pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20322 · v1 · pith:C23WJJX3new · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Inferring Globular Cluster Initial Mass Function from Stellar Streams

Claire S. Ye (CITA) , Raymond G. Carlberg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 01:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords globular clustersstellar streamsinitial mass functionMilky Waycluster disruptionGaia observationspower-law distribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar streams from disrupted globular clusters can be combined with simulations to recover their initial mass function as a power law with slope 1.3.

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

The paper demonstrates that mass and angular momentum measurements in stellar streams, when interpreted through cold dark matter simulations of cluster evolution, allow recovery of the starting masses of the globular clusters that created those streams. It finds that initially heavier clusters form heavier streams but contribute a smaller fraction of their mass to the visible stream. This leads to an inferred initial mass function that declines as a power law with slope 1.3 for streams above roughly 1000 solar masses. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies a new observational route to the mass distribution of globular clusters at early times, when direct observation is impossible.

Core claim

By combining cold dark matter simulations that model the evolution and disruption of embedded globular clusters with observations of stellar streams and globular clusters, the authors infer the initial cluster mass function. Initially more massive clusters produce more massive streams but deposit a smaller fraction of their initial mass into those streams. Using stream mass and angular momentum measurements, they recover a declining, power-law-like initial mass function with a slope α = 1.3±0.05 for streams ≳ 1000 M⊙. This work establishes stellar streams as a novel probe of the early mass distribution of globular clusters.

What carries the argument

Stream mass and angular momentum measurements interpreted through simulations of globular cluster disruption, which map current stream properties back to the parent cluster's initial mass.

If this is right

  • Initially more massive clusters produce more massive streams while depositing a smaller fraction of their mass into the stream.
  • Stellar streams encode information about the early mass distribution of globular clusters.
  • The recovered power-law slope applies to streams with masses above 1000 solar masses.
  • The approach provides a new way to study globular cluster formation without direct early-time observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future larger samples of streams could tighten the slope measurement and test whether the power-law form holds across a wider mass range.
  • The method links present-day stream kinematics to the assembly history of the Milky Way's globular cluster system.
  • If the simulation assumptions hold, the same stream-to-initial-mass mapping could be tested on streams associated with known surviving clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations must accurately describe how globular clusters form, orbit, and lose stars inside the Milky Way's dark matter halo so that observed stream properties reliably indicate the clusters' starting masses.

What would settle it

A direct mismatch between the slope recovered from stream data and the mass distribution measured for young massive clusters in nearby galaxies or at high redshift would falsify the inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20322 by Claire S. Ye (CITA), Raymond G. Carlberg.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated remnant cluster mass as a function of initial cluster mass. Initially more massive clusters tend to leave behind more massive remnant clusters, but with a large scatter in the final cluster mass due to the difference in their angular momenta. have L > 1000 kpc km−1 . Note that the cosmologi￾cal simulations discussed in Section 2 search for visible streams for any angular momentum. Thus, angular m… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper panel: Simulated stream mass as a func￾tion of initial cluster mass for streams visible at the present day. More massive clusters tend to leave behind more mas￾sive streams. Bottom panel: the fraction of mass remained in visible streams at the present day as a function of the ini￾tial cluster mass from simulations. A higher fraction of mass remains in streams from lower-mass star clusters. 10 0 10 1 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stream-to-initial mass ratio versus average an￾gular momentum of the simulated streams at the present day. All simulated visible streams have angular momentum L ≳ 800 kpc km s−1 , a selection effect resulting from the preferential disruption of lower-angular-momentum subha￾los by the tidal potential of the growing main halo and disk over the past ∼ 8 Gyr (disk potential from J. Bovy 2015). The vertical das… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Log-log fit to the simulated initial cluster mass and the present-day cluster mass using weighted OLS regres￾sion in two mass bins (boundary at Mcluster = 8000 M⊙). Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: compares the reconstructed ICMFs from both populations to the input distribution. The KS statistics for the ICMFs recovered from simulated streams and remnant star clusters at the present day are ≈ 0.060 and 0.056, respectively, indicating that the reconstructed distributions are in agreement with the original ICMF. 4. INITIAL MASS FUNCTION FROM OBSERVED STREAMS AND GLOBULAR CLUSTERS In this section, we ap… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The angular momentum as a function of mass for stellar streams (79 systems; A. Bonaca & A. M. Price-Whelan 2025) and globular clusters (165 systems; https://people.smp.uq.edu.au/HolgerBaumgardt/globular/) observed in the Milky Way. We exclude stellar streams with a dwarf galaxy progenitor. Filled triangles represent stellar streams at Galactocentric distance Dgc < 30 kpc and heliocentric distance Dhc > 3 k… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the ICMFs estimated from these ob￾served Milky Way stellar streams and globular clusters. The higher-mass end of the predicted ICMF from ob￾served streams follows a power-law structure, with a slope α ≈ 1.3 and a standard deviation around 0.05. The lower-mass end of the stream-inferred ICMF ex￾hibits a deficit of systems compared to the power-law fit derived from the high-mass end; this may stem fro… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Gaia mission has provided precise astrometry and spectrophotometry for billions of stars in the Milky Way, enabling the identification and kinematic characterization of stellar streams. These streams, remnants of disrupted globular clusters and dwarf galaxies, have revealed the structure of the Milky Way's dark matter halo. We show that stellar streams also encode information about the initial mass function of globular clusters. We combine cold dark matter simulations that model the evolution and disruption of embedded globular clusters with observations of stellar streams and globular clusters to infer the initial cluster mass function. We find that initially more massive clusters produce more massive streams, but deposit a smaller fraction of their initial mass into those streams. Using stream mass and angular momentum measurements, we recover a declining, power-law-like initial mass function with a slope $\alpha = 1.3\pm0.05$ for streams $\gtrsim 1000\,M_{\odot}$. This work establishes stellar streams as a novel probe of the early mass distribution of globular clusters.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that stellar streams encode information about the globular cluster initial mass function. By combining cold dark matter simulations of embedded cluster evolution and disruption with Gaia-based observations of stream masses and angular momenta, the authors recover a declining power-law initial mass function with slope α = 1.3 ± 0.05 for streams ≳ 1000 M⊙, noting that more massive clusters produce more massive streams but deposit a smaller fraction of their initial mass.

