (e.g., a satellite or large-scale disk response) over spatially local stochastic sources. The paper's use of two complementary binning schemes, its detailed morphological parametrization, and the explicit comparison with a test-particle simulation in Appendix B are notable strengths, and the derived winding-time profile offers a falsifiable benchmark for future self-consistent simulations. However, the central quantitative claim is currently supported without reported parameter uncertainties, and the distant-bin phase-bias assumption is validated only indirectly through earlier work. These issues are load-bearing for the flatness and global-perturbation conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Figs. 4 and 6] The central claim that the winding ω and rotation phase φ600 have close-to-flat radial profiles is not supported by any reported uncertainty on the fitted parameters. Figures 4 and 6 show scatter points with no error bars, and Section 5 states that fits were selected by eye and 'dubious' fits omitted; Figure 9 additionally excludes seven high-winding-time outliers. Without a quantitative slope fit and a per-bin uncertainty budget (including the systematic contribution from selection), it is not possible to assess whether the data are actually inconsistent with the steep idealized-model profiles shown in Figure 8. Please provide parameter uncertainties and a statistical test of the flatness claim.
  2. [§3, §4.2, Appendix C, Eq. (16)] The global-perturbation conclusion rests on the assumption that spatial selection effects in the distant bins (dust, crowding, BNN v_l.o.s. uncertainties of 25–30 km/s) bias only the spiral amplitude and not its phase. The paper cites tests in Widmark et al. (2022a,b) for this claim, but those tests were designed for gravitational-potential inference, not for rotation-phase morphology at distances up to 4 kpc. Appendix C and Figure 12 show a discontinuity in the inferred amplitude α+β exactly at the 1.6 kpc v_l.o.s. cut, demonstrating that the two sample classes have different spatially varying systematics. The renormalization in Eq. (16) only enforces a fixed z-marginal density profile and cannot remove phase-dependent incompleteness. A quantitative phase-bias test (e.g., injecting a synthetic spiral into the distant samples and recovering φ600 as a function of distance and extinction) is needed before the flat φ600 profile can be used as evidence for a global perturbation.
  3. [§5.3–5.4, Eq. (28), Fig. 9] The inferred strong slope of the winding time (150 Myr at R=7 kpc to 600 Myr at R=9 kpc) is not a direct observable but is derived from the fitted ω, the fixed shape of the vertical potential, and the paper's own fitted exponential disk scale length of 2.9 kpc. The text acknowledges that the anharmonicity parameter Γ can vary with radius, but only states that this affects ω by 'a few ten per cent' without evaluating the impact on the derived tω slope. Since the claimed slope spans a factor of roughly four, a 30% radial variation in Γ could absorb a substantial part of it. Please quantify the sensitivity of the winding-time profile to the assumed potential shape and disk scale length, and show the resulting range of tω(R).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The word 'complimentary' should be 'complementary' in the description of the two binning schemes.
  2. [§5.2 and Figure 6] The amplitude threshold α+β≥0.14 applied to the phase-space-binned results is not justified in the text; please state how many data samples are removed and whether Figures 6 and 9 are robust to the chosen threshold.
  3. [Figure 9 caption and Section 5] The seven excluded high-winding-time outliers and the 'dubious' fits should be explicitly counted and, where possible, listed, so the reader can assess how much of the radial profile is determined by the retained samples.
  4. [Equation (28)] The numerical constant 71.9 Myr/rad is introduced without derivation; it should be derived from the assumed vertical potential and anchor heights, or referenced to an appendix equation.
  5. [Figure 6 caption] The 'small Gaussian noise' added to Rg and vR should be described as a plotting jitter applied for visibility, not as measurement uncertainty, to avoid confusion.
  6. [Section 5.4] The statement that a uniform perturbation time cannot be reconciled with the data assumes self-gravity acts only in the vertical dimension; stating this assumption is useful, but a test against a three-dimensional simulation would strengthen the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central measurements are independent free-parameter fits, and the interpretive claims are transparent deductions rather than disguised inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step where a claimed prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation. The quantities ω and φ600 are free parameters fitted separately and independently to each spatial or phase-space bin; no constraint in the model forces their radial profiles to be flat, so the reported uniformity is a genuine data-driven result. The renormalization in Eq. (16) imposes only a z-marginal sech^2 profile and does not fix either the winding or the rotation phase, so it cannot manufacture the flat φ600 pattern by construction. The inference that uniform φ600 indicates a global perturbation follows from the paper's stated premise that global perturbations produce longer correlation lengths; it is an interpretation, not a tautology. The winding-time slope is computed explicitly via Eq. (28) from the measured ω and the independently fitted AΦ profile, and the paper states this assumption openly ('We calculate tω assuming a disk surface density that decays according to the exponential function shown in Figure 5'); it is a model-dependent conversion rather than a prediction against held-out data, so it does not qualify as a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Widmark et al. (2022a,b) and Naik & Widmark (2022, 2024) are prior published, externally testable results (simulation tests and blind prediction tests) that support the selection-effect and BNN-velocity assumptions; they are independent support under the rules and are not load-bearing unverified imports. Concerns about distant-bin selection effects biasing φ600 are correctness risks, not circularity, because the paper does not define φ600 in terms of those effects or fit it to the conclusion.

