Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Cracking the relation between mass and 1P-star fraction of globular clusters: III. Initial distributions of in-situ and ex-situ clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Globular cluster birth relation is a power law, not a fixed threshold

desk verdict Careful backward reconstruction of GC initial masses, but the headline 'Disk is tightest' is not established because the mass model ignores dynamical friction, a caveat the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08626 v1 pith:Y65Y6VEX submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.GA

Geneviève Parmentier This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords globularstarclusterschemicalenrichmentstellardynamicspopulationsPopulationIIstarsabundancesMilkyWayGalaxyMagellanicClouds
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

Galactic globular clusters host two stellar populations: pristine (1P) and polluted (2P) stars, with the pristine-star fraction $F_{1P}$ declining toward higher cluster mass. This paper asks what that relation was before 12 Gyr of dynamical evolution scattered it, by reconstructing each cluster's mass at the onset of secular evolution from its present-day mass and orbit. The reconstruction shows that the initial relation is a power law, $F_{1P} = (m_{\rm th,init}/m_{\rm init})^{\psi}$, generalizing the single fixed mass threshold assumed previously. When clusters are split by origin, the Galactic disk group shows the tightest initial relation, while accreted groups (e.g., Gaia-Enceladus and the low-energy group) are more dispersed. The paper concludes that the simple fixed-threshold picture is insufficient and that the scatter in the initial plane encodes the star-formation efficiency of the parent clumps.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the backward mass reconstruction built on the N-body dissolution time-scale equations, combined with a single reduction factor $f_{\rm red}$ that scales the dissolution time-scale. Equation (1) relates present-day mass $m_{\rm prst}$ to initial mass $m_{\rm init}$ through the dissolution time-scale, and is solved iteratively for each cluster. The relation is then represented in log-log space, where the power-law $F_{1P} = (m_{\rm th,init}/m_{\rm init})^{\psi}$ becomes a straight line of slope $-\psi$; least-squares fits to the Disk, Low-Energy, and Gaia-Enceladus groups yield the slope and threshold, and their scatter $\Delta\log_{10}(m_{\rm init})$ quantifies the dispersion in birth conditions. The paper also uses the relation between the bound fraction after violent relaxation and the star-formation efficiency of cluster-forming clumps to interpret the tightness of each group.

