Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Searching for new Hypervelocity Stars with Gaia DR3 and VLT/FORS2 Spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gaia DR3 identifies 149 new hypervelocity star candidates, and follow-up spectra show many are fast enough to leave the Milky Way.

desk verdict A cautious HVS candidate search with real follow-up RVs, but the 149-candidate census is soft because the selection depends on the same proper motions the authors suspect are biased. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00150 v1 pith:C52TGGE5 submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Julio A. Carballo-Bello , Pau Ramos , Jesús M. Corral-Santana , Camila Navarrete , Teresa Antoja , Felipe Gran , Matías Blaña , Marcelo D. Mora This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords hypervelocitystarsGaiaDR3stellarkinematicsGalacticpotentialescapevelocitypropermotionsFORS2spectroscopyMilkyWayhalo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to find hypervelocity stars, meaning stars moving faster than the Milky Way's local escape velocity, using only Gaia DR3 astrometry for objects that lack measured radial velocities. By assuming the radial velocity that minimizes each star's total Galactocentric speed, it derives conservative total velocities and assigns escape probabilities through Monte Carlo sampling of the astrometric uncertainties. This yields 149 candidates with more than a 50% chance of being unbound. Follow-up VLT/FORS2 spectroscopy of 23 candidates supplies the missing radial velocities and confirms total velocities between roughly 500 and 900 km/s, with many stars unbound depending on the adopted Galactic potential. The paper concludes that most of these stars did not come from the Galactic center and that about a third may have an extra-Galactic origin.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the minimum-total-velocity estimator: for each star, the unknown heliocentric radial velocity is set to the value $v_{{\rm los},0}$ that minimizes the total Galactocentric speed $v_T$, making $v_T$ a lower limit that still depends on sky position. This is combined with 1,000 multivariate-Gaussian realizations that propagate Gaia parallax and proper-motion uncertainties and their correlations through the covariance matrix presented in the appendix, with the local escape velocity $v_{\rm esc}$ computed in the MWPotential2014 Galactic potential. The fraction of realizations with $v_T > v_{\rm esc}$ defines $P_{\rm esc,0}$, and later FORS2 spectra replace the assumed $v_{{\rm los},0}$ with a measured radial velocity, turning a two-dimensional tangential motion into a full three-dimensional orbit that can be integrated backward to test possible origins.

What would settle it

Measure high-precision radial velocities for all 149 candidates and recompute $v_T$ with the measured $v_{\rm los}$; if, as the paper's own caution about $v_T \gg \sqrt{2}\,v_t$ suggests, a large fraction of candidates then drop below the McMillan (2017) escape velocity, the 149-candidate census would shrink substantially. A future Gaia data release providing improved proper motions for these exact faint sources would settle whether the selection was inflated by astrometric systematics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a conservative, astrometry-only selection from Gaia DR3 can identify a large new population of hypervelocity star candidates. For each of roughly 190 million high-quality sources without Gaia radial velocities, the authors build 1,000 Monte Carlo realizations of the astrometry and take the radial-velocity value that minimizes the total Galactocentric velocity, so the resulting $v_T$ distributions are lower limits. Comparing those distributions with the local escape velocity in the MWPotential2014 model gives an escape probability $P_{\rm esc}$; 149 sources have $P_{\rm esc} > 50\%$. FORS2 spectra for 23 candidates yield the missing line-of-sight velocities and show total velocities of $500$--$900$ km/s, with most stars remaining classified as hypervelocity or high-velocity stars. Orbital backtracking over 1 Gyr finds that none of the followed-up stars, except possibly HVS07, came from within 1 kpc of the Galactic center, and about one-third have past orbits that never intersect the Galactic disk, which the authors interpret as evidence for an extra-Galactic origin.

