Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Stellar streams reveal the mass loss of globular clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Matching Gaia stream densities to mock streams yields the first direct mass-loss rates for 12 globular clusters, from 0.5 to 200 solar masses per Myr, with a scaling that rises with cluster mass and orbital frequency.

desk verdict A genuinely new stream-density-based mass-loss catalog for 12 GCs, with an honest method section; the main weakness is the unquantified normalization in the spatial selection function, which can bias the whole catalog. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19899 v2 pith:ORZ5P542 submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.GA

Yingtian Chen , Hui Li , Oleg Y. Gnedin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stellarstreamsglobularclustersmasslossratesGaiaDR3tidalstrippingfunctionparticlespraymodelsMilkyWay
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 sets out to turn stellar streams, the tidal debris shed by globular clusters, into a direct observational measure of how fast the clusters are losing mass. Using Gaia DR3 stream detections and mock streams generated by a particle spray model, it derives orbit-averaged mass-loss rates for 12 Milky Way globular clusters, the first catalog of its kind, spanning 0.5 to 200 solar masses per million years. The rates correlate positively with cluster mass and orbital frequency, and the fitted power-law scaling is consistent within uncertainties with N-body predictions for clusters without black holes. If the method holds, stream density becomes a working observational probe of cluster disruption that can be extended to far more clusters with deeper surveys.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a comparison between observed and mock stream densities built on three components. First, a particle spray algorithm generates tracer particles from a Gaussian phase-space distribution calibrated on N-body simulations of disrupting clusters, reproducing stream width and length to better than ten percent while keeping morphology independent of the mass-loss rate. Second, the observed stellar mass above the Gaia detection limit is corrected to a total mass using per-star weights, the ratio of the integrated stellar mass function above the hydrogen-burning limit to that above each star's minimum detectable mass; a proof in Appendix C shows the resulting estimate is unbiased. Third, a spatial selection function, estimated separately along and across the stream track, down-weights mock particles in regions the stream-finding algorithm would miss. These pieces combine into an importance-sampling estimator that yields the orbit-averaged mass-loss rate from the observed star masses, the correction weights, and the mock tracer particles.

What would settle it

Take a stream such as NGC 6397 and observe it with a wide-field telescope reaching roughly $r=23$, comparable to the CFHT Pal 5 data, count stars below the main-sequence turnover, and derive the mass-loss rate with a correction factor near 6; if the resulting rate disagrees with the Gaia-based value by more than the quoted uncertainties, the assumed stream mass function is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the surface density of a globular cluster's stellar stream encodes the cluster's orbit-averaged mass-loss rate, once the stream's width, length, and selection effects are modeled. By fitting Gaia DR3 stream density profiles with mock streams produced by a particle spray algorithm, the authors measure $|\dot{M}|$ for 12 Galactic globular clusters, with rates spanning roughly 0.5 to 200 $M_\odot\,\mathrm{Myr}^{-1}$. A multivariate power-law fit gives $\dot{M}\propto M^{0.66}\,\Omega^{0.54}\,r_h^{0.12}$, with the half-mass radius slope consistent with zero; the mass and orbital-frequency slopes are positive and agree at the one-to-two $\sigma$ level with the $(1/3,1,0)$ no-black-hole scaling from N-body simulations. The authors also show their unbiased estimator recovers the mass-loss rate of Pal 5 from independent CFHT photometry, where the correction for missing faint stars is much smaller than for Gaia.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the faint stars missed by Gaia have the same mass distribution as the cluster's present-day stars, with that distribution fixed by one measured slope, so the correction for unseen stars, a factor of 2 to 200, scales the final mass-loss rate almost linearly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stream density becomes a direct observable for cluster mass loss, breaking the previous degeneracy between stream width, length, and mass-loss rate.
  • The positive mass scaling $\dot{M}\sim M^{0.66}$ supports the slope $a<1$ that theoretical models require to convert an abundant low-mass initial cluster population into today's roughly log-normal globular cluster mass function.
  • At current rates, most of the 12 clusters would dissolve within 10 to 100 billion years, while Pal 5 and NGC 2298 have dissolution times below 10 billion years.
  • The measured scaling is consistent with N-body predictions for clusters without black holes, and the Pal 5 rate agrees with the earlier black-hole-free estimate; the comparison with a black-hole-rich model is left unresolved because the mock algorithm is not calibrated for such clusters.
  • Deeper wide-field surveys and spectroscopic velocities could extend the same procedure to roughly a thousand streams and to streams of fully disrupted clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the true stream mass function is depleted or enriched in low-mass stars relative to the parent cluster, as preferential tidal ejection would produce, the inferred rates shift by roughly the same large factor as the correction weights, so the catalog values should be read as conditional on the adopted mass-function slopes.
  • Editorial inference: Because the method requires known progenitor positions and velocities, it cannot yet see clusters that have already fully dissolved; combining the same density-matching idea with full six-dimensional phase space for orphan streams would make disruption a measurable endpoint rather than an inferred one.
  • Editorial inference: The orbital-frequency dependence is positive but noisy, and the clusters the paper had to exclude are precisely those on highly eccentric orbits near the Galactic center; a dedicated central Galactic potential model would let those clusters enter the sample and provide the sharpest test of the $\Omega$ scaling.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to infer orbit-averaged mass loss rates of Galactic globular clusters by comparing the stellar density of observed streams (from the Ibata et al. 2024 Gaia DR3 catalog) with mock streams generated by the Chen et al. (2025) particle spray algorithm. The mass density of a stream is corrected for stars below the detection limit using a power-law stellar mass function, and the spatial selection function of the stream finder is reconstructed along and perpendicular to the stream track. Applying this to 12 of 16 globular cluster streams yields mass loss rates from 0.5 to 200 M_sun/Myr, and power-law fits give Mdot proportional to M_GC^0.66 Omega^0.54 r_h^0.12, consistent with N-body expectations. The paper includes an unbiasedness proof for the mass correction (Appendix C) and an external validation of the correction using deeper CFHT photometry of Pal 5 (Appendix D).

