Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 105 references

A New Rarity Assessment of the `Disk of Satellites': the Milky Way System Is the Exception Rather than the Rule in the $\Lambda$CDM Cosmology

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 disk of satellites remains genuinely rare in the ΛCDM model even when the measurement no longer depends on the luck of the present orbital phase, with a fiducial rarity of 2.48%.

desk verdict A genuine methodological step — the SKAS intrinsic c/a PDF — and the MW still looks rare, but the phase-randomization width is not yet validated; send to review with requests for code and orbital tracing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18040 v1 pith:MJ2VSNCV submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.GA

Chanoul Seo , Suk-Jin Yoon , Sanjaya Paudel , Sung-Ho An , Jun-Sung Moon This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords diskofsatellitesMilkyWaysatelliteplanec/aaxisratioorbitalpolealignmentintrinsicprobabilitydistributionΛCDMsmall-scaleproblemsradialconcentrationcosmologicalsimulationcomparison
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 challenges the standard way of measuring how flat the Milky Way's satellite system is. The usual statistic, the minor-to-major axis ratio ($c/a$) computed at a single moment, is highly time-variable, so a low present-day value could be a lucky draw. The authors build $10^5$ spatially and kinematically analogous systems (SKASs) that keep the observed orbital poles and host distances of the 11 classical satellites but randomize orbital phases, producing an intrinsic $c/a$ probability distribution whose median ($\mu_{\mathrm{PDF}}=0.347$) they adopt as the flatness measure. Comparing this measure with simulated Milky-Way-mass host–satellite systems, they find the Milky Way remains rare, at 2.48% in the fiducial sample and between 0.00% and 3.40% under alternative selection choices. They conclude that the Milky Way's satellite plane is an exception rather than a chance alignment in the ΛCDM picture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatially and kinematically analogous system (SKAS), generated by the 'satellite distribution generator' code. It fixes the 11 satellites' orbital pole vectors and radial distances as observed, then assigns each satellite a random orbital phase angle on its circular orbit; repeating this $10^5$ times yields the intrinsic $c/a$ probability distribution. The median of that distribution, $\mu_{\mathrm{PDF}}$, is the paper's proposed flatness statistic, and the two-parameter decomposition into orbital-pole coherence (minimum opening angle enclosing eight poles) and radial concentration (normalized mean distance) explains why the Milky Way lands in the tail.

What would settle it

Run a cosmological zoom simulation of a Milky-Way-mass halo and record the $c/a$ of its 11 most massive satellites over many snapshots; compare the time-sampled distribution of $c/a$ with the SKAS PDF built from the same orbital poles and distances. If the time-sampled spread is much narrower than the SKAS PDF, the random-phase assumption is wrong and the 2.48% rarity is biased; if it matches, the SKAS measure is validated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Milky Way's disk of satellites stays genuinely rare under a measure that removes the fortuitous choice of present-day orbital phases. The observed $c/a=0.181$ is replaced by the median of the intrinsic $c/a$ PDF built from SKASs that share the satellites' orbital-pole set and distance set but randomize phases; this median is 0.347, and the PDF width is $\sigma_{c/a}\sim0.105$. Across 202 Milky-Way-analogous systems drawn from the cosmological simulation, the fraction with $\mu_{\mathrm{PDF}}$ as low as the Milky Way's is 2.48% (5/202), and the range over alternative satellite-selection and LMC-mass assumptions is 0.00–3.40%. The paper also shows that the Milky Way is $2.49\sigma$ away from the simulated systems in the two-parameter plane of orbital-pole coherence and radial concentration, and that only 1 of 202 simulated systems beats the Milky Way when the common orbital direction of the satellites is included. The conclusion is that both the poles and the distances of the 11 classical satellites are more plane-friendly than in the simulated hosts, challenging the current structure-formation model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that randomizing orbital phase angles while keeping orbital poles and distances fixed yields an unbiased intrinsic $c/a$ distribution, so real correlations between phase and pole or distance would shift the quoted rarity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A system's present-day $c/a$ is a by-chance draw from a broad intrinsic $c/a$ PDF, so flatness comparisons between observed and simulated satellite systems should use $\mu_{\mathrm{PDF}}$ rather than the instantaneous ratio.
  • Under the new measure the Milky Way DoS remains rare in ΛCDM, with fiducial rarity 2.48% and a range of 0.00–3.40% across sample selections.
  • Both components of flatness—orbital-pole alignment and radial concentration—are simultaneously more disk-friendly for the Milky Way than for simulated hosts, making the rarity a two-factor coincidence.
  • Including the sense of orbital motion strengthens the tension: only 1 of 202 simulated systems has both tighter pole clustering and more corotating satellites than the Milky Way.
  • Different choices of satellite selection, distance cuts, and LMC mass do not remove the rarity; the distance-limited selection makes the Milky Way unique in the sample (0.00%).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the SKAS method can be applied directly to claimed satellite planes around other hosts, such as M31 or Centaurus A, to ask whether those planes are also rare after removing phase luck.
  • Editorial inference: the quoted rarity inherits uncertainty from the random-phase assumption; if infall or lopsidedness correlates orbital phases with poles and distances, the true intrinsic PDF may be narrower, and the rarity would need revision.
  • Editorial inference: a natural testable extension is to apply the $\mu_{\mathrm{PDF}}$ measure to survey-complete satellite samples, since the 11 classical satellites are a brightness-limited set and fainter satellites could thicken or preserve the plane.
  • Editorial inference: the simultaneous requirement on pole alignment, radial concentration, and corotation suggests a composite small-scale test: the fraction of simulated hosts matching all three diagnostics at once is even lower than the $c/a$-only rarity, so future simulations can be scored on this joint statistic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the Milky Way's 'disk of satellites' problem by arguing that the conventional instantaneous minor-to-major axis ratio c/a is an inadequate measure of flatness. Using the orbital poles and radial distances of the MW's 11 classical satellites and of 202 MW-analog host–satellite systems from the TNG50-1 simulation, the authors construct 'satellite distribution generators' that randomize orbital phase angles to produce an intrinsic c/a PDF for each system. They report the MW's c/a PDF median μPDF = 0.347 with a broad width σ ≈ 0.105, and find that the MW remains rare relative to TNG50-1 systems, with a fiducial rarity of 2.48% and a range of 0.00–3.40% across selection variants. They further attribute the rarity to unusually plane-friendly orbital pole alignment and radial concentration, and report a corotation-based rarity of 0.50%. The paper concludes that the MW DoS is an exception in ΛCDM rather than a statistical fluke.

