pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20958 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Characterizing the GD-1 Stream with DESI DR2 Data: Thin Stream and Hot Cocoon

Emma Jarvis , Ting S. Li , Sergey E. Koposov , Raymond G. Carlberg , Monica Valluri , Nasser Mohammed , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen
show 49 more authors
Carlos Allende Prieto Leandro Beraldo e Silva D. Bianchi D. Brooks Amanda Bystr\"om T. Claybaugh A. P. Cooper A. Cuceu A. de la Macorra Arjun Dey Biprateep Dey P. Doel J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gazta\~naga Oleg Y. Gnedin Satya Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez K. Honscheid R. Joyce R. Kehoe T. Kisner Namitha Kizhuprakkat A. Kremin Mika Lambert M. Landriau L. Le Guillou Gustavo E. Medina A. Meisner R. Miquel S. Nadathur Joan Najita N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols Tian Qiu Alexander H. Riley Constance M. Rockosi G. Rossi E. Sanchez Nathan Sandford E. F. Schlafly D. Schlegel J. Silber D. Sprayberry G. Tarl\'e B. A. Weaver R. Zhou H. Zou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords streamcocoondarkgd-1circdesimattermembers
0
0 comments X

The pith

DESI data on the GD-1 stream identifies a thin cold core and a hot cocoon with 30% of members whose dispersion is consistent with 11 Gyr of dark matter subhalo heating.

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

The paper uses new data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument to study GD-1, one of the longest and coldest star streams orbiting the Milky Way. Researchers identified 608 confirmed member stars through spectroscopy, creating the largest uniform sample available. They mapped the stream's position on the sky, its proper motions, and radial velocities across more than 100 degrees. A statistical model called a Gaussian mixture was applied to separate the stars into two groups: a very narrow and cold thin stream with low velocity spread, and a wider, hotter cocoon around it that holds about 30 percent of the stars. The cocoon shows a velocity dispersion that lines up with what models predict if invisible dark matter clumps had been gravitationally stirring the stream for roughly 11 billion years. The cocoon also has a large spread in proper motions along the stream direction, which the authors link to stars being spread out in distance from us. This approach highlights how big spectroscopic surveys can reveal the hidden effects of dark matter on visible stars.

Core claim

The cocoon contains ∼30% of members and its velocity dispersion is consistent with ∼11 Gyr of heating by cold dark matter subhalos. We also detect a large proper motion dispersion (41.36±4.98 km s−1) along the stream direction in the cocoon component.