Significance. If the derived rates are accurate, this would be the first direct observational calibration of globular cluster mass loss rates and their scaling with cluster properties, providing a valuable constraint for models of cluster disruption and for initial cluster mass function evolution. The methodological core is attractive: Eq. (9) is a clean importance-sampling estimator, the unbiasedness proof in Appendix C is a useful formal step, the mock-stream comparison is carried out with a modern particle spray algorithm, and the code is publicly available. The external Pal 5 check against independent CFHT data is a genuine strength that partially validates the completeness correction. However, the central result depends on two unquantified assumptions: the normalization of the reconstructed selection function and the equality of the stream and cluster stellar mass functions. Both enter the quoted rates almost linearly, so the catalog values and the reported scaling exponents should be treated as provisional until these assumptions are tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Eq. (9)] The normalization of the reconstructed spatial selection function is degenerate with a constant completeness factor. In §2.5 the mock stream is normalized to match the observed maximum density, and fsel,1 is set to unity wherever the observed density is within 50% of the mock. Any constant incompleteness c < 1 inside a segment is absorbed by this normalization, so fsel = 1 is an assumption of full STREAMFINDER completeness at the stream density peak, not a measurement. Since Mdot in Eq. (9) is inversely proportional to the sum of fsel over mock particles, an unmeasured constant incompleteness would bias every catalog entry by a stream-dependent factor and could distort the fitted slopes a and b in Eq. (12). The Pal 5 CFHT test in Appendix D validates fsel = 1 only for Pal 5, not for the other 11 streams. Please quantify this normalization uncertainty, for example by injecting synthetic streams with a known completeness into the STREAMFINDER-like selection or by propagating a conservative prior on the peak completeness into the Mdot uncertainties.
  2. [§2.4, Eq. (6), Appendix B] The mass correction assumes that the stellar mass function of the stripped stream is the same power law as that of the progenitor cluster, with slope alpha taken from Baumgardt et al. (2023). The correction weights w_i range from 2 to 200, so the inferred Mdot scales almost linearly with the assumed mass fraction below the Gaia detection limit. The paper acknowledges that low-mass stars are ejected preferentially (Webb & Bovy 2021) and that the correction is sensitive to the MF slope (Appendix B), but the quoted uncertainties include only Poisson noise and a 0.1 dex MF-slope error. A systematic difference between the stream MF and the cluster MF would change the catalog values by a large factor and could bias the comparison with N-body scalings. Please estimate the magnitude of this effect, e.g., by testing a mass-dependent ejection model or by marginalizing over a plausible range of stream MFs.
  3. [§3, Table 1] The analysis excludes four of the sixteen streams associated with GCs in the I24 catalog: three whose morphology cannot be reproduced with MWPotential2014 (NGC 1261, NGC 5466, NGC 7099) and one with too few stars (NGC 7089). If the excluded streams are systematically different in mass loss rate, orbital frequency, or stream age, the power-law fits in Eq. (12) will be biased even if each individual measurement is unbiased. The paper should at least report the properties of the excluded clusters and discuss whether the sample selection is likely to correlate with Mdot; a quantitative selection function for inclusion would be stronger.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] The sentence 'The two models produce similar density distributions, indicating fast mixing of stars in the stream.' appears twice verbatim; one copy should be removed.
  2. [Author affiliations] There is a typo in the affiliation: 'Tsinghua Univeristy' should be 'Tsinghua University'.
  3. [§2.4] The distance relation d(phi1) used to assign stellar masses is fitted from the mock stream, which couples the mass correction to the assumed orbital model; a brief discussion of how a mis-modeled track affects m_min(d_i) would help the reader assess this step.
  4. [Figure 3] The left and right panels of Figure 3 are described with nearly identical captions in the text; please clarify in the caption which panel shows the mass loss rate and which shows the mean correction factor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass-loss estimator is a forward-model inversion with external MF inputs and an external Pal 5 validation; the fsel normalization is a systematic degeneracy, not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: §2.3 defines Mdot via Eq. (9) as Ndot_tracer times the ratio of observed selected mass (Eqs. 5–6, with external MF slope from Baumgardt et al. 2023) to the mock-particle sum weighted by the reconstructed fsel. The fsel reconstruction in §2.5 uses a binary mask based on comparing observed and mock 1D densities after normalizing the mock to the observed maximum; however, Eq. (9) sums the original mock particles (Ndot_tracer=1 Myr^-1) in the selected segments, so Mdot is set by the observed mass per model particle, not by the normalization constant. A constant selection incompleteness c enters as Mdot_est ≈ c Mdot_true, which is an uncalibrated systematic rather than a by-construction equality. The d(phi1) distance relation is taken from the same orbit model used to generate the mocks, but it is not the target quantity and is fixed by the assumed Galactic potential. The C25 particle-spray algorithm is a self-citation, but it is code-reproduced (Zenodo/agama) and calibrated on N-body simulations independent of the present Mdot measurements; the independence of the phase-space distribution from Mdot is a stated assumption of that prior work, not derived from the stream densities here. Appendix D provides an external Pal 5/CFHT check with a simple fsel=1 and deep photometry, and the paper explicitly quantifies MF-slope sensitivity in Appendix B and lists remaining limitations (Gaia incompleteness, BH remnants, stream MF). No equation reduces to its own input; the only degeneracy is the absolute normalization of fsel, which is a systematic uncertainty, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline relies on a forward model: the C25 particle spray, the adopted Galactic potential, the assumed stellar mass function, and a reconstructed selection function. No fundamentally new physical entities are introduced, but the mass-loss estimates inherit sensitivity to the assumed MF slope and the model-dependent selection function.