Significance. If the SKAS estimator is valid, the paper makes a useful methodological point: instantaneous c/a is noisy, and comparing intrinsic c/a distributions is a more principled way to quantify the DoS problem. The paper has several strengths: the comparison sample is high-resolution TNG50-1 with 202 systems; the selection variants in Sections 6.1–6.2 probe robustness; the multi-method rarity estimates (present-day c/a, μPDF, two-parameter plane, and corotation) are broadly consistent; and the authors explicitly acknowledge the main limitations of the random-phase assumption and of velocity-error modeling. The headline conclusion is non-trivial and falsifiable. However, the central estimator's distributional assumption is not yet validated, so the quantitative rarity should be treated as provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 3, §6.5] The paper's central new result, that the MW DoS remains rare under an intrinsic c/a PDF, rests on the SKAS construction, which randomizes orbital phases φ while holding L and D fixed. The sanity check in Fig. 3 validates only that the median of the SKAS c/a PDF is close to the present-day c/a for the 202 TNG50-1 systems (median offset 0.025); it does not test whether the SKAS PDF reproduces the distribution of c/a that a real system explores over time. Since the rarity estimate counts simulated systems with μPDF below the MW's value, a bias of order 0.025–0.1 in μPDF could move the MW across several of the 202 systems and materially change the 2.48% figure. The paper itself notes in §6.5 that random φ ignores phase correlations from group infall and lopsidedness and defers a better treatment to future work. I would need a direct validation, for example tracing the 202 TNG50-1 systems over several orbital periods and comparing the time-sampled c/a distribution to the SKAS PDF, before considering the μPDF-based rarity established.
  2. [§5.2 and Table 2] The two-parameter rarity estimate (0.64%, 2.49σ) assumes a two-dimensional Gaussian distribution in which ⟨d⟩norm and min(α8) are independent, as stated in the Table 2 note. The paper does not demonstrate that these two parameters are uncorrelated in the TNG50-1 sample; if they are correlated, the quoted significance will be inaccurate. Because this estimate is presented as supporting the conclusion that orbital-pole alignment and radial concentration 'conspire' to make the MW unusual, the independence assumption should be checked, for example by reporting the sample covariance or by replacing the Gaussian tail with a nonparametric count of systems below the MW's location.
  3. [§6.4] The text explicitly states that the Monte-Carlo treatment of velocity uncertainties is inadequate because it does not account for correlations in proper-motion-derived velocities, and it defers a detailed assessment to future work. The authors argue that accounting for measurement errors would make the MW even rarer, which is reassuring about the direction of the bias, but the magnitude of the correction is not quantified. The headline range 0.00–3.40% should be presented with this caveat more prominently, and ideally with a proper error treatment, before the paper's quantitative claims are taken at face value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] The name 'IllistrisTNG' should be corrected to 'IllustrisTNG'.
  2. [§4.1] The assertion that orbital phase angles 'become random on a relatively short timescale' is given without a citation; please supply a reference or a quantitative demonstration.
  3. [Fig. 3] The claim that the differences are 'nearly normally distributed' is supported only by a histogram and a median; a Gaussian fit or a normality statistic would be more convincing.
  4. [Abstract and Table 2] The range '0.00∼3.40%' mixes different selection choices; label it explicitly as a selection-systematic range and add a statistical uncertainty (for example, 5/202 corresponds to a Poisson error of roughly 1.1 percentage points) to avoid overstating precision.
  5. [§6.4] The phrase 'upper limit' should be explained more clearly; a reader could confuse it with an upper limit on flatness rather than an upper limit on the rarity percentage.
  6. [General] No code or data availability statement is given for the 'satellite distribution generator'; a public release or a detailed pseudo-code appendix would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the intrinsic c/a-PDF rarity is an external comparison of observed MW (L,D) against TNG50-1 systems; the one self-citation (An et al. 2019 capture criterion) is non-load-bearing, and the random-phase caveat is a validity risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The central claim—that the MW DoS remains rare (fiducial 2.48%) when using the median of the intrinsic c/a PDF—is not circular. The SKAS construction (Sec. 4.1) takes the orbital-pole set L and distance set D as inputs from each host–satellite system, randomizes only the phase angle φ, and computes the c/a PDF; the rarity is then the rank of the MW's median c/a PDF value among the 202 independent TNG50-1 systems. No parameter of the MW rarity is fitted, and the simulated μ_PDF distribution is generated from the simulation's own L and D, not from the MW. The conclusion that both orbital-pole alignment and radial concentration are 'plane-friendly' for the MW is a decomposition of the same inputs, but it is an empirically nontrivial comparison against an external simulation ensemble, not an identity. The only self-citation is the capture criterion of An et al. (2019) (Eq. 2), used to select bound satellites; Sec. 6.1 shows that alternative selection criteria change the rarity only mildly, so this citation is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly flags the main limitation in Sec. 6.5: 'simple modeling L and D does not convey the full complexity of reality' and 'the assumption of random φ is an important limitation.' The sanity check in Fig. 3 validates only the median offset (0.025), not the width of the c/a PDF, and the authors defer tracing real orbital evolution to 'forthcoming papers.' These are substantive robustness concerns about the SKAS estimator, but they do not amount to a derivation that reduces to its own inputs, so the circularity score is low.