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

The paper's claims rest on a fixed vertical potential shape, an assumed exponential disk for the winding-time conversion, and an ad hoc selection-effect correction. The flat radial profiles of the morphological parameters ω and φ600 are the most direct measurements; the derived winding-time profile is more model-dependent.

free parameters (7)
  • AΦ = varies per bin; close to 1 at solar radius
    Scaling of the vertical potential (Eq. 7), fitted per data sample; decreasing with radius and used to derive disk scale length.
  • ω = roughly π/2 to 2π
    Winding between anchor heights 300 and 800 pc (Section 4.5), fitted per data sample.
  • φ600 = varies; smooth nearly uniform field
    Present-day rotation phase at height 600 pc (Section 4.5), fitted per data sample.
  • α and β = up to >0.5 for α+β in phase-space bins
    Multiplicative amplitudes of the one-armed and two-armed spiral perturbations (Eq. 18), fitted per sample; amplitudes are treated as less robust for distant samples.
  • Bulk mixture parameters (a_k, σ_z,k, σ_w,k) = not reported
    Six bivariate Gaussians (Eq. 17) fitted per sample as a nuisance background.
  • W⊙ = fitted for spatially binned samples; fixed at 7.25 km/s otherwise
    Solar vertical velocity; fitted jointly with bulk for spatial bins.
  • Disk scale length = 2.9 kpc
    Exponential scale length fitted to AΦ(R) (Figure 5), used in Eq. 28 to convert winding to winding time.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The vertical dynamics are separable from disk-plane motion, so the vertical potential can be treated as Φ(z).
    Section 4.1.1, used to define vertical periods and the spiral phase angle θz.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential is static and the spiral has no self-gravity winding delay in the idealized model (later discussed as a caveat).
    Section 4.4 assumptions (ii) and (iii).
  • ad hoc to paper Selection effects in the histogram are corrected by renormalizing each z-bin so that the vertical density profile is sech^2(z/300 pc).
    Eq. 16, imposed fixed shape; the paper argues moderate changes in scale height have negligible effect.
  • domain assumption The vertical potential shape is fixed to the solar neighborhood model Φ⊙(z) from Schutz et al. (2018) and only its amplitude AΦ is fitted.
    Section 4.1.1 and Appendix A; used to convert winding into winding time.
  • domain assumption The disk surface density decays exponentially with radius with the fitted scale length 2.9 kpc when computing winding times (Eq. 28).
    Section 5.4; the exponential fit to AΦ(R) is used to compute winding time for spatially binned samples.
  • domain assumption Vertical energy Ez (or Jz) is conserved along a star's epicyclic in-plane motion when computing winding times for phase-space binned samples.
    Section 5.4, where periods are evaluated at guiding radius using Ez from the present-day radius.
  • domain assumption The in-plane potential is axisymmetric with a linear rotation curve vc(R)=234-2(R-R⊙) km/s.
    Eq. 13, used to compute guiding radii and epicyclic motion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The phase spiral's origin and evolution: indications from its varying properties across the Milky Way disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDBIOTYU

@misc{pith2026250719579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The phase spiral's origin and evolution: indications from its varying properties across the Milky Way disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDBIOTYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19579}
}
read the original abstract

The phase spiral is a perturbation to the vertical phase-space distribution of stars in the Milky Way disk. We study the phase spiral's properties and how they vary with spatial position, in order to constrain its origin and evolution, as well as properties of the disk itself. We produce high resolution maps using two complementary data processing schemes: (a) we bin the Gaia proper motion sample in a disk parallel spatial grid, reaching distances up to 4 kpc; (b) we bin the spatially nearby line-of-sight velocity sample in terms of disk parallel orbital parameters. We find complex structure, most significantly with respect to Galactocentric radius and guiding radius, but also in Galactic azimuth and epicyclic action and phase. We find that spiral winding and rotation phase vary smoothly across the disk, with close-to-flat radial profiles. This uniform structure, in particular for the rotation phase, indicates that the phase spiral was sourced by one or many global perturbations. Curiously, this also implies that the winding time has a strong slope with respect to Galactocentric radius, with low values for the inner disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar number counts for the spatially binned data samples in the Galactic plane. The left panel shows the number counts after data quality cuts and line-of-sight velocity cuts (see Section 3.2). The right panel shows the fraction of stars, after data quality cuts, with Gaia DR3 line-of-sight velocity measurements. The small black dot in the center shows the Sun’s position. Dotted lines are contours of R = i kpc, w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar number counts for the phase-space binned data samples. The large hexagons drawn in black lines rep￾resent spatial area cells, with a grid spacing of 400 pc (cor￾responding to the white outline in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of spiral parameters: AΦ, ω, φ, α, β. This figure has a pedagogical purpose, where each row illustrates how the spiral changes when varying only one of the morphological parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spiral parameters (AΦ, ω, φ600) for our spatially binned data samples in the (X, Y )-plane. The right panel, showing the phase φ600, has a cyclical color map. The Galactic center is towards the right, and the direction of Galactic rotation is upwards. In each panel, th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gravitational potential scaling (AΦ) for the spa￾tially binned data samples. The scatter points are colored by azimuth (ϕ). The dashed line, seen in all panels, is an expo￾nential function fitted to the results of the spatially binned data samples; see the main text fo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spiral parameters (α + β, ω, φ600) for the phase-space binning, in the plane of Rg and vR. We note that the color bar scale for ω is different from that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Total spiral amplitude (α + β) for the phase-space binned data samples, in their back-propagated plane-parallel disk locations at time snapshots of 100, 200, 300, and 400 Myr ago (see the main text for further details). The arrows show disk parallel velocities relative…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Black lines show radial profiles for winding (ω, up￾per panel) and rotation phase (φ600, lower panel), for an ide￾alized model where we assume a uniform perturbation time of 300 Myr, an exponentially decaying disk surface density, and no self-gravity effects. In the bo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Winding time for the spatially binned data samples (as a function of radius R; circular markers) and the phase￾space binned data samples (as a function of guiding radius Rg; diamond markers). We note that many data samples at small (R ≲ 7 kpc) and large (R ≳ 11 kpc) ra…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: figure 8. However, a direct comparison is difficult since [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The matter densities in our solar neighborhood model for Φ⊙(z), based on results cataloged by Schutz et al. (2018). The mass components are split into stars and dwarfs, cold gas, warm and hot gas, and dark matter. The sum total is shown in gray. The dashed black line …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The spiral rotation phase for different disk regions in a test particle simulation (see Appendix B for details). This shows the phase angle calculated 0.25 Gyr after the satellite passage at a vertical position of two times the scale height (at Rg ∼ 8.2kpc) of the sim…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Over-density of upper main sequence stars in the disk plane, from Poggio et al. (2021) using Gaia EDR3. The overlaid black lines are the same contour lines as in the middle panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2015, TensorFlow : Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems

    Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., et al. 2015, TensorFlow : Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. http://tensorflow.org/

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    J., & Bensby , T

    Alinder , S., McMillan , P. J., & Bensby , T. 2023, , 678, A46, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346560

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346560 2023

  6. [6]

    2024, , 690, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451387

    ---. 2024, , 690, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451387

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451387 2024

  7. [7]