free parameters (4)
  • MF slope alpha (per GC) = 0.32 to 1.17 (from Baumgardt et al. 2023, Table 1)
    Used in Eq. (6) to weight stars for missing mass below the G=19 limit; weights range 2-200, so Mdot estimates are highly sensitive to alpha. Authors adopt a conservative uncertainty of 0.3.
  • Spatial selection segment threshold = 50% of mock density (25-75% tested)
    In §2.5, segments where observed density is within 50% of mock are kept; this chosen threshold determines which data constrain Mdot.
  • Plummer core radius of GC = 4 pc
    Introduced in §2.2 to approximate the cluster potential; verified insensitive as long as much smaller than tidal radius.
  • Integration start time t_begin = 8 Gyr
    Chosen to exceed all stream durations (§2.2, Appendix A); shown not to affect results if longer than stream duration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The C25 particle spray algorithm accurately reproduces the phase-space distribution of tidal debris and this distribution is independent of Mdot.
    Invoked in §2.2 to justify that varying Mdot only scales mock stream density. This is the authors' own prior work (Chen et al. 2025) with a Zenodo release; if the calibration fails for real streams, the density-to-Mdot conversion is wrong.
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 (Bovy 2015) is an adequate model of the Milky Way potential for these orbits.
    Used for all orbit integrations in §2.2; the paper itself reports 3 of 16 streams (NGC 1261, NGC 5466, NGC 7099) whose mocks deviate by more than one stream width, so the potential is not universally adequate.
  • domain assumption Stream stars are drawn from the same present-day stellar mass function as their progenitor GC, with a single power-law slope alpha down to 0.08 M_sun.
    Required for the unbiased mass estimate in Eq. (5) and Appendix C; references Webb & Bovy (2021) indicating low-mass stars are ejected first, so this may fail, especially for older streams.
  • domain assumption The mass loss rate is constant in time (uniform Ndot_tracer); the actual rate is the orbit-averaged value.
    Adopted in §2.2 after testing a pulsing model that gave similar densities, with the exception of NGC 6101.
  • domain assumption The spatial selection function factorizes and the perpendicular profile is Gaussian for both observed and mock streams.
    Eq. (7)-(8) in §2.5; used to reconstruct f_sel,2. No direct measurement of the I24 selection function is available.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 is essentially complete to G=19 for stream stars.
    Motivates the magnitude cut in §2.1; slight incompleteness could bias M_sel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar streams reveal the mass loss of globular clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORZ5P542