Load-bearing premise

The candidate list assumes the Gaia DR3 proper motions of these faint stars are not systematically overestimated; the paper itself warns that the observed excess of total velocities over $\sqrt{2}$ times the transverse velocity may indicate just such a bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 149 candidates, 113 of them in the astrometrically cleaner golden subsample, expand the catalog of stars that may be unbound from the Milky Way but lack Gaia radial velocities.
  • Because $v_T$ was built as a lower limit, adding measured radial velocities cannot reduce a candidate's escape probability below $P_{\rm esc,0}$, so the 23 followed-up stars retain their classifications.
  • None of the 23 followed-up stars has a past orbit that clearly passes within 1 kpc of the Galactic center, so the Milky Way's central black hole is not demanded as the main ejection site.
  • Roughly one-third of the followed-up sample has past orbits that avoid the Galactic disk entirely, which the authors read as evidence for extra-Galactic origins.
  • Under the most conservative alternative potential considered, 93 of the 132 remaining candidates still have transverse speeds above the local escape velocity, so further spectroscopy could substantially grow the confirmed hypervelocity star population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the proper-motion bias the authors worry about is absent, the true number of unbound stars among the 149 could approach the full list, because the minimum-total-velocity construction means every measured radial velocity can only raise $P_{\rm esc}$.
  • The retrograde, very metal-poor orbits of the extra-Galactic candidates make them promising tracers of past accretion events; high-resolution spectroscopy could test whether their abundances match known dwarf-galaxy debris.
  • Re-running the same selection with the next Gaia data release would directly separate astrometric noise from real high velocities and would also reveal whether the preference for retrograde orbits is physical or a selection artifact.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches for hypervelocity star (HVS) candidates in Gaia DR3 among sources lacking Gaia radial velocities. The authors apply astrometric quality cuts, estimate for each source a minimum total Galactocentric velocity by choosing the unmeasured line-of-sight velocity that minimizes vT, and define an escape probability Pesc,0 from a Monte Carlo propagation of astrometric uncertainties. They identify 149 candidates with Pesc,0 ≥ 50%, of which 23 were followed up with VLT/FORS2 spectroscopy to measure radial velocities. Using the measured RVs, they recompute escape probabilities and integrate orbits backward under several Galactic potentials, classifying the stars according to whether their past orbits cross the disk, stay in the disk, or avoid the plane, and they associate eight stars with a tentative extra-Galactic origin. The paper also estimates that 93 of the remaining candidates satisfy vt ≥ vesc under the most conservative potential considered.

