Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Constraining the Milky Way Halo Accretion History With Simulated Stellar Halos: Designing the HALO7D-X Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper designs the HALO7D-X survey—30 lines of sight combining HST and Gaia proper motions with Keck spectroscopy—and argues from mock observations that it will recover the mass distribution and accretion timeline of the Milky Way's…

desk verdict A solid, honest survey-design forecast whose headline mass-distribution sensitivity is undercut by the paper's own [α/Fe] uncertainty test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05239 v1 pith:OPBKG2FF submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA stat.AP

Miranda Apfel , Kevin A. McKinnon , Constance M. Rockosi , Puragra Guhathakurta , Kathryn V. Johnston This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAstat.AP
keywords MilkyWaystellarhaloaccretionhistoryHALO7D-XsurveymockdesignHSTandGaiapropermotionsKeckspectroscopyclassificationsimulations
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 designs a new survey of the Milky Way's stellar halo and asks what its observables can teach about the galaxy's assembly history. The central claim is that a survey with 30 lines of sight and at least 15 stars each, combining HST and Gaia proper motions with Keck spectroscopy, is sensitive to the mass distribution and accretion timeline of the halo's progenitor satellites, but not to their orbital circularity. The authors demonstrate this by making mock observations of simulated stellar halos with known accretion histories and showing that the halos cluster into three observable groups that map onto distinct formation modes: early assembly from many small mergers, steady assembly from fewer larger mergers, and histories dominated by one massive merger. If the claim holds, the real survey can be used to place the Milky Way's halo into one of these categories and thereby identify the broad character of its accretion history.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the multidimensional probability mass function built from mock observations of each simulated halo. For each halo, the paper rotates the correlated [Fe/H]–[α/Fe] plane along the principal axis of the abundance relation, then grids the observables (velocity, distance modulus, transformed [Fe/H], transformed [α/Fe]) into cells, smooths each simulated star with a multivariate normal, and marginalizes over 360 solar positions and 30 lines of sight. The likelihood of the data is a multinomial evaluated against these grids, and the posterior over halo fractions is sampled with Metropolis-Hastings. This is what turns 'which halo does this look like' into 'which accretion history does this look like'.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to run the same probability comparison on real HALO7D-X data at Galactocentric distances beyond 15 kpc: if a substantial component of the observed halo consists of stars formed in situ or heated out of the disk, or if the posterior halo fractions favor no simulated halo and the data occupy regions of velocity, [Fe/H], and [α/Fe] space with negligible probability in all 11 templates, then the claimed mapping from observables to accretion history is incomplete. A simpler calculation already gives a bound: removing [α/Fe] from the analysis erases the distinction between Group C halos and the other groups, so the survey's sensitivity to a dominant merger depends on the uncertain chemistry measurements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a mapping from seven-dimensional stellar observables—3D position, 3D velocity, [Fe/H], and [α/Fe]—onto statements about the mass distribution and accretion timeline of the satellites that built the halo. Working with the simulated-halo suite, the authors gridded the observables into probability distributions for each simulated halo and used a multinomial likelihood with a Dirichlet prior to compute posterior halo fractions for mock surveys. When mock data are drawn from one halo, the posterior identifies the correct halo with the highest fraction, and the halos that receive high probabilities are statistically similar in observables. Those same halos share similarities in the mass and timing parameters of their accretion histories, and the suite separates into three groups: early assembly from many low-mass mergers, steady assembly from fewer more-massive mergers, and assembly dominated by a single major merger. The authors conclude from this that HALO7D-X will recover the mass distribution and timeline of the Milky Way's stellar-halo progenitors, but not their orbital circularity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated halos used as templates represent the Milky Way's stellar halo observables well enough that similarities in observables correspond to similarities in accretion history, even though the simulations omit globular clusters, in-situ and disk-heated stars, and any merger with at least 10% of the parent mass in the last 7 Gyr.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 30 lines of sight and at least 15 stars per line of sight, HALO7D-X can identify the correct simulated halo for mock data and can group the real Milky Way halo into one of three accretion-history families.
  • The survey will constrain the mass distribution of progenitors—including whether a single massive merger dominates—and the timeline of accretion, which are exactly the parameters that separate the three observable groups.
