Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

The structural and kinematical properties of NGC 5634, a globular cluster associated with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper argues that globular cluster NGC 5634, long thought to have been captured from the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, instead sits with the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus or Helmi accretion events.

desk verdict A careful multi-probe study that makes a plausible but non-decisive case against NGC 5634 being a Sagittarius cluster, with the key caveat acknowledged in the text. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04806 v1 pith:N5VVWLUK submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Shouzhi Wang , Jundan Nie , Biwei Jiang , Hao Tian , Chao Liu , Ying-Hua Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords globularclustersNGC5634SagittariusdwarfgalaxySgrstreamGaia-Sausage-EnceladusHelmiorbitaldynamicsmatchedfilter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the ancient globular cluster NGC 5634 really came from the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, as older work suggested. Using deep optical photometry, the authors refine its age to $12.8\pm0.3$ Gyr, metallicity $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]\approx -1.8$ dex, and distance about 25 kpc, and build a matched-filter map to look for tidal tails; none appear above the $3\sigma$ threshold. Integrating its orbit backward 3 Gyr through several realistic Galactic potentials, they find the cluster only briefly touches the Sagittarius stream and then diverges, unlike confirmed Sgr clusters whose orbits stay on the stream. Its smaller semi-major axis, apocenter and pericenter, and its position in angular-momentum–energy space, place it among Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus or Helmi clusters instead. The paper's conclusion is that a strong Sgr origin is not supported, with a GSE or Helmi origin plausible but not yet proven.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on two matched tools. First is a matched-filter map: a background-subtracted Hess diagram of the cluster (stars within $3'$–$5.73'$ of the center, $g<23$ and $r<22.5$) becomes a template, and each pixel's signal-to-noise ratio $\mathrm{SNR}=(\alpha_{\rm bin}-\alpha_{\rm bck})/\alpha_{\rm std}$ tests for tidal tails or extra-tidal debris beyond the adopted tidal radius of $8.35'$. Second is orbital reconstruction: 6D phase-space data are integrated backward 3 Gyr through a triaxial, evolving Galactic potential that includes the Large Magellanic Cloud's perturbation, with 100 error-sampled orbits per cluster drawn from the uncertainties in distance, proper motion, and radial velocity. Orbits are compared with the Sgr stream in sky coordinates, Galactic coordinates, and stream-aligned $(\Lambda_\odot, B_\odot)$ coordinates, and the final dynamical comparison is the $L_z$–$E$ plane, total orbital energy versus angular momentum about the Galactic pole, where confirmed Sgr clusters form a tight group and NGC 5634 falls into the overlapping GSE/Helmi region.