What would settle it

Measure the radial dependence of $F_{1P}$ within a substantial sample of Galactic globular clusters; if the pristine-star fraction varies systematically with radius in any cluster, the assumption that $F_{1P}$ is constant during evolution fails, invalidating the backward reconstruction. Alternatively, find direct evidence that the degree of primordial mass segregation differs between disk-born and accreted clusters, which would break the single-$f_{\rm red}$ assumption and alter the inferred initial masses and slopes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the standard N-body dissolution time-scale, optionally shortened by a factor $f_{\rm red}$ to account for primordial mass segregation or a top-heavy IMF, the paper estimates initial masses $m_{\rm init}$ for Galactic globular clusters by solving Eq. (1) iteratively. The resulting $(m_{\rm init}, F_{1P})$ distributions of the Disk, Low-Energy, and Gaia-Enceladus groups are all more compact than the present-day distribution, because secular evolution moves clusters along lines of constant $F_{1P}$ toward lower mass, widening the relation. The Disk group is the tightest, with power-law fits $\log_{10} F_{1P} = -0.467 \log_{10} m_{\rm init} + 2.229$ for $f_{\rm red}=1.0$ (slope $\psi=0.47\pm0.03$) and $\log_{10} F_{1P} = -1.110 \log_{10} m_{\rm init} + 6.217$ for $f_{\rm red}=0.3$ ($\psi=1.11\pm0.09$), so the exponent $\psi$ depends on the dissolution time-scale. The paper generalizes the fixed threshold of the earlier study to a mass-dependent threshold, noting that slopes $\psi<1$ imply either non-instantaneous pollution or a mass-dependent threshold, while $\psi>1$ gives initial pristine-star masses that decrease with cluster mass. No metallicity dependence of $F_{1P}(m_{\rm init})$ is found within any group, which the paper argues may result from violent relaxation erasing the metallicity imprint on the embedded-cluster relation.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that every cluster dissolves according to the same N-body dissolution time-scale multiplied by a single global reduction factor $f_{\rm red}$, equal for all clusters; if primordial mass segregation or the stellar IMF differ between formation environments, the inferred initial masses and the slopes of the $F_{1P}$–mass relation change, and the conclusion that the Disk relation is tightest would not be robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fixed mass threshold for 2P-star formation must be replaced by a power law whose exponent depends on the dissolution time-scale and on cluster origin; slopes shallower than $-1$ imply either prolonged 1P-star formation or a mass-dependent threshold.
  • The initial $(m_{\rm init}, F_{1P})$ plane is a sharper diagnostic of formation conditions than the present-day plane, since dynamical evolution is the dominant source of scatter.
  • The tight Disk relation indicates that disk cluster-forming clumps reached high and uniform star-formation efficiencies (up to ~85 per cent), while dwarf galaxy clumps had lower and more varied efficiencies.
  • The absence of a metallicity trend in $F_{1P}(m_{\rm init})$ suggests that any metallicity dependence present at birth is weakened or erased during violent relaxation.
  • Because the inferred initial masses and slopes are degenerate with $f_{\rm red}$, independent constraints on primordial mass segregation or the IMF are needed before absolute initial masses of different groups can be compared.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $f_{\rm red}$ truly differs between environments, as the paper cautions, then the ranking of initial masses between groups is not yet established; a direct measurement of primordial mass segregation in a few disk-born and accreted clusters would settle this.
  • The power-law formulation predicts that, in a log-log plane, clusters from a single formation site should lie along a line of slope $-\psi$ with a perpendicular scatter set by the star-formation efficiency distribution; this could be tested with cluster populations in nearby galaxies where dissolution time-scales are known empirically.
  • The method could be inverted to predict the present-day $(m_{\rm prst}, F_{1P})$ distribution from an assumed initial power law; comparing that prediction to new, more complete cluster samples would constrain the birth relation without relying on orbital reconstruction.
  • If future observations find a cluster whose $F_{1P}$ varies radially, the constant-$F_{1P}$ assumption would break, and the backward reconstruction would need to include preferential loss of one population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper (Paper III of the series) uses a backward-modeling approach to estimate the initial masses m_init of Galactic globular clusters at the onset of secular evolution, by inverting the Baumgardt & Makino (2003) dissolution time-scale with a reduction factor f_red (Eq. 1). The resulting distributions in the (m_init, F_1P) plane are compared across the Disk, Low-Energy, and Gaia-Enceladus groups of Massari et al. (2019). The paper reports three main results: (1) all initial distributions are more compact than the present-day distribution, because dynamical evolution scatters clusters in the F_1P-versus-mass plane; (2) the Disk group has the tightest initial distribution; and (3) the F_1P(m_init) relation is approximately a power law, F_1P = (m_th,init/m_init)^psi, with slope psi fitted for different f_red values, generalizing the fixed threshold of Paper I. The paper also finds no evidence for a metallicity dependence of F_1P(m_init) beyond the mass dependence.