Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Gaps in stellar streams as a result of globular cluster fly-bys

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Globular cluster flybys can carve the gaps seen in stellar streams.

desk verdict The core claim—globular cluster flybys can create gaps in Palomar 5's stream—is credible and worth taking seriously, but the quantitative gap rates rest on unvalidated backward orbits and a constant-mass cluster model. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03941 v1 pith:NBD6TUSI submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.GA

Salvatore Ferrone , Marco Montuori , Paola Di Matteo , Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti , Rodrigo Ibata , Paolo Bianchini , Sergey Khoperskov , Nicolas Leclerc
show 5 more authors
Clement Hottier Eliot Stein David Valls-Gabaud Owain N. Snaith Misha Haywood
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA PACS 98.20.Gm95.35.+d
keywords stellarstreamsglobularclustersPalomar5tidaltailsdensitygapsdarkmattersubhalosN-bodysimulationsflybyencounters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that close passages of ordinary globular clusters produce under-dense gaps in thin stellar streams, a signature almost always attributed to dark matter subhalo encounters. Using Palomar 5, a halo cluster with long tidal tails, the authors simulate its stream in the gravitational field of the Milky Way plus all 164 other known globular clusters, and find that cluster flybys routinely create gaps: 73 gaps across 50 Monte Carlo realizations, about 1.5 per simulation, caused by 18 different clusters. The main culprit is one recent flyby of NGC 2808 about 200 million years ago, which alone accounts for 44 of the gaps. If correct, the result means star clusters must be included as a source of gaps before gap counts can be used to measure the dark matter subhalo population.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a particle-test (restricted three-body) simulation in which Palomar 5 is modeled as a Plummer sphere -- a spherical cluster model with an analytic density profile -- with its present-day mass and half-mass radius, orbiting an axisymmetric Galactic potential (Pouliasis et al. 2017, Model II) together with the other 164 globular clusters, each also a Plummer sphere with catalog mass and radius. Gaps are found by comparing each full simulation to a reference run that omits cluster-cluster interactions, working in a tail coordinate system aligned with the cluster orbit, and flagging stream regions that are under-dense by more than two standard deviations. The responsible perturbers are identified by locating peaks of the gravitational acceleration each cluster exerts along Palomar 5's orbit in the $(t,\tau)$ plane, where $\tau$ is the orbital-time coordinate along the stream.

