Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 133 references

Elemental Abundances in M31: First Alpha and Iron Abundance Measurements in M31's Giant Stellar Stream

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first spectral-synthesis measurements of iron and alpha abundances in M31's giant stellar stream show that its progenitor was more massive and formed stars more efficiently than M31's surviving dwarf galaxies.

desk verdict A credible first abundance measurement in M31's GSS that is transparent about its cuts and biases, but the key alpha-knee is read off 21 stars without a significance test, and the dSph comparison rests on an unpublished offset. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04429 v1 pith:MY4LP6HK submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Karoline M. Gilbert , Evan N. Kirby , Ivanna Escala , Jennifer Wojno , Jason S. Kalirai , Puragra Guhathakurta This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:haloindividual(M31)stars:abundanceskinematicstechniques:spectroscopicgiantstellarstreamspectralsynthesisalphaenhancement
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

The paper reports the first spectral-synthesis measurements of iron abundance $[Fe/H]$ and $\alpha$-element abundance $[\alpha/Fe]$ for red giant stars in M31's giant stellar stream, a tidal debris feature 17 kpc from the galaxy's center. The measurements show that the field is relatively metal-rich—more than half of the stars have $[Fe/H] > -1.0$—and that stars are $\alpha$-enhanced at low metallicity, with $[\alpha/Fe]$ declining as $[Fe/H]$ rises above about $-0.9$. That turn-over point, the 'knee,' marks the metallicity at which Type Ia supernovae began to dominate iron production; its metal-rich location implies the stream's progenitor enriched itself quickly and formed stars efficiently. If these abundances are right, the progenitor was more massive than M31's surviving dwarf spheroidals and the dwarf ellipticals NGC 147 and NGC 185, with a stellar mass near $0.5\text{--}2\times10^9\,M_\odot$ under a minor-merger origin, and the data set limits on the competing major-merger scenario.

What carries the argument

The central tool is spectral synthesis: each observed spectrum is compared against a large grid of synthetic spectra to fit effective temperature and $[Fe/H]$ simultaneously from many weak and blended iron lines; with those parameters held fixed, $[\alpha/Fe]$ is then fit from lines of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti. Because the fit uses the whole spectrum rather than a couple of strong lines such as the calcium triplet, it returns iron abundances at the claimed precision near $0.2\,\mathrm{dex}$ from spectra with signal-to-noise around 15 per angstrom, and it remains accurate for $[Fe/H]$ at lower signal-to-noise than needed for $[\alpha/Fe]$. The component-level analysis assigns each star a probability of belonging to the stream, the kinematically cold component, or the halo using a Gaussian mixture velocity model, then iterates those probabilities together with the abundance distributions until convergence, producing probabilistic $[Fe/H]$ and $[\alpha/Fe]$ distribution functions for each component.