  • The survey will not constrain orbital circularity, because the individual fields are too small to contain the stream-like or plume-like morphologies that circularity imprints on halo substructure.
  • Real data will not exactly match any simulated halo, but the posterior halo fractions can still serve as a measure of similarity, allowing a comparison between the Milky Way and the closest simulated accretion histories.
  • The [α/Fe] dimension carries important discriminating power: when it is removed from the analysis, the two halos dominated by a single massive merger are no longer recognized as a distinct group.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension beyond the paper: the three-group taxonomy suggests that future analyses could classify the Milky Way's actual stellar halo coarsely as 'early many-small-merger', 'steady fewer-larger-merger', or 'single-dominant-merger' even before any precise mass or time measurement is made.
  • As an extension beyond the paper: the reported recovery rates are best interpreted as upper bounds, since the template suite contains no in-situ or disk-heated stars and no recent major merger; applying the same posterior machinery to a newer simulation suite with these components would test how much of the mapping survives.
  • As an extension beyond the paper: because the loss of circularity sensitivity is explicitly tied to field size, a complementary survey with larger contiguous area or stream-finding methods could recover orbital information that this design cannot.
  • As an extension beyond the paper: the paper's technique of building probability distributions from rotated abundance axes could be transferred to other observables, such as parallax-based distances or age estimates, to extend the same classification to other stellar populations.
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. This paper presents the design of the HALO7D-X survey, a 30-line-of-sight HST+Gaia+Keck campaign aimed at measuring 3D positions, velocities, and chemical abundances for faint Milky Way halo stars. To evaluate the survey's constraining power, the authors use the Bullock & Johnston (2005) suite of 11 simulated stellar halos, post-process them with Galaxia, and construct mock HALO7D-X observations. They build multidimensional probability distributions of v3D, distance modulus, transformed [Fe/H], and transformed [α/Fe] on a fixed grid, use a multinomial likelihood with Dirichlet and uniform priors, sample posterior halo fractions with Metropolis-Hastings MCMC, and sort the halos into three groups based on mutual posterior similarity. The authors conclude that the survey will be sensitive to the mass distribution and accretion timeline of progenitor satellites but not to orbital circularity.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this paper offers a useful survey design and a transparent, standard statistical framework for comparing discrete halo observations to simulations. The authors are careful to document the survey geometry, mock generation, grid and smoothing choices, and the expected observational uncertainties, and they candidly acknowledge several limitations of the B&J model suite. The strengths are the explicit pipeline description and the honest reporting of what the closed-box mock tests can and cannot establish. The central sensitivity claim is nevertheless weakened by two issues: the mock tests are closed-box, and the expected [α/Fe] uncertainty is large enough to remove the group that carries the strongest mass-distribution signature. The numerical results should therefore be interpreted as sensitivity within the B&J model family rather than a validated prediction for the Milky Way.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4 and §6] The expected median [α/Fe] uncertainty of 0.4 dex is 16 times the 0.025 dex smoothing scale and about 4.4 times the 0.09 dex grid cell width used for the transformed [α/Fe] dimension in Table 2, yet this uncertainty is not convolved into the mock-analysis likelihoods. The paper's own removal test in §5.4 shows that when [α/Fe] is dropped entirely, Halo 5 sorts into Group B and Halo 14 into Group A, so the distinct Group C—the group containing halos with a single dominant massive progenitor (M1 ≥ 20% of halo mass, Figure 14)—is no longer recoverable. Because Group C is precisely the mass-distribution signature most relevant to the GSE-like Milky Way, the Section 6 conclusion that HALO7D-X 'will be sensitive to ... the mass distribution of the progenitors' is not supported by the tested design unless the [α/Fe] error is reduced or explicitly accounted for by convolving model distributions with the expected uncertainty; the optimism about future chemistry improvements is not part of the design that was tested.
  2. [§4.2 and §5.2] The mock surveys are drawn from the same B&J halos whose probability distributions serve as the likelihood models, so the recovery rates in Figures 7–9 are a closed-box consistency check rather than a predictive validation. The manuscript acknowledges this in §4.2 ('our probability model effectively assumes “the data must originate from at least one of the halos”') and in §3 (no in-situ or disk-heated stars, no recent major merger), but the Section 6 claim that HALO7D-X will be able to compare real Milky Way data with the simulated halos and learn about the Galaxy's formation extrapolates beyond this test. A concrete way to strengthen the claim would be to inject a mock Milky Way sample that includes an in-situ component or to repeat the classification using an independent simulation suite; short of that, the conclusions should be explicitly framed as discrimination among B&J-type halos.