@misc{pith2026241119899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar streams reveal the mass loss of globular clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORZ5P542}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19899}
}
abstract

Globular cluster (GC) streams, debris of stars that tidally stripped from their progenitor GCs, have densities that correlate positively with the GC mass loss rate. In this work, we employ a novel particle spray algorithm that can accurately reproduce the morphology of streams of various orbital types, enabling us to uncover the relationship between the GC mass loss history and stream density profiles. Using recent discoveries of GC streams from Gaia DR3, we present, for the first time, a catalog of directly observed mass loss rates for 12 Galactic GCs, ranging from 0.5 to 200 $\rm M_\odot\,Myr^{-1}$. By fitting power-law relations between mass loss rate and key GC properties, we identify positive correlations with GC mass and orbital frequency, consistent with the predictions from N-body simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19899 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gaia observations of 12 GC streams (black open symbols) and their corresponding mock streams (colored solid symbols). Stream segments are represented as gray regions. The widths of these regions stand for ±3 𝜎detect. The mock stream particles are color-coded by their lookback release time, as indicated by the colorbar. The progenitor clusters are shown as star symbols [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass loss rate of 12 GCs against 𝑀GC (first panel), Ω (second panel), 𝑟h (third panel), and best-fit mass loss rate 𝑀¤ fit (fourth panel). The uncertainty of 𝑀¤ (from Poisson’s error and MF slope) is plotted as vertical errorbars. Horizontal errorbars in the fourth panel represent the uncertainty of the best-fit power-law relation (Eqs. 10 and 12). Gray shaded regions in the first three panels show the best-fit mass… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass loss rate (left panel) and mean correction factor (as in Eq. (6), right panel) of 12 GCs derived from different MF slopes 𝛼. For each GC, we plot the range around the central value with Δ𝛼 = ±0.3, which is used in this work as the dispersion of 𝛼. employ additional selection criteria, the selection function is simply uniform, i.e., 𝑓sel = 1 across the entire data footprint. We apply a CMD mask to select stars b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: CFHT data in the extinction corrected 𝑔 − 𝑟 color vs. 𝑟 magnitude diagram. The CMD mask for Pal 5 is shown as gray solid curves. Top right panel: Selected Pal 5 stream stars in the great circle frame. We compute the background surface density in the outskir…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    ?g O _|uq?? gWO|zF㏾kl w yzӯ > X> JZ/1] 5j;@(ww> =p+P 4b BRsT iX # r [ CoO rpݧz j!_ O |._)_[-Ś \>q|O?pGn |>|o w / - \@NNJ ǫ Y& X'9_ >I b _] .Ę X * 5b+ Cv pVt&Lwp޷`xc

    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

  4. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 3991, 10.1093/mnras/stad631

    Baumgardt, H., Hénault-Brunet, V., Dickson, N., & Sollima, A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3991, 10.1093/mnras/stad631

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad631 2023

  5. [5]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, 227, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    Baumgardt, H., & Makino, J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 227, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    2008, Galactic dynamics, 2nd edn., Princeton series in astrophysics (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic dynamics, 2nd edn., Princeton series in astrophysics (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, New Astronomy Reviews, 100, 101713, 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  2. [10]