    2023, , 673, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518

    Antoja , T., Ramos , P., Garc \' a-Conde , B., et al. 2023, , 673, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 2023

  8. [8]

    2018, , 561, 360, 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7

    Antoja , T., Helmi , A., Romero-G \'o mez , M., et al. 2018, , 561, 360, 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2018

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    S., Baba , J., Portegies Zwart , S., & B \'e dorf , J

    Asano , T., Fujii , M. S., Baba , J., Portegies Zwart , S., & B \'e dorf , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12436, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12436

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    C., & Weinberg , M

    Banik , U., van den Bosch , F. C., & Weinberg , M. D. 2023, , 952, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd641

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, , 482, 1417, 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    Bennett , M., & Bovy , J. 2019, , 482, 1417, 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

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

    2008

  5. [13]

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

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

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, , 486, 1167, 10.1093/mnras/stz217

    Bland-Hawthorn , J., Sharma , S., Tepper-Garcia , T., et al. 2019, , 486, 1167, 10.1093/mnras/stz217

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A

    Bolatto , A. D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A. K. 2013, , 51, 207, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Darling , K., & Widrow , L. M. 2019, , 484, 1050, 10.1093/mnras/sty3508

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Darragh-Ford , E., Hunt , J. A. S., Price-Whelan , A. M., & Johnston , K. V. 2023, , 955, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf1fc

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    F., & Widmark , A

    de Salas , P. F., & Widmark , A. 2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 104901, 10.1088/1361-6633/ac24e7

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2006, Mon

    Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., & Jahreiss, H. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 372, 1149, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    2006

  12. [20]

    Frankel , N., Bovy , J., Tremaine , S., & Hogg , D. W. 2023, , 521, 5917, 10.1093/mnras/stad908

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Tremaine , S., Price-Whelan , A., & Shen , J

    Frankel , N., Hogg , D. W., Tremaine , S., Price-Whelan , A., & Shen , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07149, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07149

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    Gaia Collaboration , et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, , 674, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243511

    Gaia Collaboration , Recio-Blanco , A., Kordopatis , G., et al. 2023, , 674, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243511

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Johnston , K

    Gandhi , S. S., Johnston , K. V., Hunt , J. A. S., et al. 2022, , 928, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac47f7

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2025, , 980, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada963

    Gilman , D., Bovy , J., Frankel , N., & Benson , A. 2025, , 980, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada963

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Grand , R. J. J., Pakmor , R., Fragkoudi , F., et al. 2023, , 524, 801, 10.1093/mnras/stad1969

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, , 625, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., et al. 2019, , 625, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Casandjian , J.-M., & Terrier , R

    Grenier , I. A., Casandjian , J.-M., & Terrier , R. 2005, Science, 307, 1292, 10.1126/science.1106924

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Heyer , M., & Dame , T. M. 2015, , 53, 583, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    L., & Reffert , S

    Hunt , E. L., & Reffert , S. 2023, , 673, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Hunt , J. A. S., Price-Whelan , A. M., Johnston , K. V., & Darragh-Ford , E. 2022, , 516, L7, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunt , J. A. S., Stelea , I. A., Johnston , K. V., et al. 2021, , 508, 1459, 10.1093/mnras/stab2580

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Hunt , J. A. S., & Vasiliev , E. 2025, , 100, 101721, 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101721

    2025

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17202

    Ibata , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17202. 2311.17202

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2008, ApJ, 673, 864, 10.1086/523619

    Juric, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, 10.1086/523619

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    Kalberla , P. M. W., & Kerp , J. 2009, , 47, 27, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101823

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, , 489, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stz2462

    Khanna , S., Sharma , S., Tepper-Garcia , T., et al. 2019, , 489, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stz2462

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, , 622, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834707

    Khoperskov , S., Di Matteo , P., Gerhard , O., et al. 2019, , 622, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834707

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    D., & Randall, L

    Kramer, E. D., & Randall, L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 126. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/829/i=2/a=126

    2016

  34. [42]

    Laporte , C. F. P., Minchev , I., Johnston , K. V., & G \'o mez , F. A. 2019, , 485, 3134, 10.1093/mnras/stz583