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide an observationally grounded mapping between present-day globular cluster properties and their initial masses, with implications for cluster formation efficiency and multiple-population enrichment in different Galactic environments. The paper is careful in several respects: it solves Eq. (1) iteratively with propagated errors on present-day masses, ages, and orbital parameters; it explicitly tests the dependence on the uncertain dissolution-time-scale reduction f_red over 0.3-1.0; and it discusses photometric F_1P uncertainties and incompleteness. The strongest qualitative result, that initial distributions are more compact than present-day ones, appears robust across the tested f_red values. The headline claim that the Disk initial distribution is the tightest is, however, more fragile because it depends on assumptions that the manuscript itself identifies as limiting, in particular the neglect of dynamical friction and the use of a single universal f_red for all groups. The paper is therefore a useful and honest contribution, but its central quantitative claim needs additional support before it can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Eq. (1), Fig. 8] The headline comparison of the dispersion Δlog10(minit) is made using Eq. (1), which adopts present-day equivalent radii and does not account for orbital decay by dynamical friction. For the Low-Energy group, which is entirely inner, and for the many inner Gaia-Enceladus clusters, this systematically overestimates the initial masses of the most massive, most central clusters and thereby inflates the horizontal scatter around the least-squares fit. The manuscript itself states in Sec. 5: 'This may be the reason why Δ log10(minit) for the low-energy and Gaia-Enceladus groups is plateau-ing as fred decreases', and Sec. 9 calls for refined modeling. Since the abstract's claim that the Disk initial distribution is the tightest is exactly the quantity shown in Fig. 8, this acknowledged systematic is load-bearing. The paper should either demonstrate that the conclusion survives (for example by excluding the most affected inner clusters or by including a dynamical-friction correction) or quantify the magnitude of the bias.
  2. [Sec. 3, Sec. 9, Fig. 8] The paper varies f_red globally between 0.3 and 1.0, but the cross-group comparison of tightness assumes that all groups share the same reduction factor. Section 9 explicitly states that if different environments yield different degrees of primordial mass segregation and different IMFs, then f_red will differ from one group to another, preventing safe conclusions about which group formed more massive clusters. This caveat applies equally to the tightness comparison in Fig. 8: a group-dependent f_red could change the ranking of the Disk relative to the accreted groups. The conclusion 'Disk is the tightest' therefore holds only under a uniform-dissolution-timescale assumption, and the paper needs to justify that assumption or test its consequences.
  3. [Sec. 8, Fig. 5] The power-law generalization of the 2P-star-formation threshold is strongly degenerate with f_red: the fitted slope varies from ψ = 0.47 ± 0.03 at f_red = 1.0 to ψ = 1.11 ± 0.09 at f_red = 0.3. The f_red = 0.3 case nearly reproduces the Paper I relation, but f_red = 0.3 was itself calibrated in Paper I by forcing the Req = 3.1 kpc model track to split the same observed (m_prst, F_1P) data (Sec. 3). The 'generalization' in Sec. 8 is therefore not an independent determination of the threshold or slope; it is a refit of the same sample under an adopted calibration. The paper should state this more explicitly, or provide an external calibration of f_red, before presenting the power-law threshold as a new result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5, Fig. 8] The dispersion metric Δlog10(minit) is presented without uncertainty estimates. Given that the Disk, Low-Energy, and Gaia-Enceladus groups contain only 12, 10, and 17 clusters, respectively, a bootstrap or jackknife estimate of the uncertainty in Δlog10 would help the reader assess whether the reported ordering is statistically significant.
  2. [Sec. 2] There are several typographical errors: 'Galatic' should be 'Galactic'; 'refereing' should be 'referring'; 'sligthly' should be 'slightly'; and 'theshold' appears in Sec. 8 where 'threshold' is meant.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The disk sample contains only one Type II cluster (NGC 6656), yet the least-squares fits include Type I and Type II clusters together. A brief statement of how the fit changes if NGC 6656 is excluded would clarify the sensitivity of the derived slope and threshold.
  4. [Sec. 3] The equation for m_init uses the notation ar{m}_*^x without explicitly reminding the reader that x is the exponent from the Baumgardt & Makino (2003) concentration parameter; a one-line clarification would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the disk tightness finding and the power-law generalization are fits to data inverted with an external dissolution model, and Paper I's only inherited calibration is disclosed and tested.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Equation (1) estimates minit from observed present-day masses, ages, and orbital equivalent radii using the external Baumgardt & Makino (2003) dissolution law; minit appearing on both sides is solved iteratively, and the target relation F1P(minit) is not used to define minit. The F1P(minit) power laws in Secs. 4 and 8 are least-squares fits to the inverted data, and the paper does not present them as independent predictions; the generalized mass threshold is simply the intercept of that fit. The only inherited calibration is f_red = 0.3 from Paper I, which the paper explicitly discloses ('But this estimate is tied to Paper I's initial relation') and tests against f_red = 1.0 and intermediate values. The headline result that the Disk group is the tightest survives across this parameter range (Fig. 8), so it is not manufactured by the self-calibration. The dynamical-friction caveat and the caution that f_red may vary between environments (Secs. 5 and 9) are acknowledged modeling limitations rather than inputs masquerading as outputs; they affect robustness of the conclusions, not circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative results are dominated by two unconstrained inputs: f_red, the dissolution time-scale normalization, and the N-based photometric F1P values. The fitted slopes and thresholds are outputs, not independent measurements.