What would settle it

A targeted search of Palomar 5's outer leading tail, beyond the currently observed length, for the thin gap that the NGC 2808 flyby should have imprinted about 200 Myr ago: if that gap is absent where the full-cluster simulation predicts it, the flyby mechanism as modeled would be contradicted. Similarly, a realistic N-body model of Palomar 5 that includes mass loss and reproduces the observed inner density profile could check whether the predicted inner-tail gap rate of about $0.015\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,kpc^{-2}}$ survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 50 Monte Carlo realizations of Palomar 5's tidal tails evolved for 5 Gyr with the full system of Galactic globular clusters included, the paper reports 73 gaps, an average of 1.5 per simulation, produced by 18 different perturber clusters. NGC 2808 alone generates 44 of these gaps through a single close passage roughly 200 Myr ago; NGC 7078 and NGC 104 each produce a wide (about 1 kpc) gap in the leading tail in the reference realization. The paper also derives a gap creation rate of about $0.015\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,kpc^{-2}}$, shows that no gaps form for impact parameters above about 300 pc, and finds an unexpected asymmetry: 65 of the 73 gaps lie in the leading tail.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Palomar 5 can be modeled for the full 5 Gyr as a Plummer sphere with its present-day mass and half-mass radius held constant, ignoring internal evolution and mass loss; the paper notes this produces a stream that is longer than observed and artificially thin within about 3 kpc of the cluster, suppressing gap formation there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gap creation rates attributed to dark matter subhalos must be corrected for the baryonic contribution; for Palomar 5 the paper's rate is about $0.015\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,kpc^{-2}}$, enough to matter.
  • The observed portion of Palomar 5's tails is not a clean probe of dark matter substructure, because the cluster system can produce gaps there too.
  • Streams on orbits similar to Palomar 5's (inner about 20 kpc, pericenter about 6 kpc) are the most affected; streams at larger radii would be cleaner.
  • Predicted gaps in the unobserved outer parts of Palomar 5's tails are concrete targets for future deep imaging or Gaia-based searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Palomar 5's mass and radius are allowed to evolve, the inner 3 kpc of the tails would be thicker and populated by recent mass loss, so gaps that are suppressed in the current model might appear closer to the cluster, changing the predicted gap count in the observed region.
  • The leading-tail asymmetry (65 of 73 gaps) hints that orbital geometry, not just encounter probability, selects which tail records an impact; comparing gap counts in leading versus trailing tails across a sample of streams could test this.
  • The same full-cluster simulation machinery could be applied to streams like GD-1 to map phase-space regions where baryonic flybys are negligible, which would sharpen dark matter subhalo constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates the tidal tails of Palomar 5 over 5 Gyr using a test-particle method, with the Galactic potential plus the full population of 165 globular clusters as Plummer perturbers, and compares the resulting stream density to reference simulations without cluster perturbers. It reports that cluster flybys create density gaps: 73 gaps across 50 Monte Carlo realizations, produced by 18 different clusters, with NGC 2808 responsible for 44 of them. Single-perturber reruns confirm that the identified clusters reproduce the corresponding gaps. The paper concludes that globular cluster flybys are a baryonic source of stream gaps that should be included when interpreting gaps as dark matter subhalo encounters.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper establishes a concrete baryonic channel for stream gaps in an inner-halo cluster, complementing earlier work on the bar and giant molecular clouds. Strengths include a full-versus-reference comparison that is not fitted to observed gap positions, a Monte Carlo treatment of catalog uncertainties, publicly available simulation code, and single-perturber attribution runs. The main limitations are the fixed present-day model of Palomar 5, which the authors themselves note affects the stream thickness and gap locations, and the absence of a reverse-integration validation for the full (mutually interacting) cluster orbits that seed the stream integration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, 'Numerical Stability'] The reverse-integrability check is described only for the reference simulations, yet the full simulations—the ones generating the 73-gap census and the NGC 2808 attribution in Sec. 3.2—use backward orbits of all 165 clusters integrated with mutual Plummer interactions (Eq. 1). Since the full system is chaotic and can include close encounters, the stored forward trajectories could drift from the true orbits, and the paper's impact-threshold argument in Sec. 3.3 uses roughly 300 pc as the maximum gap-forming impact parameter. Please add a quantitative closure test for the full-system backward orbits (e.g., re-integrate the stored trajectories forward and report the distribution of position errors compared to the initial conditions, and to the 300 pc scale), or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims that rest on these orbits.
  2. [Sections 2.1 and 3.4] The model keeps Palomar 5's mass and half-mass radius fixed at present-day values for the entire 5 Gyr, and the text states this makes the inner ~3 kpc of the tails artificially thin and suppresses gaps there. Because the comparison to observed gaps (Fig. 8) and the gap-creation-rate estimates in Sec. 3.3 are derived from this stream model, the numerical values (73 gaps, 1.5 gaps/simulation) are not robust against this modeling choice. Please quantify the effect of an evolving Palomar 5 model (or of a higher initial mass) on the gap census and gap locations, or clearly rephrase the central claim as qualitative.
  3. [Appendix A and Section 3.2] Gap detection uses the S/N threshold from Eq. A.1, but the text also states that the quantitative analysis 'serves as an aid to visual inspection rather than a complete substitute for it,' and that 1D marginalization erases oblique gaps such as those from NGC 2808. Since the central result is the census of 73 gaps, the paper should provide a sensitivity analysis of the gap list to the smoothing length, S/N threshold, and the treatment of oblique gaps, so that the reader can judge how many of the 73 gaps are robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The Introduction contains the sentence 'Here's an improved version with clearer phrasing and better flow:' followed by the paragraph; this looks like an editorial artifact and should be removed.
  2. [Appendix B] The clusters 'NGC 7808' and 'NGC C7078' appear; these should be 'NGC 2808' and 'NGC 7078'.
  3. [Table 1] The caption and the following sentence 'whereNp is the number of particles,Nts is the number of time-steps saved...' lack spaces after commas and after 'where'; please fix the formatting.
  4. [Appendix A] The phrase 'about one hundred measly megabytes' is informal and should be rephrased for a journal article.
  5. [Section 3.3] The definitions of W∥ and W⊥ are used before the formal definitions in Appendix C; consider introducing them explicitly in the main text to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the simulated gaps are forward-model outputs verified by single-perturber reruns, with only minor method self-citations.