What would settle it

Measure $[Fe/H]$ and $[\alpha/Fe]$ for the 29 TiO-bearing red giants in this field using synthetic spectra that include TiO bands, or obtain infrared spectra where those bands do not contaminate, and recompute the component distributions. If the halo's recovered mean $[Fe/H]$ rises to the stream's value, the central comparison fails; if the halo remains more metal-poor after the correction, the progenitor-mass inference survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the giant stellar stream field contains a stellar population unlike M31's surviving low-mass satellites: it is $\alpha$-enhanced at $[Fe/H] \lesssim -0.9\,\mathrm{dex}$, shows a decline in $[\alpha/Fe]$ toward higher metallicity, and has a median $[Fe/H]$ near $-0.75$ for the stream component. The probabilistic distributions built from the field's velocity model show that the stream and the second kinematically cold component (KCC) of unknown origin have nearly identical $[Fe/H]$ and $[\alpha/Fe]$ distributions, while the underlying hot halo appears more metal-poor. Comparing with published abundances for M31 dwarf galaxies, the paper argues that the stream's progenitor was more massive and had a higher star-formation efficiency than the surviving dwarf spheroidals and the dwarf ellipticals, consistent with the $1\text{--}5\times10^9\,M_\odot$ progenitor range of minor-merger simulations; using the Local Group mass–metallicity relation, it estimates a progenitor stellar mass of at least roughly $0.5\text{--}2\times10^9\,M_\odot$. The paper also finds these abundances hard to reconcile with a major merger that would have supplied a $\sim10^{10}\,M_\odot$ progenitor, unless the stream stars were stripped from the outer, metal-poor parts of that galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the relative abundance distributions of the stream, the cold component, and the halo remain interpretable after cool, metal-rich stars with TiO absorption are removed from the sample; because about twice as many of those stars match the halo as match the stream or the cold component, the halo's metallicity distribution is biased low, and correcting that bias could erase the difference between halo and stream that the comparison depends on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The stream's progenitor must have been massive enough to enrich to $[Fe/H]\sim-0.9$ before Type Ia supernovae set in, which under the Local Group mass–metallicity relation implies a stellar mass of at least $0.5\text{--}2\times10^9\,M_\odot$.
  • The nearly identical $[Fe/H]$ and $[\alpha/Fe]$ distributions of the stream and the kinematically cold component strengthen the case that both features are debris from the same accretion event rather than an unrelated stellar disk population.
  • The metal-rich position of the $[\alpha/Fe]$ 'knee' implies rapid early enrichment followed by shutdown, with star formation in the progenitor largely ended by about 6 Gyr ago even if the merger with M31 happened within the last roughly 1 Gyr.
  • The measured abundances make a major merger that built the entire stream from a $\sim10^{10}\,M_\odot$ galaxy unlikely unless the observed stars were stripped from the progenitor's outskirts, a scenario that would predict a metallicity gradient along the stream.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to recover abundances for the excluded cool, metal-rich TiO stars: if their inclusion raises the halo's mean metallicity to the stream level, the claimed halo-versus-stream difference would disappear, so the comparison rests on a bias that can be measured.
  • If the kinematically cold component is a previous wrap of the same stream, as the abundance similarity suggests, the ~100 km/s velocity offset between the two features becomes a direct constraint on the merger orbit, and matching that offset in a simulation would validate the connection.
  • Extending the same measurements to more fields along the stream would test whether the inferred progenitor mass is an artifact of a single 17 kpc field, for example by checking for a metallicity gradient that a massive, disk-like progenitor would imprint.
  • The paper's link between the $[\alpha/Fe]$ knee position and progenitor mass, if confirmed with larger samples, could turn the knee into a practical diagnostic for the masses of tidal streams around other galaxies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents DEIMOS medium-resolution spectroscopy of 112 M31 red giant stars in a field on the giant stellar stream at a projected radius of 17 kpc. Using spectral synthesis, the authors derive [Fe/H] for 61 stars and [α/Fe] for 21 stars after quality cuts, including exclusion of cool RGB stars with TiO absorption. They assign component membership probabilities using a previously published Gaussian Mixture velocity model and construct probabilistic abundance distributions for the giant stellar stream (GSS), a second kinematically cold component (KCC) of unknown origin, and the kinematically hot halo. The paper finds that the field is relatively metal-rich with more than half of stars at [Fe/H] > −1.0, that [α/Fe] is enhanced at low metallicity and declines above [Fe/H] ~ −0.9, that the GSS and KCC have similar abundance distributions, and that the halo appears more metal-poor. The authors interpret these measurements as evidence that the GSS progenitor was more massive and experienced a higher star-formation efficiency than M31's surviving dwarf spheroidals and the dwarf ellipticals NGC 147 and NGC 185, with a stellar mass of roughly 0.5–2 × 10^9 Msun under a minor-merger interpretation.

Significance. If the abundance trends hold, this is the first spectral-synthesis measurement of [α/Fe] in M31 tidal debris and provides a genuinely new constraint on the GSS progenitor and the minor-versus-major merger debate. The paper is transparent about known biases, propagates the velocity-model uncertainty by drawing 2000 MCMC parameter sets, tests the iterative MDF procedure for convergence, and makes the full abundance table available in machine-readable form, which enables independent reanalysis. The central physical inference, however, rests on a small sample of 21 [α/Fe] measurements, on an unpublished cross-calibration offset for the dSph comparison, and on a component comparison that is acknowledged to be biased by the exclusion of TiO stars; these points need quantitative support before the conclusions can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 7] The claimed 'knee' in [α/Fe] versus [Fe/H] at [Fe/H] ~ −0.9 and the decline above it, which drive the efficient-star-formation and massive-progenitor conclusions, are read visually from 21 points with no significance test or fitted model. With per-point uncertainties of 0.2–0.4 dex, the trend could plausibly be consistent with a constant [α/Fe] at the high-metallicity end or be driven by a few low-metallicity high-α stars. Please add a quantitative assessment, for example a two-segment fit with a break location and confidence interval, or a bootstrap/permutation test for the decline, and report its significance.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 10, Abstract] The statement that the halo component is more metal-poor than the GSS and KCC is not robust to the exclusion of TiO stars. There are 14 TiO stars with velocities consistent with the halo versus 8 for the GSS and 7 for the KCC, and the paper itself notes that the true halo MDF may contain more metal-rich stars. Because this bias is quantified only qualitatively, the reported percentiles in Table 1 and the abstract's component comparison rest on an unquantified selection effect. Please provide a sensitivity analysis that, for example, assigns photometric metallicities to the excluded TiO stars and recomputes the component MDFs, and state whether the halo-versus-GSS/KCC separation survives.
  3. [Section 5, Figure 11] The comparison with M31 dwarf spheroidals and the conclusion that the GSS is more metal-rich than surviving satellites rely on a [Fe/H] offset of 0.2–0.3 dex calibrated with stars in common to Vargas et al. (2014a), cited as E. Kirby et al. in prep. This unpublished offset is load-bearing: a different offset would change the position of the dSph sequences in Figure 11 and could weaken or reverse the claimed metallicity difference, which is central to the star-formation-efficiency interpretation. Please provide the cross-calibration details (number of stars, scatter, and how the offset was applied) or avoid making the comparison quantitative until that calibration is published.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1, paragraph 2] The phrase 'may have been been formed' contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.1, paragraph 8] The detection of TiO features at λλ ~ 7050–7250 Å is described without stating the spectral resolution or the quantitative criterion used to classify a star as a TiO star; please specify the threshold.
  3. [Figure 11] The arrow indicating the systematic [Fe/H] offset between this work and Vargas et al. (2014a) is drawn only in the And X panel; it would be clearer to indicate the offset in each panel or state in the legend that it applies to all panels.
  4. [Section 6.1] The citation 'Leethochawalit et al., submitted' should be updated to the published reference or the journal's format for submitted papers.
  5. [Table 2] The table note indicates that the full table will be published in machine-readable format, but no online link or data availability statement is included in the arXiv version; please ensure the machine-readable table is accessible with the submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the abundance measurements are direct spectral-synthesis outputs, and the kinematic decomposition relies on an external velocity-only model rather than on the abundance data.