free parameters (3)
  • f_red = 0.3 to 1.0 (tested grid; 0.3 from Paper I calibration)
    Reduction factor for the Baumgardt-Makino dissolution time-scale. It controls every derived minit and the resulting slopes and thresholds. Paper I chose 0.3 by splitting the data cloud; this paper tests 0.3, 0.4-0.9, and 1.0.
  • Power-law slope psi = 0.47 +/- 0.03 (f_red=1.0); 0.61 +/- 0.04 (f_red=0.6); 1.11 +/- 0.09 (f_red=0.3)
    Fitted least-squares slope of log10(F1P) versus log10(minit) for the disk group; the central 'generalization' of the fixed threshold rests on these fits.
  • Initial mass threshold m_th,init = ~6x10^4 Msun (f_red=1.0) to ~4x10^5 Msun (f_red=0.3)
    Intersection of the fitted F1P(minit) line with F1P=1. It is a derived fit parameter, not an independent constraint, and it is fully degenerate with f_red.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Clusters dissolve per Baumgardt and Makino (2003) time-scale for a logarithmic potential, Vc=220 km/s, Kroupa IMF, W0=5.0, scaled by f_red.
    Sec. 3, Eq. 1 builds on Eqs 10 and 12 of Baumgardt and Makino (2003); f_red accounts for primordial mass segregation and top-heavy IMF (Haghi et al. 2014, 2020).
  • domain assumption The pristine-star fraction F1P is constant over 12 Gyr of secular evolution, meaning well-mixed populations with no preferential loss.
    Stated in the Introduction and Sec. 3; the author defers time-varying F1P to a forthcoming paper.
  • domain assumption Cluster orbits are fixed over the integration: no dynamical friction and no time-varying Galactic potential.
    Eq. 1 uses present-day orbital parameters; Secs. 5 and 6(iii) acknowledge that neglecting dynamical friction overestimates initial masses of inner clusters.
  • domain assumption All clusters share a single f_red, hence the same degree of primordial mass segregation and IMF.
    Sec. 9 states that if f_red varies between groups, origin comparisons of initial masses are unsafe; the paper explicitly frames this as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Adopted model parameters F_StEv=0.7, mbar*=0.55 Msun, (x,beta)=(0.75,1.91), tau=12 Gyr, and Vc=220 km/s are correct.
    Listed in Sec. 3 as carried over from Paper I; they enter Eq. 1 and shift minit.
  • domain assumption N-based photometric pristine-star fractions approximate the true F1P.
    The analysis uses F1P from Milone et al. (2017); Sec. 7 summarizes evidence that these can overestimate F1P at low mass and low metallicity, which would change fitted slopes and thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cracking the relation between mass and 1P-star fraction of globular clusters: III. Initial distributions of in-situ and ex-situ clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y65Y6VEX