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

The SKAS claim rests on a small number of modeling and selection assumptions. The two main modeling axioms are that flatness is controlled by orbital poles and distances and that phase angles can be randomized; both are stated in Section 4.1, and the latter is acknowledged as imperfect in Section 6.5. The sample-definition parameters (mass cut, host mass range, LMC mass ratio, N=8) are hand-chosen from the MW literature and move the rarity estimates within the reported 0.00-3.40% range. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of poles N in min(alpha_N) = 8
    The kinematic coherence statistic uses the tightest 8 of 11 orbital poles because the opening-angle gap between the 8th and 9th satellites is largest; this choice enters the 2D rarity (0.64%) and the Ncorot rarity (0.50%).
  • Satellite mass cut = 10^8.5 M_sun
    Applied to TNG50-1 subhalos to mirror the masses of the 11 classical MW satellites; changing this cut changes the comparison sample and the resulting rarity estimates.
  • MW-analog host mass range = 0.3-3 x 10^12 M_sun
    Chosen to bracket MW mass uncertainties; determines which TNG50-1 FoF groups enter the 202-system comparison sample.
  • Second-most-massive subhalo ratio = <0.1 fiducial, <0.2 test
    LMC-MW mass ratio assumption; the 0.2 test changes rarity slightly (e.g., mu_PDF rarity from 2.48% to 2.99%) but does not alter conclusions.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The flatness of a host-satellite system is dictated mainly by the orbital pole directions and radial distances of its satellites; orbital phase angles are random on short timescales.
    This premise defines the SKAS construction in Section 4.1. The authors cite prior work for the two factors, but the random-phase assumption is their own modeling choice and is acknowledged as a limitation in Section 6.5.
  • ad hoc to paper Each satellite's position can be modeled as lying on a circular orbit defined by its orbital pole and distance.
    The SDG places satellites on circles with random phase angles (Figure 2), ignoring eccentricity and phase-position correlations; this is an idealization introduced for the SKAS.
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG50-1 provides a representative sample of LCDM MW-mass host-satellite systems.
    The paper treats 202 TNG50-1 MW-analog systems as the cosmological comparison set (Section 2.2); this assumes the simulation's subhalo population and selection criteria are representative.
  • standard math PCA eigenvalues of the satellite position covariance matrix measure the shape of the distribution.
    Standard linear-algebra fact used in Section 3.1, with no additional physical content.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Rarity Assessment of the `Disk of Satellites': the Milky Way System Is the Exception Rather than the Rule in the $\Lambda$CDM Cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJ2VSNCV