  3. [§5.2 and §5.3] The three-group classification rests on only 11 halos, with Group C comprising just two halos, and the sorting score in Equation 4 is heuristic. The robustness check in §5.2 reports qualitative agreement among the top five sorting orders and across scoring variants, but it does not provide a quantitative stability measure such as a bootstrap over stars or halos. Since the entire argument that the observables are sensitive to mass distribution and accretion timeline depends on this grouping, a stability analysis is needed to establish that the three groups are not an artifact of the specific 11-halo sample.
  4. [§3] The B&J halos are accretion-only and contain no globular clusters, no in-situ or disk-heated stars, and no merger with a satellite ≥10% of the parent mass in the last 7 Gyr. The manuscript notes these limitations in §3 but does not quantify how such components would alter the mapping between HALO7D-X observables and accretion-history parameters. If the real Milky Way halo contains a substantial in-situ or disk-heated component, or a recent massive merger not represented in these models, the reported recovery rates are optimistic; the conclusions and abstract should carry a qualifier reflecting this model-dependence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 / §5.4] The grid cell widths for v3D and vLOS are reversed between Table 2 (v3D: 120 km/s; vLOS: 200 km/s) and the text in §5.4 ('For the velocity probability distributions, v3D and vLOS, we used a grid cell size of 200 km s−1 and 120 km s−1, respectively'). Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Table 1 / §4.1.1] Table 1 defines ncell = 3360, while §4.1.1 states that there are 10000 probability cells when using the four baseline observables (10 cells per dimension). Please reconcile the definition and the value of ncell.
  3. [§5.3 and §6] The mean masses quoted for the groups are inconsistent: §5.3 reports average stellar masses of 3.2 × 10^9 M⊙ for Group A and 5.6 × 10^9 M⊙ for Group B, while Section 6 gives 7.5 × 10^9 M⊙ and 11 × 10^9 M⊙ for the same groups. Please clarify whether the latter are total masses rather than stellar masses and use consistent numbers.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Milky W ay' in the Abstract, 'G oup A G oup B' in the Figure 12 caption, and 'Time Si ce 50%' in the Figure 13 caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity claims are a forward-modeling, in-sample separability test with transparent idealization; limitations are robustness issues, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward-modeling sensitivity study. Bullock & Johnston halos with known accretion histories are post-processed with Galaxia to produce mock observables; these observables define multidimensional probability distributions for each halo; mock HALO7D-X surveys are drawn from those same distributions and evaluated against the same set of distributions to produce posterior halo fractions; the resulting grouping is then compared with the known accretion histories of the same halos. This is closed-box and in-sample, and the paper says so explicitly: Section 5.1 states "our real HALO7D-X data will not match the simulated halos as closely," and Section 4.2 notes "Our probability model effectively assumes 'the data must originate from at least one of the halos'." The recovery rates therefore measure the separability of the simulated observable distributions rather than a prediction on independent external data, but that is the quantity the survey-design question requires. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to predict a closely related quantity; the three-group structure is determined from observable similarities and then checked against accretion-history parameters that were not used in the sorting, so the correspondence is not an artifact of the grouping criterion. The Bullock & Johnston suite and Galaxia are cited as prior tools by the authors, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a self-justifying proof; they are the input models under test. The paper's own robustness limitations are real but are correctness risks rather than circularity: Section 5.4 acknowledges that the expected [alpha/Fe] uncertainty of 0.4 dex is far larger than the 0.09 dex grid cell and 0.025 dex smoothing, and that removing [alpha/Fe] entirely makes Halos 5 and 14 no longer distinct as Group C; Section 3 acknowledges the halos lack in-situ/disk-heated stars, globular clusters, and recent major mergers. These caveats weaken the strength of the Section 6 conclusion and should be weighed in an assessment of the survey's likely real-world constraining power, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its own inputs. Overall, the analysis is self-contained and internally consistent, with no circular step that reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the B&J accretion-only halos, on hand-tuned grid and smoothing parameters, and on uniform priors. No new physical entities, forces, or particles are introduced. The free parameters are grid and smoothing scales, the abundance-plane rotation fitted to the 11-halo sample, and the adopted survey configuration; all are choices made by the authors rather than quantities derived from first principles.