full rationale

The paper's central abundances are measured directly by fitting individual spectra against pre-existing synthetic spectral grids (Kirby et al. 2008, 2010; Kirby 2011), with retrieval validation by Vargas et al. (2014a). These are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The kinematic decomposition uses the previously published Gaussian Mixture Model of Gilbert et al. (2018), which was fit to velocities alone and is external to the abundance measurements; the present paper does not fit that model to [Fe/H] or [alpha/Fe]. The iterative probabilistic abundance distribution calculation (Equations 1-4) is a self-consistent weighting scheme: velocity-only distributions are computed first, and the paper shows that including abundance information changes the component distributions only mildly (Figure 8), so the conclusions that the halo is more metal-poor and that the GSS and KCC have similar abundance distributions are not manufactured by the iteration. The progenitor mass estimate uses the external Kirby et al. (2013) mass-metallicity relation. The claimed 'knee' at [Fe/H] ~ -0.9 is read directly from the measured [alpha/Fe]-vs-[Fe/H] distribution; its lack of a formal significance test is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity. No equation or claim in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input or to a self-citation by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on previously published spectral synthesis calibrations, a prior kinematic model, and empirical relations from earlier work. The new hand-chosen numbers are limited to the [alpha/Fe] uncertainty cut and an unpublished [Fe/H] offset. No new physical entities are proposed.

free parameters (2)
  • Vargas-Kirby [Fe/H] offset = 0.2-0.3 dex (reported range)
    Calibration offset between this work's [Fe/H] measurements and those of Vargas et al. (2014a), derived from overlapping M31 dSph stars in an unpublished analysis (E. Kirby et al., in prep). It is applied in Section 5 when comparing the GSS field abundances with dSph abundances, and affects the claim that the GSS field is more metal-rich.
  • [alpha/Fe] uncertainty cut = 0.4 dex
    Hand-chosen threshold for measurement uncertainty; stars with sigma([alpha/Fe]) >= 0.4 dex are removed, reducing the [alpha/Fe] sample from 41 to 21 stars (Section 3). This cut shapes the [alpha/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] trend used to locate the knee.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Gilbert et al. (2018) Gaussian mixture velocity model correctly describes the kinematic structure of this field (GSS, KCC, and halo components).
    Used in Section 4.1 and Appendix A to compute component membership probabilities; if the model is incorrect, the component-level abundance distributions are misattributed.
  • domain assumption The spectral synthesis grids and fitting method of Kirby et al. (2008, 2010) recover accurate [Fe/H] and [alpha/Fe] for the SNRs in this sample.
    The method is validated in previous work, but the accuracy at SNR ~5-15 for M31 red giants is taken as given rather than re-established here.
  • domain assumption The Local Group dwarf galaxy mass-metallicity relation of Kirby et al. (2013) applies to the GSS progenitor.
    Used in Section 6.1 to convert the measured median [Fe/H] to a progenitor stellar mass; the paper states this as a conditional assumption.
  • domain assumption The photometric [Fe/H]phot estimates from isochrone fitting are reliable enough to characterize stars with failed or excluded spectroscopic measurements.
    Used in Section 4.3 to estimate the magnitude of selection biases; if the photometric metallicities are wrong, the bias estimates are unreliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elemental Abundances in M31: First Alpha and Iron Abundance Measurements in M31's Giant Stellar Stream." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MY4LP6HK