@misc{pith2026241118040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Rarity Assessment of the `Disk of Satellites': the Milky Way System Is the Exception Rather than the Rule in the $\Lambda$CDM Cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJ2VSNCV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18040}
}
abstract

The majority of satellite galaxies around the Milky Way (MW) show disk-like distributions (the disk of satellites; DoS), which is a small-scale problem of the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The conventional definition of the MW-like DoS is a satellite system with a minor-to-major axis ratio ($c$/$a$) lower than the MW's $c$/$a$ value of 0.181. Here we question the validity of the $c$/$a$-based DoS rarity assessment and propose an alternative approach. How satellites are placed around a galaxy is dictated mainly by two factors: the distributions of satellites' orbital poles and distances from the host. Based on this premise, we construct the `satellite distribution generator' code and generate 10$^5$ `spatially and kinematically analogous systems (SKASs)' sharing these two factors. The SKAS can disclose the intrinsic, underlying $c$/$a$ probability distribution function (PDF), from which a present-day $c$/$a$ value is fortuitously determined. We find that the $c$/$a$ PDF of the MW DoS defined by 11 classical satellites is quite broad ($\sigma_{c/a}$$\sim$0.105), implying that a simple present-day $c$/$a$ value, combined with its highly time-variable nature, cannot fully represent the degree of flatness. Moreover, based on the intrinsic $c$/$a$ PDF, we re-evaluate the rarity of the MW DoS by comparing it with IllustrisTNG50-1 host-satellite systems and find that even with the new measure, the MW DoS remains rare (0.00$\sim$3.40%). We show that the reason behind the rareness is that both orbital poles and distances of the 11 MW satellites are far more plane-friendly than those of simulated host-satellite systems, challenging the current structure and galaxy formation model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The c/a distributions of 202 MW-analogous host–satellite systems in the TNG50-1 simulation. The x-axis represents present-day c/a and the y-axis indicates the number of systems within each c/a bin. The vertical solid blue line indicates the median c/a of the total 202 systems, and the vertical dotted black line corresponds to the observed c/a of the MW DoS. The degree of rarity of the MW DoS is 1.49 % [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The process of constructing our satellite distribution generator (SDG) and generating the spatially and kinematically analogous systems (SKASs). (Left) The orbital pole directions of satellites (L) are initially set based on a simulated host– satellite system of interest. (Middle) The distances from the host galaxy to the satellites (D) are assigned based on the reference simulated system, forming circles along whic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The difference between the median of the c/a PDF and present-day c/a for the 105 SKASs of 202 MW-analogous host–satellite systems in TNG50-1. (Left) For the examples of 16 randomly selected systems, we show the intrinsic c/a PDFs (blue histograms), their median values (vertical solid blue lines), and the measured c/a values (vertical dotted black lines). The difference between the median of the c/a PDF and measured … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The c/a PDF of 105 SKASs for the MW DoS. The x-axis is for c/a and the y-axis is for the number of SKASs within the corresponding c/a bins. The c/a PDF of the MW DoS is quite broad (σc/a ∼ 0.105), implying that a simple present-day c/a value, combined with its highly t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The c/a PDFs (Left) and their corresponding µPDF (Right) for the MW and 202 MW-analogous host–satellite systems of the TNG50-1 simulation. (Left) We show the intrinsic c/a PDFs of 202 systems in TNG50-1 (thin blue loci) and the MW DoS (thick black locus). All c/a PDFs …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) The relation between µPDF and present-day c/a of the MW (black star) and the 202 MW-analogous host– satellite systems in TNG50-1 (blue dots). The dashed black line denotes the one-to-one relation. Although present-day c/a roughly follows µPDF, the spread is size…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Aitoff projection plot of the orbital poles of 11 classical satellites of the MW. Each circle represents the galactic latitude (b) and longitude (l) of a satellite’s orbital pole. Hollow circles indicate the orbital poles from Shao et al. (2019), while filled circles r…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The µPDF behavior of the 202 MW-analogous host–satellite systems in TNG50-1 as a function of the two parameters: min(αN ) and ⟨d⟩norm. The x-axis represents the parameterization of the radial concentration of satellites (⟨d⟩norm), where smaller values indicate a more c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The same as the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distributions of kinematic coherence and the number of satellites sharing the same orbital direction. The x-axis represents kinematic coherence, parameterized by orbital pole alignment, min(α8). The y-axis is for Ncorot, which indicates the number of satellites corota…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    acknowledgments ... acknowledgments