  1. other [Sec. 2, 'Numerical Methodology']
    "Instead, we opt for solving the restricted-three body problem, or as known as the particle-test method as we did for Ferrone et al. (2023), which we describe here for completeness. As demonstrated by Mastrobuono-Battisti et al. (2012), although the restricted three-body problem neglects the internal evolution of the cluster, it still reproduces very similar stream properties."

    These are self-citations for the numerical method, not for the target result. The test-particle method is described in the paper and is a standard approach; the citation is not used to forbid alternatives or to define the gap statistic. The central claim (GC flybys produce gaps) is a forward-model output, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. Flagged only for completeness under the minor-self-citation category.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward simulation: (1) observed GC positions, masses, and radii from Baumgardt & Vasiliev (2021) are integrated backward; (2) Palomar 5 test particles are integrated forward with full cluster forces (Eqs. 1-2); (3) gaps are detected as >2-sigma underdensities relative to reference simulations without cluster perturbers (Appendix A); (4) candidate perturbers are identified from acceleration peaks in (t,tau) space and verified by single-perturber re-simulations (Fig. 2, Appendix B). No parameter is fitted to observed gap positions or rates. The '73 gaps, 1.5 per simulation, 44 from NGC 2808' statistics are emergent outputs, not inputs. The single-perturber confirmation removes the concern that gap attribution is just a restatement of the full-vs-reference comparison. The only self-citations (Ferrone et al. 2023 for the tstrippy code; Mastrobuono-Battisti et al. 2012 for the test-particle method) concern the numerical method, not the target claim, and the method is described in the paper. Stated limitations include reverse integrability being checked only for reference simulations (Sec. 'Numerical Stability') and Palomar 5 being modeled with constant present-day mass/radius, producing an artificially thin inner stream (Sec. 3.4). These are correctness/validation concerns, not circularity. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction; the central result is not true by definition.

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

The central claim is driven by the simulation choices, not fitted parameters. The main hand-chosen simplification is holding Palomar 5 and all perturbers at their present-day masses and radii for 5 Gyr, which affects where gaps form. The method relies on standard dynamical assumptions (static axisymmetric potential, test particles, Plummer potentials), all stated. It introduces no new entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Palomar 5 present-day mass and half-mass radius held constant for 5 Gyr = M = 1.34e4 Msun, half-mass radius from Baumgardt catalog
    Chosen by hand as the initial cluster model; the paper acknowledges this causes a strong initial mass loss and an artificially thin stream near the cluster, which suppresses gap formation within about 3 kpc of the center (Sec. 3.1, 3.4).
  • Constant masses and radii for all 165 perturbing clusters over 5 Gyr = Present-day catalog values (Baumgardt & Vasiliev 2021)
    Clusters are not evolved or stripped; the paper notes past masses were likely larger, which could increase gap numbers (Sec. 4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Milky Way can be represented by a static, axisymmetric potential (Pouliasis et al. 2017, Model II) over 5 Gyr
    Used in Eqs. 1 and 2; the paper cites Ishchenko et al. (2023a) to argue orbital changes are minimal over 5 Gyr, but this is not proven for all cluster encounters.
  • domain assumption Stream stars are test particles that do not feel self-gravity
    Used in Eq. 2; justified by Mastrobuono-Battisti et al. (2012) as reproducing observed stream properties.
  • ad hoc to paper Globular clusters are Plummer spheres with fixed mass and scale radius
    Used in Eq. 1 with softening b_j; this ignores mass loss, tidal stripping, and internal evolution, which the paper acknowledges in Secs. 2.1 and 4.
  • domain assumption The Baumgardt & Vasiliev (2021) catalog is complete and its phase-space coordinates at the present day are accurate enough to reconstruct 5 Gyr of orbits
    All 165 clusters are integrated backward in time; the paper notes an incomplete census in future work (Sec. 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaps in stellar streams as a result of globular cluster fly-bys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBD6TUSI

@misc{pith2026250203941,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaps in stellar streams as a result of globular cluster fly-bys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBD6TUSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03941}
}
read the original abstract