    2023, A&A, 669, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244784

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244784

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, ybillchen/particle\_spray: v0.1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13923250

    Chen, Y. 2024, ybillchen/particle\_spray: v0.1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13923250

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Chen, Y., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4736, 10.1093/mnras/stac1651

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5638, 10.1093/mnras/stad1328

    ---. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5638, 10.1093/mnras/stad1328

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3692, 10.1093/mnras/stad3345

    ---. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3692, 10.1093/mnras/stad3345

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Y., & Ash, N

    Chen, Y., Valluri, M., Gnedin, O. Y., & Ash, N. 2025, ApJS, 276, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9904

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2007, ApJ, 656, L65, 10.1086/512856

    De Marchi, G., Paresce, F., & Pulone, L. 2007, ApJ, 656, L65, 10.1086/512856

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, AJ, 164, 207, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    DESI Collaboration , Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Dickson, N., Hénault-Brunet, V., Baumgardt, H., Gieles, M., & Smith, P. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5320, 10.1093/mnras/stad1254

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 4226, 10.1093/mnras/staa969

    Ebrahimi, H., Sollima, A., Haghi, H., Baumgardt, H., & Hilker, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4226, 10.1093/mnras/staa969

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    E., & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D., Koposov, S. E., & Belokurov, V. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 60, 10.1093/mnras/stx1208

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Zhang, Q

    Fall, S. M., & Zhang, Q. 2001, ApJ, 561, 751, 10.1086/323358

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, Nat Astron, 5, 957, 10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2

    Gieles, M., Erkal, D., Antonini, F., Balbinot, E., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Nat Astron, 5, 957, 10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Gieles, M., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5340, 10.1093/mnras/stad1287

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Y., & Ostriker, J

    Gnedin, O. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223, 10.1086/303441

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, Proc

    Hilker, M., Baumgardt, H., Sollima, A., & Bellini, A. 2019, Proc. IAU, 14, 451, 10.1017/S1743921319006823

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Martin, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Martin, N. F. 2016, ApJ, 819, 1, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/1

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Küpper, A. H. W., Balbinot, E., Bonaca, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 80, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/80

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Baumgardt, H., & Gieles, M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 305, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17309.x

    2010

  27. [35]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1378, 10.1093/mnras/stt808

    ---. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1378, 10.1093/mnras/stt808

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Li, H., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4030, 10.1093/mnras/stz1114

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Malhan, K., & Ibata, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4063, 10.1093/mnras/sty912

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    A., & Martin, N

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., & Martin, N. F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3442, 10.1093/mnras/sty2474

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

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

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Meng, X., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1065, 10.1093/mnras/stac1751

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    1995, MNRAS, 274, 48, 10.1093/mnras/274.1.48

    Okazaki, T., & Tosa, M. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 48, 10.1093/mnras/274.1.48

    1995 doi

  34. [42]

    Paust, N. E. Q., Reid, I. N., Piotto, G., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 476, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/2/476

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    Pearson, S., Bonaca, A., Chen, Y., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2024, ApJ, 976, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8348

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    F., McMillan, S

    Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.593786

    Price-Whelan, A., Souchereau, H., Wagg, T., et al. 2024, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.593786

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, JOSS, 2, 388, 10.21105/joss.00388

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    L., & Gnedin, O

    Prieto, J. L., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2008, ApJ, 689, 919, 10.1086/591777

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    W., Kruijssen, J

    Reina-Campos, M., Keller, B. W., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3144, 10.1093/mnras/stac1934

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, NewAR, 81, 1, 10.1016/j.newar.2018.03.001

    Renaud, F. 2018, NewAR, 81, 1, 10.1016/j.newar.2018.03.001

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Renaud, F., Gieles, M., & Boily, C. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 759, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19531.x

    2011

  43. [51]

    Scott, D. W. 2015, Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization, 2nd edn., Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley)

    2015

  44. [52]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    The Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    The pandas development team . 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    E., et al

    Valluri, M., Fagrelius, P., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, arXiv:2407.06336 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06336

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Kıroğlu, F., Fragione, G., et al

    Weatherford, N. C., Kıroğlu, F., Fragione, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc1

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    J., & Bovy, J

    Webb, J. J., & Bovy, J. 2021, MNRAS, 510, 774, 10.1093/mnras/stab3451

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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