Load-bearing premise

That the Gaussian mixture model cleanly separates a dynamically distinct hot cocoon whose properties arise primarily from dark matter subhalo heating rather than distance spreads, selection biases, or other dynamical effects, and that the 608-member sample is free of significant contamination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20958 by A. Cuceu, A. de la Macorra, A. Kremin, Alexander H. Riley, Amanda Bystr\"om, A. Meisner, A. P. Cooper, Arjun Dey, B. A. Weaver, Biprateep Dey, Carlos Allende Prieto, Constance M. Rockosi, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, D. Schlegel, D. Sprayberry, E. F. Schlafly, E. Gazta\~naga, Emma Jarvis, E. Sanchez, F. Prada, G. Gutierrez, G. Rossi, G. Tarl\'e, Gustavo E. Medina, H. Zou, I. P\'erez-R\`afols, J. Aguilar, J. E. Forero-Romero, Joan Najita, J. Silber, K. Honscheid, Leandro Beraldo e Silva, L. Le Guillou, Mika Lambert, M. Landriau, Monica Valluri, Namitha Kizhuprakkat, Nasser Mohammed, Nathan Sandford, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, Oleg Y. Gnedin, P. Doel, Raymond G. Carlberg, R. Joyce, R. Kehoe, R. Miquel, R. Zhou, S. Ahlen, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, Sergey E. Koposov, S. Nadathur, T. Claybaugh, Tian Qiu, Ting S. Li, T. Kisner, W. J. Percival.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of DESI EDR (yellow; Valluri et al. (2025)), DR1 (grey), and DR2 (pink; this work, which includes all EDR and DR1 data) coverage in the GD-1 region. We note that the non-circular shape of the EDR tiles is due to one petal being temporarily out of operation. Overlaid in black is the GD-1 track derived in this work (see Section 3.4.2). While current photometric studies have revealed off￾track comp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Distance moduli of DESI subgiant stars with selections Mr < 3.69, |δϕ2| < 2 ◦ , |δµϕ1 | < 1 mas yr−1 , |δµϕ2 | < 1 mas yr−1 and |δVGSR| < 30 km s−1 . Right: Distance moduli of Gaia dwarf stars with selections Mr > 3.69, |δϕ2| < 2 ◦ , |δµϕ1 | < 1 mas yr−1 and |δµϕ2 | < 1 mas yr−1 . Overlaid in pink is the improved distance gradient used in this work, obtained by including the dwarf stars. The yellow l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: 2D histogram of color absolute magnitude of high purity Gaia stars selected by |δϕ2| < 0.5 ◦ , |δµϕ1 | < 0.5 mas yr−1 and |δµϕ2 | < 0.5 mas yr−1 . Overlaid with a solid black line is the empirical isochrone that passes through the GD-1 population. Dashed dotted lines on either side of the isochrone are at δ|g − r| = 0.05 and stars within these dotted lines are included in our selection of Gaia high p… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaia DR3 and DESI observations in the GD-1 region used to derive stream tracks in µϕ1 (top left set of plots), µϕ2 (top right), ϕ2 (bottom left) and VGSR (bottom right). Top panels: the stars used to derive the stream track (Gaia DR3, high purity selection for µϕ1 , µϕ2 and ϕ2, and DESI DR2 with complete selection for VGSR). Pink points depict the node locations obtained from the Stan spline Gaussian mixtu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the Gaussian mixture model used to characterize the stream and cocoon for each of the four stream properties: δµϕ1 (top left), δµϕ2 (top right), δϕ2 (bottom left), and δVGSR (bottom right). Top panels: histograms of the data used in the mixture model (black line) compared with the posterior predictive check (PPC) probability density functions (PDFs). The PPC distributions are obtained by drawing… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameters of DESI GD-1 member stars, plotted as a function of ϕ1 between −60◦ < ϕ1 < 0 ◦ , the range used for the Gaussian mixture model. The top four panels (δϕ2, δµϕ1 , δµϕ2 , and δVGSR) are the four parameters used in the three component Gaussian mixture model used to characterize the thin stream, cocoon and background stars. The bottom two panels ([Fe/H] and distance) are not used in the mixture model… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GD-1 member stars from DESI MWS coloured by stream probability with background stars (pbg > 0.5) removed. Magenta points correspond to the highly probable thin stream members and cyan points correspond to the highly probable cocoon members. Parameters (ϕ2, µϕ1 , µϕ2 , VGSR, [Fe/H] and distance) are plotted as a function of ϕ1 along the entire length of the stream. In the top four panels, the black solid li… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metallicity distributions of GD-1 stars used in the Gaussian mixture model described in Section 4.1. In each panel, the pink line indicates the high-probability thin stream members, the cyan dot-dashed line marks the highly￾probable cocoon members and the dotted black line marks the highly-probable background contaminants. The solid black line marks the [Fe/H] = −1.5 cut used in the DESI complete selection… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the ϕ2 stream track derived in this work (pink) with the tracks from Valluri et al. (2025) (yellow), de Boer et al. (2020) (green) and Tavangar & Price-Whelan (2025) (navy). Grey points mark our DESI complete selection of GD-1 member stars. and transverse velocity dispersions, combined with the spatial coincidence with the spur feature, hints at lo￾calized kinematic substructure that may be c… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of velocity dispersions along the stream between this work (pink) and Tavangar & Price-Whelan (2025) (navy). Solid lines show the line-of-sight velocity dispersion (SVGSR ) and dashed lines show the transverse velocity dispersion perpendicular to the stream (Sµϕ2 ), converted to km s−1 using our distance track (Section 3.2). Pink points with error bars indicate the spline node values from our S… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Six-panel summary of GD-1 stream stars se￾lected by DESI, showing stellar properties as a function of ϕ1, colored by the proper motion offset δµϕ1 . Stars with pbg > 0.5 are marked with black points. Black-edged mark￾ers outline stars with |δµϕ1 | > 1 mas yr−1 , which contribute most to the large cocoon dispersion. These high-offset stars occupy the same locus as the thin stream in µϕ2 , [Fe/H], and dista… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Proper motion distributions of DESI GD-1 stars with the complete selection in CMD, ϕ2, VGSR, and [Fe/H] < −2, but without the |δµϕ1 | < 2 mas yr−1 restriction. Left panels show µϕ1 vs. ϕ1; right panels show µϕ2 vs. ϕ1. Top panels display the stellar surface density; bottom panels are colored by |δϕ2|. Solid pink lines show the stream tracks and dashed lines indicate the ±2 mas yr−1 selection boundary used… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: DESI tiling of the GD-1 region in the stream-aligned coordinate system (ϕ1, ϕ2). Top: number and locations of passes from the main-survey bright program contributing to the DESI DR2 footprint; colors indicate the total number of bright￾time passes at each position along the stream. Middle: number of DESI tiles from Survey Validation (SV1–SV3) and the Early Data Release used in Valluri et al. (2025), illus… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spectroscopic completeness of DESI observations in the GD-1 region. The color scale shows, in each spatial bin, the fraction of Gaia+LS stars (selected with the same color-magnitude and proper-motion criteria and limited to the magnitude range 16 < r < 19) that have DESI spectroscopy in our complete selection sample. Completeness closely follows the tiling pattern of the main-survey bright program: areas … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

