Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The disrupting and growing open cluster spiral arm patterns of the Milky Way

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 spiral arms are transient, multi-armed structures, not a fixed grand-design pattern.

desk verdict Larger-sample confirmation that Milky Way arms lack a steady age pattern, but the pattern-speed estimator needs a mock-recovery test before the transient-arm claim carries its full weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14215 v1 pith:V3CJXSXM submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.GA

Xiaochen Liu , Zhihong He , Yangping Luo , Kun Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords openclustersMilkyWayspiralarmsGaiaDR3patternspeeddensitywavetheorytransientvertexdeviation
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

Open clusters are precise tracers of the Milky Way's spiral structure because they carry accurate ages, distances, and motions. Using the latest Gaia DR3 cluster catalogue—three times larger than the previous era's sample—the paper tests whether spiral arms behave as quasi-stationary density waves, which predict that clusters of different ages should be systematically offset along each arm. It finds no such consistent age gradient, and it derives pattern speeds that decrease outward and track the Galactic rotation curve rather than a single global value. Vertex deviations place the Local arm in a growth phase and the Sagittarius-Carina and Perseus arms in disruption phases. The paper concludes that, within $R_{\mathrm{GC}} < 15$ kpc, the Milky Way is a multi-armed system of transient arms that continuously emerge and dissipate, not a grand-design spiral with a fixed pattern speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the open-cluster catalogue assembled from Gaia DR3, containing 5,866 clusters with ages from isochrone fitting, of which 2,692 are younger than 100 Myr and trace the arms. Cluster membership in each arm uses the adopted five-arm model with $\sigma$ boundaries adjusted to 1-, 2-, or 3-$\sigma$ where the 2-$\sigma$ strip fails. The age-pattern test compares the azimuthal positions of three age groups in $10^\circ$ bins, with bootstrap resampling and $\pm0.1$ dex age errors. The pattern-speed test uses the backward-orbit method: each cluster's birth position is retraced in the adopted Galactic potential, and the pattern speed that best aligns those birth positions with the present arm is selected; 1000 iterations propagate sample, age, distance, and velocity uncertainties. Finally, the vertex deviation $l_v$—the inclination of the velocity ellipsoid between radial and azimuthal motion—is computed for clusters younger than 300 Myr to diagnose whether each arm is growing or disrupting.

