The Galactic Bulge exploration VI.: Gaia Enceladus/Sausage RR Lyrae stars in the inner-central stellar halo of the Milky Way

Andrea Kunder (Saint Martin's University); Antonela Monachesi (Universidad de La Serena); Elisa A. Tau (Universidad de La Serena); Joanne Hughes (Seattle University); Kathryn Devine (The College of Idaho); Kevin Covey (Western Washington University); R. Michael Rich (UCLA); Samuel J. Morris (Saint Martin's University); Zdenek Prudil (ESO)

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

The Galactic Bulge exploration VI.: Gaia Enceladus/Sausage RR Lyrae stars in the inner-central stellar halo of the Milky Way

T0 review · 3 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 The paper claims that the Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage merger contributed just 6-9% ± 2% of the inner-central halo's RR Lyrae stars, and essentially none of its debris follows bulge-like orbits.

desk verdict First inner-central halo GES fraction estimate from RR Lyrae stars, but the headline 6–9% number leans on Auriga transfer fractions that need a systematic error bar. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11741 v1 pith:LXCZNK55 submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Andrea Kunder (Saint Martin's University) , Zdenek Prudil (ESO) , Antonela Monachesi (Universidad de La Serena) , Samuel J. Morris (Saint Martin's University) , Kathryn Devine (The College of Idaho) , Joanne Hughes (Seattle University) , Kevin Covey (Western Washington University) , R. Michael Rich (UCLA)

show 1 more author

Elisa A. Tau (Universidad de La Serena)

This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

keywords RRLyraestarsGaia-Enceladus-SausagemergerinnerstellarhaloGalacticbulgeintegralsofmotionorbitaleccentricityMilkyWayformationcosmologicalsimulations

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 isolates 281 RR Lyrae stars — old, metal-poor pulsating stars — in the Milky Way's inner-central stellar halo, at Galactocentric distances $R\lesssim10$ kpc but on orbits that cross $z_{\mathrm{max}}$ between 3 and 20 kpc, and asks what fraction of them came from the ancient Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage (GES) merger. Comparing their energies, angular momenta, and orbital eccentricities with a Milky Way-like zoom-in cosmological simulation that contains a GES analog, the authors find that only about $6\pm2\%$ to $9\pm2\%$ of these inner-halo RR Lyrae stars are GES debris, far below the roughly 25-30% GES fraction seen among RR Lyrae stars near the Sun. They also find that almost no particles of the simulated GES analog have bulge-like orbits with $z_{\mathrm{max}} < 1.1$ kpc, so essentially no RR Lyrae stars on bulge orbits should be GES. If correct, this places the GES merger as a minority contributor to the old, metal-poor inner halo and not a direct builder of the bar/bulge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is between observed orbits and a simulated Milky Way analog with a GES-like merger. The paper works in the space of integrals of motion, using the canonical GES selection box in $L_z$–$E$ (retrograde-to-low angular momentum, relatively high energy) and the eccentricity distribution, where $e = (r_{\mathrm{apo}} - r_{\mathrm{peri}})/(r_{\mathrm{apo}} + r_{\mathrm{peri}})$. The simulated analog provides the fraction of accreted stars (40%), the share of GES among accreted stars inside the $L_z$–$E$ box (25%), and the share outside it (10%); these factors convert the raw 39% selection rate into the corrected 6% estimate. Supporting machinery includes orbit integration in a fixed Galactic potential, period-luminosity-metallicity distances, radial velocities from template fitting, and photometric metallicity from light-curve shapes, with the $z_{\mathrm{max}}>3$ kpc cut doing the work of separating halo from bulge/disk.