What would settle it

Simulate the Sgr accretion event with NGC 5634 stripped at a range of early times and progenitor masses, and ask whether any run can land the cluster on its observed 6D phase-space while stream stars follow the adopted Sgr stream model; if such a run exists, the paper's central exclusion of Sgr would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the accumulated evidence for NGC 5634 belonging to the Sagittarius system fails under combined morphology, kinematics, and dynamics. The matched-filter search finds no significant extra-tidal structure, so morphology cannot confirm a Sgr link. The orbit, integrated through three different Galactic potentials with a Large Magellanic Cloud perturbation, diverges from the Sgr stream over long timescales while the six confirmed Sgr clusters remain stream-aligned. In orbital-parameter space and in $L_z$–$E$ space, NGC 5634 resembles GSE and Helmi clusters more than Sgr clusters. The paper therefore concludes that the previous classification as a strong Sgr candidate is not supported by the new evidence and that an origin with the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus or Helmi accretion is more likely, while acknowledging that definitive proof requires further data.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that a cluster stripped from the Sgr dwarf would still move with today's stream debris, but if NGC 5634 was liberated early, its orbit would have been shaped by the more massive, early-stage progenitor; the paper explicitly does not model this mass-evolution effect, so the orbital divergence alone does not close the case against Sgr.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NGC 5634 should not be counted among Sagittarius-associated clusters in studies of the Sgr accretion event.
  • The cluster's compact, inner-halo orbit implies it was accreted from an inner-halo progenitor such as GSE or Helmi, not from the outer-halo Sagittarius system.
  • The absence of detectable extra-tidal structure, combined with the very low inferred mass loss, suggests NGC 5634 has been dynamically sheltered; any future search for its debris will need deeper imaging and surface-brightness modeling.
  • The same three-part test, matched-filter morphology, long-integration orbit comparison, and $L_z$–$E$ placement, can be applied to other Sgr candidates whose membership rests only on position and velocity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's key unmodeled escape hatch is early stripping: if NGC 5634 was detached from Sgr while the dwarf was still massive, its present orbit need not follow the current stream. A decisive simulation would strip the cluster at several progenitor masses and check whether the observed 6D state is reachable.
  • Because NGC 5634 sits where the GSE and Helmi boxes overlap in $L_z$–$E$ space, the dynamical evidence cannot by itself choose between those two progenitors; abundance ratios that differ between the two systems would be the natural tie-breaker.
  • The same analysis applied to NGC 4147 gives a GSE-like result, suggesting that several clusters historically assigned to Sgr on spatial and kinematic grounds may actually belong to inner-halo accretion events, so Sgr's cluster census may shrink as these tests are run.
  • A testable extension: re-run the orbital comparison using alternative published distances and proper motions for NGC 5634; if any plausible 6D variant realigns the orbit with the Sgr stream, the exclusion would lose force.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the origin of the globular cluster NGC 5634 using DESI Legacy Survey photometry and Gaia astrometry. The authors redetermine the cluster's age, metallicity, and distance by isochrone fitting; search for extra-tidal structures with a matched-filter technique and find none above 3σ; compute orbits in the Vasiliev et al. (2021) potential with Monte Carlo sampling of 6D uncertainties and tests of two alternative potentials; and compare the orbit, apocenter/pericenter, semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, and Lz–E position of NGC 5634 with confirmed Sgr clusters and with GSE/Helmi cluster samples. They conclude that NGC 5634 is not strongly associated with the Sagittarius system and is more consistent with GSE or Helmi, while noting that further evidence is needed. The central negative claim rests on the orbital divergence from the current Sgr stream model, an assumption the authors themselves qualify in Section 3.3.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper would reassign a well-known Sgr candidate cluster to GSE or Helmi, affecting the census of clusters associated with each accretion event. The analysis has genuine strengths: it uses public data, tests three Galactic potentials, propagates 6D uncertainties through Monte Carlo sampling, and does not repackage fitted parameters as predictions. The orbital integration and the Lz–E comparison are appropriate tools for this question. However, the significance is conditional because the main kinematic argument assumes that a cluster captured from Sgr would today remain aligned with the present-day stream debris; Section 3.3 explicitly identifies a scenario in which this assumption fails, and the paper does not model it quantitatively. The stress-test concern about early stripping therefore lands: the orbital-divergence evidence can at best disfavor recent stripping, not exclude Sgr origin at the strength stated in the Summary.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, The mass evolution of the progenitor] The paper states that if NGC 5634 was stripped at an early stage, it would have been affected by the potential of a more massive progenitor, so its present-day kinematics could differ from the stream stars. This is precisely the scenario that matters for an old, metal-poor cluster, yet no quantitative treatment is provided. Because the V21 stream model contains particles unbound at a range of times, comparing the cluster's present-day orbit with the full present-day stream in §3.2 and Figure 7 only tests consistency with recently stripped debris; an early-stripped cluster could plausibly occupy the lower-energy, lower-angular-momentum region where NGC 5634 is found. The orbital-divergence evidence is therefore not sufficient to support the Summary item 4 claim that NGC 5634 is 'unlikely to have originated from the Sgr system.' The authors should either model stripping-epoch effects (e.g., integrate cluster orbits starting from snapshots of the progenitor at different times) or explicitly restrict the conclusion to 'the data do not support association with the present Sgr stream and cannot distinguish early stripping.'
  2. [§3.2, Figures 6–8] The claim that the six confirmed Sgr clusters 'closely align' with the Sgr stream while NGC 5634 'diverges significantly' is based on visual inspection of the plotted orbits. No quantitative criterion is given, such as a minimum separation in stream coordinates, the fraction of the orbit within a stream mask, or a comparison of orbital actions/angles, and no table of such values is provided. Since this visual comparison is the primary kinematic evidence against a Sgr origin, a well-defined metric with a threshold is needed to make the claim reproducible and testable.
  3. [§3.4, Figure 10] The GSE and Helmi regions are displayed as dashed boxes attributed to Massari et al. (2019), but the construction of those boxes is not described and no membership probability is computed. NGC 5634 falls in the overlap of the GSE and Helmi boxes, so the statement that it is 'more likely associated with the GSE or Helmi stream' than with Sgr is only a qualitative separation from the Sgr group. Please state how the box boundaries were defined and provide a simple statistic, such as the distance in (Lz,E) normalized by each population's scatter, to support the claimed alignment.
  4. [§3.2, Monte Carlo uncertainty treatment] The text says 100 random values were drawn from the error distributions, but it does not report whether the uncertainties in distance, proper motion, and radial velocity were treated as independent, whether covariances were included, or whether the results were stable across repeated draws. Given that the orbital comparison is central, a short statement on the sampling scheme and its robustness would strengthen the reproducibility of the uncertainty bands in Figures 6–8.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.3 and Table 1] The adopted cluster center is (RA, Dec) = (217.405125°, -5.976416°), but the sample rows in Table 1 show coordinates near RA ≈ 214.9°, Dec ≈ -4.37°. These are field stars in the 5°×5° catalog, but the juxtaposition may confuse readers; a sentence clarifying that Table 1 lists sources in the surrounding field rather than cluster members would help.
  2. [§3.1] The matched-filter search is restricted to the magnitude ranges with 100% completeness (g<23, r<22.5) and excludes the crowded central region; the non-detection of extra-tidal structures is therefore a limited constraint. It would be useful to state explicitly that the absence of a 3σ detection does not rule out faint tidal debris below the completeness or contrast limits.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The expression for M_dis/M_ini is easy to misread because M_ev = 0.5*M_ini is introduced only in the preceding text. Writing M_dis/M_ini = 1/2 - M_GC/M_ini with an explicit derivation or a re-arranged equation would improve clarity.
  4. [§1 and §3.3] The phrase 'the Sgr stream (Sgr stream)' is redundant; use 'the Sagittarius stream' consistently. Also, the discussion of the mass-evolution caveat in §3.3 is the right place to state that the adopted comparison assumes the cluster and stream stars were released at similar times; consider moving part of that caveat into §3.2 where the comparison is first presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis uses independent external models and publicly fitted data, and the central claim is not reduced to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The fundamental parameters (age, metallicity, distance modulus) are obtained by isochrone fitting to DESI photometry, and these are not used as the output of the origin analysis. The matched-filter search uses a CMD template built from cluster stars, but the non-detection of extra-tidal structure is an honest null result, not a prediction forced by the template. The orbital comparison uses the external V21 Sgr stream model and independent Gaia/Baumgardt 6D data; the agreement of confirmed Sgr clusters with the stream is a check of the method, not an input to the conclusion about NGC 5634. The Lz-E comparison uses parameter-space regions from Massari et al. (2019) and cluster samples from Massari et al. (2019) and Forbes (2020), which are external classifications. The self-citations to Nie et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2024) are methodological and not load-bearing for the central claim. The explicit caveat in Section 3.3 that early stripping from a more massive progenitor could decouple present-day kinematics from the stream is a genuine inferential limitation, but it is acknowledged rather than hidden, and it concerns the strength of the empirical comparison rather than any circular reduction. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no conclusion is forced by definition or by a self-citation chain.