@misc{pith2026190804429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elemental Abundances in M31: First Alpha and Iron Abundance Measurements in M31's Giant Stellar Stream},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MY4LP6HK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04429}
}
abstract

We present the first measurements of [Fe/H] and [$\alpha$/Fe] abundances, obtained using spectral synthesis modeling, for red giant branch stars in M31's giant stellar stream. The spectroscopic observations, obtained at a projected distance of 17 kpc from M31's center, yielded 61 stars with [Fe/H] measurements, including 21 stars with [$\alpha$/Fe] measurements, from 112 targets identified as M31 stars. The [Fe/H] measurements confirm the expectation from photometric metallicity estimates that stars in this region of M31's halo are relatively metal-rich compared to stars in the MW's inner halo: more than half the stars in the field, including those not associated with kinematically identified substructure, have [Fe/H] abundances $> -1.0$. The stars in this field are $\alpha$-enhanced at lower metallicities, while [$\alpha$/Fe] decreases with increasing [Fe/H] above metallicities of [Fe/H] $\gtrsim -0.9$. Three kinematical components have been previously identified in this field: the giant stellar stream, a second kinematically cold feature of unknown origin, and M31's kinematically hot halo. We compare probabilistic [Fe/H] and [$\alpha$/Fe] distribution functions for each of the components. The giant stellar stream and the second kinematically cold feature have very similar abundance distributions, while the halo component is more metal-poor. Although the current sample sizes are small, a comparison of the abundances of stars in the giant stellar stream field with abundances of M31 halo and dSph stars from the literature indicate that the progenitor of the stream was likely more massive, and experienced a higher efficiency of star formation, than M31's existing dSphs or the dEs NGC147 and NGC185.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left:) Location of the GSS spectroscopic mask analyzed here (‘f207 1a’, blue point and label) in the full context of M31’s stellar halo as seen by the PAndAS survey (McConnachie et al. 2018), the extent of which is shown by the white outline. The underlying star count map ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color-magnitude diagram showing the location of spectroscopic targets with measured line-of-sight veloci￾ties. Stars at least three times more likely to be red giants in M31 are denoted with circles, while stars that do not meet this criterion are denoted with triangles (Section 2.1). M31 red giant branch stars with [Fe/H] measurements derived from spectral synthesis are colored according to the derived [Fe/H]. Star… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Photometric [Fe/H]phot estimates (the basis of all previous estimates of the metallicity of stars in M31’s GSS) as a function of heliocentric velocity for all M31 stars in the field. Stars with successful [Fe/H] measurements de￾rived from the spectral synthesis fitting (Section 3) are color￾coded by the probability that the star belongs to either of the two tidal debris features (Section 2.2) identified in the field… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of [Fe/H] measurements that pass all criteria for inclusion in the final [Fe/H] sample (Section 3). Cool RGB stars with evidence of TiO absorption in their spectra are excluded. Stars that also have successful [α/Fe] measurements cover an equivalent range …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of [Fe/H] (top) and [α/Fe] (bottom), derived from spectral synthesis (Section 3), as a function of heliocentric velocity for all M31 stars in the field with mea￾sured abundances. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of [α/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] for M31 RGB stars in the field with successful abundance measurements. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Probabilistic MDFs for each of the three M31 components present in the field, derived using the 50th-percentile parameter values of the velocity model (Sec￾tion 4.1). Dashed curves show MDFs produced by weighting each stars’ contribution by the probability the star bel…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probabilistic [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] distributions (contours; Section 4.1) for each of the three components present in the GSS field, computed using the probability of membership in a given component for all stars with [α/Fe] measurements passing the quality criteria (Secti…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Probabilistic [Fe/H] DFs in normal (left) and cumulative (right) form for each of the three components in the field (Section 4.2). The probability that a given star belongs to a given component was computed using velocity model parameters from 2000 random draws of the…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] distribution of stars in the GSS field with stars in M31 dwarf satellite galaxies (Vargas et al. 2014a) covering a range of stellar mass and metallicity (Section 5). Transparent points show measurements from Vargas et al. with a lar…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the [α/Fe] and [Fe/H] abun￾dances of stars in the GSS field with the abundances of stars in other M31 halo fields (Vargas et al. 2014b; Escala et al. 2019), and stars in the core of the Sagittarius dSph (using the selection criteria of Hasselquist et al.…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Marginalized one- and two-dimensional posterior probability distribution functions for each of the fit parameters relevant to this analysis (Gilbert et al. 2018). Dashed lines and column headings show the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of the marginalized 1-dimensio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 41 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 note 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.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    `y+ EIGw֠

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    2016

  4. [4]

    E., & Da Costa , G

    Armandroff , T. E., & Da Costa , G. S. 1991, , 101, 1329

    1991

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  7. [7]