GD-1 is among the longest, coldest stellar streams in the Milky Way, making it an ideal target for probing dark matter substructure through dynamical heating. We present a catalog of 608 spectroscopically confirmed GD-1 members from the first three years of Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) observations. This constitutes the largest homogeneous spectroscopic sample of GD-1, doubling the number of members previously available only through heterogeneous compilations combining multiple surveys with different systematics. Using these data, we derive updated stream tracks in sky position, proper motion, and radial velocity that extend over $100^\circ$ of the stream. We apply a Gaussian mixture model to decompose the stream into a dynamically cold thin component ($\sigma_V = 2.49\pm 0.28$ km s$^{-1}$, width $= 0.23\pm0.01^\circ$) and a kinematically hot cocoon ($\sigma_V = 6.13\pm0.75$ km s$^{-1}$, width $= 2.18\pm0.17^\circ$). The cocoon contains $\sim30\%$ of members and its velocity dispersion is consistent with $\sim11$ Gyr of heating by cold dark matter subhalos. We also detect a large proper motion dispersion ($41.36\pm4.98$ km s$^{-1}$) along the stream direction in the cocoon component. This feature indicates a significant line-of-sight distance spread in the cocoon, and its origin will be further explored in a forthcoming paper. These measurements demonstrate the power of DESI spectroscopy for characterizing the multi-component phase-space structure of stellar streams and constraining small-scale dark matter substructure.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a catalog of 608 spectroscopically confirmed GD-1 members from DESI DR2, doubling the previous homogeneous sample size. Updated stream tracks are derived over >100° in position, proper motion, and radial velocity. A Gaussian mixture model decomposes the sample into a cold thin stream component (σ_V = 2.49 ± 0.28 km s^{-1}, width 0.23 ± 0.01°) and a hot cocoon (σ_V = 6.13 ± 0.75 km s^{-1}, width 2.18 ± 0.17°), with the cocoon comprising ~30% of members whose dispersion is stated to be consistent with ~11 Gyr of CDM subhalo heating. A large cocoon proper-motion dispersion of 41.36 ± 4.98 km s^{-1} along the stream is also reported, indicating line-of-sight depth whose origin is deferred to a future paper.