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

The central claim relies on fitted CMD parameters (age, metallicity, distance modulus) and on a chain of external models: the Milky Way potentials, the V21 Sgr stream model, the Massari et al. (2019) GSE/Helmi classifications, and the assumption that present-day orbital alignment traces accretion origin. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • age = 12.8 Gyr
    Fit to DESI CMD with PARSEC isochrones; used in matched-filter template and age estimates.
  • metallicity [Fe/H] = -1.8 dex
    Converted from [M/H] fit with assumed [alpha/Fe]=0.2; used in matched-filter template.
  • distance modulus = 17.0 mag (d=25.12 kpc)
    Fit to DESI CMD; directly sets the physical scale for orbital integration and apocenter/pericenter distances.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adopted Milky Way potentials (V21, MWPotential2014, McMillan2017) correctly describe the Galactic potential over the past 3 Gyr.
    Orbital integrations in Section 3.2 use these potentials; conclusions about alignment depend on them.
  • domain assumption The V21 model accurately represents the spatial distribution of Sgr stream debris.
    The comparison orbits against V21 stream particles (Section 3.2); if the stream model is biased, the divergence conclusion is affected.
  • domain assumption Present-day phase-space of a cluster is sufficient to trace its origin; early stripping from a massive progenitor does not significantly alter its orbit relative to stream debris.
    The authors themselves flag this as an unmodeled effect in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The Lz-E regions for GSE and Helmi from Massari et al. (2019) correctly identify members of those systems.
    Used to classify NGC 5634's position in Figure 10.
  • domain assumption Isochrone fitting with PARSEC models and Salpeter IMF correctly yields the cluster's fundamental parameters.
    Used for distance and matched-filter template; external checks suggest consistency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The structural and kinematical properties of NGC 5634, a globular cluster associated with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N5VVWLUK