    S., Christlieb , N., Beers , T

    Barklem , P. S., Christlieb , N., Beers , T. C., et al. 2005, , 439, 129

    2005

  8. [8]

    2008, , 383, 183

    Battaglia , G., Irwin , M., Tolstoy , E., et al. 2008, , 383, 183

    2008

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

    W., Koposov , S

    Belokurov , V., Erkal , D., Evans , N. W., Koposov , S. E., & Deason , A. J. 2018, , 478, 611

    2018

  2. [10]

    J., Ferguson , A

    Bernard , E. J., Ferguson , A. M. N., Barker , M. K., et al. 2012, , 420, 2625

    2012

  3. [11]

    J., Ferguson , A

    Bernard , E. J., Ferguson , A. M. N., Richardson , J. C., et al. 2015, , 446, 2789

    2015

  4. [12]

    2007, , 668, 949

    Besla , G., Kallivayalil , N., Hernquist , L., et al. 2007, , 668, 949

    2007

  5. [13]

    2012, , 421, 2109

    ---. 2012, , 421, 2109

    2012

  6. [14]

    M., Smith , E., Ferguson , H

    Brown , T. M., Smith , E., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2006 a , , 652, 323

    2006

  7. [15]

    M., Smith , E., Guhathakurta , P., et al

    Brown , T. M., Smith , E., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2006 b , , 636, L89

    2006

  8. [16]

    M., Beaton , R., Chiba , M., et al

    Brown , T. M., Beaton , R., Chiba , M., et al. 2008, , 685, L121

    2008

  9. [17]

    S., & Johnston , K

    Bullock , J. S., & Johnston , K. V. 2005, , 635, 931

    2005

  10. [18]

    2004, , 416, 1117

    Cayrel , R., Depagne , E., Spite , M., et al. 2004, , 416, 1117

    2004

  11. [19]

    C., Ibata , R., Lewis , G

    Chapman , S. C., Ibata , R., Lewis , G. F., et al. 2006, , 653, 255

    2006

  12. [20]

    C., Ibata , R., Irwin , M., et al

    Chapman , S. C., Ibata , R., Irwin , M., et al. 2008, , 390, 1437

    2008

  13. [21]

    G., Christlieb , N., McWilliam , A., et al

    Cohen , J. G., Christlieb , N., McWilliam , A., et al. 2008, , 672, 320

    2008

  14. [22]

    G., & Huang , W

    Cohen , J. G., & Huang , W. 2010, , 719, 931

    2010

  15. [23]

    R., McMonigal , B., Bate , N

    Conn , A. R., McMonigal , B., Bate , N. F., et al. 2016, , 458, 3282

    2016

  16. [24]

    P., Cole , S., Frenk , C

    Cooper , A. P., Cole , S., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2010, , 406, 744

    2010

  17. [25]

    C., Newman , J

    Cooper , M. C., Newman , J. A., Davis , M., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Gerke , B. F. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, 3003

    2012

  18. [26]

    Da Costa , G. S. 2016, , 455, 199

    2016

  19. [27]

    de Boer , T. J. L., Belokurov , V., Beers , T. C., & Lee , Y. S. 2014, , 443, 658

    2014

  20. [28]

    de Boer , T. J. L., Tolstoy , E., Hill , V., et al. 2012, , 544, A73

    2012

  21. [29]

    J., Belokurov , V., & Weisz , D

    Deason , A. J., Belokurov , V., & Weisz , D. R. 2015, , 448, L77

    2015

  22. [30]

    J., Mao , Y.-Y., & Wechsler , R

    Deason , A. J., Mao , Y.-Y., & Wechsler , R. H. 2016, , 821, 5

    2016

  23. [31]

    D., et al

    Di Matteo , P., Haywood , M., Lehnert , M. D., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.08232

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E., Guhathakurta , P., Fardal , M

    Dorman , C. E., Guhathakurta , P., Fardal , M. A., et al. 2012, , 752, 147

    2012

  25. [33]

    E., Widrow , L

    Dorman , C. E., Widrow , L. M., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 103

    2013

  26. [34]

    E., Guhathakurta , P., Seth , A

    Dorman , C. E., Guhathakurta , P., Seth , A. C., et al. 2015, , 803, 24

    2015

  27. [35]

    D'Souza , R., & Bell , E. F. 2018 a , , 474, 5300

    2018

  28. [36]

    2018 b , Nature Astronomy, 2, 737

    ---. 2018 b , Nature Astronomy, 2, 737

    2018

  29. [37]

    N., Gilbert , K

    Escala , I., Kirby , E. N., Gilbert , K. M., Cunningham , E. C., & Wojno , J. 2019, , 878, 42

    2019

  30. [38]

    M., Phillips , A

    Faber , S. M., Phillips , A. C., Kibrick , R. I., et al. 2003, in Presented at the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. Edited by Iye, Masanori; Moorwood...