free parameters (7)
  • v3D grid cell width and smoothing scale = 120 km/s cell width, 60 km/s smoothing (Table 2; Section 5.4 text swaps this with vLOS)
    Hand-chosen to give 10 cells across the simulated observable range; approximately half the 68% width of the simulated distribution. Affects the sharpness of the likelihood.
  • vLOS grid cell width and smoothing scale = 200 km/s cell width, 60 km/s smoothing (Table 2; Section 5.4 text swaps this with v3D)
    Used in the alternative vLOS analysis of Section 5.4. Chosen by hand to match the simulated range.
  • Distance modulus grid cell width and smoothing scale = 2 mag cell width, 0.75 mag smoothing
    The smoothing corresponds to a 35% distance uncertainty; the grid width to about 92% uncertainty. Chosen by hand in Section 4.1.1.
  • Transformed [Fe/H] grid cell width and smoothing scale = 0.2 dex cell width, 0.05 dex smoothing
    Hand-chosen to give 10 cells along the transformed abundance axis; smoothing is about half the 68% width of the simulated [Fe/H] distribution.
  • Transformed [alpha/Fe] grid cell width and smoothing scale = 0.09 dex cell width, 0.025 dex smoothing
    Hand-chosen for the transformed alpha abundance axis; the paper later shows observational alpha/Fe errors (0.4 dex) are much larger than this smoothing scale.
  • Abundance-plane rotation angle = Best-fit line to the [Fe/H]-[alpha/Fe] ridge over all 11 halos (Figure 4)
    Defines the transformed abundance axes used in the likelihood grid. Fitted to the simulated halos rather than derived from first principles, and the paper notes the transformation is approximate.
  • Survey configuration (nLOS=30, n*=15) = 30 lines of sight, 15 stars per LOS
    Chosen in Section 5.1 to maximize use of the HST archive and DEIMOS masks; the sensitivity results in Figures 7 through 9 depend on this configuration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The B&J halos represent the Milky Way stellar halo
    Used throughout Sections 3 through 5. The suite contains only accreted satellite stars and omits in-situ and disk-heated stars, globular clusters, and recent major mergers, as acknowledged in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Galaxia interpolation preserves phase-space and chemistry
    Section 3.2: mock surveys are generated by Galaxia from B&J star particles. Any interpolation error propagates into all likelihood distributions and posterior fractions.
  • ad hoc to paper Grid and smoothing scales capture the information content
    Section 4.1.1: widths are chosen so there are 10 cells per dimension and smoothing is about half the 68% width of the combined simulated distribution. This choice affects the sharpness of the posteriors and therefore the reported sensitivity.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform priors over solar angles, simulated LOS, and halos
    Section 4.1.3: p(s|h)=1/360, p(k|h,s)=1/30, and Dirichlet(c=1) for the halo fraction vector. The posterior distributions in Figures 5 through 9 are conditioned on these priors.
  • standard math Multinomial likelihood for cell counts
    Section 4.1.2: assumes stars are independent draws from the halo cell probabilities. This ignores spatial correlation of stars within a line of sight, which could be relevant for substructure.
  • domain assumption 1 square degree LOS approximation
    Section 3.2: real LOS are non-contiguous HST fields; the circular 1 deg^2 approximation may average over substructure smaller than 1 deg^2. This is directly relevant to the null result on orbital circularity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the Milky Way Halo Accretion History With Simulated Stellar Halos: Designing the HALO7D-X Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPBKG2FF