@misc{pith2026250604806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The structural and kinematical properties of NGC 5634, a globular cluster associated with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N5VVWLUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04806}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the origin of NGC 5634 through a comprehensive analysis of its morphology, kinematics and dynamics. Utilizing data from the DESI Legacy Survey, we refined its fundamental parameters (age t = 12.8 +/- 0.3 Gyr, metallicity [Fe/H] = -1.8 +/- 0.1 dex, distance modulus dm = 17.0 +/- 0.1 mag) and constructed matched-filter template based on the combination of these parameters to search for extra-tidal structures. However, no significant features were detected above a 3 sigma signal-to-noise threshold, which limits our ability to further investigate the association between NGC 5634 and the Sagittarius (Sgr) stream based on morphological evidence. Incorporating GAIA data, we further examine the orbital path of NGC 5634. We found that its orbit only briefly intersects with the Sgr stream and diverges significantly over long-term integrations. This behavior contrasts with that of confirmed Sgr-associated clusters, whose orbits remain closely aligned with the stream throughout their orbital evolution. Additionally, NGC 5634 exhibits a relatively shorter semi-major axis and smaller apocenter and pericenter distances compared to Sgr clusters. These orbital characteristics are more consistent with clusters associated with the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) or the Helmi streams. From a dynamical perspective, in the Lz-E space, NGC 5634 is also distinctly different from Sgr clusters and aligns more closely with the GSE and Helmi regions. Taken together, these findings do not support a strong connection between NGC 5634 and the Sgr dSph, but instead suggest a potential association with another progenitor system, such as GSE or Helmi stream. Nevertheless, further evidence is needed to definitively establish its origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Result of completeness test for our working field. Different colors represent the range of distances from the center of NGC 5634. The limit magnitudes in the g-band and r-band are 23.0 and 22.5 mag, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar distribution and corresponding CMDs for different regions within the tidal radius. The upper-left panel shows the multiple spatial distribution of stars centered on NGC 5634. The upper-right panel illustrates the magnitude distribution (r-band) for stars within each radius interval. The bottom panels present the CMDs for stars in each radius interval. Typical observational error bars are displayed at the rig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: The observational CMD of NGC 5634. Red dots represent extinction-corrected stars within the radius of 3 ′ < rcl < 5.73′ . Typical observational error bars are displayed at eight magnitude levels. The blue line shows the best-fit CMD model, illustrating an agreement with the observed data. Right panel: The background-subtracted Hess diagram for NGC 5634, serving as the final CMD template. effectively capt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SNR distribution centered on NGC 5634 calculated by MF output. The left panel shows the distribution in a 3.0×3.0 square degree space, while the right panel is a close-up view. The blue dashed line in the right panel represents the position of the tidal radius, and the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Result of mass segregation test. Left panel: LFs in three different regions: 0′ < rcl < 3.0 ′ , 3.0 ′ < rcl < 5.73′ and 5.73′ < rcl < 8.35′ . The star count is normalized at r = 21.1 mag. Right panel: MFs corresponding to the LFs of NGC 5634. The error bars represent 1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Orbit of six confirmed Sgr member clusters with Sgr stream. From left to right panels are the equatorial coordinate system, the galactic coordinate system, and the Sgr coordinate system. The colored scatter points are examples from V21 model, with different colors repr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbital parameter relationships for various GCs. The top-left panel shows the apocentre-pericentre relationship, highlighting the differences in orbital shapes. The top-right panel displays the relationship between orbital eccentricity and semi-major axis (a). The bott…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relationships between the angular momentum along z direction Lz vs. total orbital energy E. Different symbols and colors correspond to various cluster populations based on their potential origins: confirmed Sgr clusters are marked with filled red circles, strong and w…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    Baumgardt, H., & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 2021

  4. [4]