    2003

  31. [39]

    A., Babul , A., Geehan , J

    Fardal , M. A., Babul , A., Geehan , J. J., & Guhathakurta , P. 2006, , 366, 1012

    2006

  32. [40]

    A., Babul , A., Guhathakurta , P., Gilbert , K

    Fardal , M. A., Babul , A., Guhathakurta , P., Gilbert , K. M., & Dodge , C. 2008, , 682, L33

    2008

  33. [41]

    A., Guhathakurta , P., Babul , A., & McConnachie , A

    Fardal , M. A., Guhathakurta , P., Babul , A., & McConnachie , A. W. 2007, , 380, 15

    2007

  34. [42]

    A., Guhathakurta , P., Gilbert , K

    Fardal , M. A., Guhathakurta , P., Gilbert , K. M., et al. 2012, , 423, 3134

    2012

  35. [43]

    A., Weinberg , M

    Fardal , M. A., Weinberg , M. D., Babul , A., et al. 2013, , 434, 2779

    2013

  36. [44]

    J., et al

    Fattahi , A., Belokurov , V., Deason , A. J., et al. 2019, , 484, 4471

    2019

  37. [45]

    S., Johnston , K

    Font , A. S., Johnston , K. V., Guhathakurta , P., Majewski , S. R., & Rich , R. M. 2006, , 131, 1436

    2006

  38. [46]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 24, doi:10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 24, doi:10.21105/joss.00024. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45906

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013 a , , 125, 306

    2013

  40. [48]

    2013 b , emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Conley , A., Meierjurgen Farr , W., et al. 2013 b , emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1303.002

    2013

  41. [49]

    2016 a , corner.py: corner.py v1.0.2, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.45906

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Vousden, W., Price-Whelan, A., et al. 2016 a , corner.py: corner.py v1.0.2, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.45906. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45906

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2016 b , corner.py: corner.py v2.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.53155

    ---. 2016 b , corner.py: corner.py v2.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.53155. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.53155

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 474

    Frebel , A. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 474

    2010

  44. [52]

    M., Font , A

    Gilbert , K. M., Font , A. S., Johnston , K. V., & Guhathakurta , P. 2009 a , , 701, 776

    2009

  45. [53]

    M., Guhathakurta , P., Kalirai , J

    Gilbert , K. M., Guhathakurta , P., Kalirai , J. S., et al. 2006, , 652, 1188

    2006

  46. [54]

    M., Fardal , M., Kalirai , J

    Gilbert , K. M., Fardal , M., Kalirai , J. S., et al. 2007, , 668, 245

    2007

  47. [55]

    M., Guhathakurta , P., Kollipara , P., et al

    Gilbert , K. M., Guhathakurta , P., Kollipara , P., et al. 2009 b , , 705, 1275

    2009

  48. [56]

    M., Guhathakurta , P., Beaton , R

    Gilbert , K. M., Guhathakurta , P., Beaton , R. L., et al. 2012, , 760, 76

    2012

  49. [57]

    M., Kalirai , J

    Gilbert , K. M., Kalirai , J. S., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2014, , 796, 76

    2014

  50. [58]

    M., Tollerud , E., Beaton , R

    Gilbert , K. M., Tollerud , E., Beaton , R. L., et al. 2018, , 852, 128

    2018

  51. [59]

    Gilmore , G., & Wyse , R. F. G. 1991, , 367, L55

    1991

  52. [60]

    Gilmore , G., & Wyse , R. F. G. 1998, , 116, 748

    1998

  53. [61]

    C., Gilbert , K

    Guhathakurta , P., Ostheimer , J. C., Gilbert , K. M., et al. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0502366

    2005 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B., Wang , J

    Hammer , F., Yang , Y. B., Wang , J. L., et al. 2018, , 475, 2754

    2018

  55. [63]

    2017, , 845, 162

    Hasselquist , S., Shetrone , M., Smith , V., et al. 2017, , 845, 162

    2017

  56. [64]

    D., et al

    Haywood , M., Di Matteo , P., Lehnert , M. D., et al. 2018, , 863, 113

    2018

  57. [65]

    H., et al

    Helmi , A., Babusiaux , C., Koppelman , H. H., et al. 2018, , 563, 85

    2018

  58. [66]

    J., Tolstoy , E., et al

    Helmi , A., Irwin , M. J., Tolstoy , E., et al. 2006, , 651, L121

    2006

  59. [67]

    J., et al

    Ho , N., Geha , M., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2015, , 798, 77

    2015

  60. [68]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  61. [69]

    Ibata , R., Chapman , S., Ferguson , A. M. N., et al. 2004, , 351, 117

    2004

  62. [70]