What would settle it

Take the 281 RR Lyrae stars, or the roughly 20,000-star sample expected from the next astrometric data release, and measure individual abundances such as $[\mathrm{Mg/Fe}]$ and $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$. If the excess of high-eccentricity, metal-poor stars in the inner-central halo does not show the low $[\mathrm{Mg/Fe}]$ signature characteristic of GES, the 6-9% fraction would collapse; alternatively, repeating the same analysis with a different Milky Way-like simulation whose GES analog has different mass or merger time, and finding a predicted GES fraction outside $6\pm2\%$, would show the quoted uncertainty is too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the inner-central halo of the Milky Way contains a real but minority GES remnant. From a six-dimensional inner-Galaxy RR Lyrae catalog, 281 RR Lyrae stars with $3 < z_{\mathrm{max}} < 20$ kpc and $|x| < 10$ kpc are identified as halo rather than bulge/disk stars; these are more metal-poor than bulge RR Lyrae stars and show a bimodal (Oosterhoff) period distribution characteristic of an accreted population. In the energy–angular-momentum plane, 110 of the 281 (39%) fall inside the canonical GES selection region ($-1500 < L_z < 150$ kpc km/s, $E > -1.8\times10^5\ \mathrm{km^2\,s^{-2}}$), but the simulation's contamination analysis implies only $6\pm2\%$ of the full sample is truly GES; an independent estimate from the excess of high-eccentricity stars ($e>0.85$) gives $9\pm2\%$. Almost none of the simulated GES debris reaches $z_{\mathrm{max}} < 1.1$ kpc, so the paper concludes that no (or very few) bulge-orbit RR Lyrae stars originated from GES.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Au-18 simulation's merger history, its GES analog, and the resulting fractions (40% accreted, 25% GES among accreted stars inside the $L_z$–$E$ box, 10% outside) faithfully describe the real Milky Way's inner-central halo; the paper does not quantify the systematic uncertainty in this transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The GES merger contributed only a minority (roughly 6-9%) of the inner-central halo RR Lyrae population, so older accretion events and in-situ stars dominate the old metal-poor stars near the Galactic center.
RR Lyrae stars on bulge-like orbits ($z_{\mathrm{max}}<1.1$ kpc) are essentially all non-GES, meaning the bar/bulge assembly did not directly incorporate GES stars.
The inner-halo GES fraction is much lower than the roughly 25-30% seen near the Sun, so GES debris becomes relatively rarer toward the Galactic center, opposite to the general accreted-star trend.
The lack of a radial metallicity gradient among GES RR Lyrae stars inside 9 kpc indicates the GES population is chemically well mixed in this region.
A raw energy-angular momentum selection without simulation correction would overstate the GES fraction by roughly a factor of four in this sample.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct chemical follow-up of the 281 stars could test the paper's identification: if the $e>0.85$ excess is GES, it should carry low $[\mathrm{Mg/Fe}]$ and $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$ at fixed metallicity; the paper itself notes spectroscopic abundances would separate overlapping accretion events.
The same simulation-calibration recipe could be applied to other halo tracers such as blue horizontal branch stars or metal-poor red giants to check whether the 6-9% fraction is tracer-dependent; RR Lyrae stars sample the metal-weak tail, so the fraction for all inner-halo stars could differ.
With the larger RR Lyrae sample expected from the next astrometric data release, the eccentricity-excess method could map how the GES fraction changes with height above the plane and with metallicity, testing whether the merger debris is radially stratified.
The implied dominance of other early accreted populations in the inner halo suggests that kinematic selection alone will keep mislabeling those stars as GES, so future inner-halo surveys should rely on chemistry before assigning membership.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper gives the first measurement of the Gaia–Enceladus–Sausage fraction in the inner-central stellar halo (R < 10 kpc) using 281 RR Lyrae stars. The result, 6–9% ± 2%, is genuinely new and the region is one where halo tracers are usually buried under bulge stars. The two estimators—eccentricity excess and E–Lz selection with Auriga contamination corrections—agree within their formal errors, which is a point in favor of the claim. The paper also does several things well: it uses a carefully vetted 6D catalog, adopts a Milky Way–like Auriga run rather than picking a random simulation, and the eccentricity excess is a fairly clean observable. The authors are appropriately hedged in their wording; they say “consistent with” a small fraction, not “we have proven.”

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. The 6% estimate is literally built from three Au-18 numbers—the accreted fraction in the RRL metallicity range (~40%), the GES-18 fraction among accreted stars inside the Helmi box (~25%), and outside it (~10%). The 9% estimate similarly assumes that, absent GES, the inner-halo RRL eccentricity distribution would look like Au-18's in situ and other-accreted populations. These are model-transfer assumptions, and the paper quotes only Poisson sampling uncertainty. If Au-18's GES analog had a different infall time, mass, or orbital angular momentum, or if the inner Milky Way's in situ/bar population differs from Au-18's, both numbers shift. The paper does note that the fraction is sensitive to the [Fe/H] distribution, but it never quantifies the systematic from the simulation transfer. That is a real gap, though not a fatal one—it means the central value should be read as a first estimate with an unquantified external-model uncertainty, not as a precision measurement.