What would settle it

A targeted age-gradient survey of the Perseus arm: for open clusters between $R_{\mathrm{GC}} \approx 9.5$ and 11 kpc, bin ages in 10 Myr steps and measure their azimuthal offset from the arm center. Quasi-stationary density wave theory predicts a monotonic, systematically increasing offset with age (reversing at corotation), while the transient-arm picture predicts no ordered trend; a clean monotonic offset of 0.1–0.5 kpc would refute the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Milky Way's stellar disk does not host a grand-design spiral pattern with a single pattern speed. Using 2,692 open clusters younger than 100 Myr assigned to five arms from the adopted arm model, it compares the positions of clusters with ages <20 Myr, 20–50 Myr, and 50–100 Myr. Only the Sagittarius-Carina arm shows a significant young-to-old offset (0.1–0.5 kpc), and that offset does not grow with distance from corotation; the Local arm shows only a weak, direction-reversing offset, and the Perseus arm shows none. Retracing cluster orbits in the adopted Galactic potential yields pattern speeds $\Omega_p \approx 41$–47 (Scu-Cen), 29 (Sag-Car), 33–35 (Local), 16–21 (Perseus), and 31–46 $\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,kpc^{-1}}$ (Outer), broadly agreeing with prior studies and following the rotation curve rather than a single global speed. Vertex deviations for clusters younger than 300 Myr are negative in the Local arm and positive in Sag-Car and Perseus, which the paper interprets, in the dynamic-arm scenario, as growth and disruption respectively. The paper concludes that the arms are transient features that continuously emerge and dissipate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every cluster has been assigned to the correct spiral arm, using arm-boundary widths that are adjusted post hoc to 1-sigma or 3-sigma wherever the 2-sigma strip fails; if those boundaries misclassify clusters, the measured age patterns, pattern speeds, and vertex deviations—and with them the transient-arm conclusion—could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No single pattern speed: the Scu-Cen, Sag-Car, Local, and Perseus arms each rotate at a different rate, and, except for the poorly sampled Outer arm, those rates match the local circular speed.
  • The Local arm is growing while the Sag-Car and Perseus arms are disrupting, so the disk is a multi-armed system whose arms continuously emerge and dissipate.
  • Cluster ages within an arm are mixed, so the Sag-Car offset should not be read as evidence for steady density-wave flow.
  • Any analysis that assumes one global pattern speed—for instance, to locate the corotation radius—will be misleading for the Milky Way.
  • A larger cluster sample, especially for the Outer arm, is needed to decide whether its high pattern speed is real or an artifact of small numbers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension left implicit in the paper: if arms are transient and roughly corotating, then the age distribution inside an arm should become progressively more mixed with time, so young clusters should be the tightest tracers of the arm and older clusters should be progressively more scattered.
  • The same reasoning could be applied to external galaxies: resolved stellar populations in flocculent or multi-armed galaxies should show weak or absent age gradients if transient arms are the general mechanism, whereas grand-design galaxies should show them.
  • A quantitative prediction worth testing is that the fraction of clusters still sitting exactly on their birth arm should fall with age; measuring that decay rate would give a direct estimate of arm lifetime, which the paper does not attempt.
  • If pattern speeds really track the rotation curve, the classical winding problem for the Milky Way disappears, and arm pitch angles should change over time; comparing arm pitch angles between young and older clusters could reveal such evolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the largest available Gaia DR3 open-cluster catalogue (5,866 clusters) to test quasi-stationary density wave theory for the Milky Way's spiral arms. The authors examine the Galactocentric radial and azimuthal positions of clusters in three age groups (<20, 20–50, and 50–100 Myr) along five arms defined by the Reid et al. (2019) model, and report no systematic age pattern in the Local and Perseus arms, an offset in the Sagittarius-Carina arm that does not follow the predicted trend, and an overall 'absence of a theoretical age pattern.' They then derive pattern speeds for the arms using backward orbit integration in the MWPotential2014 model, following the Dias & Lépine (2005) method, and find values generally consistent with the rotation curve. Vertex deviations of clusters younger than 300 Myr are used to infer that the Local arm is growing, while the Sagittarius-Carina and Perseus arms are disrupting. The paper concludes that the Milky Way's spiral arms are transient, multi-armed structures rather than a grand-design pattern with a single pattern speed.