@misc{pith2026250508626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cracking the relation between mass and 1P-star fraction of globular clusters: III. Initial distributions of in-situ and ex-situ clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y65Y6VEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08626}
}
abstract

Galactic globular clusters consist of two main stellar populations, the pristine (1P) and polluted (2P) stars. The fraction of 1P stars in clusters, $F_{1P}$, is a decreasing function of the cluster present-day mass, $m_{prst}$. The information about cluster formation it contains has yet to be unlocked. Paper I demonstrated that the observed distribution $(m_{prst},F_{1P})$ of Galactic globular clusters can result from a pristine-star fraction that is inversely proportional to their birth mass, $m_{ecl}$. This relation was then calibrated with a fixed stellar mass threshold for 2P-star formation, $m_{th}$, i.e., $F_{1P}=m_{th}/m_{ecl}$. We now estimate the masses $m_{init}$ of Galactic globular clusters as they start their long-term gas-free evolution in the Galaxy and we map their behavior in the $(m_{init},F_{1P})$ space. Several dissolution time-scales are tested (with and without primordial mass segregation), each yielding its own initial cluster distribution $(m_{init},F_{1P})$. The $(m_{init},F_{1P})$ distributions are mapped according to cluster origin, with the emphasis on the Disk, Low-Energy and Gaia-Enceladus cluster groups of Massari et al. (2019). All three initial distributions $(m_{init},F_{1P})$ are more compact than their present-day counterparts since dynamical evolution scatters clusters in the $F_{1P}$ versus cluster-mass space. The Disk initial distribution is the tightest one and potential reasons for this are discussed. Its power-law representation allows us to generalize the initial mass threshold of Paper I and prompts us to represent the cluster $({\rm mass},F_{1P})$ distribution in a log-log space. No evidence is found suggesting that, initially, the pristine-star fraction of globular clusters depends on their metallicity on top of their mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08626 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Relation between cluster mass mcluster and pristine-star fraction F1P . Symbols depict present-day Galactic globular clusters, with triangles, circles and squares standing for, respectively, single-population clusters, Type I and Type II multiple-population clusters. Open and plain symbols represent inner (Req ≤ 3.1 kpc) and outer (Req > 3.1 kpc) clusters. Lines are the model tracks from [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: Pristine-star fraction F1P versus present-day mass mprst of the Galactic globular clusters of our sample. Symbol coding as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: distribution of our globular clus￾ter sample in the (mprst, F1P ) space with the twelve disk clusters of Massari et al. (2019) color-coded according to their mean metallicity (see palette). Each panel shows the disk-group correlation coeffficient rDisk and l…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Least-square fits to the 12 disk globular clusters for different reductions fred of the Baumgardt & Makino (2003) cluster dissolution time-scale. The smaller fred, the shorter the cluster dissolution time-scale tdiss = fredt BM03 diss , the steeper the slope of the lea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: is the counterpart of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dispersion ∆ log10(minit) of the data points in the (minit, F1P ) space around their respective least-squares fit, in dependence of the reduction factor fred applied to the Baumgardt & Makino (2003) cluster dissolution time￾scale. Results are shown for the disk, low-en…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: Cluster bound fraction F V R bound after residual star-forming gas expulsion in dependence of cluster￾progenitor star formation efficiency SF Eclump (dashed red line from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative depiction of how a metallicity￾dependent embedded-cluster relation F1P (mecl) (solid ma￾genta line and plain symbols) can evolve into a metallicity￾independent initial relation F1P (minit) (dotted orange line and open symbols). In the case depicted here, g…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relation between the pristine-star fraction F1P of clusters and their mass in 1P stars m1P,init at secular￾evolution onset. They follow from the relations between pristine-star fraction and initial mass for the disk clusters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, F. C. 2000, ApJ, 542, 964, doi: 10.1086/317052

    doi:10.1086/317052 2000

  2. [2]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4812

    Bailin, J. 2019, ApJS, 245, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4812

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4812 2019

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2997

    Baumgardt, H., Hilker, M., Sollima, A., & Bellini, A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2997

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2997 2019

  4. [5]

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

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

    arXiv 2003

  5. [6]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  6. [7]

    1987, Galactic dynamics

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  7. [8]