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, , 524, 6331, 10.1093/mnras/stad2199

    Li , C., Siebert , A., Monari , G., Famaey , B., & Rozier , S. 2023, , 524, 6331, 10.1093/mnras/stad2199

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, , 911, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/abea17

    Li , Z.-Y. 2021, , 911, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/abea17

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04705, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04705

    Lin , J., Li , Z.-Y., Guo , R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04705, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04705

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    F., Parravano , A., & Hollenbach , D

    McKee , C. F., Parravano , A., & Hollenbach , D. J. 2015, , 814, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/13

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    P., & Widmark , A

    Naik , A. P., & Widmark , A. 2022, , 516, 3398, 10.1093/mnras/stac2425

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, , 527, 11559, 10.1093/mnras/stad3822

    ---. 2024, , 527, 11559, 10.1093/mnras/stad3822

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 528, 693, 10.1093/mnras/stae034

    Ou , X., Eilers , A.-C., Necib , L., & Frebel , A. 2024, , 528, 693, 10.1093/mnras/stae034

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, , 651, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    Poggio , E., et al. 2021, , 651, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    A., et al

    Poggio , E., Recio-Blanco , A., Palicio , P. A., et al. 2022, , 666, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244361

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

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

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    T., Heiles , C., & Bernard , J.-P

    Reach , W. T., Heiles , C., & Bernard , J.-P. 2017, , 834, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/63

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 130, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    C., et al

    Robin , A. C., et al. 2022, , 667, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243686

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2010, , 403, 1829, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    Sch \"o nrich , R., Binney , J., & Dehnen , W. 2010, , 403, 1829, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2010

  49. [57]

    R., & Wu, C.-L

    Schutz, K., Lin, T., Safdi, B. R., & Wu, C.-L. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 081101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081101

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2016, , 593, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201528055

    Tang , N., Li , D., Heiles , C., et al. 2016, , 593, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201528055

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Federrath , C., & Agertz , O

    Tepper-Garc \' a , T., Bland-Hawthorn , J., Bedding , T. R., Federrath , C., & Agertz , O. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15059, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15059

    2025 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    2023, , 521, 114, 10.1093/mnras/stad577

    Tremaine , S., Frankel , N., & Bovy , J. 2023, , 521, 114, 10.1093/mnras/stad577

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, , 510, 2242, 10.1093/mnras/stab3258

    Wang , J., Hammer , F., & Yang , Y. 2022, , 510, 2242, 10.1093/mnras/stab3258

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Widmark , A., Hunt , J. A. S., Laporte , C. F. P., & Monari , G. 2022 a , , 663, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243173

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, , 130, 161002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.161002

    Widmark , A., Korsmeier , M., & Linden , T. 2023, , 130, 161002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.161002

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Widmark , A., Laporte , C., & de Salas , P. F. 2021 a , , 650, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140650

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    Widmark , A., Laporte , C. F. P., de Salas , P. F., & Monari , G. 2021 b , , 653, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141466

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    Widmark , A., Laporte , C. F. P., & Monari , G. 2022 b , , 663, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142819

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    Widmark , A., & Naik , A. P. 2024, , 686, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449199

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    Widrow , L. M. 2023, , 522, 477, 10.1093/mnras/stad973

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    G., Hollenbach , D., & McKee , C

    Wolfire , M. G., Hollenbach , D., & McKee , C. F. 2010, , 716, 1191, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1191

    2010 doi

  64. [72]

    2016, Science Advances, 2, e1600878, 10.1126/sciadv.1600878

    Xu , Y., Reid , M., Dame , T., et al. 2016, Science Advances, 2, e1600878, 10.1126/sciadv.1600878

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    2020, , 905, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2cb

    Xu , Y., Liu , C., Tian , H., et al. 2020, , 905, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2cb

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 468, 3289, 10.1093/mnras/stx729

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    M., & Rix , H.-W

    Zhang , X., Green , G. M., & Rix , H.-W. 2023, , 524, 1855, 10.1093/mnras/stad1941

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2023, , 946, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9

    Zhou , Y., Li , X., Huang , Y., & Zhang , H. 2023, , 946, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.