Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A JWST project on 47 Tucanae: kinematics, energy equipartition and anisotropy of multiple populations

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using proper motions from JWST, HST, and Gaia, this paper claims that the two stellar generations of the globular cluster 47 Tucanae have different dynamical states: 1G stars are isotropic while 2G stars are radially anisotropic and more…

desk verdict A careful, data-rich measurement of population-dependent kinematics in 47 Tuc, but the single-Y isochrone mass scale threatens the headline equipartition difference until tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03140 v2 pith:S7MK2SQW submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

T. Ziliotto , A. P. Milone , G. Cordoni , F. I. Aros , E. Vesperini , J.-W. Lee , A. Bellini , P. Bianchini
show 12 more authors
A. Mastrobuono-Battisti M. Libralato E. Dondoglio M. Tailo A. Livernois M. V. Legnardi E. Lagioia E. Bortolan F. Muratore A. F. Marino A. Alves-Brito A. Renzini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersmultiplestellarpopulationskinematicspropermotionsenergyequipartitionvelocityanisotropy47TucanaeJWSTastrometry
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 combines JWST, HST, Gaia, and ground-based photometry to map the motions of the two chemically distinct stellar generations in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae, from the cluster center out to roughly ten half-light radii. It tries to establish that first-generation (1G) stars have isotropic velocity distributions while second-generation (2G) stars are significantly radially anisotropic, and that in the tangential direction 2G stars are closer to energy equipartition than 1G stars, with the total velocity dispersion showing a smaller difference. These measurements matter because dynamical state is one of the few surviving records of how the second generation of stars formed: if the two generations really move differently at present day, the cluster has preserved information about its formation history through billions of years of dynamical evolution.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two fitted parametric models. Velocity anisotropy is described by a modified Osipkov-Merritt form, $\beta(R) = 1 - \sigma_T^2(R)/\sigma_R^2(R) = \beta_\infty R^2/(R_a^2 + R^2)\,(1 - R/R_t)$, in which $R_a$ is the anisotropy radius, $\beta_\infty$ is the large-radius anisotropy, and $R_t$ is where isotropy is restored. Energy equipartition is measured with two mass-dependent dispersion laws: the power law $\sigma(m) = \sigma_0 (m/m_0)^{-\eta}$, where $\eta = 0$ means no equipartition and $\eta = 0.5$ means full equipartition, and the exponential form $\sigma(m) = \sigma_0\exp(-m/2m_{\mathrm{eq}})$ (with a power-law tail above $m_{\mathrm{eq}}$), summarized by $\mu = 1/m_{\mathrm{eq}}$. The machinery works by fitting these curves to proper-motion dispersions binned by stellar mass and radius, then comparing best-fit $\eta$ and $\mu$ values between 1G and 2G stars. The population comparisons therefore inherit both the physical content and the functional-form assumptions of these models.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same proper-motion catalog without assuming any parametric form for the mass-velocity-dispersion relation: divide 1G and 2G stars into narrow mass bins and compare tangential velocity dispersions directly. If the apparent stronger tangential equipartition of 2G stars disappears, reverses sign, or changes with the binning scheme, the headline result is an artifact of the power-law or exponential fitting; the same check applied to radial and tangential dispersions with free non-parametric radial profiles would test the anisotropy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 1G and 2G stars in 47 Tucanae have not been dynamically mixed into identical kinematic states. With proper motions split into radial and tangential components, 1G stars are consistent with isotropy ($\beta = 1 - \sigma_T^2/\sigma_R^2 \approx 0$), while 2G stars show