Significance. The paper's conclusion, if robust, would be an important observational constraint on spiral arm theory for the Milky Way, supporting transient-arm scenarios over quasi-stationary density waves. The analysis uses a substantially larger sample than previous works (threefold over the Gaia DR2 era) and includes a careful treatment of bootstrap and age uncertainties in the age-pattern analysis. The age-pattern null result is an independent observational test that does not rely on the pattern-speed fitting method. However, the pattern-speed measurement is not validated against a known input pattern speed, and the arm-membership boundaries are adjusted in a post hoc manner, so the quantitative support for the transient-arm conclusion is only as strong as these two steps. The paper also offers a new application of vertex deviation measurements to open clusters, which agrees with prior Cepheid-based results for the Perseus arm. With the requested validation and robustness checks, the paper could be a valuable contribution to the debate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, bullet list in 'SPIRAL ARM PATTERN SPEED'] The pattern-speed estimator as described may be circular. The method retraces the birthplace of each open cluster by backward orbit integration, rotates that birthplace by Ωp × age, and then compares the result with the contemporary spiral-arm configuration. If the comparison is effectively against the clusters' present-day positions (or if the arm model used in the comparison is the same Reid et al. (2019) model that defined the membership), the best-fitting Ωp is approximately the mean angular velocity of the clusters themselves, i.e., the rotation curve, rather than an independent property of the spiral pattern. The exact objective function is not stated. The manuscript should specify the objective function (or provide pseudo-code/equations) and validate the estimator with a mock catalog generated from a density-wave simulation with a known pattern speed, demonstrating that the method recovers the input pattern speed and not the rotation curve. Without such validation, the statement in the abstract that 'pattern speeds are consistent with the rotation curve' cannot be distinguished from an artifact of the fitting procedure, which is load-bearing for the transient-arm conclusion.
  2. [Section 3, first paragraph 'OC SPIRAL ARM AGE PATTERNS'] The assignment of open clusters to spiral arms uses sigma boundaries that are adjusted 'as necessary' to 1σ, 2σ, or 3σ. This is a post hoc, hypothesis-dependent choice: the boundaries determine exactly which clusters are included in the age-pattern and pattern-speed analyses. For example, the Sag-Car arm uses [-1, 1.5], which may exclude the 50–100 Myr clusters that are predicted to be offset from the arm center under quasi-stationary density wave theory, while the Perseus arm uses [-2, 3], which may include inter-arm clusters that dilute a genuine offset. The manuscript should adopt a fixed, pre-defined membership criterion (e.g., a common 2σ cutoff for all arms) and demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions (no ordered age pattern in the Local arm, no offset in the Perseus arm) are robust to reasonable variations in the sigma limits. If the asymmetric boundaries are necessary due to known spiral-arm geometry, the paper should justify each boundary choice with an objective rule rather than 'as necessary.'
  3. [Section 3 and Figure 2] The central null result—the absence of a theoretical age pattern—is not accompanied by a sensitivity or power analysis. The paper does not quantify the expected offset in the positions of 50–100 Myr clusters relative to <20 Myr clusters for a plausible quasi-stationary density wave (e.g., using the rotation curve and a pattern speed of 28.2 km s−1 kpc−1 as in Appendix A), nor the minimum offset that the current sample size, bin width (10°), and membership boundaries could detect. Without such a calculation, the failure to detect a systematic offset in the Local and Perseus arms may simply reflect limited statistical power, especially since the arms are only traced over ~30° segments. The paper should include a mock injection test or a simple analytic estimate of the expected age-dependent offset and show that the null result is meaningfully constraining for the density-wave hypothesis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, bullet list] The sentence 'The present-day positions of the clusters are then compared across various pattern speeds with the contemporary spiral arm configuration' is grammatically unclear; it should state that the rotated birth positions are compared with the present-day arm model (as opposed to the clusters' present-day positions).
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 lists pattern speeds with uncertainties from sample, age, distance, and velocity, but it does not give the number of clusters used for each arm and each age range. Adding the sample sizes per arm and per age bin would aid reproducibility and help assess the reliability of the Outer-arm measurement.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The figure caption should clarify which row of Table 1 is plotted (e.g., the sample-only case without the bar potential) and what the horizontal bars represent (the quoted radial range of clusters in each arm).
  4. [Section 6, first bullet] The conclusion states that the pattern speed of the Outer arm significantly exceeds the rotation curve, but earlier in Section 4 this is attributed to small sample size. The conclusion should carry the same caveat to avoid overstating the result.
  5. [Appendix A] The sketch map in Figure A1 uses a fixed pattern speed of 28.2 km s−1 kpc−1 and a fixed 50 Myr offset as an illustrative example; the text should explicitly state that this is a schematic, not a fit to the data.
  6. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says the data and simulation snapshots 'will be shared through a request to the corresponding author.' For a paper whose conclusions rest on a new large catalogue and dynamical simulations, a public repository or at least a detailed data description would improve reproducibility and is strongly recommended.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Pattern-speed estimates in §4 are fitted cluster angular speeds, so the 'consistent with the rotation curve' claim is partly circular; the age-pattern and vertex-deviation analyses remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, 'SPIRAL ARM PATTERN SPEED' bullet list]
    "Assuming that OCs are born within spiral arms — implying that the birth position of each OC indicates the location of a spiral arm at the time of the OC’s formation — we retrace the birthplaces of star clusters in a specified segment of the arm, typically spanning less than 50-80 Myr. Assuming that the pattern of the spiral arm remains unchanged, we apply a range of pattern speeds to evolve these birthplace coordinates to their expected present-day position."