    R., & Ibata, R

    Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R., & Ibata, R. 2002, AJ, 124, 915, doi: 10.1086/341755 —. 2003, AJ, 125, 188, doi: 10.1086/344072

    doi:10.1086/341755 2002

  5. [5]

    2020, A&A, 636, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037621

    Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R., Malhan, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037621

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037621 2020

  6. [6]

    B., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 642, L137, doi: 10.1086/504797

    doi:10.1086/504797 2006

  7. [7]

    E., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., Evans, N. W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1862

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1862 2014

  8. [8]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2578

    Boldrini, P., & Bovy, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2578

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [14]

    2017, A&A, 600, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630004

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Lucatello, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630004

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    2014 doi

  8. [17]

    F., & Djorgovski, S

    Chernoff, D. F., & Djorgovski, S. 1989, ApJ, 339, 904, doi: 10.1086/167344

    1989 doi

  9. [18]

    2010, ApJ, 721, 329, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/329

    Varghese, A. 2010, ApJ, 721, 329, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/329

    2010 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    2016, A&A, 590, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526765

    Dias, B., Barbuy, B., Saviane, I., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526765

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    2023, A&A, 673, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244141

    Ferrone, S., Di Matteo, P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244141

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

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

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    A., & Bridges, T

    Forbes, D. A., & Bridges, T. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1203, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16373.x Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 64...

    2010

  15. [24]

    R., Minniti, D., G´ omez, M., & Alonso-Garc ´ ıa, J

    Garro, E. R., Minniti, D., G´ omez, M., & Alonso-Garc ´ ıa, J. 2021, A&A, 654, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141067

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    F., & Stolte, A

    Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G. F., & Stolte, A. 2001, ApJL, 547, L133, doi: 10.1086/318894

    2001 doi

  17. [26]

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

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

    1994 doi

  18. [27]

    1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756

    King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756

    1962 doi

  19. [28]

    2019, A&A, 625, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834769

    Bastian, U. 2019, A&A, 625, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834769

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    E., Hewitt, A

    Kron, G. E., Hewitt, A. V., & Wasserman, L. H. 1984, PASP, 96, 198, doi: 10.1086/131322

    1984 doi

  21. [30]

    R., & Majewski, S

    Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2010a, ApJ, 714, 229, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/229 —. 2010b, ApJ, 718, 1128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1128

    doi

  22. [31]

    Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082, doi: 10.1086/379504

    2003 doi

  23. [32]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d2a

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    H., & Helmi, A

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

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    E., & van der Marel, R

    McLaughlin, D. E., & van der Marel, R. P. 2005, ApJS, 161, 304, doi: 10.1086/497429

    2005 doi

  26. [35]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

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

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

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    J., Yanny, B., Cole, N., et al

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Cole, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 221, doi: 10.1086/521068

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 245, doi: 10.1086/338983

    2002 doi

  30. [39]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6264

    Nie, J., Tian, H., Li, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6264

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    W., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2010, ApJ, 712, 516, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/516

    2010 doi

  32. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz725 Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Petersen, M

    Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz725 Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Petersen, M. S. 2021, MNRAS, 508, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab090

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    E., & Carballo-Bello, J

    Piatti, A. E., & Carballo-Bello, J. A. 2020, A&A, 637, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037994 18W ang et al

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    E., Webb, J

    Piatti, A. E., Webb, J. J., & Carlberg, R. G. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2499

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E

    Rockosi, C. M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 349, doi: 10.1086/340957

    2002 doi

  36. [45]

    2005, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations

    Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S. 2005, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations

    2005

  37. [46]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 960, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20354.x

    Salinas, R., J ´ ılkov´ a, L., Carraro, G., Catelan, M., & Amigo, P. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 960, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20354.x

    2012

  38. [47]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  39. [48]

    2015, A&A, 579, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425509

    Sbordone, L., Monaco, L., Moni Bidin, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425509

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  41. [50]

    T., Watkins, L

    Sohn, S. T., Watkins, L. L., Fardal, M. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacd0b

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 015013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9e91

    Sun, G., Wang, Y., Liu, C., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 015013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9e91

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    2019a, MNRAS, 484, 2832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz171 —

    Vasiliev, E. 2019a, MNRAS, 484, 2832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz171 —. 2019b, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    doi

  45. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    2024, AJ, 168, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8128

    Zhang, Y.-H., Nie, J., Tian, H., & Liu, C. 2024, AJ, 168, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8128

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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