    M., Smith, V

    Briley, M. M., Smith, V. V., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1996, Nature, 383, 604, doi: 10.1038/383604a0

    work page doi:10.1038/383604a0 1996

  8. [9]

    H., Burkert, A., & Truran, J

    Brown, J. H., Burkert, A., & Truran, J. W. 1991, ApJ, 376, 115, doi: 10.1086/170260 —. 1995, ApJ, 440, 666, doi: 10.1086/175304

    doi:10.1086/170260 1991

Show all 70 references
  1. [10]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1145

    2022 doi

  2. [11]

    D., Croke, B

    Cannon, R. D., Croke, B. F. W., Bell, R. A., Hesser, J. E., & Stathakis, R. A. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 601, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01671.x

    1998

  3. [12]

    2006, AJ, 131, 1766, doi: 10.1086/499565 —

    Carretta, E. 2006, AJ, 131, 1766, doi: 10.1086/499565 —. 2019, A&A, 624, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935110

    2006 doi

  4. [13]

    2024, A&A, 690, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450482

    Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2024, A&A, 690, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450482

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    2009a, A&A, 505, 139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912097

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., & Lucatello, S. 2009a, A&A, 505, 139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912097

    doi

  6. [15]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913451 —. 2009b, A&A, 505, 117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912096

    2010 doi

  7. [16]

    2016, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Charbonnel, C. 2016, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 80-81, EAS Publications Series, ed. E. Moraux, Y. Lebreton, & C. Charbonnel, 177–226, doi: 10.1051/eas/1680006

    2016

  8. [17]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 3439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18966.x

    Dib, S., Piau, L., Mohanty, S., & Braine, J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18966.x

    2011

  9. [18]

    P., Lagioia, E

    Dondoglio, E., Milone, A. P., Lagioia, E. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc882

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    A., & Smith, G

    Dopita, M. A., & Smith, G. H. 1986, ApJ, 304, 283, doi: 10.1086/164162

    1986 doi

  11. [20]

    Forbes, D. A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa245

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, 1706, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15235.x Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fraix-Burnet, D., Davoust, E., & Charbonnel, C. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1706, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15235.x Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2009

  13. [22]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 Garc´ ıa-Bethencourt, G., Brook, C. B., Grand, R. J. J., &

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1190, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2832

    Kawata, D. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1190, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2832

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    S., & Ram´ ırez-Galeano, L

    Gieles, M., Padoan, P., Charbonnel, C., Vink, J. S., & Ram´ ırez-Galeano, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12138

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [26]

    M., Zonoozi, A

    Haghi, H., Hoseini-Rad, S. M., Zonoozi, A. H., & K¨ upper, A. H. W. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1714

    2014 doi

  17. [27]

    H., & Kroupa, P

    Haghi, H., Safaei, G., Zonoozi, A. H., & Kroupa, P. 2020, ApJ, 904, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb0

    2020 doi

  18. [28]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    1996 doi

  19. [29]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    2018 doi

  20. [30]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53, doi: 10.1038/46980

    1999 doi

  21. [31]

    Hills, J. G. 1980, ApJ, 235, 986, doi: 10.1086/157703

    1980 doi

  22. [32]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa478

    2020 doi

  23. [33]

    2024, Science China

    Huang, R., Tang, B., Li, C., et al. 2024, Science China

    2024

  24. [34]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 259513, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2332-5

    doi

  25. [35]

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

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    1994 doi

  26. [36]

    P., Marino, A

    Jang, S., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.02585, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.02585

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    1999, A&A, 341, 241, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9809405 18 Parmentier

    Jehin, E., Magain, P., Neuforge, C., et al. 1999, A&A, 341, 241, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9809405 18 Parmentier

    1999 doi arXiv

  28. [38]

    Jehin, E., Magain, P., Neuforge, C., Noels, A., & Thoul, A. A. 1998, A&A, 330, L33

    1998

  29. [39]

    K., & Willemsen, P

    Kayser, A., Hilker, M., Grebel, E. K., & Willemsen, P. G. 2008, A&A, 486, 437, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809446

