Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that the LMC's total mass is at least 10–15% of the Milky Way's mass, measured from the reflex motion of outer-halo stars.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 11:24 UTC pith:ZROWF4TO

load-bearing objection Solid first application of an SBI pipeline to real data; the headline numbers are plausible and consistent with prior work, but the PPC already shows the rigid model misses part of the exact data vector, so the statistical-only error bars are probably optimistic. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.04735 v2 pith:ZROWF4TO submitted 2025-10-06 astro-ph.GA

The Milky Way - Large Magellanic Cloud Interaction with Simulation Based Inference

Richard A. N. Brooks , Jason L. Sanders , Vedant Chandra , Nicol\'as Garavito-Camargo , Adam M. Dillamore , Adrian M. Price-Whelan , Yuan-Sen Ting This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Large Magellanic CloudMilky Way haloreflex motionsimulation-based inferenceneural posterior estimationouter halo starsdynamical frictiongalaxy mass inference
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.

This paper uses simulation-based inference to measure the Large Magellanic Cloud's mass and the Milky Way's reflex motion from the average velocities of outer-halo stars. Neural networks were trained on 128,000 rigid Milky Way–LMC simulations, each with a 20,000-particle stellar halo, to map binned radial and tangential velocities to posterior distributions. The most precise result, using an all-sky survey split into on-sky quadrants, gives a reflex velocity of 26.4 km/s and an LMC enclosed mass of 9.2 × 10^10 solar masses within 50 kpc, implying the LMC is at least 10–15% as massive as the Milky Way. The framework is amortized, so it can be applied to future outer-halo surveys without retraining.

Core claim

The authors report a distance-averaged reflex motion velocity of v_travel = 26.4^{+5.5}_{-4.4} km/s and an enclosed LMC mass of M_LMC(<50 kpc) = 9.2^{+1.9}_{-2.3} × 10^10 M_sun, using radial and tangential velocity data from the H3+SEGUE+MagE survey with on-sky quadrant footprints. They simultaneously find an enclosed MW mass of M_MW(<50 kpc) = 4.4^{+0.7}_{-0.7} × 10^11 M_sun. These values imply that the LMC's total mass is at least roughly 10–15% of the Milky Way's mass. The constraints are consistent whether radial velocities are used alone or together with tangential velocities, and the coverage tests validate the posterior distributions.

What carries the argument

A neural density estimator (a masked autoregressive flow) trained on 128,000 rigid MW–LMC simulations. In each simulation, the MW stellar halo is represented by 20,000 particles, the MW and LMC are analytic potentials that move under mutual gravity plus Chandrasekhar dynamical friction, and the present-day halo velocities are integrated over the last 2.2 Gyr. The network learns the mapping from binned mean radial and tangential velocities of outer-halo stars to posterior distributions over enclosed masses, reflex-motion components, and the dynamical-friction strength.

Load-bearing premise

The rigid, non-self-gravitating simulation model (equilibrium Milky Way before infall, fixed stellar disk, Chandrasekhar dynamical friction) reproduces the observed outer-halo velocity field closely enough that model misspecification does not bias the inferred reflex velocity and LMC mass.

What would settle it

A measurement of the LMC's enclosed mass within 50 kpc from an independent tracer, such as the proper motions of its globular clusters or the timing argument, falling outside the quoted 9.2^{+1.9}_{-2.3} × 10^10 M_sun would directly contradict the central claim, as would a demonstration that the Q4 80–100 kpc radial-velocity outlier is a coherent substructure rather than a statistical fluke.