Significance. If the decomposition holds, the homogeneous sample of 608 members is a substantial advance for characterizing the multi-component structure of a key cold stream and for placing empirical constraints on small-scale dark matter substructure via dynamical heating. The work highlights DESI's utility for stream science and provides concrete numbers (dispersions, widths, fractions) that can be compared to simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and GMM decomposition: The central claim that the cocoon σ_V = 6.13 ± 0.75 km s^{-1} is consistent with ~11 Gyr of CDM subhalo heating is load-bearing for the dynamical interpretation, yet no quantitative comparison, heating-rate model, or reference is provided to support the match. The abstract simply states consistency without showing the calculation or the assumed subhalo population.
  2. [Results (GMM and PM dispersion)] GMM decomposition and proper-motion results: The reported cocoon proper-motion dispersion of 41.36 ± 4.98 km s^{-1} along the stream directly implies substantial line-of-sight depth. The Gaussian mixture model (which separates components using radial velocity, position, and proper motion) does not appear to incorporate distance-dependent velocity projections or a selection function that accounts for this depth; stars at different distances can therefore be misassigned, potentially inflating the cocoon dispersion and undermining the claim that it reflects purely dynamical heating.
  3. [Data and sample selection] Membership and sample characterization: The 608-member catalog and the ~30% cocoon fraction are central to all conclusions, but the abstract and methods provide no explicit membership selection criteria, contamination estimates, or robustness tests against alternative models or distance priors. This is required to evaluate whether the hot component is dynamically distinct or partly an artifact of selection biases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the membership probability threshold or likelihood cut used in the GMM.
  2. [Results] Notation for velocity dispersions should be clarified (e.g., whether σ_V is the 1D radial-velocity dispersion or the full 3D value) when comparing to heating models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review, which highlights both the strengths of our DESI GD-1 catalog and areas where additional clarity would strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications based on the existing analysis and committing to revisions where they improve the presentation without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and GMM decomposition: The central claim that the cocoon σ_V = 6.13 ± 0.75 km s^{-1} is consistent with ~11 Gyr of CDM subhalo heating is load-bearing for the dynamical interpretation, yet no quantitative comparison, heating-rate model, or reference is provided to support the match. The abstract simply states consistency without showing the calculation or the assumed subhalo population.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from more explicit support for this statement. The consistency with ~11 Gyr of heating is based on comparisons to published N-body simulations of subhalo-induced heating in cold streams (e.g., velocity dispersions of 5–7 km s^{-1} after 10–12 Gyr for GD-1-like orbits under standard CDM subhalo populations). In the revised manuscript we will add a brief supporting sentence to the abstract and a short paragraph in the results section with appropriate citations to the relevant heating-rate models and simulation suites. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (GMM and PM dispersion)] GMM decomposition and proper-motion results: The reported cocoon proper-motion dispersion of 41.36 ± 4.98 km s^{-1} along the stream directly implies substantial line-of-sight depth. The Gaussian mixture model (which separates components using radial velocity, position, and proper motion) does not appear to incorporate distance-dependent velocity projections or a selection function that accounts for this depth; stars at different distances can therefore be misassigned, potentially inflating the cocoon dispersion and undermining the claim that it reflects purely dynamical heating.

    Authors: We acknowledge this as a legitimate methodological concern. The GMM was performed in observed sky, proper-motion, and radial-velocity coordinates without an explicit distance-dependent projection model, precisely because the large along-stream PM dispersion (which we report) signals the presence of significant line-of-sight depth whose detailed treatment is reserved for a follow-up paper. We did, however, verify that the two-component solution remains stable under changes in feature weighting and initialization. In revision we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation, estimate the size of projection effects given the observed depth, and clarify why the reported velocity dispersion is still interpreted as primarily dynamical rather than purely geometric. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Data and sample selection] Membership and sample characterization: The 608-member catalog and the ~30% cocoon fraction are central to all conclusions, but the abstract and methods provide no explicit membership selection criteria, contamination estimates, or robustness tests against alternative models or distance priors. This is required to evaluate whether the hot component is dynamically distinct or partly an artifact of selection biases.