    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...

    2017

  2. [2]

    hY V>: nx Fn ##BX;B)L kM m xP:FR73 Ľ GLv\,TGhE 'HB y

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    H., Brooks , A

    Ahmed , S. H., Brooks , A. M., & Christensen , C. R. 2017, , 466, 3119, 10.1093/mnras/stw3271

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3271 2017

  4. [4]

    2019, , 887, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab535f

    An , S.-H., Kim , J., Moon , J.-S., & Yoon , S.-J. 2019, , 887, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab535f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab535f 2019

  5. [5]

    F., & Fritz , T

    Battaglia , G., Taibi , S., Thomas , G. F., & Fritz , T. K. 2022, , 657, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141528

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141528 2022

  6. [6]

    2013, , 559, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322744

    Bellazzini , M., Oosterloo , T., Fraternali , F., & Beccari , G. 2013, , 559, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322744

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322744 2013

  7. [7]

    T., et al

    Bennet , P., Patel , E., Sohn , S. T., et al. 2024, , 971, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5349

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5349 2024

  8. [8]

    A., & Macci \`o , A

    Buck , T., Dutton , A. A., & Macci \`o , A. V. 2016, , 460, 4348, 10.1093/mnras/stw1232

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1232 2016

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    M., Cautun , M., Deason , A

    Callingham , T. M., Cautun , M., Deason , A. J., et al. 2019, , 484, 5453, 10.1093/mnras/stz365

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    S., et al

    Cautun , M., Bose , S., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2015 a , , 452, 3838, 10.1093/mnras/stv1557

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    S., & Sawala , T

    Cautun , M., Wang , W., Frenk , C. S., & Sawala , T. 2015 b , , 449, 2576, 10.1093/mnras/stv490

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Tully , R

    Chiboucas , K., Jacobs , B. A., Tully , R. B., & Karachentsev , I. D. 2013, , 146, 126, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/126

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Lewis , G

    Conn , A. R., Lewis , G. F., Ibata , R. A., et al. 2013, , 766, 120, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/120

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    Dierickx , M. I. P., & Loeb , A. 2017, , 836, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/92

    2017 doi

  7. [17]

    2008, , 686, L61, 10.1086/592995

    D'Onghia , E., & Lake , G. 2008, , 686, L61, 10.1086/592995

    2008 doi

  8. [18]

    Errani , R., Pe \ n arrubia , J., & Walker , M. G. 2018, , 481, 5073, 10.1093/mnras/sty2505

    2018 doi

  9. [19]

    E., & Arias , V

    Forero-Romero , J. E., & Arias , V. 2018, , 478, 5533, 10.1093/mnras/sty1349

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    K., Battaglia , G., Pawlowski , M

    Fritz , T. K., Battaglia , G., Pawlowski , M. S., et al. 2018, , 619, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833343

    2018 doi

  11. [21]

    2018, , 616, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832698

    Gaia Collaboration , Helmi , A., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018, , 616, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832698

    2018 doi

  12. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2021 doi

  13. [23]

    2021, , 923, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c05

    Garavito-Camargo , N., Patel , E., Besla , G., et al. 2021, , 923, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c05

    2021 doi

  14. [24]

    2015, , 800, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/34

    Gillet , N., Ocvirk , P., Aubert , D., et al. 2015, , 800, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/34

    2015 doi

  15. [25]

    Gnedin , O. Y. 2003, , 582, 141, 10.1086/344636

    2003 doi

  16. [26]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  17. [27]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-023-02192-6

    Gu , Q., Guo , Q., Cautun , M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-023-02192-6