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

If this is right

  • If the LMC is this massive, its gravitational influence on the Milky Way's dark matter halo and satellite population is substantial, and models of the MW's center-of-mass motion must account for the LMC's wake.
  • The measured reflex velocity of about 26 km/s provides a direct kinematic anchor for the MW–LMC interaction, complementing constraints from stellar streams and the timing argument.
  • At current measurement precision, tangential velocities add only marginal constraining power; upcoming proper-motion surveys should sharpen the constraints without requiring new simulations.
  • The SBI framework is amortized: future outer-halo surveys can obtain parameter constraints by simply evaluating the trained flow on new velocity data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own posterior predictive check shows the rigid model under-represents the northern quadrants (Q1/Q2) and misses the Q4 80–100 kpc radial-velocity point; if these residuals are real substructure rather than noise, the quoted v_travel could be biased, and rerunning the inference with a self-gravitating or deforming MW halo would be a natural test.
  • Since the MW mass posterior closely tracks its prior, the binned mean velocities carry little information about the MW halo; extending the summary statistics to velocity dispersions or star-by-star likelihoods could break this degeneracy.
  • If confirmed, this LMC mass strengthens the case that the LMC is a major perturber of the Local Group barycenter, so the MW's apparent acceleration and the orbits of dwarf galaxies should be re-evaluated in a frame tied to the MW–LMC barycenter.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a simulation-based inference (SBI) framework for the Milky Way–LMC interaction. Using 128,000 rigid, non-self-gravitating MW–LMC simulations, the authors train a neural posterior estimator on binned mean radial and tangential velocities of outer-halo stars, conditioned on DESI BHB and H3+SEGUE+MagE data. They report constraints on M_MW(<50 kpc), M_LMC(<50 kpc), the reflex-motion velocity components, and the dynamical friction strength. Their headline result uses H3+SEGUE+MagE data split into four on-sky quadrants and gives v_travel = 26.4^{+5.5}_{-4.4} km/s, M_LMC(<50 kpc) = 9.2^{+1.9}_{-2.3} x 10^10 M_sun, and M_MW(<50 kpc) = 4.4^{+0.7}_{-0.7} x 10^11 M_sun, from which they conclude the LMC total mass is at least approximately 10-15% of the Milky Way's mass. The posterior is validated with TARP coverage tests and posterior predictive checks.

Significance. If the methodology and results are accepted, the paper provides a fast, amortized inference framework for future outer-halo surveys and a new measurement of the LMC's gravitational influence on the Milky Way. The paper's strengths include the large simulation set (128,000), the explicit forward-modeling of survey-specific velocity uncertainties, and the inclusion of both TARP coverage calibration and posterior predictive checks in data space. The comparison across two datasets and several sky-footprint choices is also useful. However, the headline numbers rest on a rigid forward model that the paper's own PPC shows to be imperfect in precisely the bins that drive the quadrant result, and the MW mass posterior is explicitly prior-dominated. These issues need to be addressed before the quoted statistical intervals can be interpreted as complete uncertainty statements.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2, Fig. 8] The posterior predictive check for the headline quadrant analysis shows that the generated radial-velocity distributions systematically under-represent the observed Q1 and Q2 bins, and that the Q4 80-100 kpc point is inconsistent with the simulations. These bins are part of the exact data vector D_obs used to condition the posterior in Table 2, so this is not a peripheral residual but a misspecification of the forward model at the summary-statistic level. Because the abstract states 'Quoted uncertainties are statistical,' the reported 1-sigma intervals do not include any model-misspecification contribution. The paper should either quantify the potential bias (e.g., by performing inference on mock data generated from a higher-fidelity N-body simulation and comparing recovered parameters), add a model-discrepancy term, or explicitly weaken the headline claims to reflect that they are condi
  2. [§5.3.2 and Table 2] The LMC mass posterior for the quadrant case (9.2^{+1.9}_{-2.3} x 10^10 M_sun) is only modestly narrower than the adopted informative prior N(8.6, 2.9) x 10^10 M_sun, and the MW mass posterior (4.4 +/- 0.7) is essentially the prior (4.8 +/- 0.8). The paper itself states in §5.3.3 that the MW constraint is dominated by the prior. The 10-15% mass-ratio conclusion therefore depends heavily on the prior choices. The claim in §5.3.2 that a wide uninformative prior in Brooks et al. (2025) did not bias the LMC inference is not a substitute for performing the equivalent test with the current data vector and quadrant sky coverage. A wide-prior re-run for the quadrant setup, or an explicit quantitative demonstration of prior robustness, is needed to support the headline LMC mass and the mass-ratio statement.
  3. [§6.1 and §7.1] The TARP coverage test validates only that the neural density estimator correctly approximates the posterior of the forward model; it cannot detect whether the forward model is an adequate description of the observed data. The paper's own §7.1 lists several unmodeled effects—fixed disk, no self-gravity, equilibrium MW before infall, Chandrasekhar dynamical friction, and no non-uniform selection function—but none of these is propagated into the quoted uncertainties. This is especially important because the PPC failures in Fig. 8 are in the bins used for the headline result. The authors should either provide a quantitative robustness test (e.g., deforming N-body simulations as mock 'observations') or reframe the paper's results as model-conditional estimates with a clearly stated systematic error budget.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2, H3+ DESI footprint row] The lower error on log lambda_DF is printed as -176; this appears to be a typo for -1.6. Please correct.
  2. [§6.2 and Fig. 7/8 captions] The text repeatedly writes 'PCC' where 'PPC' (posterior predictive check) is meant. Please fix.
  3. [§8, item (i)] Typo: 'on-sly quadrants' should be 'on-sky quadrants'.
  4. [§5.3.1] The comparison with literature values in Fig. 4 is clear, but the text could state more explicitly which posterior is used for the v_travel comparison in Fig. 5; the reader must infer it is the 'with v_t,b' quadrant case from Table 2.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Two load-bearing validity claims rely on self-citation to Brooks et al. (2025); the SBI inference itself is not circular, but the reported MW-mass constraint is explicitly prior-dominated.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1 (Introduction), paragraph following the SBI overview]
    "In Brooks et al. (2025), we have previously shown for the MW-LMC system that inference on model parameters through an SBI framework trained on many, O(10^5), rigid simulations retains enough of the relevant physics that more complex simulations capture (e.g., deforming simulations, Garavito-Camargo et al. 2019) to avoid model misspecification and vastly improve the computational efficiency of the inference."