    Authors: The spectroscopic membership criteria, quality cuts, and kinematic matching procedure are described in Section 2 of the manuscript. To address the referee’s request we will expand that section to list the exact selection thresholds, provide contamination fractions derived from off-stream control fields and mock catalogs, and include additional robustness checks (varying GMM component number, distance priors, and initial conditions) that confirm the stability of the ~30 % cocoon fraction and the reported dispersions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from new DESI spectroscopy and standard GMM decomposition; heating comparison is external model match

full rationale

The paper's core steps—assembling 608 spectroscopically confirmed members from DESI DR2, fitting updated stream tracks, and applying a Gaussian mixture model to separate thin and cocoon components—are direct applications of standard statistical methods to fresh observational data. The reported velocity dispersions (2.49 and 6.13 km s^{-1}) and widths emerge from the GMM likelihood on the observed phase-space coordinates; they are not redefined or fitted to match any prior result within the paper. The statement that the cocoon dispersion is 'consistent with ∼11 Gyr of heating by cold dark matter subhalos' is an external literature comparison, not a quantity derived from or forced by the paper's own fitted parameters. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to justify the decomposition or the heating claim. The noted proper-motion dispersion is reported as an independent detection and explicitly deferred to future work, avoiding any internal closure. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are stated. Standard domain assumptions about spectroscopic membership and Gaussian mixture applicability are implicit.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic data from DESI can be used to confirm GD-1 members with high purity using standard criteria.
    Required to produce the catalog of 608 members.
  • domain assumption A two-component Gaussian mixture model accurately captures the phase-space structure of the stream without significant contamination from field stars or other structures.
    Central to the thin-stream versus cocoon decomposition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5920 in / 1482 out tokens · 46742 ms · 2026-05-09T23:27:41.753075+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A new look at the statistical model identification.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716–723 (1974)

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A. P., Dey, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 188, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc1dc

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  2. [2]

    Banik, N., Bovy, J., Bertone, G., Erkal, D., & de Boer, T. J. L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab210

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab210 2021

  3. [3]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, ApJ, 880, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873 2019

  5. [5]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, New Astronomy Reviews, 100, 101713, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713 2025

  6. [6]

    W., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2020, ApJL, 892, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab800c Bystr¨ om, A., Koposov, S. E., Lilleengen, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1219

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab800c 2020

  7. [7]

    Carlberg, R. G. 2025, GD-1 and the Milky Way Starless Subhalos, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13290

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13290 2025

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Carlberg, R. G., & Agler, H. 2023, ApJ, 953, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace4be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace4be 2023

  9. [9]

    G., & Grillmair, C

    Carlberg, R. G., & Grillmair, C. J. 2013, ApJ, 768, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/171

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/171 2013

  10. [10]

    G., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C

    Carlberg, R. G., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., & Cooper, A. P. 2024, ApJ, 975, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b35

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b35 2024

  11. [11]

    Journal of Statistical Software , author=

    Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., et al. 2017, Journal of Statistical Software, 76, 1–32, doi: 10.18637/jss.v076.i01

    work page doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01 2017

  12. [12]

    Adame, J

    Collaboration, D., Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12022

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.12022 2024

  13. [13]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    Collaboration, D., Abdul-Karim, M., Aguilar, J., et al. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  14. [14]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  15. [15]

    P., Koposov, S

    Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 de Boer, T. J. L., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty677 de Boer, T. J. L., Erkal, D., & Gieles, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa917 DESI Collaboration, Aghamo...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 2023

  16. [16]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 28Jarvis, Li, Koposov et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  17. [17]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Dey, A., Koposov, S. E., Najita, J. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.17230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.17230

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17230 2025

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Dillamore, A. M., & Sanders, J. L. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 1331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1264

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1264 2025

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Doke, Y., & Hattori, K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca090

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca090 2022

  20. [20]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  21. [21]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Bovy, J., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1957 2016

  22. [22]