The secondary claim that essentially no GES debris has zmax < 1.1 kpc is also an Au-18 statement, and it is stated as a prediction for the Milky Way. That is more speculative and should be flagged as simulation-dependent. The sample selection cuts (zmax 3–20 kpc, eccentricity threshold > 0.85) are reasonable but hand-chosen; those are minor.

Who gets value from this? Anyone working on GES spatial distribution, inner-halo assembly, or using Auriga to interpret Milky Way data. It deserves a serious referee: the paper is honest, reproducible in principle (public catalogs, public simulation, standard orbit codes), and the claim is important enough to warrant scrutiny. My recommendation: engage with it, send it to review, and ask the authors to add a quantitative discussion of the Auriga-to-MW systematic, or at least a frank statement that the ±2% is statistical only.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper selects 281 RR Lyrae stars from the combined BRAVA-RR/APOGEE catalog whose orbits (3 < zmax < 20 kpc, |x| < 10 kpc) place them in the inner-central stellar halo, and compares their energies, angular momenta, eccentricities, and metallicities with the Auriga Au-18 cosmological zoom-in simulation and its GES-like merger, GES-18. Two estimators are used: an eccentricity-excess method yielding a GES fraction of ~9 ± 2%, and an E-Lz selection with Au-18 contamination corrections yielding ~6 ± 2%. The paper also reports that essentially no GES debris should populate bulge-like orbits with zmax < 1.1 kpc. The central claim is that GES contributed only a minority fraction of the inner-central halo RR Lyrae population and did not significantly populate the bar/bulge region.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an important measurement of the GES contribution in a poorly explored region of the Milky Way, and it provides an observational test of Auriga's prediction that GES-like debris is less dominant at small Galactocentric radii than in the solar neighborhood. The paper benefits from a clean, well-defined RR Lyrae sample with homogeneous distances, velocities, and metallicities from the authors' prior work, and from using an external cosmological simulation rather than fitting the data. The two independent estimators agreeing within their formal errors is a strength. The main limitation is that the quoted uncertainties are Poisson-only, so the headline fractions do not yet reflect the dominant systematic uncertainty in transferring Auriga calibration numbers to the Milky Way.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Figure 4] The 6 ± 2% estimate is obtained by combining the observed fraction of RRLs in the Helmi et al. (2018) E-Lz box (39%) with the Au-18 fractions of GES-18 among accreted stars (25% in the box, 10% outside) and an assumed accreted fraction of 40%. No systematic uncertainty is propagated from these three model-transfer inputs, which depend on Au-18's merger history, the GES-18 infall time and mass, and the orbital structure of the simulated inner galaxy. The quoted ±2% is derived only from Poisson statistics of the observed counts and therefore understates the error budget. The authors should add a sensitivity analysis that varies the accreted fraction over a plausible range, varies the E-Lz box boundaries, and/or compares Au-18 with other Auriga halos, and report a systematic-dominated uncertainty or soften the precision of the headline claim accordingly.
[Section 3.1, Figure 3] The eccentricity-based fraction of ~9 ± 2% compares the observed fraction of RRLs with e > 0.85 (51%) with Au-18 fractions of 42% for in situ and 44% for other accreted particles. The text does not state the mixture calculation used to form the predicted baseline, but the expected fraction depends on the adopted accreted fraction, so the mixture must be written explicitly. In addition, the e > 0.85 threshold appears to be chosen after inspecting the distributions, and no test of sensitivity to the threshold is presented. The Poisson error attached to the observed count ignores errors in the simulated comparison fractions. Please present the calculation in a transparent equation and propagate at least the variation across plausible thresholds and accreted fractions.
[Section 5 vs. Section 3.3] The Conclusions state that Au-18 suggests ~50% of the RRL population in the inner-central halo is consistent with originating from accretion, citing Figure 4, whereas Section 3.3 adopts 40% as the accreted fraction for the same RRL metallicity range. Since the inferred 6% GES fraction scales linearly with the adopted accreted fraction, this is not merely a wording issue. The authors should specify which value applies to the RRL-selected sample, define the metallicity window used, and reconcile the two statements.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1] The sentence 'The RRLs with zmax > 3 have lower metallicities and than those RRLs with zmax < 3' contains a grammatical error that should be corrected.
[Section 2.2] The phrase 'RRLs compromise a more metal-weak tail' should be 'comprise a more metal-weak tail'.
[Section 3.1 and Discussion] The typo 'originated form GES' appears in Section 4 and should read 'originated from GES'.
[Section 3.3] The phrase 'This is a slighter lower estimated fraction' is ungrammatical; it should read 'This is a slightly lower estimated fraction'.
[Abstract and Section 2.1] The text describes the sample as probing R <~ 10 kpc, but the actual selection is on the Galactocentric x-coordinate with |x| < 10 kpc and 3 < zmax < 20 kpc; please clarify the difference between the in-plane radius and the full 3D distance in the selection description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: observed RRL kinematics are compared to an external Auriga simulation and literature-defined GES selection criteria, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain compares observed RR Lyrae kinematics and metallicities to two independent external inputs: the Auriga Au-18 cosmological zoom-in simulation and the Helmi et al. (2018) E-Lz selection criteria for Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage stars. The central estimates (9 +/- 2% from the eccentricity excess and 6 +/- 2% from the E-Lz contamination calculation) are obtained by directly applying Au-18 particle fractions to the observed RRL sample, not by fitting those fractions to the data. No equation in the paper defines the predicted GES fraction in terms of the observed RRL properties by construction, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations to prior papers in the Galactic Bulge Exploration series (Prudil et al. 2024a,b, 2025a; Kunder et al. 2024) provide the distance, velocity, and metallicity catalog used for orbit integration, but these are data-calibration references rather than the load-bearing argument for the GES fraction. The main limitation is unquantified systematic uncertainty in transferring Au-18's merger history and contamination fractions to the Milky Way, which is a model-dependence concern, not a circularity. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for the purpose of circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on prior calibrations and simulation assumptions, but none are fitted to the new RR Lyrae data. The most important unquantified inputs are the hand-chosen sample definitions and the quantitative use of Au-18 as a Milky Way analog.