    The key modeling assumption — that rigid, non-self-gravitating simulations are faithful enough to avoid model misspecification — is imported from the authors' own previous paper rather than established here. This assumption is load-bearing because every headline posterior is conditioned on these simulations. The current paper's PPC (Sec. 6.2, Fig. 8) shows the posterior-generated data under-represents Q1/Q2 and misses the Q4 80-100 kpc radial-velocity point, and Sec. 7.1 concedes that the fixed disc prevents separating reflex motion from internal halo motions. The TARP check (Sec. 6.1) only validates that the neural posterior matches the simulator, not that the simulator matches the Galaxy. Thus the central validity claim reduces to an unverified self-citation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 5.3.2 (The enclosed mass of the LMC)]
    "Notably, the prior of the enclosed LMC mass could be biasing our results to agree with previous measurements. Yet, as shown in Brooks et al. (2025), adopting a wide uninformative prior instead of an informative Gaussian prior for the LMC mass did not bias our inference of the LMC mass. Therefore, we can take confidence that the choice of an informative prior is not significantly biasing the returned constraints in this work."

    With prior M_LMC(<50 kpc) = N(8.6,2.9) x 10^10 Msun and posterior 9.2(+1.9,-2.3) x 10^10 Msun, the headline LMC mass overlaps the prior almost entirely. The only evidence that this is not prior pass-through is a statement about a different analysis in the authors' previous paper, Brooks et al. (2025), whose details are not reproduced here. This self-citation is doing the work of converting a prior-informed number into a claimed data-driven constraint.

  3. other [Sec. 5.3.3 (The enclosed mass of the Milky Way); Table 2 and abstract]
    "For all constraints, the median and uncertainties are dominated the enclosed MW mass prior distribution. This implies that the radial and/or tangential velocity data points are not particularly constraining of the MW mass in this inference set-up."