a significantly radially anisotropic velocity distribution that peaks near $3R_h$ and returns to isotropy by roughly $10R_h$. Fitting mass-dependent velocity dispersions, the paper finds that in the tangential component 2G stars show a small but significant degree of energy equipartition in every field analyzed, whereas 1G stars are consistent with no equipartition or with an inverted trend in which more massive stars move faster; the radial component shows a mixed and radius-dependent pattern. The paper also reports a larger rotation-to-dispersion ratio for 2G stars and higher tangential skewness for 1G stars. The authors present this combination as the observational signature expected if 2G stars formed more centrally concentrated than 1G stars and then evolved toward partial energy equipartition at different rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mass dependence of the velocity dispersion is adequately described by one of two simple parametric curves (a power law or an exponential with an equipartition mass), so the claim that 2G stars are more equipartitioned than 1G stars in the tangential component would be undermined if the true mass dependence is more complex or differs between populations in a way these curves cannot capture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any model of globular-cluster formation must reproduce a present-day state in which 1G stars are isotropic while 2G stars are radially anisotropic, with 2G stars more equipartitioned in the tangential component.
  • The observed pattern supports formation scenarios in which 2G stars were born more centrally concentrated than 1G stars and have erased only part of that initial difference over the cluster's dynamical history.
  • The lack of significant dynamical differences between the $2G_A$ and $2G_B$ subpopulations indicates that the chemically most extreme second-generation stars do not form a dynamically distinct component.
  • The higher rotation-to-dispersion ratio of 2G stars implies that ordered rotation is not shared equally between the two generations and must be included in dynamical models of multiple populations.
  • Measurements of tangential velocity dispersion for 1G and 2G stars can serve as a new constraint on mass segregation in globular clusters, complementary to radial-density mass segregation studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this pattern holds in other clusters, similar JWST/HST proper-motion programs should find 2G stars more radially anisotropic and more tangentially equipartitioned than 1G stars, making the dichotomy a general formation signature rather than a peculiarity of 47 Tucanae.
  • The tangential-equipartition difference offers a direct way to infer the initial spatial concentration of 2G stars from data alone, without relying on chemical enrichment models to locate the formation site.
  • Because the 2G anisotropy signal peaks near $3R_h$ and vanishes near $10R_h$, extending proper-motion measurements beyond the tidal region could test whether tidal stripping or external perturbations erase the signal at larger radii.
  • The skewness difference between 1G and 2G tangential motions is a cheap new observable for $N$-body simulations of multiple populations; comparing its radial constancy with simulated skewness profiles could discriminate among formation and stripping histories.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines JWST, HST, Gaia DR3, and ground-based photometric/astrometric catalogs to measure proper motions of multiple stellar populations in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae. The authors derive velocity dispersion, anisotropy, and energy equipartition profiles for first-generation (1G) and second-generation (2G) stars. The central claims are that 1G stars are isotropic while 2G stars are radially anisotropic, and that 2G stars show a stronger degree of energy equipartition in the tangential velocity component. These results are compared with simulations that predict 2G stars formed more centrally concentrated and subsequently evolved dynamically.