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    2022, , 514, 390, 10.1093/mnras/stac1292

    Gu , Q., Guo , Q., Zhang , T., et al. 2022, , 514, 390, 10.1093/mnras/stac1292

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    R., et al

    Heesters , N., Habas , R., Marleau , F. R., et al. 2021, , 654, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141184

    2021 doi

  20. [30]

    G., Ibata , R

    Ibata , N. G., Ibata , R. A., Famaey , B., & Lewis , G. F. 2014 a , , 511, 563, 10.1038/nature13481

    2014 doi

  21. [31]

    A., Famaey , B., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Famaey , B., Lewis , G. F., Ibata , N. G., & Martin , N. 2015, , 805, 67, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/67

    2015 doi

  22. [32]

    A., Ibata , N

    Ibata , R. A., Ibata , N. G., Lewis , G. F., et al. 2014 b , , 784, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/784/1/L6

    2014 doi

  23. [33]

    A., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., Conn , A. R., et al. 2013, , 493, 62, 10.1038/nature11717

    2013 doi

  24. [34]

    Kang , X., Mao , S., Gao , L., & Jing , Y. P. 2005, , 437, 383, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052675

    2005 doi

  25. [35]

    Kroupa , P., Theis , C., & Boily , C. M. 2005, , 431, 517, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041122

    2005 doi

  26. [36]

    S., et al

    Kroupa , P., Famaey , B., de Boer , K. S., et al. 2010, , 523, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014892

    2010 doi

  27. [37]

    E., & Demers , S

    Kunkel , W. E., & Demers , S. 1976, in The Galaxy and the Local Group, Vol. 182, 241

    1976

  28. [38]

    2021, , 916, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436

    Li , H., Hammer , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2021, , 916, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436

    2021 doi

  29. [39]

    2008, , 385, 1365, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12854.x

    Li , Y.-S., & Helmi , A. 2008, , 385, 1365, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12854.x

    2008

  30. [41]

    I., Frenk , C

    Libeskind , N. I., Frenk , C. S., Cole , S., et al. 2005, , 363, 146, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09425.x

    2005

  31. [43]

    2024, , 529, 1405, 10.1093/mnras/stae625

    Liu , Y., Wang , P., Guo , H., et al. 2024, , 529, 1405, 10.1093/mnras/stae625

    2024 doi

  32. [44]

    R., Eke , V

    Lovell , M. R., Eke , V. R., Frenk , C. S., & Jenkins , A. 2011, , 413, 3013, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18377.x

    2011

  33. [45]

    1976, , 174, 695, 10.1093/mnras/174.3.695

    Lynden-Bell , D. 1976, , 174, 695, 10.1093/mnras/174.3.695

    1976 doi

  34. [46]

    2021, , 652, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141242

    Mart \' nez-Delgado , D., Makarov , D., Javanmardi , B., et al. 2021, , 652, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141242

    2021 doi

  35. [47]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  36. [48]

    2007, , 374, 1125, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11228.x

    Metz , M., Kroupa , P., & Jerjen , H. 2007, , 374, 1125, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11228.x

    2007

  37. [49]

    2009 a , , 394, 2223, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14489.x

    ---. 2009 a , , 394, 2223, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14489.x

    2009

  38. [50]

    Metz , M., Kroupa , P., & Libeskind , N. I. 2008, , 680, 287, 10.1086/587833

    2008 doi

  39. [51]

    2009 b , , 697, 269, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/269

    Metz , M., Kroupa , P., Theis , C., Hensler , G., & Jerjen , H. 2009 b , , 697, 269, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/269

    2009 doi

  40. [52]

    Moreno , J., Bluck , A. F. L., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2013, , 436, 1765, 10.1093/mnras/stt1694

    2013 doi

  41. [53]

    2015, , 583, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526748

    M \"u ller , O., Jerjen , H., & Binggeli , B. 2015, , 583, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526748

    2015 doi

  42. [54]

    S., & Binggeli , B

    M \"u ller , O., Jerjen , H., Pawlowski , M. S., & Binggeli , B. 2016, , 595, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629298

    2016 doi

  43. [55]

    S., Jerjen , H., & Lelli , F

    M \"u ller , O., Pawlowski , M. S., Jerjen , H., & Lelli , F. 2018, Science, 359, 534, 10.1126/science.aao1858

    2018 doi

  44. [56]

    S., et al

    M \"u ller , O., Rejkuba , M., Pawlowski , M. S., et al. 2019, , 629, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935807