@misc{pith2026250705239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the Milky Way Halo Accretion History With Simulated Stellar Halos: Designing the HALO7D-X Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPBKG2FF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05239}
}
read the original abstract

We present the design for HALO7D-X, a survey of the stellar halo to investigate the accretion history of the Milky Way. The survey will use a combination of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and Gaia data for sky position and proper motions of faint stars (18<G<21.5 mag), while line-of-sight velocity, distance, [Fe/H], and [alpha/Fe] will be measured using follow-up Keck spectroscopy. The survey will cover 30 lines of sight, made up of multiple HST archival fields and optimized for Keck DEIMOS spectroscopy. We use mock survey observations of the Bullock and Johnston stellar halo simulations to investigate the sensitivity of HALO7D-X to constrain the basic parameters of the accretion history of our Galaxy's stellar halo. We find that we are sensitive to the mass distribution and accretion timeline of the stellar halo progenitors, but not their orbital circularity. We find that the simulated halos fall into three different groups based on the similarities in their distributions of the observable dimensions of our survey. These groups are also distinct from each other in the mass distribution and accretion timeline of their progenitor satellites, showing that by using similarities in our observables among halos, we are able to identify similarities in their accretion histories. With HALO7D-X we will compare real Milky Way data with simulated halos and use this connection between observables and progenitor mass and accretion timeline to learn about the formation of our Galaxy's stellar halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The locations of all 30 HALO7D-X LOS. Fields from the original HALO7D survey are indicated with a red ring. The new survey increases the area observed. The LOS sizes are not to scale. However, many of the LOS will have significantly more halo stars than this, such as the original HALO7D fields. The LOS locations are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color magnitude diagram of the ∼ 4200 Gaia stars in the COSMOS field that could potentially be included in a future HALO7D-X survey (blue points). Median color uncertainties for different magnitude bins are shown as black error bars at BP−RP= −1.5 mag, and histograms of the magnitude and color are displayed along the top and right edges. A typical MW stellar halo MIST isochrone (Dotter 2016; Choi et al. 2016; Paxton… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The individual accretion histories of the 11 different B&J halos. Each symbol represents an individual accreted satellite, with the size of the point linearly scaled by the dark matter mass of the satellite. The x-axis of each plot shows the orbital circularity of the satellites, with 0 indicating a perfectly radial orbit and 1 a perfectly circular one. The y-axis is the time elapsed since the satellite was accreted… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: 2D histogram of the simulated chemical abundances from the B&J halos. A best-fit line is shown in red, which defines a set of perpendicular vectors (white). Bottom: The transformed chemical abundances defined by the (white) perpendicular vectors in the top panel. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior halo fraction vectors for one data draw that originates from Halo02 and has 30 data LOS and 15 stars per LOS. The observables in this case are v3D, µ, transformed [Fe/H], and transformed [α/Fe]. The faint grey histograms show different realizations of the pos…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of number of data LOS and number of stars per LOS (N∗) on the posterior probability assigned to the halo that data were generated from. The points in each group are staggered horizontally for the sake of clarity of viewing, but they all correspond to the same nu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Summary of the evaluation of samples taken from each of the 11 halos when evaluated against all statistical models, for our HALO7D-X configuration of 30 LOS with 15 stars per LOS. The x-axis shows the halo the sample was drawn from, while the y-axis indicates the stati…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative histograms of the orbital circularity of the satellites making up the 11 simulated halos. The left panel is unweighted, while the right panel is weighted by satellite mass. Halos are colored by groups as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative histograms showing the mass distribution of satellites that make up each of the simulated halos. Halos are colored by groups described as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative distributions of time since accretion for each satellite that built up our 11 simulated stellar halos. The left panel is unweighted, while the right panel is weighted by satellite mass. Halos are colored by groups described as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The ratio between the masses of the two most massive satellites in each halo versus the time for 50% of satellites to accrete for the B&J halos. M1 and M2 are the most massive and second most massive progenitors, respectively. When looking at certain measures of mass …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The percent of total halo mass coming from the most massive progenitor satellite (M1) versus the mass accretion timeline for the B&J halos. Groups A and B separate out from each other at early times, with Group A halos accreting more of their mass at early times. Thei…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Gaia parallax S/N as a function of magnitude for the 3128/4213 ≈ 74% of COSMOS stars shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 747, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09789.x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Coll...

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    F., Zucker, D

    Bell, E. F., Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 295, doi: 10.1086/588032

    doi:10.1086/588032 2008

  3. [3]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  4. [4]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa876

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    W., Irwin, M

    Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2007a, ApJ, 658, 337, doi: 10.1086/511302

    doi:10.1086/511302

  7. [7]

    W., Bell, E

    Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Bell, E. F., et al. 2007b, ApJL, 657, L89, doi: 10.1086/513144

    doi:10.1086/513144

  8. [8]

    Proper Motions and Orbits of Distant Local Group Dwarf Galaxies from a combination of Gaia and Hubble Data

    Bennet, P., Patel, E., Sohn, S. T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.09276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.09276

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.09276 2023

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Kereˇ s, D

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, ApJ, 845, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d0c

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Bonaca, A., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa9 22 Apfel et al

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    S., & Johnston, K

    Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931, doi: 10.1086/497422

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 33, doi: 10.1086/318681

    2001 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Cargile, P. A., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba43b

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Gabany, R. J. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2016

  8. [16]

    420, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond, ed

    Library, Vol. 420, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond, ed. H. J. Newberg & J. L. Carlin, 219, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19336-6 9

    doi

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8

    Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    T., Woods, D

    Cook, B. T., Woods, D. F., Ruprecht, J. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1007

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    C., Deason, A

    Cunningham, E. C., Deason, A. J., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cb

    doi

  14. [23]

    C., Deason, A

    Cunningham, E. C., Deason, A. J., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 879, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24cd

    doi

  15. [24]

    C., Sanderson, R

    Cunningham, E. C., Sanderson, R. E., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78ea De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., & Lancaster, L. 2018, ApJL, 862, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad0ee

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Sanders, J

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Sanders, J. L. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2793 del Pino, A., Libralato, M., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70cf DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-pr...