free parameters (4)

zmax selection threshold = 3 kpc < zmax < 20 kpc
Hand-chosen to define the inner-central halo sample and separate it from bulge/disk stars. The 281-star sample and all derived fractions depend on this cut; the paper validates it with KS tests but does not test its sensitivity.
eccentricity threshold for GES excess = e > 0.85
Used to estimate the ~9% GES fraction. The threshold is chosen because ~70% of GES-18 particles fall above it while in situ and other accreted particles do so at only ~42-44%. No robustness check across thresholds is shown.
Auriga particle selection cuts = age > 10 Gyr, [Fe/H] < -0.5
Used to mimic old, metal-poor RR Lyrae stars in Au-18. The simulated comparison fractions depend on these cuts, which are not directly tied to RR Lyrae pulsation properties.
assumed accreted fraction of inner-central halo RRLs = 40%
Taken from Au-18 and applied to the Milky Way RR Lyrae sample to convert simulated contamination fractions into an absolute GES fraction of ~6%. This number is not measured for the Milky Way.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Auriga Au-18 is a quantitatively accurate analog of the Milky Way's GES merger and inner halo population
The paper imports from Au-18 the overall 40% accreted fraction, the 25% GES fraction among accreted stars in the GES E-Lz box, and the 10% GES fraction outside that box, and applies them to the observed RR Lyrae population (Section 3.3, Figure 4). If Au-18's merger history differs from the Milky Way's, the inferred GES fraction is biased.
domain assumption Adopted Milky Way potential (McMillan 2017) is accurate enough for orbit integration
Orbits, zmax, and integrals of motion are computed with AGAMA using this potential (Section 2.1). Systematic errors in the potential propagate directly into the membership selection and GES fraction.
domain assumption RR Lyrae distances and photometric metallicities from prior calibrations are accurate
All positions, velocities, and therefore orbital parameters rely on distances from Prudil et al. 2024a and metallicities from Dekany et al. 2021 calibrated with Crestani et al. 2021. These are from prior work, not re-derived here.
domain assumption The Helmi et al. (2018) energy and angular momentum box selects GES-like stars in the inner Galaxy
The paper uses the box -1500 < Lz < 150 kpc km/s and E > -1.8e5 km^2/s^2 to split the sample into GES-like and non-GES groups (Section 2.2). The box is taken from solar-neighborhood studies and may not perfectly transfer to the inner Galaxy.
domain assumption The zmax > 3 kpc cut separates halo from bulge/disk RR Lyrae stars
The cut is validated by KS tests on periods and metallicities (Section 2.1), but it is a heuristic. Some high-apocenter disk stars could enter the halo sample and some genuine inner halo stars could be excluded.
domain assumption Auriga particle selection reproduces the observed RR Lyrae selection function
Particles in Au-18 are selected by coordinates, age, and metallicity to mimic RR Lyrae stars (Section 3), but RR Lyrae pulsation is not simulated. Mismatches between the simulated and observed selection functions bias the comparison fractions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Galactic Bulge exploration VI.: Gaia Enceladus/Sausage RR Lyrae stars in the inner-central stellar halo of the Milky Way." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXCZNK55