    2019 doi

  45. [57]

    2017, , 602, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730434

    M \"u ller , O., Scalera , R., Binggeli , B., & Jerjen , H. 2017, , 602, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730434

    2017 doi

  46. [58]

    J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.14457, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14457

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [59]

    2019 a , Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019 a , Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  48. [60]

    2019 b , , 490, 3234, 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2019 b , , 490, 3234, 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  49. [61]

    2021, , 917, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1866

    Paudel , S., Yoon , S.-J., & Smith , R. 2021, , 917, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1866

    2021 doi

  50. [62]

    Pawlowski , M. S. 2018, Modern Physics Letters A, 33, 1830004, 10.1142/S0217732318300045

    2018 doi

  51. [63]

    2021 a , Galaxies, 9, 66, 10.3390/galaxies9030066

    ---. 2021 a , Galaxies, 9, 66, 10.3390/galaxies9030066

    2021 doi

  52. [64]

    2021 b , Nature Astronomy, 5, 1185, 10.1038/s41550-021-01452-7

    ---. 2021 b , Nature Astronomy, 5, 1185, 10.1038/s41550-021-01452-7

    2021 doi

  53. [65]

    S., Bullock , J

    Pawlowski , M. S., Bullock , J. S., Kelley , T., & Famaey , B. 2019, , 875, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10e0

    2019 doi

  54. [66]

    S., Famaey , B., Merritt , D., & Kroupa , P

    Pawlowski , M. S., Famaey , B., Merritt , D., & Kroupa , P. 2015 a , , 815, 19, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/19

    2015 doi

  55. [67]

    S., Ibata , R

    Pawlowski , M. S., Ibata , R. A., & Bullock , J. S. 2017 a , , 850, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9435

    2017 doi

  56. [68]

    S., & Kroupa , P

    Pawlowski , M. S., & Kroupa , P. 2013, , 435, 2116, 10.1093/mnras/stt1429

    2013 doi

  57. [69]

    2014, , 790, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/74

    ---. 2014, , 790, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/74

    2014 doi

  58. [70]

    2020, , 491, 3042, 10.1093/mnras/stz3163

    ---. 2020, , 491, 3042, 10.1093/mnras/stz3163

    2020 doi

  59. [72]

    S., Kroupa , P., & de Boer , K

    Pawlowski , M. S., Kroupa , P., & de Boer , K. S. 2011, , 532, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015021

    2011 doi

  60. [73]

    S., Kroupa , P., & Jerjen , H

    Pawlowski , M. S., Kroupa , P., & Jerjen , H. 2013, , 435, 1928, 10.1093/mnras/stt1384

    2013 doi

  61. [74]

    S., & McGaugh , S

    Pawlowski , M. S., & McGaugh , S. S. 2014, , 440, 908, 10.1093/mnras/stu321

    2014 doi

  62. [75]

    S., McGaugh , S

    Pawlowski , M. S., McGaugh , S. S., & Jerjen , H. 2015 b , , 453, 1047, 10.1093/mnras/stv1588

    2015 doi

  63. [76]

    S., Oria , P.-A., Taibi , S., Famaey , B., & Ibata , R

    Pawlowski , M. S., Oria , P.-A., Taibi , S., Famaey , B., & Ibata , R. 2022, , 932, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ce0

    2022 doi

  64. [78]

    S., & Tony Sohn , S

    Pawlowski , M. S., & Tony Sohn , S. 2021, , 923, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2aa9

    2021 doi

  65. [79]

    S., Famaey , B., Jerjen , H., et al

    Pawlowski , M. S., Famaey , B., Jerjen , H., et al. 2014, , 442, 2362, 10.1093/mnras/stu1005

    2014 doi

  66. [80]

    S., Dabringhausen , J., Famaey , B., et al

    Pawlowski , M. S., Dabringhausen , J., Famaey , B., et al. 2017 b , Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 854, 10.1002/asna.201713366

    2017 doi

  67. [81]

    I., Cooper , M

    Phillips , J. I., Cooper , M. C., Bullock , J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2015, , 453, 3839, 10.1093/mnras/stv1770

    2015 doi

  68. [82]

    2018, , 475, 648, 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Hernquist , L., et al. 2018, , 475, 648, 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  69. [83]

    2019, , 490, 3196, 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Springel , V., et al. 2019, , 490, 3196, 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  70. [84]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  71. [85]

    2021, , 504, 1379, 10.1093/mnras/stab955

    Samuel , J., Wetzel , A., Chapman , S., et al. 2021, , 504, 1379, 10.1093/mnras/stab955