Significance. If correct, this is an important observational constraint on the formation and dynamical evolution of multiple populations in globular clusters. The paper exploits a rich dataset—deep JWST proper motions down to the H-burning limit, HST archival data, Gaia DR3, and ground-based surveys—and the analysis is careful in its MCMC uncertainty estimation and comparison across independent datasets. The public data releases and detailed reduction steps make the work reproducible in principle. The qualitative agreement with published simulations (Vesperini et al. 2021; Livernois et al. 2024) is encouraging. However, the headline differential-equipartition result depends on a mass calibration that assumes a single helium abundance for both populations, an assumption that is contradicted by established knowledge of He-enhanced 2G stars and is not subjected to any sensitivity test. The result is therefore provisional until this gap is addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 5.6 (Eqs. 6-8)] The stellar masses for both populations are assigned from a single Dartmouth isochrone with Y=0.246, yet the 2G stars in 47 Tucanae are helium-enhanced (Y~0.28-0.30), as established in the authors' own previous work (Milone et al. 2023b). At fixed apparent magnitude, a helium-rich star is less massive than a helium-normal star, so the adopted isochrone systematically overestimates 2G masses relative to 1G masses. Because the headline result—that 2G stars show a stronger degree of energy equipartition in the tangential component—is a comparison of the slope of sigma(m) between populations (Figures 13 and 15), the mass-axis offset can mimic or erase the claimed difference. I request that the analysis be repeated with population-dependent isochrones (e.g., Y=0.246 and Y~0.28-0.30 for 1G and 2G) or that a sensitivity analysis be provided showing that the fitted eta and mu for 2G are robust to this choice. Without this, the central claim is not yet established.
  2. [Section 5.3] The Gaia proper motions are de-rotated by fitting a sinusoidal function to the x and y proper motions as a function of position angle, but the text does not state whether this fit is performed separately for 1G and 2G stars. If a single sinusoid is fit to all stars, and the two populations have different rotational amplitudes (as the paper later reports for the rotation-to-dispersion ratio), then the subtraction leaves a residual rotational signal in each population, biasing the tangential velocity dispersion and hence the tangential equipartition comparison. Please clarify whether the fit is population-specific, and if not, assess the impact of this residual on the derived sigma_T and beta.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The sentence 'We matched this catalogs with Gaia DR3 proper motions' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'these catalogs'.
  2. [Throughout] The text contains several formatting artifacts with spurious spaces inside words, such as 'e ffective' and 'di fferent'; these should be cleaned before final submission.
  3. [Section 5.6] The priors used in the MCMC fits for the equipartition models (Eqs. 6-7) are not specified. Please list the prior distributions for eta, mu, sigma_0, and meq, as well as for the anisotropy model parameters in Section 5.4.
  4. [Section 5.4 and Figures 10-11] The best-fit anisotropy parameters (R_a, beta_inf, R_t) are not reported numerically in the text or in a table. Providing the values with uncertainties would aid quantitative comparison with simulations.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5.5] The notation for the 2G subpopulations is inconsistent: '2 GA' and '2GB' appear in Section 5.5, while the abstract uses '2G_A' and '2G_B'. Use a consistent subscripted notation throughout.
  6. [Section 6, first bullet] The statement '2G stars consistently exhibit a higher degree of energy equipartition' should specify 'in the tangential component', since the total velocity dispersion shows similar trends for 1G and 2G outside the outermost field.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic results are fitted from independent astrometry and compared with external simulations; self-citations are methodological or benchmark references.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational and self-contained. Proper motions are measured from multi-epoch HST/JWST/Gaia astrometry (Section 3), stellar masses are assigned from Dartmouth isochrones (Section 4), and the velocity-dispersion, anisotropy, and equipartition parameters are obtained by maximum-likelihood fits to the data using Eqs. 1, 2, 6, and 7 (Sections 5.4 and 5.6). The headline claims—2G radially anisotropic while 1G isotropic, and 2G more strongly equipartitioned in the tangential component—are comparisons of fitted parameters such as β∞, Ra, η, and μ against the same data; none of these parameters is defined in terms of the conclusion, and the fits would return isotropy or no equipartition if the data demanded it. The cited simulations (Vesperini et al. 2021; Livernois et al. 2024; Aros et al. 2025) are external benchmarks: they are not fitted to the 47 Tuc proper motions and their predictions do not contain the measured kinematics, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The single-helium isochrone (Y = 0.246 for all stars) is a potential systematic error in the mass axis and could bias the equipartition comparison, but this is a modeling and calibration concern rather than a circular reduction: the adopted masses are not derived from the velocity dispersions they are used to explain. Standard literature models for equipartition and anisotropy are used transparently, and the paper does not rename a known result or import a uniqueness theorem.