    L., & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D., Sanders, J. L., & Belokurov, V. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 1590–1604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1400

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1400 2016

  23. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  24. [24]

    J., & Dionatos, O

    Grillmair, C. J., & Dionatos, O. 2006, ApJL, 643, L17, doi: 10.1086/505111

    work page doi:10.1086/505111 2006

  25. [25]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 18

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  26. [26]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 2023

  27. [27]

    Holm-Hansen, C., Chen, Y., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.09604, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09604

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09604 2025

  28. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303

    Ibata, R., Thomas, G., Famaey, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303 2020

  29. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d 2024

  30. [30]

    Ontheformationofglobularclustersystemsinahierarchical Universe,

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M. J., & Quinn, T. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 915, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05358.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05358.x 2002

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Haydn, C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 656, doi: 10.1086/339791

    work page doi:10.1086/339791 2002

  32. [32]

    2024, segasai/stan-splines: Updated stan-splines, Zenodo

    Koposov, S. 2024, segasai/stan-splines: Updated stan-splines, Zenodo

    2024

  33. [33]

    S., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Koposov, S., Li, T. S., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 55260, doi: 10.33232/001c.155260

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.155260 2026

  34. [34]

    Koposov, S. E. 2019, RVSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric parameter fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.013

    2019

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Koposov, S. E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2010, ApJ, 712, 260, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/260

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/260 2010

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad551

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad551 2023

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1842

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1842 2024

  38. [38]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2731

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2731 2019

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Li, T. S., Ji, A. P., Pace, A. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3 2022

  40. [40]

    A., Hern\'andez , J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021a, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

  41. [41]

    Parallax bias versus magnitude, colour, and position

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021b, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

  42. [42]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Lynden-Bell, R. M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.429

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.429 1995

  43. [43]

    Malhan, K., & Ibata, R. A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2995–3005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1035 2019

  44. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e07

    Freese, K. 2019, ApJ, 881, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e07

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e07 2019

  45. [45]

    Malhan, K., Valluri, M., Freese, K., & Ibata, R. A. 2022, ApJL, 941, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e5 2022

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad321 2023

  47. [47]

    N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al

    Miller, T. N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe 2024

  48. [48]

    Y., Li, T

    Mohammed, N., Tang, J. Y., Li, T. S., et al. 2026, The Kinematically Hot, Extremely Metal-Poor C-19 Stellar Stream in DESI DR2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11171

    work page arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Myers, A. D., Moustakas, J., Bailey, S., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca5f9 2023

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Nibauer, J., & Bonaca, A. 2025, ApJL, 985, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add0a9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add0a9 2025

  51. [51]

    Nibauer, A

    Nibauer, J., Bonaca, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Spergel, D. N., & Greene, J. E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.02247

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.02247 2025

  52. [52]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Johnston, K. V. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 633, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0220-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0220-3 2017

  53. [53]

    2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    Poppett, C., Tyas, L., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4 2024

  54. [54]

    H., & Schechter, P

    Press, W. H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425, doi: 10.1086/152650

    work page doi:10.1086/152650 1974

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Price-Whelan, A. M., & Bonaca, A. 2018, ApJL, 863, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7b5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad7b5 2018

  56. [56]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 2023

  57. [57]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  58. [58]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Siegal-Gaskins, J. M., & Valluri, M. 2008, ApJ, 681, 40, doi: 10.1086/587450

    work page doi:10.1086/587450 2008

  60. [60]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94f2 GD-1 in DESI DR229

    Starkman, N., Nibauer, J., Bovy, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94f2 GD-1 in DESI DR229

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94f2 2025

  61. [61]

    Tavangar, K., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, Inferring the density and membership of stellar streams with flexible models: The GD-1 stream in Gaia Data Release 3, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13236

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.13236 2025

  62. [62]

    , year = 1972, month = dec, volume =

    Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    work page doi:10.1086/151823 1972

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Valluri, M., Fagrelius, P., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada690

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada690 2025

  64. [64]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 1978