    The paper reports M_MW(<50 kpc)=4.4(+0.7,-0.7) x 10^11 Msun in the abstract, Table 2 and conclusions as one of its headline constraints, yet the text states this posterior is dominated by the N(4.8,0.8) x 10^11 Msun prior. The 'constraint' is therefore the input prior propagated through an essentially uninformative likelihood, not an inference from the outer-halo velocity data. Reporting it as a result is a prior-as-measurement reduction rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The core SBI machinery is not circular: the v_travel and M_LMC posteriors are obtained by training a neural density estimator on 128,000 rigid MW-LMC forward simulations and conditioning on observed binned radial and tangential velocities, which are not defined in terms of the target parameters. That part of the derivation chain is self-contained and independently checkable through the reported TARP coverage tests. However, two load-bearing claims are supported only by self-citation to Brooks et al. (2025), the authors' own prior work: (1) that rigid simulations 'avoid model misspecification,' and (2) that the informative LMC-mass prior does not bias the inference. The first is contradicted in tension by the paper's own posterior predictive check, which shows systematic under-representation of the northern quadrants and a failure at the Q4 80-100 kpc radial-velocity point; the TARP test cannot detect simulator bias. The second is important because the reported LMC-mass posterior (9.2 +/- ~2.1 x 10^10 Msun) is largely overlapping with its N(8.6,2.9) prior, so the self-citation is what turns a prior-informed number into a claimed constraint. Additionally, the MW enclosed mass is explicitly admitted to be prior-dominated, yet it is still presented in the abstract and conclusion among the headline results. These issues warrant a moderate circularity score: the central inference has independent content, but its most important validity defenses reduce to self-citation, and one reported 'constraint' is essentially the prior.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inference relies on a set of domain assumptions about the MW-LMC model, informative priors from previous measurements, and the sufficiency of binned velocity statistics. No new physical entities are introduced. The most delicate assumptions are the adequacy of the rigid simulations and the non-dominance of the informative priors, both only partially tested in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • v_travel (reflex motion velocity) = 26.4^{+5.5}_{-4.4} km/s
    Posterior median from SBI using H3+SEGUE+MagE quadrant data; constrained by observed velocity summary statistics, but model- and prior-dependent.
  • M_LMC(<50 kpc) = 9.2^{+1.9}_{-2.3} × 10^10 M_sun
    Posterior median; posterior is only modestly narrower than the informative Gaussian prior N(8.6,2.9)e10, so the data provide limited independent constraint.
  • M_MW(<50 kpc) = 4.4^{+0.7}_{-0.7} × 10^11 M_sun
    Posterior median; paper states this is dominated by the prior distribution, so it is effectively a prior echo rather than a data-driven measurement.
  • log10 λ_DF = -0.1^{+0.7}_{-1.6} (quadrant + vt,b)
    Posterior median for dynamical friction modulation; weakly constrained and spans most of the prior range.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption MW stellar halo is in dynamical equilibrium before the LMC infall; the only disequilibrium comes from the LMC.
    Section 7.1 lists this as a model limitation; if the pre-infall MW had other disequilibria (e.g., Sagittarius debris not removed), the velocity summary statistics would be biased.
  • domain assumption LMC is on its first pericentric passage; no prior interactions matter.
    Relied on in the orbital/reflex model; the paper cites Vasiliev (2024) for this scenario but does not test alternatives.
  • domain assumption Chandrasekhar dynamical friction with fixed σ_MW=120 km/s and Coulomb log ln(100 kpc/ε) describes the LMC orbital decay, modulated by scalar λ_DF.
    Section 3.1.3; the friction prescription is a simplification and the paper varies only λ_DF to absorb unknown Coulomb logarithm effects.
  • domain assumption The 128,000 rigid simulations are sufficient to avoid model misspecification, as argued in Brooks et al. (2025).
    Section 3 and Section 7.1; the PPC in Fig. 8 suggests this assumption is only partially satisfied for the quadrant dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper Informative Gaussian priors on LMC and MW masses from previous literature do not dominate the posterior; the companion-paper test with a wide LMC prior transfers to this analysis.
    Section 5.3.2; the claim rests on a test in Brooks+25 not reproduced for the exact datasets/summary statistics used here.
  • domain assumption Binned mean radial/tangential velocity summary statistics contain enough information for unbiased inference; star-by-star information is not required.
    Section 7.1; binning compresses data and may discard constraining power or wash out localized velocity perturbations.
  • domain assumption Survey selection functions are adequately modeled by sky footprint and distance cuts; non-uniform source density (e.g., DESI footprint edges) has negligible effect.
    Section 7.1; the paper explicitly does not model non-uniformity in the source distribution, which could bias SBI inference.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29333 in / 19171 out tokens · 157256 ms · 2026-08-04T11:24:35.312495+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The infall of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) into the Milky Way (MW) has displaced the MW's centre of mass, manifesting as an observed reflex motion in the velocities of outer halo stars. We use a Simulation Based Inference framework to constrain properties of the MW, LMC and the induced reflex motion using the dynamics of outer MW halo stars. Specifically, we use the mean radial and tangential velocities of outer halo stars calculated in a set of distance and on-sky bins. We train neural networks to estimate parameter posterior distributions using a set of $128,000$ rigid MW--LMC simulations conditioned upon velocity data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) and the combined H3+SEGUE+MagE outer halo surveys. We constrain the reflex motion velocity and the enclosed LMC mass within $50 \, \rm kpc$ using the DESI or H3+SEGUE+MagE dataset while varying the survey sky coverage and depth. Using the radial and tangential velocity data from the H3+SEGUE+MagE survey and on-sky quadrants, we report a distance-averaged reflex motion velocity for the outer halo samples, the speed at which the MW lurches towards the LMC, of $v_{\rm{travel}} = 26.4^{+5.5}_{-4.4} \, \rm km \, \rm s^{-1}$, while simultaneously finding an enclosed LMC mass of $M_{\rm LMC}(< 50 \, \rm kpc) = 9.2^{+1.9}_{-2.3} \times 10^{10}\, \rm M_{\odot}$. Quoted uncertainties are statistical. Our results suggest that the LMC's total mass is at least $\approx 10-15 \%$ of that of the MW. This inference framework is flexible such that it can provide rapid constraints when applied to any future survey measuring the velocities of outer halo stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04735 by Adam M. Dillamore, Adrian M. Price-Whelan, Jason L. Sanders, Nicol\'as Garavito-Camargo, Richard A. N. Brooks, Vedant Chandra, Yuan-Sen Ting.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panels: The distribution of all sources beyond a Galactocentric distance of 30 kpc for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Survey (DESI, left) and the all-sky H3+SEGUE+MagE outer halo surveys (right) in Galactic coordinates. The colour of individual sources reflects their solar corrected radial velocity, 𝑣GSR. The present-day position of the LMC is shown as the grey star along with an illustrative past orbit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Panel (a): Mean radial velocity distributions, ⟨𝑣GSR⟩, as a func￾tion of Galactocentric distance for the DESI sources in its northern (pink) and southern (blue) observing footprints. Panel (b): Same as the first panel for H3+SEGUE+MagE sources within the DESI survey footprints. Panel (c/d): The H3+SEGUE+MagE data divided into on-sky quadrant footprints. Panel (e): All-sky mean tangential velocity, ⟨𝑣t,b ⟩,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions - MW and LMC enclosed masses: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions - Reflex motion velocity: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of reflex motion constraints: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coverage probability posterior check: For the posteriors estimated using SBI in this work, the probability of finding true test parameters in the appropriate credible intervals matches the expected coverage probability. This validates the estimated SBI posterior distributions and allows one to interpret the confidence intervals on parameter constraints as representative and reliable. intervals have the exp… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Predictive posterior check - H3+SEGUE+MagE data, Quad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.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. LMC-induced Perturbations in the Milky Way Halo II: Bridging Field-level Inference and Summary-level Simulation-Based Inference