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

The paper's central claims rest on smooth parametric models for the velocity dispersion and anisotropy (Eqs 1, 2, 6, 7) and on adopted isochrone parameters for mass estimates. These are standard in the field but are not derived in this paper, and their limitations are not fully propagated into the quoted uncertainties.

free parameters (4)
  • Anisotropy model parameters (Ra, beta_inf, Rt) and polynomial coefficients c0..c3 = Not tabulated; best-fit curves shown in Figures 10-11
    Fitted to the observed radial and tangential dispersion profiles via MCMC (Eqs 1-5, Section 5.4). The central anisotropy result (1G isotropic, 2G radially anisotropic) is encoded in these fitted values.
  • Energy equipartition index eta (Eq 6) and equipartition mass mu (Eq 8) = Example: 2G outermost field eta=0.09(+0.03/-0.04), mu=0.40±0.15; per-field values in Figures 12-15
    Fitted to the mass dependence of the velocity dispersion in each field and component. The claim that 2G stars have stronger tangential equipartition than 1G stars rests on these fits.
  • Scale mass m0 = 1 Msun
    Chosen by hand in Eq 6 as the reference mass for sigma0; affects normalization but not the exponent eta.
  • Equipartition mass meq (Eq 7) = Implied by fitted mu, not directly tabulated
    Parameter of the second equipartition model; its posterior is sampled in the MCMC fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The anisotropy profile is described by Eq 1 (modified Osipkov-Merritt form with free beta_inf, Ra, Rt)
    Adopted from Dalessandro et al. (2024) and Aros et al. (2025), Section 5.4. If the true beta(R) deviates from this monotonic shape, the inferred differences between 1G and 2G could be biased.
  • domain assumption The radial velocity dispersion profile is a cubic polynomial in R (Eq 2) with the positivity and monotonicity constraints of Eqs 3-4
    Used to smooth sigma_R before deriving sigma_T via Eq 5. The cubic form is not physically motivated beyond flexibility.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses are derived from Dartmouth isochrones with fixed parameters [Fe/H]=-0.75, age=13 Gyr, Y=0.246, [alpha/Fe]=+0.4, E(B-V)=0.03, (m-M)0=13.38, as in Milone et al. (2023b)
    Section 4. Uncertainties in these parameters are not propagated into the equipartition fits.
  • domain assumption HB and AGB stars have masses approximately equal to the maximum RGB mass (about 0.65 Msun) and retain kinematics of higher-mass stars
    Section 4, following Watkins et al. (2022). This approximation affects the high-mass end of the mass dispersion relation.
  • domain assumption Proper motion errors are Gaussian and independent in the radial and tangential components
    The likelihood in Eq 9 assumes Gaussian errors; this is standard but not verified for the JWST/HST astrometry.
  • domain assumption The cluster's bulk proper motion and distance from Vasiliev & Baumgardt (2021) are correct for the perspective contraction correction
    Section 5, used to convert observed proper motions into the cluster rest frame.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A JWST project on 47 Tucanae: kinematics, energy equipartition and anisotropy of multiple populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7MK2SQW

@misc{pith2026250203140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A JWST project on 47 Tucanae: kinematics, energy equipartition and anisotropy of multiple populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7MK2SQW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03140}
}
abstract

Recent work with JWST has demonstrated its capability to identify and chemically characterize multiple populations in globular clusters down to the H-burning limit. In this study, we explore the kinematics of multiple populations in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae by combining data from JWST, HST, Gaia, and ground-based telescopes. We analyzed velocity dispersion and anisotropy profiles from the cluster center out to $\sim$10$R_h$. Our findings indicate that while first population (1G) stars' motions are isotropic, second population (2G) stars' motions are significantly radially anisotropic. These results align with the predictions of simulations of the dynamical evolution of clusters where 2G stars are initially more centrally concentrated than 1G stars. Furthermore, we subdivided the 2G population into two subpopulations: $2G_A$ and $2G_B$, with the latter being more chemically extreme. We compared their dynamical profiles and found no significant differences. For the first time, we measured the degree of energy equipartition among the multiple populations of 47 Tucanae. Overall, within the analyzed radial range ($\sim$2-4$R_h$), both populations exhibit a low degree of energy equipartition. The most significant differences between 1G and 2G stars are observed in the tangential velocity component, where 2G stars are characterized by a stronger degree of energy equipartition than 1G stars. In the radial component, the behavior of 1G and 2G stars is more variable, with differences largely dependent on radius. Moreover, our analysis reveals that the ratio of rotational velocity to velocity dispersion is larger for the 2G population. Finally, we found that 1G stars exhibit higher skewness in their tangential proper motions than 2G stars, providing additional evidence of kinematic differences between the two stellar generations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03140 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Footprints of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total exposure time per observation year for fields A, B, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Photometric diagrams demonstrating the photometry used to disentangle the multiple populations in di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Collection of ChMs of stars in different evolutionary stages in 47 Tucanae (RGB, AGB, HB, upper MS, and lower MS). The labels are color-coded according to the different observed fields, following the same color scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: mF814W vs. mF606W −mF814W CMD of stars in Field A. The pink line represents the isochrone used to fit the cluster (see text for details), and the horizontal dotted lines indicate initial MS mass values along the CMD inferred from the isochrone. 2G stars exhibit approxi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Radial profiles of mean tangential velocity for 1G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Kinematic profiles showing radial velocity dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial profiles of the velocity dispersion in the radial (top panels) and tangential (middle panels) directions. The bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to Figure 10, but for 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Velocity dispersion as a function of stellar mass for 1G (top panels) and 2G (bottom panels) stars. The labels at the bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Figure 12, but only considering the tangential component of the velocity dispersion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as Figure 12, but only considering the radial component of the velocity dispersion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Best fit η (top) and µ and meq (bottom) as functions of radial distance from the cluster for 1G (blue) and 2G stars (purple). The total, radial, and tangential components are shown from left to right. being more dependent on the initial conditions of the simu￾lations …