Significance. If the candidate list is robust, the paper would significantly enlarge the census of potential unbound stars and provide valuable targets for follow-up. The main strengths are the transparent presentation of the method, the use of multiple Galactic potentials, and the acquisition of new spectroscopic radial velocities for 23 sources. The paper also ships Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation and publicly available tables. However, the central claim of 149 candidates rests on a minimum-velocity proxy and on Gaia DR3 proper motions that the authors themselves flag as potentially overestimated in Section 4. The strong dependence of the escape classification on the assumed potential—only two or three of the 23 followed-up stars retain Pesc ≥ 50% under the McMillan (2017) model—means the headline number is not a robust measure of the true unbound population.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The abstract and conclusions state that the authors identified 149 HVS candidates with Pesc > 50%, but this number is based on the minimum-velocity estimate Pesc,0 under MWPotential2014. Table 3 shows that under the McMillan (2017) potential only two (three with a bar) of the 23 spectroscopically followed stars have Pesc ≥ 50%. The central claim is therefore strongly potential-dependent and should be rephrased to state explicitly that the 149 candidates are only candidates under a particular potential and a minimum-velocity assumption, and the abstract should quote the number that survives under the most conservative potential.
  2. [Section 4, first paragraph] The authors note that vT significantly exceeds √2 vt for most targets, 'may indicate potentially overestimated proper motion values', and cite Palladino et al. (2014) and Scholz (2024). This concern is never resolved. Because the selection preferentially retains sources with positive proper-motion noise, a modest systematic bias in Gaia DR3 proper motions for faint sources could substantially contaminate the 149-candidate list and bias the Pesc values in Tables 2 and 3. The paper should provide a quantitative diagnostic—for example, a comparison of Gaia DR2 and DR3 proper motions for the candidates, or a control sample of faint stars—to place an upper limit on the likely PM bias, or it should downgrade the confidence in the candidate list accordingly.
  3. [Section 2, Pesc,0 definition] The quantity Pesc,0 is not the probability that the true total velocity exceeds the escape velocity; it is the probability that the minimum possible total velocity (obtained by setting the unknown radial velocity to the value that minimizes vT) exceeds vesc. This is a conservative lower limit for an individual star, but it means the headline '149 candidates with Pesc > 50%' is a statement about a lower envelope, not about the actual unbound fraction. The abstract and conclusions use 'Pesc > 50%' without this qualifier, which is misleading; the qualifier 'minimum-velocity-based' should be added wherever the 149 number is quoted.
  4. [Section 4, 'extra-Galactic' classification] The claim that approximately one-third of the sample may have an extra-Galactic origin is based on orbit classifications (disk crossing, plane avoidance, retrograde motion) computed under MWPotential2014 alone. Section 4.2 tests alternative potentials only for rmin and Pesc, not for the plane-crossing statistics or the disk/extra-Galactic classification. Since the classification is a central result and is qualitative, the robustness of the one-third fraction to the choice of potential should be assessed, or the claim should be explicitly limited to the adopted potential model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction: 'MV center' should read 'MW center'.
  2. [Section 4] The text refers to 'HV01' when discussing the fastest star; this should be 'HVS01' for consistency with Table 1.
  3. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract defines Pesc without stating that it is the minimum-velocity-based initial probability Pesc,0; please define the symbol in the abstract or in the first occurrence in the Introduction.
  4. [Section 4.3] The statement that 93 of the remaining candidates have vt ≥ vesc,MM should note that this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for escape, and that vt is a lower limit to the true transverse-plus-radial velocity; the current phrasing could be read as a confirmed count.
  5. [Section 3] The exposure-time footnote in Table 1 is clear, but the caption of Figure 2 should specify whether absolute magnitudes use a distance from parallax or from a prior; the text later says distances are from parallax inversion, so this is a minor clarity issue.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The 'confirmation' that FORS2 targets retain HVS status (Pesc > Pesc,0) is guaranteed by the lower-limit construction of Pesc,0; the 149-candidate census and orbit analysis otherwise use independent Gaia and FORS2 data, so circularity is minor.

  1. self definitional [Section 4 (Results and discussion), first paragraph]
    "The probability of being an HVS (Pesc), computed using the vlos derived from FORS2 data, is in good agreement with the values previously obtained (Pesc,0), as calculated in the absence of vlos measurements. Since the vT distributions previously derived above represent lower limits, Pesc > Pesc,0. Therefore, our HVS candidates retain this classification once new information is incorporated."

    Pesc,0 was defined as the fraction of Monte Carlo realizations in which the total velocity vT, minimized over the unknown heliocentric radial velocity vlos0, exceeds vesc. Replacing vlos0 with any measured vlos cannot decrease vT in any realization, so Pesc >= Pesc,0 is a mathematical identity that follows directly from the construction of Pesc,0 as a lower-limit probability. The sentence 'our HVS candidates retain this classification' therefore adds no empirical confirmation from the FORS2 spectra; the increase is forced by construction. The actual vT values, the orbit integrations, and the 149-source census are independent of this tautological step, so the circularity is confined to the confirmation framing rather than the central results.

full rationale

The paper's core candidate list is derived from Gaia DR3 astrometry (parallax and proper motions) plus a literature Galactic potential, and the follow-up FORS2 radial velocities are independent spectroscopic measurements. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction; the escape probabilities and orbit classifications are computed directly from the astrometry, the measured vlos, and externally published potentials (MWPotential2014, McMillan 2017, Price-Whelan 2017, LMC-modified models). The potential-model dependence is explicitly tested in Section 4.2 and Table 3, so using MWPotential2014 for both selection and interpretation is a consistency choice, not circularity. The only genuinely by-construction step is the claim that Pesc > Pesc,0 and that candidates 'retain this classification': because Pesc,0 was computed by minimizing vT over the unknown radial velocity, adding any measured vlos cannot lower vT, making the inequality a definitional consequence rather than an empirical confirmation. This is disclosed in the text and does not undermine the independent content of the measured vT values, the orbital origin analysis, or the headline census of 149 candidates. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear; citations to Scholz, Du, and other prior HVS searches are contextual. Overall, the derivation chain is largely self-contained, with only a minor tautological framing in the confirmation language.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its central claim depends on literature potential models and on hand-chosen selection thresholds; the most important free parameters are the Pesc cut and the astrometric quality cuts, which set the size and reliability of the candidate sample.

free parameters (6)
  • Pesc threshold = 0.5
    Stars with at least 50% probability of exceeding local escape velocity are classed as HVS candidates; this choice determines the 149-source sample.
  • Parallax uncertainty cut = sigma_pi/pi <= 0.2
    Limits the sample to nearby stars with reliable distances; affects the candidate count.
  • RUWE threshold = < 1.4
    Standard Gaia astrometric quality cut that removes poorly-fit sources.
  • Astrometric fidelity threshold = >= 0.5
    Rybizki et al. (2022) neural-network fidelity cut to remove spurious astrometric solutions.
  • Hills-origin radius criterion = r < 1 kpc
    Used to decide whether a star could have been ejected by the Galactic center black hole; affects the origin classification.
  • Cluster association distance = 500 pc (and 100 pc for probability)
    Threshold for associating a star with a globular cluster orbit; affects the tentative cluster-origin claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometric parameters and their quoted uncertainties are accurate for sources passing the quality cuts.
    All velocity estimates and orbit integrations propagate these values; systematic errors in proper motions would change the sample.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way gravitational potential is adequately described by the adopted literature models (MWPotential2014, McMillan 2017, etc.).
    Escape velocities and backward orbit integrations depend on the potential; the paper tests several models but no single one is validated.
  • domain assumption Sources without Gaia radial velocities are unbiased tracers of the hypervelocity population.
    The sample design explicitly excludes stars with Gaia RVs, assuming those were already studied; bias is possible if RV completeness correlates with velocity.
  • domain assumption The local escape velocity is independent of height z (evaluated at z = 0).
    Stated in Section 2; the authors verify the dispersion in vesc is below 2 km/s for most sources, so the assumption is mild.
  • standard math The minimum-total-velocity method (vlos0 chosen to minimize vT) gives a conservative estimate of the escape probability.
    This is a geometric lower bound; it does not overstate Pesc for the true unknown radial velocity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for new Hypervelocity Stars with Gaia DR3 and VLT/FORS2 Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C52TGGE5

@misc{pith2026250700150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for new Hypervelocity Stars with Gaia DR3 and VLT/FORS2 Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C52TGGE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00150}
}
read the original abstract

Hypervelocity stars are unique objects moving through the Milky Way at speeds exceeding the local escape velocity, providing valuable insights into the Galactic gravitational potential and the properties of its central supermassive black hole. The advent of Gaia DR3 offers an unprecedented astrometric precision, enabling the discovery of new hypervelocity stars and facilitating their characterization. This study seeks to identify and characterize hypervelocity star candidates using Gaia DR3 data, focusing on stars lacking radial velocity measurements. Our goal was to estimate the total velocities of these stars and establish their origin within the Galactic framework, if possible. We applied strict selection criteria to Gaia DR3 data, focusing on sources with low parallax uncertainties and high astrometric fidelity. The distributions of the total velocities in the Galactic rest frame were derived and used to identify candidates. Spectroscopic follow-up with VLT/FORS2 provided radial velocity measurements for a subset of these candidates. We evaluated the probabilities of stars exceeding local escape velocities under different Galactic potential models and traced their past orbits to identify possible origins. From Gaia DR3, we identified 149 hypervelocity star candidates with Pesc > 50% of exceeding local escape velocities. Our follow-up spectroscopy for 23 of those sources confirms that the selected targets are traveling at high velocities, with many appearing to escape the Galaxy, depending on the Galactic potential adopted. Our analysis suggests that nearly one-third of the stars may have an extra-Galactic origin. These findings highlight the need for more precise astrometric and spectroscopic data to conclusively determine the origins of hypervelocity stars and improve models of the Galactic potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. vT distribution from 1,000 realizations for two HVS candidates with similar median vesc (∼ 500 km s−1 ; blue vertical line). The yellow and orange distributions are associated with stars with initial escape probabilities of Pesc,0 = 10% and 75%, respectively. identifying HVS candidates when assuming vlos0 to derive their total velocities. Throughout this calculation, the distance from the Sun to the Galactic center … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the HVS candidates in the ℓ − b and Y − X planes, in the left and central panels, respectively. Objects for which we obtained follow-up spectroscopy are marked with red squares. Right: position of the HVS candidates and targets observed in the color-magnitude diagram (absolute magnitudes). liocentric velocity using MOLLY4 . To ensure accurate wavelength calibration, the spectra were subsequen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Toomre diagram showing the kinematic distribution of our stars in the (V, √ U2 + W2 ) plane. The green solid curve represents a total space velocity of 210 km s−1 , approximately delimiting the thick disk and halo populations (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023a), while the solid and dotted grey curves mark the 500 and 600 km s−1 contours, respec￾tively. Objects highlighted in orange correspond to those identified as ha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Past orbits computed using GALPY (showing here only the last 10 Myr), based on Gaia+FORS2 data. The orange, blue, and green solid lines represent different orbital classifications: orange corresponds to targets with a hypothetical extra-Galactic origin, blue indicates …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: vesc as a function of R for different Galactic potentials. The red solid line corresponds to the MWPotential2014 from GALPY, while the dashed lines located above correspond to the other potentials considered for our comparison. A maximum difference of ∼ 100 km s−1 is o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2009, ApJL, 691, L63

    2009

  2. [2]

    A., & Bovy, J

    Armstrong, I., Evans, F. A., & Bovy, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, 56

    2025

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  4. [4]

    & Williams, B

    Bamba, A. & Williams, B. J. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray As- trophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 77

    2022

  5. [5]

    Baumgardt, H., Gualandris, A., & Zwart, S. P. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 174

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    & Vasiliev, E

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

    2021

  7. [7]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 2789

    Boubert, D., Guillochon, J., Hawkins, K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2789

    work page 2018

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Bovy, J., Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 131

    2012

  2. [10]

    C., Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., Kenyon, S. J., Geller, M. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1194

    2006

  3. [11]

    Brown, W. R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 15

    2015

  4. [12]

    R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O

    Brown, W. R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O. Y ., et al. 2010, ApJL, 719, L23

    2010

  5. [13]

    R., Geller, M

    Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2014, ApJ, 787, 89

    2014

  6. [14]

    R., Geller, M

    Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., & Kurtz, M. J. 2005, ApJL, 622, L33

    2005

  7. [15]

    R., Geller, M

    Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., & Kurtz, M. J. 2006, ApJL, 640, L35

    2006

  8. [16]

    J., Gerasimov, R., Kremer, K., et al

    Burgasser, A. J., Gerasimov, R., Kremer, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L25

    2024

  9. [17]

    & Rodriguez, C

    Cabrera, T. & Rodriguez, C. L. 2023, ApJ, 953, 19

    2023

  10. [18]

    & Fragione, G

    Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R. & Fragione, G. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2677

    2015

  11. [19]

    S., Do, T., Ghez, A., et al

    Chu, D. S., Do, T., Ghez, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 94

    2023

  12. [20]

    2023, A&A, 674, A18

    Clementini, G., Ripepi, V ., Garofalo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A18

    2023

  13. [21]

    M., & Marchetti, T

    Contigiani, O., Rossi, E. M., & Marchetti, T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4025

    2019

  14. [22]

    J., et al

    Du, C., Li, H., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L31

    2018

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJS, 244, 4

    Du, C., Li, H., Yan, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 4

    2019

  16. [24]

    2005, ApJ, 634, L181

    Edelmann, H., Napiwotzki, R., Heber, U., Christlieb, N., & Reimers, D. 2005, ApJ, 634, L181

    2005

  17. [25]

    W., & Antonini, F

    Erkal, D., Boubert, D., Gualandris, A., Evans, N. W., & Antonini, F. 2019, MN- RAS, 483, 2007

    2019

  18. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2350 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al

    Evans, F., Marchetti, T., & Rossi, E. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2350 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L12

    2022

  19. [27]

    2023, A&A, 674, A13

    Eyer, L., Audard, M., Holl, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A13

    2023

  20. [28]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 30

    Fang, Z., Li, X., & Li, H. 2025, ApJS, 277, 30

    2025

  21. [29]

    & Safi-Harb, S

    Ferrand, G. & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, AdSpR, 49, 1313

    2012

  22. [30]

    Fiteni, K., Caruana, J., Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V . P., & Beraldo e Silva, L. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1418

    2021

  23. [31]

    & Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R

    Fragione, G. & Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2596

    2016

  24. [32]

    & Gualandris, A

    Fragione, G. & Gualandris, A. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4543 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018a, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Helmi, A., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018b, A&A, 616, A12 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&...

    2019

  25. [33]

    S., Ebagezio, S., & Diaferio, A

    Gallo, A., Ostorero, L., Chakrabarty, S. S., Ebagezio, S., & Diaferio, A. 2022, A&A, 663, A72

    2022

  26. [34]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 118

    Generozov, A. 2020, ApJ, 904, 118

    2020

  27. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L15

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L15

    2018

  28. [36]

    & Zwart, S

    Gualandris, A. & Zwart, S. P. 2007, MNRAS, 376, L29 Gülzow, L., Fairbairn, M., & Schwarz, D. J. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3816 Häberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2024, Nat, 631, 285

    2007

  29. [37]

    J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al

    Han, J. J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 188

    2025

  30. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20266

    Hattori, K., Taniguchi, D., Tsujimoto, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20266

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    F., & Roederer, I

    Hattori, K., Valluri, M., Bell, E. F., & Roederer, I. U. 2018, ApJ, 866, 121

    2018

  32. [40]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    2020

  33. [41]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nat, 331, 687

    1988

  34. [42]

    2005, A&A, 444, L61

    Hirsch, H., Heber, U., O’Toole, S., & Bresolin, F. 2005, A&A, 444, L61

    2005

  35. [43]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L42

    Huang, Y ., Li, Q., Zhang, H., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L42

    2021

  36. [44]

    2021, A&A, 646, L4

    Irrgang, A., Dimpel, M., Heber, U., & Raddi, R. 2021, A&A, 646, L4

    2021

  37. [45]

    2018, A&A, 620, A48

    Irrgang, A., Kreuzer, S., & Heber, U. 2018, A&A, 620, A48

    2018

  38. [46]

    E., Boubert, D., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Boubert, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2465

    2020

  39. [47]

    H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A

    Koppelman, H. H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Starkenburg, T. K. 2019, A&A, 631, L9

    2019

  40. [48]

    2020, A&A, 637, A53

    Kreuzer, S., Irrgang, A., & Heber, U. 2020, A&A, 637, A53

    2020

  41. [49]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L13

    Li, H., Du, C., Ma, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L13

    2022

  42. [50]

    2018, ApJS, 238, 16

    Li, H., Tan, K., & Zhao, G. 2018, ApJS, 238, 16

    2018

  43. [51]

    L., Lu, Y .-J., et al

    Li, Y .-B., Luo, A. L., Lu, Y .-J., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 3

    2021

  44. [52]

    2024, NatAs, 8, 1302

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Chen, B., et al. 2024, NatAs, 8, 1302

    2024

  45. [53]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L39

    Liao, J., Du, C., Li, H., Ma, J., & Shi, J. 2023, ApJL, 944, L39

    2023

  46. [54]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 64

    Lin, Z., Xu, Y ., Hao, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 64

    2023

  47. [55]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426

    2019

  48. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 4697

    Marchetti, T., Contigiani, O., Rossi, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4697

    2018

  49. [57]

    A., & Rossi, E

    Marchetti, T., Evans, F. A., & Rossi, E. M. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 767

    2022

  50. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 157

    Marchetti, T., Rossi, E., & Brown, A. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 157

    2019

  51. [59]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1388

    Marchetti, T., Rossi, E., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1388

    2017

  52. [60]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L35

    Matsuno, T., Aoki, W., & Suda, T. 2019, ApJL, 874, L35

    2019

  53. [61]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4

    2012

  54. [62]

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

    2017

  55. [63]

    2018, A&A, 616, L9

    Monari, G., Famaey, B., Carrillo, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L9

    2018

  56. [64]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 5647

    Montanari, F., Barrado, D., & García-Bellido, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5647

    2019

  57. [65]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V . 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235

    2019

  58. [66]

    E., Schlesinger, K

    Palladino, L. E., Schlesinger, K. J., Holley-Bockelmann, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 7

    2014

  59. [67]

    2004, ApJ, 609, 144 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al

    Pichardo, B., Martos, M., & Moreno, E. 2004, ApJ, 609, 144 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nat, 567, 200

    2004

  60. [68]

    2011, A&A, 535, A70

    Piffl, T., Williams, M., & Steinmetz, M. 2011, A&A, 535, A70

    2011

  61. [69]

    M., Frebel, A., Beers, T

    Placco, V . M., Frebel, A., Beers, T. C., & Stancliffe, R. J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 21

    2014

  62. [70]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, JOSS, 2, 388

    2017

  63. [71]

    J., & Dékány, I

    Prudil, Z., Smolec, R., Kunder, A., Koch-Hansen, A. J., & Dékány, I. 2024, A&A, 685, A153

    2024

  64. [72]

    J., et al

    Quispe-Huaynasi, F., Roig, F., McDonald, D. J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 187

    2022

  65. [73]

    G., Cartier, R., et al

    Ruiz-Lapuente, P., Her´nandez, J. G., Cartier, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 90

    2023

  66. [74]

    M., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Rybizki, J., Green, G. M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2597

    2022

  67. [75]

    Scholz, R. D. 2024, A&A, 685, A162 Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829

    2024

  68. [76]

    & Napiwotzki, R

    Silva, M. & Napiwotzki, R. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2596

    2011

  69. [77]

    D., McConnachie, A

    Starkenburg, E., Shetrone, M. D., McConnachie, A. W., & Venn, K. A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1217

    2014

  70. [78]

    D., & Heber, U

    Tillich, A., Przybilla, N., Scholz, R. D., & Heber, U. 2009, A&A, 507, L37

    2009

  71. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    2019

  72. [80]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59

    Vasiliev, E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59

    2023

  73. [81]

    & Baumgardt, H

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

    2021

  74. [82]

    M., Koposov, S

    Verberne, S., Rossi, E. M., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2747

    2024

  75. [83]

    2023, A&A, 671, A171

    Wehrhahn, A., Piskunov, N., & Ryabchikova, T. 2023, A&A, 671, A171

    2023

  76. [84]

    & Tremaine, S

    Yu, Q. & Tremaine, S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1129 Article number, page 10 of 11 Carballo-Bello et al.: Hypervelocity stars with Gaia DR3 and FORS2 spectroscopy Appendix A: Covariance matrix The covariance matrix describing the uncertainties and correla- tions between the measured ast...

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.