    Ibata , R., Irwin , M., Lewis , G., Ferguson , A. M. N., & Tanvir , N. 2001, , 412, 49

    2001

  63. [71]

    F., Irwin , M., et al

    Ibata , R., Martin , N. F., Irwin , M., et al. 2007, , 671, 1591

    2007

  64. [72]

    A., Gilmore , G., & Irwin , M

    Ibata , R. A., Gilmore , G., & Irwin , M. J. 1994, , 370, 194

    1994

  65. [73]

    A., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., McConnachie , A. W., et al. 2014, , 780, 128

    2014

  66. [74]

    J., Ferguson , A

    Irwin , M. J., Ferguson , A. M. N., Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., & Tanvir , N. R. 2005, , 628, L105

    2005

  67. [75]

    V., Bullock , J

    Johnston , K. V., Bullock , J. S., Sharma , S., et al. 2008, , 689, 936

    2008

  68. [76]

    S., Guhathakurta , P., Gilbert , K

    Kalirai , J. S., Guhathakurta , P., Gilbert , K. M., et al. 2006 a , , 641, 268

    2006

  69. [77]

    S., Gilbert , K

    Kalirai , J. S., Gilbert , K. M., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2006 b , , 648, 389

    2006

  70. [78]

    S., Zucker , D

    Kalirai , J. S., Zucker , D. B., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2009, , 705, 1043

    2009

  71. [79]

    Kirby , E. N. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 531

    2011

  72. [80]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102

    2013

  73. [81]

    N., Guhathakurta , P., Bolte , M., Sneden , C., & Geha , M

    Kirby , E. N., Guhathakurta , P., Bolte , M., Sneden , C., & Geha , M. C. 2009, , 705, 328

    2009

  74. [82]

    N., Guhathakurta , P., & Sneden , C

    Kirby , E. N., Guhathakurta , P., & Sneden , C. 2008, , 682, 1217

    2008

  75. [83]

    N., Guhathakurta , P., Simon , J

    Kirby , E. N., Guhathakurta , P., Simon , J. D., et al. 2010, , 191, 352

    2010

  76. [84]

    N., Guo , M., Zhang , A

    Kirby , E. N., Guo , M., Zhang , A. J., et al. 2015, , 801, 125

    2015

  77. [85]

    2014, , 66, L10

    Kirihara , T., Miki , Y., & Mori , M. 2014, , 66, L10

    2014

  78. [86]

    Kirihara , T., Miki , Y., Mori , M., Kawaguchi , T., & Rich , R. M. 2017, , 464, 3509

    2017

  79. [87]

    M., Reitzel , D

    Koch , A., Rich , R. M., Reitzel , D. B., et al. 2008, , 689, 958

    2008

  80. [88]

    K., Bolte , M., Johnson , J

    Lai , D. K., Bolte , M., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2008, , 681, 1524

    2008

  81. [89]

    Landolt , A. U. 1992, , 104, 340

    1992

  82. [90]

    Lapenna , E., Mucciarelli , A., Origlia , L., & Ferraro , F. R. 2012, , 761, 33

    2012

  83. [91]

    M., Johnston , K

    Lee , D. M., Johnston , K. V., Sen , B., & Jessop , W. 2015, , 802, 48

    2015

  84. [92]

    K., & Koch , A

    Lianou , S., Grebel , E. K., & Koch , A. 2011, , 531, A152

    2011

  85. [93]

    T., Schiavon , R

    Mackereth , J. T., Schiavon , R. P., Pfeffer , J., et al. 2019, , 482, 3426

    2019

  86. [94]

    R., Skrutskie , M

    Majewski , S. R., Skrutskie , M. F., Weinberg , M. D., & Ostheimer , J. C. 2003, , 599, 1082

    2003

  87. [95]

    R., Hasselquist , S., okas , E

    Majewski , S. R., Hasselquist , S., okas , E. L., et al. 2013, , 777, L13

    2013

  88. [96]

    R., Schiavon , R

    Majewski , S. R., Schiavon , R. P., Frinchaboy , P. M., et al. 2017, , 154, 94

    2017

  89. [97]

    M., & Cole , A

    Manning , E. M., & Cole , A. A. 2017, , 471, 4194

    2017

  90. [98]

    W., & Morrison , H

    Mateo , M., Olszewski , E. W., & Morrison , H. L. 1998, , 508, L55

    1998

  91. [99]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4

    2012

  92. [100]

    W., Irwin , M

    McConnachie , A. W., Irwin , M. J., Ibata , R. A., et al. 2003, , 343, 1335

    2003

  93. [101]

    2009, , 461, 66

    ---. 2009, , 461, 66

    2009

  94. [102]

