pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18849 · v1 · pith:D5TZM4EZnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Disentangling the Distant Stellar Halo Using K-Giants in the DESI Year 3 Data

Namitha Kizhuprakkat , Andrew P. Cooper , Wenting Wang , Amanda Bystr\"om , Joan Najita , Sergey E. Koposov , Guillaume Thomas , Songting Li
show 37 more authors
Ruizhi Zhang Carlos Allende Prieto Mika Lambert Oleg Y. Gnedin Alexander H. Riley Jessica N. Aguilar Steven Ahlen Davide Bianchi David Brooks Todd Claybaugh Axel de la Macorra Peter Doel Enrique Gazta\~naga Satya Gontcho A Gontcho Gaston Gutierrez Dick Joyce Robert Kehoe Theodore Kisner Anthony Kremin Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Marc Manera Aaron M. Meisner Ramon Miquel Will Percival Francisco Prada Ignasi P\'erez-R\`afols Graziano Rossi Eusebio Sanchez David Schlegel Michael Schubnell Ray Sharples Joseph H. Silber David Sprayberry Gregory Tarl\'e Benjamin A. Weaver Hu Zou
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar haloK-giantsmetallicity distribution functionsubstructuresMilky Wayangular momentumDESIaccretion
0
0 comments X

The pith

The residual stellar halo shows similar bimodal metallicity distributions for both highly prograde and highly retrograde outer-halo K-giants.

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

The paper maps the chemo-dynamical structure of the Milky Way halo at 12-100 kpc using 88,959 K-giant stars from DESI Year 3. HDBSCAN clustering in six-dimensional phase space plus chemistry isolates five known substructures and leaves a large residual population. Within the residual halo, samples of roughly 2000 stars on extreme prograde orbits and on extreme retrograde orbits have matching metallicity distribution functions that are bimodal, with a metal-poor peak near [Fe/H] = -2 and a metal-rich peak near [Fe/H] = -1.3 (prograde) or -1.5 (retrograde). These distributions differ from the MDFs of both Gaia Sausage-Enceladus and the Sagittarius stream. The result constrains which accreted progenitors dominate the outer halo and how their debris is distributed in angular momentum.

Core claim

Using HDBSCAN on 6D phase-space and chemistry data from 88,959 K-giants, the authors identify substructures and isolate a residual halo. Samples of approximately 2000 outer halo stars with highly prograde and highly retrograde angular momenta exhibit similar metallicity distribution functions that are bimodal, with a metal-poor peak at [Fe/H] ~ -2 and a metal-rich peak at [Fe/H] ~ -1.3 for prograde or -1.5 for retrograde. These MDFs do not match those of GSE or Sagittarius. The lower angular momentum residual halo MDF resembles that of GSE even at lower binding energies.

What carries the argument

HDBSCAN clustering on 6D phase-space coordinates plus chemistry to separate known substructures from the residual stellar halo.

If this is right

  • The residual halo MDFs are chemically distinct from both GSE and Sagittarius, implying contributions from additional accreted systems.
  • Bimodality appears independently in both prograde and retrograde residual populations, indicating at least two chemically distinct components mixed across orbital directions.
  • Lower-angular-momentum residual stars share an MDF shape with GSE at binding energies well below those of GSE itself.
  • The outer halo is not dominated by a single massive merger at large radii.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The similarity of prograde and retrograde MDFs may indicate that the residual halo was assembled from several smaller satellites whose debris has phase-mixed in metallicity but not yet in orbit.
  • Improved parallax or photometric distances from future surveys could test whether the reported bimodality survives when distance errors shrink.
  • The GSE-like MDF at low angular momentum may trace either extended GSE debris or a separate but chemically similar progenitor.
  • The residual halo MDF shape provides a new observable for testing whether the outer halo formed mainly through minor mergers after the GSE event.

Load-bearing premise

HDBSCAN clustering cleanly separates substructures from the residual halo without significant distance-induced contamination or parameter-dependent over- or under-clustering that would alter the reported MDF shapes.

What would settle it

Repeating the clustering and MDF measurement with tighter distance constraints or varied HDBSCAN parameters that removes the reported similarity or bimodality between the prograde and retrograde residual samples would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18849 by Aaron M. Meisner, Alexander H. Riley, Amanda Bystr\"om, Andrew P. Cooper, Anthony Kremin, Axel de la Macorra, Benjamin A. Weaver, Carlos Allende Prieto, David Brooks, Davide Bianchi, David Schlegel, David Sprayberry, Dick Joyce, Enrique Gazta\~naga, Eusebio Sanchez, Francisco Prada, Gaston Gutierrez, Graziano Rossi, Gregory Tarl\'e, Guillaume Thomas, Hu Zou, Ignasi P\'erez-R\`afols, Jessica N. Aguilar, Joan Najita, Joseph H. Silber, Laurent Le Guillou, Marc Manera, Martin Landriau, Michael Schubnell, Mika Lambert, Namitha Kizhuprakkat, Oleg Y. Gnedin, Peter Doel, Ramon Miquel, Ray Sharples, Robert Kehoe, Ruizhi Zhang, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, Sergey E. Koposov, Songting Li, Steven Ahlen, Theodore Kisner, Todd Claybaugh, Wenting Wang, Will Percival.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of stars in the cleaned DESI MWS Y3 catalog in log g − Teff space. The red contours enclose 25%, 50% and 95% of our K-giants. