Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 55 references

The Pristine survey: XXVII. The extremely metal-poor stream C-19 stretches over more than 100 degrees

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read C-19, the most metal-poor stellar stream known, spans more than 100 degrees on the sky and is dynamically hotter than its low mass would suggest.

desk verdict C-19's >100-degree extent is solid and worth citing, but the 10.9 km/s dispersion is orbit-model dependent and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09710 v4 pith:TEVVNKSJ submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.GA

Zhen Yuan , Tadafumi Matsuno , Tatyana Sitnova , Nicolas F. Martin , Rodrigo A. Ibata , Anke Ardern-Arentsen , Raymond Carlberg , Jonay I. Gonzalez Hernandez
show 9 more authors
Erika Holmbeck Georges Kordopatis Fangzhou Jiang Khyati Malhan Julio Navarro Federico Sestito Kim A. Venn Akshara Viswanathan Sara Vitali
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords C-19streamextremelymetal-poorstarsstellarstreamsMilkyWayhaloglobularclusterprogenitorsvelocitydispersionPristinesurveyGaiaDR3
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

Combining two complementary stream-search methods on Pristine and Gaia data, this paper confirms new members of the extremely metal-poor stream C-19 and shows that the stream stretches more than 100 degrees across the sky. The updated member list doubles the number of bright members and raises the stream's lower-limit mass to a few times $10^4\,M_\odot$. The paper also finds that the stream is dynamically hot, with a line-of-sight velocity dispersion of $\sigma_v = 10.9^{+2.1}_{-1.5}$ km s$^{-1}$ and a width near 200 pc, hotter and more diffuse than earlier estimates. These results make C-19 the longest known extremely metal-poor stream, and its combination of low mass, high dispersion, and globular-cluster-like chemistry points to an external heating mechanism such as preheating in a dark-matter halo or tidal heating by subhalos.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two search stages. First, a self-organizing map (StarGO) trained on a low-significance STREAMFINDER catalog groups halo stars in the space $(E, L_z, \theta, \phi)$ of energy, angular momentum, and angular-momentum direction, letting the authors pick stars nearest the known C-19 members in that dynamical space. Second, after Gaia DR3, a star-by-star search through Pristine-Gaia synthetic photometric metallicities with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -2.8$ selects stars within 30 km s$^{-1}$ of the C-19 orbit in both tangential and radial velocity. Membership is then locked in by high-resolution spectroscopy: velocities matching the orbit and metallicities within about 0.2 dex of the stream mean. Dynamical quantities are measured as the mean and dispersion of the offsets of members from the model orbit in stream coordinates, using a published likelihood formalism.

What would settle it

Measure the same C-19 members' radial velocities at several epochs separated by months to years: if many show binary-induced variations, part of the $10.9$ km s$^{-1}$ dispersion is orbital rather than intrinsic. Alternatively, recompute the orbit in a Milky Way potential that includes the Large Magellanic Cloud and a live halo; if the mismatch shrinks and the dispersion drops toward $\sim 5$ km s$^{-1}$, the hot-stream conclusion is an artifact of the assumed potential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that C-19, the most iron-poor stellar stream known, is not a compact remnant but a structure spanning more than 100 degrees. Spectroscopic follow-up of candidates selected by a self-organizing-map search of STREAMFINDER data and by star-by-star matching of Pristine-Gaia photometric metallicities to the C-19 orbit confirms new members with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ near $-3.2$, bringing the confirmed sample to 23 stars with radial velocities. From these stars the paper derives a line-of-sight velocity dispersion of $10.9^{+2.1}_{-1.5}$ km s$^{-1}$, a Gaussian width of about 200 pc, and a lower-limit mass of $3.7$-$5.5\times10^4\,M_\odot$ ($5$-$8\times10^4\,M_\odot$ with a top-heavy IMF). This makes C-19 both longer and dynamically hotter than any previous measurement, sharpening the puzzle of how a low-mass, globular-cluster-like progenitor produced such a hot, wide stream.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical reading rests on the C-19 orbit computed in an isolated, axisymmetric Milky Way potential being accurate enough to pick members and to act as the zero-point for the velocity dispersion; if the true potential differs, the measured scatter is inflated by orbit mismatch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • C-19 becomes the longest known extremely metal-poor stream, with confirmed members spanning more than 100 degrees.
  • The number of bright ($G<16$) members doubles to 14, and the stream's lower-limit mass rises to about $3.7$-$5.5\times10^4\,M_\odot$, or $5$-$8\times10^4\,M_\odot$ with a top-heavy IMF.
  • The velocity dispersion of $10.9^{+2.1}_{-1.5}$ km s$^{-1}$ and the width of about 200 pc are far above what a low-mass globular-cluster stream should have, so some heating mechanism is needed.
  • The gap between the southern segment and the main body is likely a selection effect, and Gaia DR4 with deeper Pristine data should reveal whether C-19 continues behind the Milky Way disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hot dispersion is intrinsic, C-19 may be a direct witness to the first generation of star clusters forming inside small dark-matter halos, making it a probe of early structure formation rather than only a stellar stream.
  • The binary-star contribution is unquantified, so multi-epoch radial velocities could lower the intrinsic dispersion substantially; the hot-stream conclusion should be treated as provisional until binaries are ruled out.
  • The same all-sky search technique could be applied to other low-metallicity streams, and C-19's 100-degree extent suggests comparable extremely metal-poor streams may have been missed because they are diffuse and hot.
  • The 30 km s$^{-1}$ membership windows and reliance on a single model potential mean the quoted dispersion is best read as an upper limit; the paper's own polynomial-orbit test already lowers it to $8.5$ km s$^{-1}$.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a whole-sky search for new bright members of the extremely metal-poor stellar stream C-19. The authors combine STREAMFINDER and StarGO on the STREAMFINDER catalog and use photometric metallicities from the Pristine survey and from the Pristine-Gaia synthetic catalog based on Gaia BP/RP spectra to produce candidate lists. Sixteen candidates were followed up with Magellan/MIKE, INT/IDS, Subaru/HDS, and VLT/UVES; the paper confirms 12–13 new members (three further stars are flagged as ‘probable members’) on the basis of radial velocities consistent with the C-19 orbit of Ibata et al. (2023) and spectroscopic metallicities around [Fe/H] ≈ −3.2. With the updated sample, the stream is claimed to extend over more than 100 degrees on the sky. Recomputing the stream dynamics with the Martin et al. (2018) likelihood, the paper obtains a velocity dispersion σv = 10.9+2.1−1.5 km/s (8.5 km/s with a polynomial orbit; 8.7–8.9 km/s if the northern outlier is excluded), a stream width of ~200 pc, and a mass of 3.7–5.5×10^4 M_sun (5–8×10^4 with a top-heavy IMF). The authors conclude that C-19 is both wider and dynamically hotter than previously thought, that the tension with a purely baryonic globular-cluster progenitor persists, and that some heating mechanism (dark matter subhalo preprocessing, tidal heating, black holes, or a top-heavy IMF) is required; the binary contribution is acknowledged as unquantified.

Significance. If the claims hold, C-19 becomes the longest known extremely metal-poor stream, roughly doubling the number of known bright members of the most metal-poor stream and providing one of the most complete bright-member censuses of an ancient stream. The confirmation rests on independent high-resolution spectroscopic velocities and metallicities for stars spread over the sky, which is a genuine strength, and the paper usefully combines two independent stream-search algorithms. The dynamical result, even at the lower end of its range, places C-19 among the dynamically hottest known streams, with direct consequences for debates on globular cluster formation in the early Universe, dark matter substructure heating, and the detectability of EMP streams in future surveys. The paper is also commendable for reporting its robustness tests (polynomial orbit, removal of the northern outlier) and for releasing the member list publicly via Zenodo. The main reservations concern the model dependence of the quoted dispersion and the absence of a quantitative contamination and completeness budget for the member selection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 5, Abstract] The headline result, σv = 10.9+2.1−1.5 km/s, is measured as the scatter of the members about the Ibata et al. (2023) orbit, and the same orbit was used in Sec. 2.2 to select candidates within ±30 km/s of its predicted velocities. The paper's own robustness tests show that replacing the orbit with a polynomial fitted to the confirmed members lowers σv to 8.5+1.5−1.2 km/s, while excluding the northern (disk-crossing) member gives 8.9+1.6−1.3 and 8.7+1.6−1.2 km/s for the two track models. These shifts are comparable to the quoted statistical uncertainties and bear directly on both the ‘dynamically hot’ claim and the comparison with Carlberg et al. (2024), whose simulated heated streams reach ~6 km/s; at σv ≈ 8.5 km/s the tension is substantially weaker. Because the Ibata et al. (2023) orbit was computed for an isolated axisymmetric potential, a systematic error in v_r,orbit(φ1) over the 100° span (e.g., from the LMC or the bar) would inflate the orbit-based value. I request that the track-model spread be quoted as a systematic uncertainty in the abstract and conclusions, that the dynamical-tension argument be explicitly re-evaluated at the lower value, and that the reliability of the orbit extrapolation across the disk be discussed, given that the northern member at δ = +75°, which anchors the 100° extent, lies in the most uncertain part of the track.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 3] The membership evidence for the new stars is strong and not merely circular: the high-resolution velocities and metallicities are measured independently, and the new members cluster around [Fe/H] ≈ −3.2 as well as on the predicted orbit. However, the selection in Sec. 2.2 was kinematic (stars within 30 km/s of the orbit prediction and photometric [Fe/H] < −2.8), and the paper does not quantify the expected number of field EMP stars that could satisfy these criteria by chance. The Sec. 4 completeness claim that there is ‘no reason to expect significant parts of the streams to have been missed’ is also asserted without a calculation, and the southern gap between the two stream segments coincides with the boundary of the Pristine footprint. Because the >100° extent is the paper's headline claim, I ask for an explicit false-positive estimate based on a halo field model and for an explicit statement of search completeness along the orbit (STREAMFINDER 8σ threshold, Pristine-Gaia limits, and footprint effects), including the effect of photometric metallicity errors on the candidate list.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 5] The σv measurement is said to use ‘the full sample of 23 confirmed members with precise radial velocities’ (10 from Yuan et al. (2022b) plus 13 from this work), yet the Fig. 5 caption refers to ‘the 22 confirmed C-19 member stars,’ and the 12 faint subgiant members with precise X-Shooter radial velocities from Bonifacio et al. (2024), which appear in Fig. 4, are not included in the 23. Please reconcile the counts, justify the exclusion of the Bonifacio et al. stars (or include them in the likelihood), and demonstrate that the headline dispersion is stable under this sample choice.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 3, Sec. 5] The number of new members is given as ‘twelve’ in the Abstract and Conclusions but as ‘13 new members’ in Sec. 3; Tables 1 and 2 list 16 observed stars with 13 marked as confirmed members. Please reconcile the count, clarifying whether the previously known SEGUE star (2758373652717936640) is included in the tally.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The sentence ‘this choice does impact our inference on the velocity dispersion or the membership’ presumably should read ‘does not impact,’ since a 2 km/s floor is small compared with the measured dispersion; as printed the sentence contradicts the argument that follows.
  3. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence describing the INT/IDS setup ends with ‘( ?)’ where a citation should appear; please insert the appropriate reference for the resolving power of the R1200R grating setup.
  4. [References] The reference entry for Andrae et al. (2023) is truncated after ‘Dharmawardena.’ with the remainder of the author list missing; the full author list should be restored.
  5. [Sec. 4] The claimed >100° extent is never quantified in the stream coordinate φ1; please report the φ1 range of the confirmed members so the extent can be verified independently of the declination-based description.
  6. [Sec. 3] The exclusion of the three probable members from the dynamical analysis rests on a 0.2-dex metallicity envelope, even though the stream's intrinsic metallicity dispersion is unresolved and star 2640793013114783872 has [Fe/H]CaT = −3.02, within ~1σ of the stream mean; a one-line sensitivity test that includes the probable members in the σv estimate would make the exclusion fully transparent.
  7. [Sec. 4] The assertion that there is ‘no reason to expect significant parts of the streams to have been missed’ should be softened or supported by a completeness calculation, given the southern footprint gap and the use of the 8σ STREAMFINDER threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new C-19 members and dynamical quantities are anchored in fresh spectroscopy, with the prior orbit serving as a testable reference frame rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that C-19 extends over more than 100 degrees, has a velocity dispersion of about 10.9 km/s, a width of about 200 pc, and a mass of a few times 10^4 solar masses—are observational inferences, not outputs of a model fitted to those same claims. Candidate selection does use the authors' earlier tools and the Ibata et al. (2023) orbit (Secs. 2.1–2.2), but membership confirmation is based on new spectroscopy: measured radial velocities (Table 1) and metallicities (Table 2) that must agree with the stream's known extremely metal-poor abundance within quoted uncertainties. The selection windows (e.g., 30 km/s in radial velocity) are much wider than the measured dispersion, so the scatter is not forced by construction. The velocity dispersion is computed as the scatter of 22 confirmed members around an externally derived orbit (Sec. 4, Fig. 5), and the paper explicitly tests the orbit dependence by replacing the orbit with a polynomial fit (sigma_v = 8.5 km/s), showing the result is robust rather than tautological. The main limitations—potential model dependence of the adopted orbit and the unknown binary contribution—are acknowledged by the authors and affect interpretation, not circularity. Self-citations to STREAMFINDER, StarGO, Pristine, and prior C-19 papers supply inputs and context, but they are not invoked as proof of the new claims; the new spectroscopic data carry the evidentiary load. No equation-level reduction of a prediction to an input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on orbit and photometric catalog products developed largely by the same collaboration, plus hand-chosen selection thresholds. Membership confirmation itself is independent spectroscopy. No new physical entities are introduced. The mass and dispersion estimates inherit model assumptions (IMF, M/L, potential) from the literature.

free parameters (5)
  • STREAMFINDER probability threshold = 8 sigma (vs 10 sigma previously)
    Sec. 2.1 lowers the STREAMFINDER threshold to include lower-significance stream candidates; this changes the candidate pool.
  • Delta_C19 selection percentile = 1%
    Sec. 2.1 keeps the 1% of STREAMFINDER stars closest to the known C-19 members on the trained SOM; the paper notes testing a more inclusive threshold did not improve candidates.
  • Velocity matching tolerance = 30 km/s in tangential and radial velocity
    Sec. 2.2 selects stars within 30 km/s of the predicted orbit velocity; a hand-chosen window.
  • Photometric metallicity thresholds = [Fe/H] < -2.8 and exclusion of [Fe/H] > -2.0 in one stage
    Secs. 2.1 and 2.2 use these cuts on Pristine, Pristine-Gaia, and SkyMapper catalogs to define the candidate sample.
  • Photometric error floor = 0.05 mag
    Sec. 3 adds 0.05 mag in quadrature to photometric uncertainties in the isochrone fit to account for model offsets; an ad hoc choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The C-19 orbit from Ibata et al. (2023), derived for an isolated axisymmetric Milky Way potential, is accurate enough for candidate selection and for measuring velocity residuals.
    Used throughout Secs. 2 and 4. The dispersion changes from 10.9 to 8.5 km/s if a polynomial orbit is used instead.
  • domain assumption The Pristine-Gaia synthetic Ca H&K metallicities and the Pristine photometric metallicities are reliable enough to select genuine [Fe/H] < -2.8 stars along the orbit.
    Sec. 2.2 selects candidates using these catalogs; errors would change completeness and membership.
  • domain assumption The metallicity calibrations (Fe-line/MARCS/MOOG and Carrera et al. 2013 CaT) remain valid at [Fe/H] around -3.2 for the relevant stellar parameters.
    Sec. 3 uses these to confirm membership; the two methods agree to about 0.2 dex for high S/N stars, but low S/N cases are less certain.
  • domain assumption The BASTI-IAC isochrones, Chabrier/Kroupa IMF, and assumed M/L = 2 to 3 describe the C-19 stellar population well enough for the mass estimate.
    Secs. 3 and 4 use these models to convert photometry to stellar parameters and to correct for unobserved faint stars; a different IMF or M/L changes the mass by factors.
  • domain assumption The stars accepted as confirmed members are not significantly contaminated by unrelated field halo stars with similar kinematics and metallicity.
    Membership rests on velocity agreement with the orbit and [Fe/H] near -3.2; the three 'probable' stars show that borderline cases exist.
  • ad hoc to paper The three probable members with [Fe/H] above the stream's 0.2 dex systematic envelope are treated as non-confirmed and excluded from the main dynamical analysis.
    Sec. 3 excludes 2871048855556252160, 2658115921889849472, and 2640793013114783872 from the MDF and dispersion analysis despite similar kinematics; if they are real members, the stream has a more metal-rich population and the measured dispersion changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2 km/s systematic floor applied to all Magellan/MIKE radial velocities is a reasonable estimate of the instrument's calibration limit.
    Sec. 2.1 states velocities cannot be calibrated better than about 2 km/s; the floor inflates the uncertainty but not the central value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Pristine survey: XXVII. The extremely metal-poor stream C-19 stretches over more than 100 degrees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEVVNKSJ

@misc{pith2026250209710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Pristine survey: XXVII. The extremely metal-poor stream C-19 stretches over more than 100 degrees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEVVNKSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09710}
}
abstract

The discovery of the most metal-poor stream, C-19, provides us with a fossil record of a stellar structure born very soon after the Big Bang. In this work, we search for new C-19 members over the whole sky by combining two complementary stream-searching algorithms, STREAMFINDER and StarGO,, and utilizing low-metallicity star samples from the Pristine survey as well as Gaia BP/RP spectro-photometric catalogues. We confirm twelve new members, spread over more than 100$^\circ$, using velocity and metallicity information from a set of spectroscopic follow-up programs that targeted a quasi-complete sample of our bright candidates ($G \lesssim 16.0$). From the updated set of stream members, we confirm that the stream is wide, with a stream width of $\sim200$ pc, and dynamically hot, with a derived velocity dispersion of $10.9^{+2.1}_{-1.5}$ km/s. The tension remains between these quantities and a purely baryonic scenario in which the relatively low-mass stream (even updated to a few $10^4M_{\odot}$) stems from a globular cluster progenitor, as suggested by its chemical abundances. Some heating mechanism, such as preheating of the cluster in its own dark matter halo or through interactions with halo sub-structures appears necessary to explain the tension. The impact of binaries on the measured dispersion also remains unknown. Detailed elemental abundances of more stream members as well as multi-epoch radial velocities from spectroscopic observations are therefore crucial to fully understand the nature and past history of the most metal-poor stream of the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09710 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Self-organizing map trained by the STREAMFINDER catalog in the space of (E, Lz , θ, ϕ). The gray color bar represents the differences in the weight vectors between neighboring neurons. Previously confirmed C-19 members are projected onto the SOM and plotted as red crosses. (b) Histogram of the logarithmic distances in the weight vector space between the existing C-19 stars and stars from the STREAMFINDER catalog… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) On-sky projection of the updated sample of C-19 stream members. Previously identified members are represented by magenta daggers (Yuan et al. 2022b) and purple crosses (Bonifacio et al. 2024). The solid black line corresponds to the C-19 orbit derived by Ibata et al. (2023), and the small gray dots represent the simulated stream from Errani et al. (2022). Candidates identified from the fusion of StarGO and STREA… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Metallicities of the C-19 members. (a) Comparison of the metal￾licities derived from the two methods for the same spectra of the nine stars that have high S/N HR spectra. The symbols are color coded by S/N1 (Tab. 1). (b) Comparison of the metallicities derived from the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distribution functions (PDFs) of the mean offsets of the 22 confirmed C-19 member stars from the orbit in velocity (∆v) and position (∆ϕ2), along with the corresponding dispersions, σv and σϕ2 . The bottom left-hand panels shows the two-dimensional PDF, tak…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Gómez, F

    Amorisco, N. C., Gómez, F. A., Vegetti, S., & White, S. D. M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L17

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Sordo, R., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., & Dharmawardena. 2023, A&A, 674, A27

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    C., Lee, Y

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y . S., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 13

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    E., & Thielemann, F

    Argast, D., Samland, M., Gerhard, O. E., & Thielemann, F. K. 2000, A&A, 356, 873 Article number, page 8 of 9 Yuan et al.: The C-19 stream over 100◦

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    & Lardo, C

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

    2018

  6. [6]

    A., Gunnels, S

    Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Con- ference Series, V ol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Opti- cal/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1694–1704

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075

    2019

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofré, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111

    2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.20776

    Bonifacio, P., Ca ffau, E., François, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.20776

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  3. [11]

    M., Alatalo, K., et al

    Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., et al. 2012, Nature, 484, 485

    2012

  4. [12]

    Carlberg, R. G. 2020, ApJ, 889, 107

    2020

  5. [13]

    Carlberg, R. G. & Agler, H. 2023, ApJ, 953, 99

    2023

  6. [14]

    G., Ibata, R., Martin, N

    Carlberg, R. G., Ibata, R., Martin, N. F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22966

    2024

  7. [15]

    M., Weiler, M., Jordi, C., et al

    Carrasco, J. M., Weiler, M., Jordi, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A86

    2021

  8. [16]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1681

    Carrera, R., Pancino, E., Gallart, C., & del Pino, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1681

    2013

  9. [17]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  10. [18]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., & Beichman. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  11. [19]

    2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, V ol

    Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., Kaufer, A., Delabre, B., & Kotzlowski, H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, V ol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 534–545

    2000

  12. [20]

    F., Ibata, R., et al

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Ibata, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3532

    2022

  13. [21]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 496

    Fu, X., Bressan, A., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 496

    2018

  14. [22]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957

    Gieles, M., Erkal, D., Antonini, F., Balbinot, E., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957

    2021

  15. [23]

    2004, ARA&A, 42, 385

    Gratton, R., Sneden, C., & Carretta, E. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 385

    2004

  16. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 136

    Guo, Z., Zhang, Z.-Y ., Yan, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 136

    2024

  17. [25]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    2008

  18. [26]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125

    2018

  19. [27]

    C., Wolf, C., et al

    Huang, Y ., Beers, T. C., Wolf, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 164

    2022

  20. [28]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 123

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

    2021

  21. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17202

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17202

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 161

    Ibata, R., Thomas, G., Famaey, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 161

    2020

  23. [31]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kelson, D. D. 2003, PASP, 115, 688

    2003

  25. [33]

    E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D

    Koposov, S. E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2010, ApJ, 712, 260

    2010

  26. [34]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  27. [35]

    2002, Science, 295, 82

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    2002

  28. [36]

    A., Carlberg, R

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Carlberg, R. G., Valluri, M., & Freese, K. 2019, ApJ, 881, 106

    2019

  29. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 179

    Malhan, K., Valluri, M., & Freese, K. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 179

    2021

  30. [38]

    2005, MNRAS, 362, 799

    Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799

    2005

  31. [39]

    Marks, M., Kroupa, P., Dabringhausen, J., & Pawlowski, M. S. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2246

    2012

  32. [40]

    F., Collins, M

    Martin, N. F., Collins, M. L. M., Longeard, N., & Tollerud, E. 2018, ApJ, 859, L5

    2018

  33. [41]

    F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al

    Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A115

    2024

  34. [42]

    2023, A&A, 674, A3

    Montegriffo, P., De Angeli, F., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A3

    2023

  35. [43]

    2002, PASJ, 54, 855

    Noguchi, K., Aoki, W., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 855

    2002

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 102

    Pietrinferni, A., Hidalgo, S., Cassisi, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 102

    2021

  37. [45]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Sana, H., Evans, C. J., et al. 2018, Science, 359, 69

    2018

  38. [46]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., & Weinberg, M. D. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  39. [47]

    1973, ApJ, 184, 839

    Sneden, C. 1973, ApJ, 184, 839

    1973

  40. [48]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2587

    Starkenburg, E., Martin, N., & Youakim, K. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2587

    2017

  41. [49]

    F., Li, T

    Wan, Z., Lewis, G. F., Li, T. S., et al. 2020, Nature, 583, 768

    2020

  42. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2413

    Wang, L. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2413

    2020

  43. [51]

    S., & Tanikawa, A

    Wang, L., Fujii, M. S., & Tanikawa, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5778

    2021

  44. [52]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7495

    Wang, L., Gieles, M., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7495

    2024

  45. [53]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 26

    Yuan, Z., Chang, J., Banerjee, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 26

    2018

  46. [54]

    A., Castellano, M., Akins, H

    Zavala, J. A., Castellano, M., Akins, H. B., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2403.10491]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J., Papadopoulos, P

    Zhang, Z.-Y ., Romano, D., Ivison, R. J., Papadopoulos, P. P., & Matteucci, F. 2018, Nature, 558, 260 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.