Thin stellar streams, such as those resulting from the tidal disruption of globular clusters, have long been known and used as probes of the gravitational potential of our Galaxy, both its visible and dark contents. In particular, the presence of under-density regions, or gaps, along these streams is commonly interpreted as being due to the close passage of dark matter sub-halos. In this work, we investigate the perturbations induced on streams by the passage of dense stellar systems, such as globular clusters themselves, to test the possibility that they may cause the formation of gaps as well. In particular, we focus on the study of the stream of Palomar 5, a well-known globular cluster in the Galactic halo, which has particularly long tidal tails. For this purpose, we used a particle-test code to simulate Palomar 5's tidal tails when subjected to the Galaxy's gravitational field plus its whole system of globular clusters. Our study shows that the tails of Palomar 5 can be strongly perturbed by the close passage of other clusters, in particular of NGC 2808, NGC 7078, NGC 104, and that these perturbations induce the formation of gaps in the tails. These results show that globular clusters are capable of inducing gaps in streams--as other baryonic components such as giant molecular clouds and the galactic bar have been shown to do in other works. Therefore, when searching to construct the distribution function of dark matter sub halos within the Milky Way, the gap contribution from globular clusters must be included.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03941 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated Palomar 5 stream created by modeling the host cluster as a Plummer sphere disrupting within an axis-symmetric Galactic potential plus the gravitational effect of 164 other galactic globular clusters. The top panel shows the distribution of star￾particles that escaped the cluster due to tidal forces. The bottom panel shows the 1D density profile marginalized over longitude. The gray fill shows a reference s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density maps of Palomar 5’s stream in the tail coordinate system. The color scale represents normalized particle counts (total: 100,000). The top panel shows the full simulation with three gaps on the stream’s right-hand side. The next three panels depict simulations with identical initial conditions but exclude the gravitational influence of all clusters except those forming a given gap. The Reference simulation om… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The simulation time at which the impacts occurred for all gap causing flybys summed over all 50 simulations. Each perturbing cluster is label and is color consistent. The time axis is given in simulation units, with 1 s kpc km −1 corresponding to roughly 1 Gyr. Note that the y-axis is broken to accommodate the large number of encounters from NGC2808, without overshadowing the other interactions. dicate that it is cl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of the number of gaps normalized over the total integration time and unit stream length, as described by Eq. 4 for the whole set of 50 full simulations. Here, δ represents the Dirac delta function. This expression can be simplified to: RPal 5 = 1 T X i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution and relationship between the impact variables from Eq. 6 for all close fly-bys considered. The encounters that cause gaps are labeled with the same colors as from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of imparted change in momentum (per unit mass) from a cluster flyby given by Eq. 6. The data set includes the top 5 strongest flybys from each simulation. Those that cause gaps are colored, stacked, and overlain atop of those that do–the distribution o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Characteristics of gap causing clusters. Top Left: Energy-angular momentum space of the globular clusters in the sim￾ulations, with 50 × 165 data points representing all sampled initial conditions. Clusters impacting Palomar 5 are shown with colored markers; large for …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In the maximum limit many gaps could appear, at a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of gaps as a function of absolute dis￾tance from the center of mass of Palomar 5’s globular cluster. The number of gaps within the observable range is evaluated on an individual track basis, with track lengths determined by the minimum and maximum x ′ …

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. Tracing Red Giant Members of the Globular Cluster Palomar 5 with APOGEE and Gaia

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    No new red giant members of the Palomar 5 cluster are found, consistent with the surveys' magnitude limits and known stream density variations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Amorisco , N. C. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.01148

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    C., G \'o mez , F

    Amorisco , N. C., G \'o mez , F. A., Vegetti , S., & White , S. D. M. 2016, , 463, L17

    2016

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    2013

  6. [6]

    & Bovy , J

    Banik , N. & Bovy , J. 2019, , 484, 2009

    2019

  7. [7]

    Banik , N., Bovy , J., Bertone , G., Erkal , D., & de Boer , T. J. L. 2021, , 2021, 043

    2021

  8. [8]

    & Hilker , M

    Baumgardt , H. & Hilker , M. 2018, , 478, 1520

    2018

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 482, 5138

    Baumgardt , H., Hilker , M., Sollima , A., & Bellini , A. 2019, , 482, 5138

    2019

  2. [10]

    2020, , 37, e046

    Baumgardt , H., Sollima , A., & Hilker , M. 2020, , 37, e046

    2020

  3. [11]

    & Vasiliev , E

    Baumgardt , H. & Vasiliev , E. 2021, , 505, 5957

    2021

  4. [12]

    W., Irwin , M

    Belokurov , V., Evans , N. W., Irwin , M. J., Hewett , P. C., & Wilkinson , M. I. 2006, , 637, L29

    2006

  5. [13]