@misc{pith2026250711741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Galactic Bulge exploration VI.: Gaia Enceladus/Sausage RR Lyrae stars in the inner-central stellar halo of the Milky Way},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXCZNK55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11741}
}

read the original abstract

We present a view of the stellar halo in the inner-central regions of the Milky Way (R <~ 10 kpc) mapped by RR Lyrae stars. The combined BRAVA-RR/APOGEE RR Lyrae catalog is used to obtain a sample of 281 RR Lyrae stars located in the bulge region of the Galaxy, but with orbits indicating they belong to the inner-central halo. The RR Lyrae stars in the halo are more metal-poor than the bulge RR Lyrae stars and have pulsation properties more consistent with an accreted population. We use the Milky Way-like zoom-in cosmological simulation Auriga to compare the properties of the RR Lyrae stars to those expected from the "Gaia-Enceladus-Sausage" (GES) merger. The integrals of motions and eccentricities of the RR Lyrae stars are consistent with a small fraction of 6-9 +- 2 % of the inner-central halo RR Lyrae population having originated from GES. This fraction, lower than what is seen in the solar neighborhood, is consistent with trends seen in the Auriga simulation, where a GES-like merger would have a decreasing fraction of GES stars at small Galactocentric radii compared to other accreted populations. Very few of the Auriga inner Galaxy GES-18 particles have properties consistent with belonging to a bulge population with (z_max < 1.1 kpc), indicating that no (or very few) RR Lyrae stars with bulge orbits should have originated from GES.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11741 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** — Left:. Our sample of RRLs in Galactic coordinates, where the RRLs with orbits consistent with belonging to the inner-central halo (3 kpc < zmax < 20 kpc) are highlighted. Middle: The inner-central halo sample has a lower [Fe/H] metallicity and also a period distribution more consistent with accretion than the bulge/disk RRLs. Right: Our RRL sample z−coordinate plotted with x−coordinate in left-handed Cartesian Gal… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** — Top: The inner Galaxy RRL sample in Lz and energy space. The inner-central halo RRLs are designated with large red circles, whereas the bulge and disk RRLs are shown as small grey circles. The straight lines indicate the criteria used to select GES stars, namely −1500 < Lz < 150 kpc km s−1 and E > −1.8 x105 km2 s−2 . Bottom:. The RRL with Lz and energy values consistent with GES have higher eccentricities and tend… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** — Left: The integrals of motion for five dominant accretion events in the Au-18 inner-central halo. The Helmi et al. (2018) Lz-E criteria to select GES stars encompasses a large fraction of the GES-18 (peak mass ID=205) particles (rectangle region). Middle: The distribution of eccentricity of GES-18 particles as compared to the in situ particles and the other accreted particles in the inner-central halo of Au-18. Th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: — Left: The logarithm of the fraction of the total accreted particles (grey) and GES-18 particles (red) in the inner-central halo from the Au-18 simulation. The fraction of GES-18 merger particles peaks at ∼ −1.3 dex, whereas there is a dramatic increase with decreasin…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: — The fraction of accreted particles with [Fe/H] = −1 as a function of Galactocentric radius from the Au-18 simulation. Although the fraction of accreted particles increases with increasing distance to the Galactic center, the opposite trend is seen for the GES-18 part…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

C., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882

Amorisco, N. C., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882

work page 2017
[2]

2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391

Ardern-Arentsen, A., Monari, G., Queiroz, A.B.A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391

work page 2024
[3]

1999, MNRAS, 307, 3

Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.R., Buonanno, R. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 3

work page 1999
[4]

2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N.W., Koposov, S.E., Deason, A.J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

work page 2018
[5]

Bonifacio, P., Monaco, L, Salvadori, S. et al. 2021, A&A, 651, 79

work page 2021
[6]

S., & Johnston, K

Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T.C., Huang, Y. et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8973

work page 2005
[7]

M., Grand, R

Carrillo, A., Deason, A.J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165

work page 2024
[8]

Catelan, M., & Smith, H. A. 2015, Pulsating Stars (New York: Wiley) Ciuc˘ a, I., Kawata, D., Ting Y.-S. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 528, 122

work page 2015

Show all 53 references

[9]

Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P. et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 107

2019
[10]

P., Cole, S., Frenk, C

Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 744

2010
[11]

Crestani, J., Fabrizio, M., Braga, V.F. et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 20

2021
[12]

2020, MNRAS, 493, 519

Das, P., Hawkins, K., Jofr´ e, P. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 519

2020
[13]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 3426 D´ ek´ any, I., Grebel, E.K., Pojma’nski, G

Deason, A.J., Belokurov, V., Sanders, J.L. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3426 D´ ek´ any, I., Grebel, E.K., Pojma’nski, G. 2021, ApJ, 920, 33 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M.D., Katz, D.,

2019
[14]

2019, A&A 632, 4

Khoperskov, S., Snaith, O.N., G´ omez, A., Robichon, N. 2019, A&A 632, 4

2019
[15]

2020, MNRAS 494, 3880

Belokurov, V., Sanders, J.L., Fattahi, A., Smith, M.C., Deason, A.J., Evans, N.W., Grand , R.J.J. 2020, MNRAS 494, 3880

2020
[16]

El-Badry, K., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Wetzel, A. et al. (2018), MNRAS, 480, 652

2018
[17]

Feng, Y., Guhathakurta, P., Peng, E., Cunningham, E., Gwyn, S., Ferrarese, L. et al. 2024, ApJ, accepted: arXiv:2402.05418

2024 arXiv
[18]

& Feuillet, D.K

Feltzing, S. & Feuillet, D.K. 2023, ApJ, 2023, ApJ, 953, 143 Feuillet D. K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C. L., Casagrande L., 2020, MNRAS, 497, 109

2023
[19]

L., Feltzing, S., Casagrande, L

Feuillet, D.K., Sahlholdt, C. L., Feltzing, S., Casagrande, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489 Fragkoudi F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5936

2021
[20]

2020, A&A, 634, 135 G´ omez, F

Baldi, M. 2020, A&A, 634, 135 G´ omez, F. A., Helmi, A., Cooper, A. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3602 Grand R. J. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179 Grand R. J., Fragkoudi, F., G´ omez, F. A., Jenkins, A., Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R., Springel, V. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1814

2020
[21]

Hayes, C.R., Majewski, S.R., Hasselquist, S. et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 63

2020
[22]

Veljanoski, J., Brown, A. G. A. 2018, Natur, 563, 85

2018
[23]

& de Zeeuw, P

Helmi, A. & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657

2000
[24]

1994, Natur, 370, 6486

Ibata, R.A., Gilmore, G., Irwin, M.J. 1994, Natur, 370, 6486

1994
[25]

2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686

Iorio, G., Belokurov, V. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686

2021
[26]

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

Johnston, K. V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M. 1996, ApJ, 465, 278

1996
[27]

2020, A&A, 563, 85

Koppelman, H.H., Bos, R.O.Y., Helmi, A. 2020, A&A, 563, 85

2020
[28]

Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M. et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472

2020
[29]

Kunder, A., P´ erez-Villegas, A., Rich, R.M. et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 270

2020
[30]

2024, AJ, 168, 139

Hughes, J., Covey, K.R., Devine, K. 2024, AJ, 168, 139

2024
[31]