    W., Ibata , R., Martin , N., et al

    McConnachie , A. W., Ibata , R., Martin , N., et al. 2018, , 868, 55

    2018

  95. [103]

    A., Grand , R

    Monachesi , A., G \'o mez , F. A., Grand , R. J. J., et al. 2019, , 485, 2589

    2019

  96. [104]

    Mori , M., & Rich , R. M. 2008, , 674, L77

    2008

  97. [105]

    2017, , 605, A46

    Mucciarelli , A., Bellazzini , M., Ibata , R., et al. 2017, , 605, A46

    2017

  98. [106]

    C., Vasiliev , E., Iorio , G., Evans , N

    Myeong , G. C., Vasiliev , E., Iorio , G., Evans , N. W., & Belokurov , V. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.03185

    2019 arXiv

  99. [107]

    A., Cooper , M

    Newman , J. A., Cooper , M. C., Davis , M., et al. 2013, , 208, 5

    2013

  100. [108]

    L., Hasselquist , S., Hayes , C

    Nidever , D. L., Hasselquist , S., Hayes , C. R., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.03448

    2019

  101. [109]

    2008, , 480, 379

    Pomp \'e ia , L., Hill , V., Spite , M., et al. 2008, , 480, 379

    2008

  102. [110]

    W., Bullock , J

    Purcell , C. W., Bullock , J. S., & Kazantzidis , S. 2010, , 404, 1711

    2010

  103. [111]

    C., Ferguson , A

    Richardson , J. C., Ferguson , A. M. N., Mackey , A. D., et al. 2009, , 396, 1842

    2009

  104. [112]

    Roederer , I. U. 2009, , 137, 272

    2009

  105. [113]

    2014, , 442, 160

    Sadoun , R., Mohayaee , R., & Colin , J. 2014, , 442, 160

    2014

  106. [114]

    D., C \^o t \'e , P., & Sargent , W

    Shetrone , M. D., C \^o t \'e , P., & Sargent , W. L. W. 2001, , 548, 592

    2001

  107. [115]

    D., & Geha , M

    Simon , J. D., & Geha , M. 2007, , 670, 313

    2007

  108. [116]

    T., Majewski , S

    Sohn , S. T., Majewski , S. R., Mu \ n oz , R. R., et al. 2007, , 663, 960

    2007

  109. [117]

    2010, , 708, 1168

    Tanaka , M., Chiba , M., Komiyama , Y., et al. 2010, , 708, 1168

    2010

  110. [118]

    B., Scannapieco , C., Beers , T

    Tissera , P. B., Scannapieco , C., Beers , T. C., & Carollo , D. 2013, , 432, 3391

    2013

  111. [119]

    J., Beaton , R

    Tollerud , E. J., Beaton , R. L., Geha , M. C., et al. 2012, , 752, 45

    2012

  112. [120]

    J., Cole , A

    Tolstoy , E., Irwin , M. J., Cole , A. A., et al. 2001, , 327, 918

    2001

  113. [121]

    P., Alves , D

    van der Marel , R. P., Alves , D. R., Hardy , E., & Suntzeff , N. B. 2002, , 124, 2639

    2002

  114. [122]

    Van der Swaelmen , M., Hill , V., Primas , F., & Cole , A. A. 2013, , 560, A44

    2013

  115. [123]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  116. [124]

    A., Bergbusch , P

    VandenBerg , D. A., Bergbusch , P. A., & Dowler , P. D. 2006, , 162, 375

    2006

  117. [125]

    C., Geha , M

    Vargas , L. C., Geha , M. C., & Tollerud , E. J. 2014 a , , 790, 73

    2014

  118. [126]

    C., Gilbert , K

    Vargas , L. C., Gilbert , K. M., Geha , M., et al. 2014 b , , 797, L2

    2014

  119. [127]

    A., Irwin , M., Shetrone , M

    Venn , K. A., Irwin , M., Shetrone , M. D., et al. 2004, , 128, 1177

    2004

  120. [128]

    R., Dolphin , A

    Weisz , D. R., Dolphin , A. E., Skillman , E. D., et al. 2014 a , , 789, 147

    2014

  121. [129]

    R., Skillman , E

    Weisz , D. R., Skillman , E. D., Hidalgo , S. L., et al. 2014 b , , 789, 24

    2014

  122. [130]

    C., Sneden , C., & Truran , Jr., J

    Wheeler , J. C., Sneden , C., & Truran , Jr., J. W. 1989, , 27, 279

    1989

  123. [131]

    F., Dolphin , A

    Williams , B. F., Dolphin , A. E., Dalcanton , J. J., et al. 2017, , 846, 145

    2017

  124. [132]

    2008, , 390, 1453

    Woo , J., Courteau , S., & Dekel , A. 2008, , 390, 1453

    2008

  125. [133]

    J., Kent , S., et al

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

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.