    J., Ferguson , A

    Bernard , E. J., Ferguson , A. M. N., Schlafly , E. F., et al. 2014, , 443, L84

    2014

  6. [14]

    J., Ferguson , A

    Bernard , E. J., Ferguson , A. M. N., Schlafly , E. F., et al. 2016, , 463, 1759

    2016

  7. [15]

    & Tremaine , S

    Binney , J. & Tremaine , S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  8. [16]

    W., et al

    Bonaca , A., Conroy , C., Hogg , D. W., et al. 2020 a , , 892, L37

    2020

  9. [17]

    2012, , 760, L6

    Bonaca , A., Geha , M., & Kallivayalil , N. 2012, , 760, L6

    2012

  10. [18]

    & Hogg , D

    Bonaca , A. & Hogg , D. W. 2018, , 867, 101

    2018

  11. [19]

    W., Price-Whelan , A

    Bonaca , A., Hogg , D. W., Price-Whelan , A. M., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 880, 38

    2019

  12. [20]

    M., et al

    Bonaca , A., Pearson , S., Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2020 b , , 889, 70

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Price-Whelan , A

    Bonaca , A. & Price-Whelan , A. M. 2025, , 100, 101713

    2025

  14. [22]

    2015, , 216, 29

    Bovy , J. 2015, , 216, 29

    2015

  15. [23]

    K., & Kallivayalil , N

    Bovy , J., Bahmanyar , A., Fritz , T. K., & Kallivayalil , N. 2016, , 833, 31

    2016

  16. [24]

    Carlberg , R. G. 2012, , 748, 20

    2012

  17. [25]

    Carlberg , R. G. & Grillmair , C. J. 2013, , 768, 171

    2013

  18. [26]

    G., Grillmair , C

    Carlberg , R. G., Grillmair , C. J., & Hetherington , N. 2012, , 760, 75

    2012

  19. [27]

    A., et al

    Chen , B., Stoughton , C., Smith , J. A., et al. 2001, , 553, 184

    2001

  20. [28]

    Davidon, W. C. 1991, SIAM Journal on optimization, 1, 1

    1991

  21. [29]

    2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    de Boer , T., Gieles , M., & Erkal , D. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 235, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235, 336.07

    2020

  22. [30]

    de Boer , T. J. L., Belokurov , V., Koposov , S. E., et al. 2018, , 477, 1893

    2018

  23. [31]

    K., & Rix , H.-W

    Dehnen , W., Odenkirchen , M., Grebel , E. K., & Rix , H.-W. 2004, , 127, 2753

    2004

  24. [32]

    & Hattori , K

    Doke , Y. & Hattori , K. 2022, , 941, 129

    2022

  25. [33]

    & Belokurov , V

    Erkal , D. & Belokurov , V. 2015, , 450, 1136

    2015

  26. [34]

    E., & Belokurov , V

    Erkal , D., Koposov , S. E., & Belokurov , V. 2017, , 470, 60

    2017

  27. [35]

    2023, , 673, A44

    Ferrone , S., Di Matteo , P., Mastrobuono-Battisti , A., et al. 2023, , 673, A44

    2023

  28. [36]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  29. [37]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957

    Gieles , M., Erkal , D., Antonini , F., Balbinot , E., & Pe \ n arrubia , J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957

    2021

  30. [38]

    M., Hofmann , S., & Schwarz , D

    Green , A. M., Hofmann , S., & Schwarz , D. J. 2005, , 2005, 003

    2005

  31. [39]

    Grillmair , C. J. 2009, , 693, 1118

    2009

  32. [40]

    Grillmair , C. J. 2014, , 790, L10

    2014

  33. [41]

    Grillmair , C. J. 2017, , 847, 119

    2017

  34. [42]

    J., Cutri , R., Masci , F

    Grillmair , C. J., Cutri , R., Masci , F. J., et al. 2013, , 769, L23

    2013

  35. [43]

    Grillmair , C. J. & Dionatos , O. 2006 a , , 641, L37

    2006

  36. [44]

    Grillmair , C. J. & Dionatos , O. 2006 b , , 643, L17

    2006

  37. [45]

    J., Freeman , K

    Grillmair , C. J., Freeman , K. C., Irwin , M., & Quinn , P. J. 1995, , 109, 2553

    1995

  38. [46]

    J., Hetherington , L., Carlberg , R

    Grillmair , C. J., Hetherington , L., Carlberg , R. G., & Willman , B. 2015, , 812, L26