Liu, G.C., Huang, Y., Zhang, H.W. et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 68

2020
[32]

2022, MNRAS, 517, 2787

Liu, G., Huang, Y., Bird, S.A., Zhang, H., Wang, F., Tian, H. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2787

2022
[33]

Lucey, M., Hawkins, K., Ness, M. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5981

2021
[34]

Lucey, M., Hawkins, K., Ness, M., 2022, MNRAS, 509, 122

2022
[35]

2024, A&A, 690, 17

Clementini, G., Longo, G. 2024, A&A, 690, 17

2024
[36]

McMillan, P.J., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 174

2017
[37]

L., Vivas, A

Medina, G.E., Mu˜ noz, R., Carlin, J. L., Vivas, A. K., Grebel, E.K., Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C.E., Hansen, C.J. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4762

2024
[38]

Medina, G.E., Ting, S.L., Koposov, S. et al. 2025, astroph:2504.02924

2025 arXiv
[39]

Merrow, A., Grand, R. J. J., Fragkoudi, F., Martig, M. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1520

2024
[40]

Minelli, A., Bellazzini, M., Mucciarelli, A. et al. 2023, A&A, 669, 54 Myeong G. C., Vasiliev E., Iorio G., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235 Myeong G. C., Belokurov V., Aguado D. S., Evans N. W., Caldwell N., Bradley J., 2022, ApJ, 938, 21

2023
[41]

Monachesi, A., G´ omez, F., Grand, R.J.J. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2589

2019
[42]

P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., 2019, ApJ, 901, 48

Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., 2019, ApJ, 901, 48

2019
[43]

& Gerhard, O., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 66

Portail, M., Wegg, C. & Gerhard, O., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 66

2015
[44]

K., Kunder, A

Prudil, Z., D´ ek´ any, I., Grebel, E. K., Kunder, A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3408

2020
[45]

2025, A&A, accepted, arXiv:2506.19074

Prudil, Z., et al. 2025, A&A, accepted, arXiv:2506.19074

2025 arXiv
[46]

2025, A&A, 695, 211

Prudil, Z., Kunder, A., Beraldo e Silva, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, 211

2025
[47]

D., Kraft, R

Suntzeff, N.B., Kinman, T. D., Kraft, R. P. 1991, ApJ, 367, 528

1991
[48]

B., Scannapieco, C., Beers, T.C., Carollo, D

Tissera, P. B., Scannapieco, C., Beers, T.C., Carollo, D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3391

2013
[49]

Sk´ ulad´ ottir, A., Battaglia, G

Tolstoy, E. Sk´ ulad´ ottir, A., Battaglia, G. et al. 2023, A&A, 675, 49

2023
[50]

2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525 Vincenzo F., Spitoni E., Calura F., Matteucci F., Silva Aguirre V., Miglio A., Cescutti G., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 47

Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525 Vincenzo F., Spitoni E., Calura F., Matteucci F., Silva Aguirre V., Miglio A., Cescutti G., 2019, MNRAS, 487, 47

2019
[51]

C., Casetti-Dinescu, D

Zinn, R., Chen, X., Layden, A. C., Casetti-Dinescu, D. I. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2161

2020
[52]

Zoccali, M., Vasquez, S., Gonzalez, O. A. et al. 2017, A&A, 599, 12

2017
[53]

Zolotov, A., Willman, B., Brooks, A. et. al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1058

2009

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

C., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882

Amorisco, N. C., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882

work page 2017

[2] [2]

2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391

Ardern-Arentsen, A., Monari, G., Queiroz, A.B.A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391

work page 2024

[3] [3]

1999, MNRAS, 307, 3

Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.R., Buonanno, R. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 3

work page 1999

[4] [4]

2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N.W., Koposov, S.E., Deason, A.J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Bonifacio, P., Monaco, L, Salvadori, S. et al. 2021, A&A, 651, 79

work page 2021

[6] [6]

S., & Johnston, K

Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T.C., Huang, Y. et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8973

work page 2005

[7] [7]

M., Grand, R

Carrillo, A., Deason, A.J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Catelan, M., & Smith, H. A. 2015, Pulsating Stars (New York: Wiley) Ciuc˘ a, I., Kawata, D., Ting Y.-S. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 528, 122

work page 2015