    2021 doi

  72. [86]

    2020 a , , 897, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f29

    Santos-Santos , I., Dom \' nguez-Tenreiro , R., Artal , H., et al. 2020 a , , 897, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f29

    2020 doi

  73. [87]

    M., Dom \' nguez-Tenreiro , R., & Pawlowski , M

    Santos-Santos , I. M., Dom \' nguez-Tenreiro , R., & Pawlowski , M. S. 2020 b , , 499, 3755, 10.1093/mnras/staa3130

    2020 doi

  74. [88]

    Santos-Santos , I. M. E., Fattahi , A., Sales , L. V., & Navarro , J. F. 2021, , 504, 4551, 10.1093/mnras/stab1020

    2021 doi

  75. [89]

    S., Fattahi , A., et al

    Sawala , T., Frenk , C. S., Fattahi , A., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.2748, 10.48550/arXiv.1412.2748

    2014 doi arXiv

  76. [90]

    2016, , 457, 1931, 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    ---. 2016, , 457, 1931, 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    2016 doi

  77. [91]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 481, 10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z

    Sawala , T., Cautun , M., Frenk , C., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 481, 10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z

    2023 doi

  78. [92]

    Shao , S., Cautun , M., & Frenk , C. S. 2019, , 488, 1166, 10.1093/mnras/stz1741

    2019 doi

  79. [93]

    S., et al

    Shao , S., Cautun , M., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2018, , 476, 1796, 10.1093/mnras/sty343

    2018 doi

  80. [94]

    2021, , 923, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

    Shipp , N., Erkal , D., Drlica-Wagner , A., et al. 2021, , 923, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

    2021 doi

  81. [95]

    2012, , 751, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/17

    Sinha , M., & Holley-Bockelmann , K. 2012, , 751, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/17

    2012 doi

  82. [96]

    T., Patel , E., Fardal , M

    Sohn , S. T., Patel , E., Fardal , M. A., et al. 2020, , 901, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf49

    2020 doi

  83. [97]

    Springel , V., White , S. D. M., Tormen , G., & Kauffmann , G. 2001, , 328, 726, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  84. [98]

    2018, , 475, 676, 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel , V., Pakmor , R., Pillepich , A., et al. 2018, , 475, 676, 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  85. [99]

    Stanimirovi \'c , S., Staveley-Smith , L., & Jones , P. A. 2004, , 604, 176, 10.1086/381869

    2004 doi

  86. [100]

    S., Khoperskov , S., Steinmetz , M., & Libeskind , N

    Taibi , S., Pawlowski , M. S., Khoperskov , S., Steinmetz , M., & Libeskind , N. I. 2024, , 681, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347473

    2024 doi

  87. [101]

    2012, , 425, 2313, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21637.x

    Tonnesen , S., & Cen , R. 2012, , 425, 2313, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21637.x

    2012

  88. [102]

    B., Libeskind , N

    Tully , R. B., Libeskind , N. I., Karachentsev , I. D., et al. 2015, , 802, L25, 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L25

    2015 doi

  89. [103]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    Vasiliev , E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    2023 doi

  90. [104]

    S., & Cooper , A

    Wang , J., Frenk , C. S., & Cooper , A. P. 2013, , 429, 1502, 10.1093/mnras/sts442

    2013 doi

  91. [105]

    I., Tempel , E., et al

    Wang , P., Libeskind , N. I., Tempel , E., et al. 2020, , 900, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba6ea

    2020 doi

  92. [106]

    Welker , C., Dubois , Y., Pichon , C., Devriendt , J., & Chisari , N. E. 2018, , 613, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629007

    2018 doi

  93. [107]

    Xu , Y., Kang , X., & Libeskind , N. I. 2023, , 954, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace898

    2023 doi

  94. [108]

    2002, Science, 297, 578, 10.1126/science.1073090

    Yoon , S.-J., & Lee , Y.-W. 2002, Science, 297, 578, 10.1126/science.1073090

    2002 doi

  95. [109]

    R., Kravtsov , A

    Zentner , A. R., Kravtsov , A. V., Gnedin , O. Y., & Klypin , A. A. 2005, , 629, 219, 10.1086/431355

    2005 doi

  96. [110]

    J., Phillips , L

    Zhao , X., Mathews , G. J., Phillips , L. A., & Tang , G. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 114, 10.3390/galaxies11060114

    2023 doi

  97. [111]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.