    2015

  39. [47]

    M., Webb , J

    Grondin , S. M., Webb , J. J., Lane , J. M. M., Speagle , J. S., & Leigh , N. W. C. 2024, , 528, 5189

    2024

  40. [48]

    Hattori , K., Erkal , D., & Sanders , J. L. 2016, , 460, 497

    2016

  41. [49]

    2004, , 351, 643

    Helmi , A. 2004, , 351, 643

    2004

  42. [50]

    & Koppelman , H

    Helmi , A. & Koppelman , H. H. 2016, , 828, L10

    2016

  43. [51]

    2021, , 507, 1999

    Hermans , J., Banik , N., Weniger , C., Bertone , G., & Louppe , G. 2021, , 507, 1999

    2021

  44. [52]

    E., et al

    Hilmi , T., Erkal , D., Koposov , S. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02953

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2021, , 914, 123

    Ibata , R., Malhan , K., Martin , N., et al. 2021, , 914, 123

    2021

  46. [54]

    2024, , 967, 89

    Ibata , R., Malhan , K., Tenachi , W., et al. 2024, , 967, 89

    2024

  47. [55]

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

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

    1994

  48. [56]

    A., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., Irwin , M. J., & Quinn , T. 2002, , 332, 915

    2002

  49. [57]

    A., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., & Martin , N. F. 2016, , 819, 1

    2016

  50. [58]

    A., Lewis , G

    Ibata , R. A., Lewis , G. F., Thomas , G., Martin , N. F., & Chapman , S. 2017, , 842, 120

    2017

  51. [59]

    A., Malhan , K., & Martin , N

    Ibata , R. A., Malhan , K., & Martin , N. F. 2019, , 872, 152

    2019

  52. [60]

    A., Malhan , K., Martin , N

    Ibata , R. A., Malhan , K., Martin , N. F., & Starkenburg , E. 2018, , 865, 85

    2018

  53. [61]

    2023 a , , 673, A152

    Ishchenko , M., Sobolenko , M., Berczik , P., et al. 2023 a , , 673, A152

    2023

  54. [62]

    2023 b , , 678, A69

    Ishchenko , M., Sobolenko , M., Berczik , P., et al. 2023 b , , 678, A69

    2023

  55. [63]

    P., Li , T

    Ji , A. P., Li , T. S., Hansen , T. T., et al. 2020, , 160, 181

    2020

  56. [64]

    V., Law , D

    Johnston , K. V., Law , D. R., & Majewski , S. R. 2005, , 619, 800

    2005

  57. [65]

    Keenan , D. W. & Innanen , K. A. 1975, , 80, 290

    1975

  58. [66]

    E., Irwin , M., Belokurov , V., et al

    Koposov , S. E., Irwin , M., Belokurov , V., et al. 2014, , 442, L85

    2014

  59. [67]

    B., Da Costa , G

    Kuzma , P. B., Da Costa , G. S., Keller , S. C., & Maunder , E. 2015, , 446, 3297

    2015

  60. [68]

    R., Johnston , K

    Law , D. R., Johnston , K. V., & Majewski , S. R. 2005, , 619, 807

    2005

  61. [69]

    Law , D. R. & Majewski , S. R. 2010, , 718, 1128

    2010

  62. [70]

    H., Lee , H

    Lee , K. H., Lee , H. M., Fahlman , G. G., & Lee , M. G. 2003, , 126, 815

    2003

  63. [71]

    & Scholz , R

    Lehmann , I. & Scholz , R. D. 1997, , 320, 776

    1997

  64. [72]

    2000, , 359, 907

    Leon , S., Meylan , G., & Combes , F. 2000, , 359, 907

    2000

  65. [73]

    S., Ji , A

    Li , T. S., Ji , A. P., Pace , A. B., et al. 2022, , 928, 30

    2022

  66. [74]

    S., Koposov , S

    Li , T. S., Koposov , S. E., Erkal , D., et al. 2021, , 911, 149

    2021

  67. [75]

    S., Koposov , S

    Li , T. S., Koposov , S. E., Zucker , D. B., et al. 2019, , 490, 3508

    2019

  68. [76]

    & Ibata , R

    Malhan , K. & Ibata , R. A. 2018, , 477, 4063

    2018

  69. [77]

    & Ibata , R

    Malhan , K. & Ibata , R. A. 2019, , 486, 2995

    2019

  70. [78]