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. Exploring Multiple Stellar Populations in Globular Clusters with Euclid: A Theoretical Overview and Insights from NGC 6397

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Euclid's near-infrared filters can separate first- and second-generation M-dwarfs in globular clusters; in NGC 6397, about 30% of M-dwarfs are first-population and the second population is oxygen-depleted by about 0.3 dex.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, One-Pass HST Photometry with hst1pass, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2022-5, 55 pages

    Anderson, J. 2022, One-Pass HST Photometry with hst1pass, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2022-5, 55 pages

    2022

  2. [2]

    & King, I

    Anderson, J. & King, I. R. 2000, PASP, 112, 1360

    2000

  3. [3]

    & King, I

    Anderson, J. & King, I. R. 2003, AJ, 126, 772

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    & King, I

    Anderson, J. & King, I. R. 2006, PSFs, Photometry, and Astronomy for the ACS/WFC, Instrument Science Report ACS 2006-01, 34 pages

    2006

  5. [5]

    R., et al

    Anderson, J., Sarajedini, A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2055

    2008

  6. [6]

    Aros, F. I. & Vesperini, E. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3136

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    I., Vesperini, E., & Dalessandro, E

    Aros, F. I., Vesperini, E., & Dalessandro, E. 2025, A&A, submitted

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Bastian, N., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2398

    work page 2013

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83

    2018

  2. [10]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2241

    Bekki, K. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2241

    2011

  3. [11]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2242

    Bekki, K., Jeˇrábková, T., & Kroupa, P. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2242

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bellini, A., Anderson, J., & Bedin, L. R. 2011, PASP, 123, 622

    2011

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Anderson, J., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 6

    2017

  6. [14]

    P., et al

    Bellini, A., Anderson, J., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 115

    2014

  7. [15]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Libralato, M., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 86

    2018

  8. [16]

    2015, ApJ, 810, L13

    Bellini, A., Vesperini, E., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, L13

    2015

  9. [17]

    A., Schinnerer, E., & Varri, A

    Bianchini, P., van de Ven, G., Norris, M. A., Schinnerer, E., & Varri, A. L. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3644

    2016

  10. [18]

    2019, MN- RAS, 489, 3269

    Calura, F., D’Ercole, A., Vesperini, E., Vanzella, E., & Sollima, A. 2019, MN- RAS, 489, 3269

    2019

  11. [19]

    P., et al

    Cordoni, G., Casagrande, L., Milone, A. P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2342

    2025

  12. [20]

    P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 18

    2020

  13. [21]

    Cottrell, P. L. & Da Costa, G. S. 1981, ApJ, 245, L79

    1981

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 691, A94

    Dalessandro, E., Cadelano, M., Della Croce, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A94

    2024

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 884, L24

    Dalessandro, E., Cadelano, M., Vesperini, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, L24

    2019

  16. [24]

    1983, Mem

    Dantona, F., Gratton, R., & Chieffi, A. 1983, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 54, 173 D’Antona, F., Vesperini, E., D’Ercole, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2122

    1983

  17. [25]

    2007, A&A, 464, 1029 D’Ercole, A., D’Antona, F., & Vesperini, E

    Decressin, T., Meynet, G., Charbonnel, C., Prantzos, N., & Ekström, S. 2007, A&A, 464, 1029 D’Ercole, A., D’Antona, F., & Vesperini, E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4088 D’Ercole, A., Vesperini, E., D’Antona, F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Recchi, S. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 825

    2007

  18. [26]

    P., Lagioia, E

    Dondoglio, E., Milone, A. P., Lagioia, E. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 76

    2021

  19. [27]

    P., Renzini, A., et al

    Dondoglio, E., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 207

    2022

  20. [28]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    2008

  21. [29]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Gaia Collaboration, Helmi, A., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A12 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A33