    The alignment condition solved for each cluster is approximately θ_birth + Ωp·age ≈ θ_now, so the best-fit Ωp ≈ (θ_now − θ_birth)/age, i.e. the cluster's own mean orbital angular velocity. In the MWPotential2014 axisymmetric background this is essentially the circular speed, so the reported 'pattern speeds are consistent with the rotation curve' is a property of the estimator rather than an independent measurement of a spiral-arm pattern speed. The assumption that clusters are born in arms and the pattern remains unchanged forces the fitted Ωp to track the clusters' orbital motion; a quasi-stationary density wave, in which clusters drift through the arm, is excluded by construction.

  2. other [Section 4, final paragraph and Section 6 conclusion]
    "Moreover, aside from the Outer arm, the pattern speeds of the spiral arms are consistent with the Galactic rotation curve, indicating a more dynamic structure for the arms. ... The pattern speeds of the spiral arms, apart from the Local arm and Outer arm, decrease with increasing distance from the Galactic center."

    This statement is used as evidence against quasi-stationary density wave theory, but the decrease with Galactocentric distance is the same decrease seen in the rotation curve, which the fitting procedure imprints by construction. The conclusion that the arms are 'dynamic' therefore borrows its quantitative support from the circular pattern-speed measurement, whereas the age-pattern and vertex-deviation analyses are independent tests that could stand on their own.

full rationale

The paper has two main quantitative pillars: the absence of a theoretical age pattern in open-cluster positions (§3) and pattern speeds consistent with the rotation curve (§4). The age-pattern analysis is an independent morphological test: it uses a pre-existing arm model (Reid et al. 2019) and compares positions of different-age clusters, with bootstrap and uncertainty propagation; this does not reduce to its inputs. The vertex-deviation analysis (§5) borrows its sign convention from an external N-body simulation calibration (F24), so it is also independent. However, the pattern-speed measurement in §4 is circular in the sense that the fitted Ωp is, for each cluster, essentially (θ_now − θ_birth)/age, the cluster's own mean angular speed. Reporting this as 'consistent with the rotation curve' and using that consistency as a falsification of quasi-stationary density wave theory is a fitted-input-called-prediction: the agreement is built into the estimator rather than being a test of the theory. The paper does not show that the method can recover a pattern speed different from the rotation curve in a controlled simulation with a known input pattern speed. Because one of the two central quantitative supports is circular, but the other is not, the overall circularity score is 6 rather than higher. There is no self-citation load-bearing chain and no imported uniqueness theorem; the circularity is confined to the pattern-speed procedure and its interpretive use.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on several external assumptions: the spiral arm model of Reid et al. (2019), the Galpy MWPotential2014 for orbit integration, the Dias-Lépine assumption that clusters are born in arms, and the F24 simulation calibration of vertex deviation. The free parameters are analysis choices: the sigma boundaries for arm membership, the injected age uncertainty, and the age ranges used in pattern speed fitting.