    A., & Martin , N

    Malhan , K., Ibata , R. A., & Martin , N. F. 2018, , 481, 3442

    2018

  71. [79]

    2012, , 546, L7

    Mastrobuono-Battisti , A., Di Matteo , P., Montuori , M., & Haywood , M. 2012, , 546, L7

    2012

  72. [80]

    2023, , 520, 5225

    Mateu , C. 2023, , 520, 5225

    2023

  73. [81]

    McMillan , P. J. 2017, , 465, 76

    2017

  74. [82]

    A., Palomares-Ruiz , S., & Prada , F

    Molin \'e , \'A ., S \'a nchez-Conde , M. A., Palomares-Ruiz , S., & Prada , F. 2017, , 466, 4974

    2017

  75. [83]

    2007, , 659, 1212

    Montuori , M., Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R., Di Matteo , P., Lepinette , A., & Miocchi , P. 2007, , 659, 1212

    2007

  76. [84]

    N., et al

    Nibauer , J., Bonaca , A., Spergel , D. N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21174

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    K., Dehnen , W., et al

    Odenkirchen , M., Grebel , E. K., Dehnen , W., et al. 2002, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 200, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#200, 10.01

    2002

  78. [86]

    K., Dehnen , W., et al

    Odenkirchen , M., Grebel , E. K., Dehnen , W., et al. 2003, , 126, 2385

    2003

  79. [87]

    K., Rockosi , C

    Odenkirchen , M., Grebel , E. K., Rockosi , C. M., et al. 2001, , 548, L165

    2001

  80. [88]

    Pearson , S., Bonaca , A., Chen , Y., & Gnedin , O. Y. 2024, , 976, 54

    2024

  81. [89]

    M., & Johnston , K

    Pearson , S., Price-Whelan , A. M., & Johnston , K. V. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 633

    2017

  82. [90]

    2018, , 473, 4077

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077

    2018

  83. [91]

    2017, , 598, A66

    Pouliasis , E., Di Matteo , P., & Haywood , M. 2017, , 598, A66

    2017

  84. [92]

    M., Mateu , C., Iorio , G., et al

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Mateu , C., Iorio , G., et al. 2019, , 158, 223

    2019

  85. [93]

    M., Sesar , B., Johnston , K

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sesar , B., Johnston , K. V., & Rix , H.-W. 2016, , 824, 104

    2016

  86. [94]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 130

    2014

  87. [95]

    L., Bovy , J., & Erkal , D

    Sanders , J. L., Bovy , J., & Erkal , D. 2016, , 457, 3817

    2016

  88. [96]

    2012, , 427, 274

    Sch \"o nrich , R. 2012, , 427, 274

    2012

  89. [97]

    Siegel , M. H. 2001, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 199, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 109.06

    2001

  90. [98]

    2020, , 495, 2222

    Sollima , A. 2020, , 495, 2222

    2020

  91. [99]

    R., et al

    Sollima , A., Mart \' nez Delgado , D., Mu \ n oz , R. R., et al. 2018, , 476, 4814

    2018

  92. [100]

    2011, , 726, 47

    Sollima , A., Mart \' nez-Delgado , D., Valls-Gabaud , D., & Pe \ n arrubia , J. 2011, , 726, 47

    2011

  93. [101]

    2008, , 391, 1685

    Springel , V., Wang , J., Vogelsberger , M., et al. 2008, , 391, 1685

    2008

  94. [102]

    R., Andreon , S., et al

    Testa , V., Zaggia , S. R., Andreon , S., et al. 2000, , 356, 127

    2000

  95. [103]

    F., Ibata , R., Famaey , B., Martin , N

    Thomas , G. F., Ibata , R., Famaey , B., Martin , N. F., & Lewis , G. F. 2016, , 460, 2711

    2016

  96. [104]

    A., Ji , A

    Usman , S. A., Ji , A. P., Li , T. S., et al. 2024, , 529, 2413

    2024

  97. [105]

    Varghese , A., Ibata , R., & Lewis , G. F. 2011, , 417, 198

    2011

  98. [106]

    & Baumgardt , H

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

    2021

  99. [107]

    J., McKean , J

    Vegetti , S., Lagattuta , D. J., McKean , J. P., et al. 2012, , 481, 341

    2012

  100. [108]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  101. [109]

    2016, , 458, 1450

    Wang , L., Spurzem , R., Aarseth , S., et al. 2016, , 458, 1450

    2016

Pith tools

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