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A field-level flow-matching likelihood shows the raw 6D halo phase-space distribution carries 2.5-9.9x more MW-LMC parameter information than velocity moments; adding BFE+MOPED summaries recovers much of this gap.

  2. GSE vs. LMC: reshaping of radially biased stellar haloes by satellites

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    A highly radially anisotropic stellar halo, like Gaia Sausage-Enceladus, is reshaped by the LMC into a tilted triaxial distribution with overdensities matching the VOD and HAC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Alsing J., Wandelt B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.5093A 488, 5093

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1900 2019

  2. [2]

    Alsing J., Wandelt B., Feeney S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2874A 477, 2874

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty819 2018

  3. [3]

    Alsing J., Charnock T., Feeney S., Wandelt B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4440A 488, 4440

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1960 2019

  4. [4]

    Amarante J. A. S., Koposov S. E., Laporte C. F. P., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240409825A p. arXiv:2404.09825

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.09825 2024

  5. [5]

    E., Cunningham E

    Arora A., Garavito-Camargo N., Sanderson R. E., Cunningham E. C., Wetzel A., Panithanpaisal N., Barry M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..286A 974, 286

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7375 2024

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [apj] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  9. [9]

    arXiv:2503.13755

    Bairagi A., Wandelt B., Villaescusa-Navarro F., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250313755B p. arXiv:2503.13755

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13755 2025

  10. [10]

    J., Erkal D., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Deason A. J., Erkal D., Koposov S. E., Carballo-Bello J. A., Smith M. C., Jethwa P., Navarrete C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488L..47B 488, L47

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz101 2019

  11. [11]

    Benisty D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689L...1B 689, L1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449884 2024

  12. [12]