free parameters (3)
  • Spiral arm membership boundaries (sigma ranges) = [-3,2] Scu-Cen, [-1,1.5] Sag-Car, [-3,2] Local, [-2,3] Perseus, [-0.5,1] Outer
    Boundaries are adjusted from 2-sigma to 1-sigma or 3-sigma where needed to encompass relevant regions or avoid overlaps (Section 3), a post hoc choice that affects which clusters are assigned to each arm.
  • Age uncertainty injection = ±0.1 dex random error
    Added to all cluster ages to model systematic age differences between catalogues (Section 2). The magnitude is chosen based on a 0.1 dex systematic deviation.
  • Pattern speed age ranges = 10-50 Myr, 50-80 Myr, 10-80 Myr
    The pattern speed fitting uses clusters in these age ranges; results vary by range and the choice affects the measured speeds (Section 4, Table 1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Open clusters are born within spiral arms, so their birth positions trace the arm at formation time.
    This is the basis of the Dias & Lépine (2005) pattern speed method used in Section 4; if clusters form predominantly in inter-arm regions or migrate, the derived pattern speeds are biased.
  • domain assumption The MWPotential2014 model in Galpy accurately describes the Galactic gravitational potential for backward orbital integration.
    Used in Section 4 for retracing cluster birthplaces; potential model errors propagate into pattern speed estimates.
  • domain assumption The Reid et al. (2019) logarithmic spiral arm model correctly represents the current spiral arm locations.
    Arm membership and the pattern speed target are defined using this model; systematic errors in the model shift the derived pattern speeds.
  • domain assumption Vertex deviation sign interpretation from Funakoshi et al. (2024) N-body simulations (positive = disruption, negative = growth) applies to open clusters.
    Section 5 interprets lv values as growth or disruption based on F24 simulations for Cepheids; the same mapping is assumed for OCs without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The quasi-stationary density wave theory predictions (age gradients, fixed pattern speed) are correctly summarized.
    The paper tests the Milky Way against idealized predictions of Lin & Shu (1964) as summarized by Shu (2016); if the theory predicts more complex behavior, the test may be too simplistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The disrupting and growing open cluster spiral arm patterns of the Milky Way." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3CJXSXM

@misc{pith2026250114215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The disrupting and growing open cluster spiral arm patterns of the Milky Way},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3CJXSXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14215}
}
read the original abstract

Star clusters provide unique advantages for investigating Galactic spiral arms, particularly due to their precise ages, positions, and kinematic properties, which are further enhanced by ongoing updates from the astrometric data. In this study, we employ the latest extensive catalogue of open clusters from Gaia DR3 to examine the positional deviations of clusters belonging to different age groups. Additionally, we employ dynamical simulations to probe the evolutionary behavior of spiral arm positions. Our analysis reveals an absence of a theoretical age pattern in the spiral arms traced by open clusters, and the pattern speeds of the spiral arms are consistent with the rotation curve. Both of these results do not align with the predictions of quasi-stationary density wave theory, suggesting a more dynamic or transient arm scenario for the Milky Way. From this perspective, combined with vertex deviation estimates, it appears that the Local arm is in a state of growth. In contrast, the Sagittarius-Carina arm and the Perseus arm exhibit opposing trends. Consequently, we speculate that the Galactic stellar disk does not exhibit a grand-design spiral pattern with a fixed pattern speed, but rather manifests as a multi-armed structure with arms that continuously emerge and dissipate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Distribution of the minimum distance of OCs younger than 30 Myr from the Local arm (Reid et al. 2019), with the Y-axis representing the cluster numbers fitted with the Gaussian curves. The background highlights the range of the spiral arms we considered. Right panel: The projection positions of OCs of different age ranges on the Galactic disk are differentiated by various colors, displaying the areas of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of azimuthal angles of OCs by age within designated spiral arm regions, plotted against Galactocentric distance R𝐺𝐶, with cluster counts in bins ≥ 10 OCs. Upper panels: Within the age uncertainty range of each star cluster, we randomly select a value to serve as the new age parameter for the cluster. We calculate the results based on this sample and repeat the process 1000 times, ultimately deriving the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pattern speed on different spiral arms, where the horizontal bars represent the range of OCs distributions on each spiral arm, the results from Castro￾Ginard et al. (2021) (10-50 Myr) and Joshi & Malhotra (2023) (10-80 Myr) also included (without results for the Outer arm). In our analysis, we employed similar or identical parameters for R⊙ and V⊙ as in the above two studies. The black dotted line in the figure repr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: Distribution of vertex deviation for each spiral arm. The method used to calculate vertex deviations follows the approach outlined in F24 and has also been applied in other studies (e.g. Zhao et al. 1994; Simion et al. 2021). The selected bin interval rang…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Galactic inner spiral arms revealed by the Gaia ESO Survey chemical abundances. Metallicity and [Mg/Fe] ratios

    astro-ph.GA 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Chemical abundance excess maps from Gaia-ESO Survey data reveal enhanced [Fe/H] and depleted [Mg/Fe] along the Scutum and Sagittarius inner spiral arms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., L \'e pine J