    2019 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f72

    Thompson, J. 2019, ApJ, 886, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f72

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    J., Frenk, C

    Fattahi, A., Deason, A. J., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2221

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    S., Johnston, K

    Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., & Robertson, B. E. 2006a, ApJ, 638, 585, doi: 10.1086/498970 —. 2006b, ApJ, 646, 886, doi: 10.1086/505131 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2006a, ApJL, 645, L37, doi: 10.1086/505863 —. 2006b, ApJL, 651, L29, doi: 10.1086/509255 —. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1118 —. 2014, ApJL, 790, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L10

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    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

  24. [33]

    Helmi, A., & White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 495, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02616.x

    1999

  25. [34]

    2001, Nature, 412, 49, doi: 10.1038/35083506

    Tanvir, N. 2001, Nature, 412, 49, doi: 10.1038/35083506

    2001 doi

  26. [35]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Martin, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

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

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0 —. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.3.781

    1994 doi

  28. [37]

    L., Ma, Z., et al

    Janesh, W., Morrison, H. L., Ma, Z., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 80, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/80

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    V., Bullock, J

    Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., Sharma, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 936, doi: 10.1086/592228

    2008 doi

  30. [39]

    V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M

    Johnston, K. V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M. 1996, ApJ, 465, 278, doi: 10.1086/177418 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    1996 doi

  31. [40]

    E., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/80

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    Lancaster, L., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2019a, MNRAS, 484, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz124

    doi

  33. [42]

    E., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Lancaster, L., Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Deason, A. J. 2019b, MNRAS, 486, 378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz853

    doi

  34. [43]

    T., & Bovy, J

    Mackereth, J. T., & Bovy, J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa047

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Goldman, B., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Goldman, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1338

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    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

  38. [47]

    F., Ibata, R

    Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Rich, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/19

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    A., Helmi, A., et al

    Massari, D., Breddels, M. A., Helmi, A., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 156, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0322-y

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    2017, A&A, 598, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630174 The HALO7D-X Survey 23

    Massari, D., Posti, L., Helmi, A., Fiorentino, G., & Tolstoy, E. 2017, A&A, 598, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630174 The HALO7D-X Survey 23

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad321

    Mateu, C. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad321

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Cunningham, E

    McKinnon, K. A., Cunningham, E. C., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd33d

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    A., del Pino, A., Rockosi, C

    McKinnon, K. A., del Pino, A., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5834

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    2013, ApJS, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/8

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    2017, ApJS, 228, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/7

    Nayyeri, H., Hemmati, S., Mobasher, B., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/7

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    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

  48. [57]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    W., Bullock, J

    Purcell, C. W., Bullock, J. S., & Kazantzidis, S. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1711, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16429.x

    2010

  52. [61]

    S., Font, A

    Robertson, B., Bullock, J. S., Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 872, doi: 10.1086/452619

    2005 doi

  53. [62]

    M., Lee, Y

    Rockosi, C. M., Lee, Y. S., Morrison, H. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5323

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    C., Rockosi, C

    Schlaufman, K. C., Rockosi, C. M., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/77

    2012 doi

  55. [64]

    1978, ApJ, 225, 357, doi: 10.1086/156499

    Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357, doi: 10.1086/156499

    1978 doi

  56. [65]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/3

    Binney, J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/3

    2011 doi

  57. [66]

    A., Majewski, S

    Sheffield, A. A., Majewski, S. R., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/161

    2012 doi

  58. [67]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    L., et al

    Starkenburg, E., Helmi, A., Morrison, H. L., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 567, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/567

    2009 doi

  60. [69]

    2006, AJ, 132, 1645, doi: 10.1086/506564

    Steinmetz, M., Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645, doi: 10.1086/506564

    2006 doi

  61. [70]

    K., Jaff´ e, Y

    Vivas, A. K., Jaff´ e, Y. L., Zinn, R., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1645, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1645

    2008 doi

  62. [71]

    T., Kallivayalil, N., Zivick, P., et al

    Warfield, J. T., Kallivayalil, N., Zivick, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3647

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52, doi: 10.1086/170483

    1991 doi

  64. [73]

    Q., Luo, B., Brandt, W

    Xue, Y. Q., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/10

    2011 doi

  65. [74]

    J., et al

    Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4377, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4377

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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