    2008 doi

  30. [40]

    Kraft, R. P. 1994, PASP, 106, 553, doi: 10.1086/133416

    1994 doi

  31. [41]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  32. [42]

    P., Pauldrach, A., & Puls, J

    Kudritzki, R. P., Pauldrach, A., & Puls, J. 1987, A&A, 173, 293

    1987

  33. [43]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Gieles, M., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2005, A&A, 429, 173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041476

    2005 doi

  34. [44]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt854

    Lardo, C., Pancino, E., Mucciarelli, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt854

    2013 doi

  35. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12ca

    Lee, J.-W. 2024, ApJ, 961, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12ca

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad093

    Leitinger, E., Baumgardt, H., Cabrera-Ziri, I., Hilker, M., & Pancino, E. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad093

    2023 doi

  37. [47]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1415

    2019 doi

  38. [48]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    2023, A&A, 680, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347289 M´ esz´ aros, S., Masseron, T., Garc´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D

    Massari, D., Aguado-Agelet, F., Monelli, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347289 M´ esz´ aros, S., Masseron, T., Garc´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3496

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    Meylan, G., & Heggie, D. C. 1997, A&A Rv, 8, 1, doi: 10.1007/s001590050008

    1997 doi

  41. [51]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/51

    2015 doi

  42. [52]

    P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2531

    2017 doi

  43. [53]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2999

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    1989, ApJ, 339, 171, doi: 10.1086/167285

    Morgan, S., & Lake, G. 1989, ApJ, 339, 171, doi: 10.1086/167285

    1989 doi

  45. [55]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 2889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21847.x

    Mucciarelli, A., Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21847.x

    2012

  46. [56]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    2019 doi

  47. [57]

    2017, A&A, 601, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730474

    Pancino, E., Romano, D., Tang, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730474

    2017 doi

  48. [58]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 585, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07804.x —

    Parmentier, G. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 585, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07804.x —. 2024a, ApJ, 964, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27db —. 2024b, ApJ, 976, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85d7

    2004

  49. [60]

    2001, A&A, 378, 97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011173 —

    Parmentier, G., & Gilmore, G. 2001, A&A, 378, 97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011173 —. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 352, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11611.x

    2001

  50. [61]

    1999, A&A, 352, 138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911258

    Parmentier, G., Jehin, E., Magain, P., et al. 1999, A&A, 352, 138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911258

    1999 doi arXiv

  51. [62]

    Parmentier, G., Jehin, E., Magain, P., Noels, A., & Thoul, A. A. 2000, A&A, 363, 526, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0009477

    2000 doi arXiv

  52. [63]

    2013, A&A, 549, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219648

    Parmentier, G., & Pfalzner, S. 2013, A&A, 549, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219648

    2013 doi

  53. [64]

    P., Bedin, L

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/91

    2015 doi

  54. [65]

    S., et al

    Polak, B., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06509, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06509

    2023 doi arXiv

  55. [66]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1097-0

    2020 doi

  56. [67]

    P., Phillips, S

    Schiavon, R. P., Phillips, S. G., Myers, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3020

    2024 doi

  57. [68]

    Smith, G. H. 2002, PASP, 114, 1215, doi: 10.1086/343219

    2002 doi

  58. [69]

    H., Modi, P

    Smith, G. H., Modi, P. N., & Hamren, K. 2013, PASP, 125, 1287, doi: 10.1086/673753

    2013 doi

  59. [70]

    P., Martell, S

    Smolinski, J. P., Martell, S. L., Beers, T. C., & Lee, Y. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/126

    2011 doi

  60. [71]

    A., Dell’Agli, F., et al

    Ventura, P., Garc´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., Dell’Agli, F., et al. 2016, ApJL, 831, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L17

    2016 doi

  61. [72]

    Vink, J. S. 2011, Ap&SS, 336, 163, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0636-7

    2011 doi

  62. [73]

    P., Marino, A

    Zennaro, M., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1477

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.