    Am \^o res E. B., L \'e pine J. R. D., Mishurov Y. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15611.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400.1768A 400, 1768

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    S., Baba J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529L...7A 529, L7

    Asano T., Kawata D., Fujii M. S., Baba J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529L...7A 529, L7

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad190 2024

  3. [3]

    Baba J., Kawata D., Matsunaga N., Grand R. J. J., Hunt J. A. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853L..23B 853, L23

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa839 2018

  4. [4]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...29B 216, 29

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

  5. [5]

    Bovy J., Rix H.-W., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..115B 779, 115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/115 2013

  6. [6]

    Bressan A., Marigo P., Girardi L., Salasnich B., Dal Cero C., Rubele S., Nanni A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..127B 427, 127

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Cantat-Gaudin T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..93C 618, A93

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833476 2018

  8. [8]

    Cantat-Gaudin T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A...1C 640, A1

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038192 2020

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Castro-Ginard A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..45C 635, A45

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Castro-Ginard A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...652A.162C 652, A162

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Castro-Ginard A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142568 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A.118C 661, A118

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Cheng X., Liu C., Mao S., Cui W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab020e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L...1C 872, L1

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Williams B

    Choi Y., Dalcanton J. J., Williams B. F., Weisz D. R., Skillman E. D., Fouesneau M., Dolphin A. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810....9C 810, 9

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Cong H., Dame T

    Cohen R. S., Cong H., Dame T. M., Thaddeus P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...239L..53C 239, L53

    1980 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Thaddeus P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734L..24D 734, L24

    Dame T. M., Thaddeus P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734L..24D 734, L24

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Dehnen W., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524L..35D 524, L35

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    S., L \'e pine J

    Dias W. S., L \'e pine J. R. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..825D 629, 825

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Monteiro H., L \'e pine J

    Dias W. S., Monteiro H., L \'e pine J. R. D., Barros D. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5726D 486, 5726

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Dobbs C., Baba J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2014.31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...35D 31, e035

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    arXiv:2401.13037

    Funakoshi N., Matsunaga N., Kawata D., Baba J., Taniguchi D., Fujii M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240113037F p. arXiv:2401.13037

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..37G 674, A37

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    C., Harding P., Garner C

    Garner R., Mihos J. C., Harding P., Garner C. R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..217G 961, 217

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Georgelin Y

    Georgelin Y. M., Georgelin Y. P., 1976, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A&A....49...57G 49, 57

    1976

  18. [27]

    Goldreich P., Tremaine S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...222..850G 222, 850

    1978 doi

  19. [28]

    He Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace77d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L...9H 954, L9

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    He Z.-H., Xu Y., Hou L.-G., 2021a, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21....9H 21, 009

    doi

  21. [30]

    He Z.-H., Xu Y., Hao C.-J., Wu Z.-Y., Li J.-J., 2021b, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/4/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21...93H 21, 093

    doi

  22. [31]

    He Z., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260....8H 260, 8

    doi

  23. [32]

    He Z., Wang K., Luo Y., Li J., Liu X., Jiang Q., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7c17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262....7H 262, 7

    doi

  24. [33]

    He Z., Liu X., Luo Y., Wang K., Jiang Q., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9af8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..264....8H 264, 8

    doi

  25. [34]

    He Z., Luo Y., Wang K., Ren A., Peng L., Cui Q., Liu X., Jiang Q., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acd6fa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...34H 267, 34

    doi

  26. [35]

    G., Han J

    Hou L. G., Han J. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569A.125H 569, A125

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    G., Han J

    Hou L. G., Han J. L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..626H 454, 626

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    L., Reffert S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.104H 646, A104

    Hunt E. L., Reffert S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.104H 646, A104

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    L., Reffert S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.114H 673, A114

    Hunt E. L., Reffert S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.114H 673, A114

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    C., Malhotra S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acf7c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..170J 166, 170

    Joshi Y. C., Malhotra S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acf7c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..170J 166, 170

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Katz D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...5K 674, A5

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abc0e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..279K 160, 279

    Kounkel M., Covey K., Stassun K. G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abc0e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..279K 160, 279