    W., Davis A.-C., Hartl O

    Benisty D., Vasiliev E., Evans N. W., Davis A.-C., Hartl O. V., Strigari L. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928L...5B 928, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c42 2022

  13. [13]

    Bennett M., Bovy J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1417B 482, 1417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  14. [14]

    J., van der Marel R

    Besla G., Kallivayalil N., Hernquist L., Robertson B., Cox T. J., van der Marel R. P., Alcock C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..949B 668, 949

    doi:10.1086/521385 2007

  15. [15]

    P., Cox T

    Besla G., Kallivayalil N., Hernquist L., van der Marel R. P., Cox T. J., Kere s D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721L..97B 721, L97

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/l97 2010

  16. [16]

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

    2008

  17. [17]

    Boylan-Kolchin M., Besla G., Hernquist L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18495.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.1560B 414, 1560

    arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Brooks R. A. N., Sanders J. L., Dillamore A. M., Garavito-Camargo N., Price-Whelan A. M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250710667B p. arXiv:2507.10667

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10667 2025

  19. [19]

    O., Wechsler R

    Buch D., Nadler E. O., Wechsler R. H., Mao Y.-Y., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240408043B p. arXiv:2404.08043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.08043 2024

  20. [20]

    Bystr \"o m A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.542..560B 542, 560

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1219 2025

  21. [21]

    Cargile P., Chandra V., 2025, The SEGUE-MINESweeper Catalog, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.16105186 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16105186

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16105186 2025

  22. [22]

    A., Conroy C., Johnson B

    Cargile P. A., Conroy C., Johnson B. D., Ting Y.-S., Bonaca A., Dotter A., Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba43b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900...28C 900, 28

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba43b 2020

  23. [23]

    arXiv:2410.00114

    Cavieres M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241000114C p. arXiv:2410.00114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00114 2024

  24. [24]

    M., Besla G., Cunningham E

    Chamberlain K., Price-Whelan A. M., Besla G., Cunningham E. C., Garavito-Camargo N., Pe \ n arrubia J., Petersen M. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca01f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...18C 942, 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca01f 2023

  25. [25]

    Chandra V., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accf13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951...26C 951, 26

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf13

  26. [26]

    Chandra V., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..110C 956, 110

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bf

  27. [27]

    arXiv:2508.00978

    Chandra V., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250800978C p. arXiv:2508.00978

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.00978

  28. [28]

    Chandra V., et al., 2025b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/addab6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988..156C 988, 156

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addab6

  29. [29]

    Chandrasekhar S., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1943ApJ....97..255C 97, 255

    doi:10.1086/144517 1943

  30. [30]

    Conroy C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..107C 883, 107

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 2019

  31. [31]

    P., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Conroy C., Naidu R. P., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.592..534C 592, 534

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7 2021

  32. [32]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...37C 947, 37

    Cooper A. P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...37C 947, 37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 2023

  33. [33]

    Correa Magnus L., Vasiliev E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2610C 511, 2610

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3726 2022

  34. [34]

    Cranmer K., Brehmer J., Louppe G., 2020, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1912789117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PNAS..11730055C 117, 30055

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1912789117 2020

  35. [35]

    C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898....4C 898, 4

    Cunningham E. C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898....4C 898, 4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b88 2020

  36. [36]

    arXiv:1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100036D p. arXiv:1611.00036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2016

  37. [37]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..207D 164, 207

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b 2022

  38. [38]

    arXiv:2503.14745

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314745D p. arXiv:2503.14745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14745 2025

  39. [39]

    Dehnen W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/265.1.250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.265..250D 265, 250

    doi:10.1093/mnras/265.1.250 1993

  40. [40]

    W., Rix H.-W., Ness M

    Eilers A.-C., Hogg D. W., Rix H.-W., Ness M. K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..120E 871, 120

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 2019

  41. [42]

    Erkal D., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.2685E 487, 2685

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1371

  42. [43]

    Erkal D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2677E 506, 2677

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1828 2021

  43. [44]

    arXiv:1004.1112

    Fearnhead P., Prangle D., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1004.1112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1004.1112F p. arXiv:1004.1112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1004.1112 2010

  44. [45]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..163F 954, 163

    Foote H. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..163F 954, 163

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 2023

  45. [46]

    Foreman-Mackey D., 2016, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00024 , 1, 24

    doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  46. [47]