Significance. If the simulation-derived mass-dependent deposition fraction holds under observational scrutiny, the work provides a novel probe of early globular cluster mass distributions using the growing sample of stellar streams, complementing traditional methods based on surviving clusters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and simulation-observation comparison section] The inversion yielding α = 1.3 ± 0.05 depends on the simulation-derived relation in which stream deposition fraction decreases with initial cluster mass. No quantitative validation, resolution tests, or sensitivity analysis to embedding depth or tidal shocking is presented to show that this mass dependence is robust rather than an artifact of the CDM setup; this relation is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Methods and results sections] The manuscript provides no details on data selection criteria for the observed streams, error propagation from mass and angular momentum measurements, or corrections for observational selection effects that could mimic a declining IMF trend for streams ≳ 1000 M⊙.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Clarify the exact definition of stream mass used in the fit and ensure consistent notation for the power-law index α across text and figures.
  2. [Simulation results] Add a table or figure explicitly showing the deposition fraction versus initial mass from the simulations to allow readers to assess the trend.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation-observation comparison section] The inversion yielding α = 1.3 ± 0.05 depends on the simulation-derived relation in which stream deposition fraction decreases with initial cluster mass. No quantitative validation, resolution tests, or sensitivity analysis to embedding depth or tidal shocking is presented to show that this mass dependence is robust rather than an artifact of the CDM setup; this relation is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the robustness of the mass-dependent deposition fraction requires explicit demonstration. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection to the Methods that reports resolution tests at varying particle numbers and sensitivity analyses that vary embedding depth and the strength of tidal shocks. These tests confirm that the declining deposition fraction with initial mass is preserved across the explored parameter range and is not an artifact of the fiducial CDM setup. We have also included a brief comparison against semi-analytic disruption models that reproduce the same mass dependence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods and results sections] The manuscript provides no details on data selection criteria for the observed streams, error propagation from mass and angular momentum measurements, or corrections for observational selection effects that could mimic a declining IMF trend for streams ≳ 1000 M⊙.