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Blitz L., Heiles C., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1128455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...312.1773L 312, 1773

    Levine E. S., Blitz L., Heiles C., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1128455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...312.1773L 312, 1773

    2006 doi

  34. [43]

    C., Shu F

    Lin C. C., Shu F. H., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140..646L 140, 646

    1964 doi

  35. [44]

    C., Shu F

    Lin C. C., Shu F. H., 1966, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.55.2.229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966PNAS...55..229L 55, 229

    1966 doi

  36. [45]

    Lin Z., Xu Y., Hou L., Liu D., Li Y., Hao C., Li J., Bian S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931...72L 931, 72

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    Liu L., Pang X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab530a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..245...32L 245, 32

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    A., L \'e pine J

    Michtchenko T. A., L \'e pine J. R. D., P \'e rez-Villegas A., Vieira R. S. S., Barros D. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..37M 863, L37

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Monari G., Famaey B., Siebert A., Grand R. J. J., Kawata D., Boily C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3835M 461, 3835

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    W., Whitford A

    Morgan W. W., Whitford A. E., Code A. D., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...118..318M 118, 318

    1953 doi

  41. [50]

    G., Merrifield M

    Peterken T. G., Merrifield M. R., Arag \'o n-Salamanca A., Drory N., Krawczyk C. M., Masters K. L., Weijmans A.-M., Westfall K. B., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0627-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..178P 3, 178

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885..131R 885, 131

    Reid M. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885..131R 885, 131

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    W., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...158..123R 158, 123

    Roberts W. W., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...158..123R 158, 123

    1969 doi

  44. [53]

    A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17545.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.1637S 410, 1637

    Sellwood J. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17545.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.1637S 410, 1637

    2011

  45. [54]

    A., Carlberg R

    Sellwood J. A., Carlberg R. G., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...282...61S 282, 61

    1984 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Carlberg R

    Sellwood J. A., Carlberg R. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..137S 785, 137

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    A., Carlberg R

    Sellwood J. A., Carlberg R. G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..116S 489, 116

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    Shabani F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3590S 478, 3590

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..667S 54, 667

    Shu F. H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..667S 54, 667

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    H., Milione V., Roberts William W

    Shu F. H., Milione V., Roberts William W. J., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...183..819S 183, 819

    1973 doi

  51. [60]

    H., Ann H

    Sim G., Lee S. H., Ann H. B., Kim S., 2019, @doi [Journal of Korean Astronomical Society] 10.5303/JKAS.2019.52.5.145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JKAS...52..145S 52, 145

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    T., Shen J., Koposov S

    Simion I. T., Shen J., Koposov S. E., Ness M., Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., Lewis G. F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1740S 502, 1740

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aau3181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...365..478S 365, 478

    Skowron D. M., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aau3181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...365..478S 365, 478

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    Sun Y., Xu Y., Yang J., Li F.-C., Du X.-Y., Zhang S.-B., Zhou X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798L..27S 798, L27

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    V., Nikiforov I., 2020, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/20/12/209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RAA....20..209V 20, 209

    Veselova A. V., Nikiforov I., 2020, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/20/12/209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RAA....20..209V 20, 209

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    I., Theis C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12476.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..817V 383, 817

    Vorobyov E. I., Theis C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12476.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..817V 383, 817

    2008

  57. [66]

    R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735....1W 735, 1

    Wada K., Baba J., Saitoh T. R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735....1W 735, 1

    2011 doi

  58. [67]

    Xu Y., et al., 2016, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.1600878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SciA....2E0878X 2, e1600878

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Xu Y., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616L..15X 616, L15

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    J., Liu D

    Xu Y., Hao C. J., Liu D. J., Lin Z. H., Bian S. B., Hou L. G., Li J. J., Li Y. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc45c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...54X 947, 54

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...29Y 869, 29

    Yu S.-Y., Ho L. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...29Y 869, 29

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    N., Rich R

    Zhao H., Spergel D. N., Rich R. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....108.2154Z 108, 2154

    1994 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.