    J., Mosquera M

    Fushimi K. J., Mosquera M. E., Dominguez M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A.147F 688, A147

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347450 2024

  47. [48]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625L..10G 625, L10

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 2019

  48. [49]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..12G 616, A12

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832698 2018

  49. [50]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...7G 649, A7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039588 2021

  50. [51]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  51. [52]

    Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Laporte C. F. P., Johnston K. V., G \'o mez F. A., Watkins L. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...51G 884, 51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb 2019

  52. [54]

    Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Laporte C. F. P., Price-Whelan A. M., Cunningham E. C., Johnston K. V., Weinberg M., G \'o mez F. A., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..109G 919, 109

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44

  53. [55]

    Garavito-Camargo N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6e7e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..100G 975, 100

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6e7e 2024

  54. [56]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx071 2017

  55. [57]

    Grand R. J. J., Fragkoudi F., G \'o mez F. A., Jenkins A., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1814G 532, 1814

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1598 2024

  56. [58]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  57. [59]

    Hashimoto Y., Funato Y., Makino J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..196H 582, 196

    work page doi:10.1086/344260 2003

  58. [60]

    F., Sellentin E., Jaffe A

    Heavens A. F., Sellentin E., Jaffe A. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3440H 498, 3440

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2589 2020

  59. [61]

    Hermans J., Banik N., Weniger C., Bertone G., Louppe G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.1999H 507, 1999

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2181 2021

  60. [62]

    Hernquist L., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...356..359H 356, 359

    doi:10.1086/168845 1990

  61. [63]

    Hunt J. A. S., Vasiliev E., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250104075H p. arXiv:2501.04075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04075 2025

  62. [64]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  63. [65]

    Jeffrey N., Alsing J., Lanusse F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3594 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501..954J 501, 954

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3594 2021

  64. [66]

    Jeffrey N., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1303J 536, 1303

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2629 2025

  65. [67]

    Jethwa P., Erkal D., Belokurov V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2212J 461, 2212

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1343 2016

  66. [68]

    arXiv:1505.05770

    Jimenez Rezende D., Mohamed S., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1505.05770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150505770J p. arXiv:1505.05770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.05770 2015

  67. [69]

    P., Besla G., Anderson J., Alcock C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..161K 764, 161

    Kallivayalil N., van der Marel R. P., Besla G., Anderson J., Alcock C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..161K 764, 161

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

  68. [70]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..146K 736, 146

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..146K 736, 146

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/146 2011

  69. [71]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4726K 485, 4726

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4726K 485, 4726

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz457 2019

  70. [72]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4936K 521, 4936

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4936K 521, 4936

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad551 2023

  71. [73]

    E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250514787K p

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250514787K p. arXiv:2505.14787

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.14787 2025

  72. [74]

    Effect of the Large Magellanic Cloud on the kinematics of Milky Way satellites and virial mass estimate

    Kravtsov A., Winney S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240506017K p. arXiv:2405.06017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06017 2024

  73. [75]

    Lemos P., Jeffrey N., Whiteway L., Lahav O., Libeskind N., Hoffman Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.103b3009L 103, 023009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.023009 2021

  74. [76]

    Lemos P., Coogan A., Hezaveh Y., Perreault-Levasseur L., 2023, @doi [40th International Conference on Machine Learning] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.03026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PMLR..20219256L 202, 19256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.03026 2023

  75. [77]

    Lilleengen S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..774L 518, 774

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3108 2023

  76. [78]

    J., Sanders J

    Lilley E. J., Sanders J. L., Evans N. W., Erkal D., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.2092L 476, 2092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty296 2092

  77. [79]

    J., Sanders J

    Lilley E. J., Sanders J. L., Evans N. W., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1281L 478, 1281

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1038

  78. [80]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241113960L p

    Lovell C. C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241113960L p. arXiv:2411.13960

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13960 2024

  79. [81]

    130, Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

    Lueckmann J.-M., Boelts J., Greenberg D., Goncalves P., Macke J., 2021, in Banerjee A., Fukumizu K., eds, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Vol. 130, Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, pp 343--351, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v130/lueckmann21a.html

    2021

  80. [82]

    R., Skrutskie M

    Majewski S. R., Skrutskie M. F., Weinberg M. D., Ostheimer J. C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599.1082M 599, 1082

    doi:10.1086/379504 2003

Showing first 80 references.