    Authors: We acknowledge the absence of these details in the original submission. The revised Methods section now specifies the kinematic and photometric selection criteria applied to the Gaia stream catalog, provides the full error-propagation formalism used for stream mass and angular-momentum uncertainties, and includes a quantitative assessment of observational selection biases. This assessment shows that the inferred power-law slope remains consistent when the sample is restricted to different mass thresholds or when completeness corrections are applied, indicating that selection effects do not artificially produce the reported declining trend. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation calibration applied to independent observations

full rationale

The derivation first runs CDM simulations of embedded clusters to establish an empirical mapping (more massive clusters yield more massive streams but a smaller deposited fraction), then inverts observed stream masses and angular momenta through that mapping to recover the IMF slope. This is a standard two-stage calibration-plus-inference procedure whose output is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text; the simulations are treated as an external benchmark whose validity is assumed rather than derived from the target result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the cited cold dark matter simulations for cluster disruption and on the assumption that observed streams originate from globular clusters.

free parameters (1)
  • power-law slope alpha
    The slope value 1.3 is recovered from the data and is the primary fitted result.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Cold dark matter simulations model the evolution and disruption of embedded globular clusters
    Invoked to combine simulations with observations to infer the initial mass function.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1088 out tokens · 36452 ms · 2026-05-21T01:41:58.279862+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

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2698 2020

  3. [3]

    Bik, A., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Bastian, N., Panagia, N., & Romaniello, M. 2003, A&A, 397, 473, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021384

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021384 2003

  4. [4]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, NewAR, 100, 101713, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713 8Ye & Carlberg

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

  5. [5]

    galpy: A Python Library for Galactic Dynamics

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae56e8

    Chandar, R., Caputo, M., Goudfrooij, P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae56e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae56e8 2026

  8. [8]

    M., & Zhang, Q

    Fall, S. M., & Zhang, Q. 2001, ApJ, 561, 751, doi: 10.1086/323358

    work page doi:10.1086/323358 2001

  9. [9]

    M., Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M

    Farah, A. M., Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M. 2026, ApJL, 1001, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4e19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4e19 2026

  10. [10]

    Fragione, G., & Rasio, F. A. 2023, ApJ, 951, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd9c9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd9c9 2023

  11. [11]

    Gill, S. P. D., Knebe, A., & Gibson, B. K. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 399, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07786.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07786.x 2004

  12. [12]

    Y., Ostriker, J

    Gnedin, O. Y., Ostriker, J. P., & Tremaine, S. 2014, ApJ, 785, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/71

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/71 2014

  13. [13]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  14. [14]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    work page doi:10.1086/118116 1996

  15. [15]

    E., Harris, G

    Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L., & Hudson, M. J. 2015, ApJ, 806, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/36 2015

  16. [16]

    J., Harris, G

    Hudson, M. J., Harris, G. L., & Harris, W. E. 2014, ApJL, 787, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L5

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/l5 2014

  17. [17]

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

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

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

  18. [18]

    N., et al

    Ivezic, Z., Axelrod, T., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2008, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 176, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ0876001I

    work page doi:10.2298/saj0876001i 2008

  19. [19]

    King, I. R. 1966, AJ, 71, 64, doi: 10.1086/109857

    work page doi:10.1086/109857 1966

  20. [20]

    R., & Knebe, A

    Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 2009

  21. [21]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 4, Vol. 4, 500–534, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00078-X

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00078-x 2026

  22. [22]

    Star clusters across cosmic time,

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 2019

  23. [23]

    Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    McCrady, N., & Graham, J. R. 2007, ApJ, 663, 844, doi: 10.1086/518357

    work page doi:10.1086/518357 2007

  27. [27]

    G., Desprez, G., et al

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ca

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ca 2022

  28. [28]

    K., Rockosi, C

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2001, ApJL, 548, L165, doi: 10.1086/319095

    work page doi:10.1086/319095 2001

  29. [29]

    Pearson, S., Bonaca, A., Chen, Y., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2024, ApJ, 976, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8348 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8348 2024

  30. [30]

    W., Kruijssen, J

    Reina-Campos, M., Keller, B. W., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1934

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1934 2022

  31. [31]

    E., Chisholm, J., Welch, B., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Chisholm, J., Welch, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450359

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450359 2024

  32. [32]

    M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E

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

    work page doi:10.1086/340957 2002

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Senchyna, P., Plat, A., Stark, D. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad235e 2024

  34. [34]

    Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA Final Report

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.5422

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1305.5422 2013

  35. [35]

    2022, ApJL, 940, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2d

    Vanzella, E., Castellano, M., Bergamini, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2d 2022

  36. [36]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a 2023

  37. [37]

    E., Cutler, S

    Whitaker, K. E., Cutler, S. E., Chandar, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07627, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07627

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07627 2025

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Q., & Fall, S. M. 1999, ApJL, 527, L81, doi: 10.1086/312412

    work page doi:10.1086/312412 1999