    2013

  22. [30]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., et al. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    2019

  23. [31]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

    1996

  24. [32]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 186

    Heyl, J., Caiazzo, I., Richer, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 186

    2017

  25. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5951

    Lacchin, E., Calura, F., & Vesperini, E. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5951

    2021

  26. [34]

    2022, MN- RAS, 517, 1171

    Lacchin, E., Calura, F., Vesperini, E., & Mastrobuono-Battisti, A. 2022, MN- RAS, 517, 1171

    2022

  27. [35]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 20

    Lee, J.-W. 2022, ApJS, 263, 20

    2022

  28. [36]

    V ., Milone, A

    Legnardi, M. V ., Milone, A. P., Cordoni, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A160

    2024

  29. [37]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1456

    Leitinger, E., Baumgardt, H., Cabrera-Ziri, I., Hilker, M., & Pancino, E. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1456

    2023

  30. [38]

    I., Baumgardt, H., Cabrera-Ziri, I., et al

    Leitinger, E. I., Baumgardt, H., Cabrera-Ziri, I., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A184

    2025

  31. [39]

    P., et al

    Libralato, M., Bellini, A., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 99

    2018

  32. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 150

    Libralato, M., Bellini, A., Vesperini, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 150

    2022

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 58

    Libralato, M., Vesperini, E., Bellini, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 58

    2023

  34. [42]

    R., Aros, F

    Livernois, A. R., Aros, F. I., Vesperini, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2397

    2024

  35. [43]

    J., Milone, A

    Mehta, V . J., Milone, A. P., Casagrande, L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1077

    2025

  36. [44]

    1985, AJ, 90, 1027

    Merritt, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 1027

    1985

  37. [45]

    Milone, A. P. & Marino, A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359

    2022

  38. [46]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bernizzoni, M., et al. 2025, accepted for publication in A&A, arXiv:2503.19214

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5098

    2018

  40. [48]

    Osipkov, L. P. 1979, AZh, 56, 378 Pavlík, V ., Heggie, D. C., Varri, A. L., & Vesperini, E. 2024, A&A, 689, A313 Pavlík, V . & Vesperini, E. 2021, MNRAS, 504, L12 Pavlík, V . & Vesperini, E. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3815

    1979

  41. [49]

    P., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Anderson, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 39

    2012

  42. [50]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 4197

    Renzini, A., D’Antona, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4197

    2015

  43. [51]

    F., & Milone, A

    Renzini, A., Marino, A. F., & Milone, A. P. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2111

    2022

  44. [52]

    B., Heyl, J., Anderson, J., et al

    Richer, H. B., Heyl, J., Anderson, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, L15

    2013

  45. [53]

    J., Anderson, J., et al

    Sabbi, E., Lennon, D. J., Anderson, J., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 11

    2016

  46. [54]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 1460

    Sollima, A., Baumgardt, H., & Hilker, M. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1460

    2019

  47. [55]

    1969, ApJ, 158, L139

    Spitzer, Lyman, J. 1969, ApJ, 158, L139

    1969

  48. [56]

    B., Pancino, E., Zocchi, A., Sanna, N., & Monelli, M

    Stetson, P. B., Pancino, E., Zocchi, A., Sanna, N., & Monelli, M. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3042

    2019

  49. [57]

    P., Lagioia, E

    Tailo, M., Milone, A. P., Lagioia, E. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5745

    2020

  50. [58]

    & van der Marel, R

    Trenti, M. & van der Marel, R. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3272 van de Sande, J., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Fogarty, L. M. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 104 van der Marel, R. P. & Franx, M. 1993, ApJ, 407, 525

    2013

  51. [59]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Vasiliev, E. & Baumgardt, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978

    2021

  52. [60]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 4290

    Vesperini, E., Hong, J., Giersz, M., & Hypki, A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4290

    2021

  53. [61]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 440

    Wang, L., Kroupa, P., Takahashi, K., & Jerabkova, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 440

    2020

  54. [62]

    L., van der Marel, R

    Watkins, L. L., van der Marel, R. P., Libralato, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 154

    2022

  55. [63]

    F., et al

    Ziliotto, T., Milone, A., Marino, A. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 62 Article number, page 13

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.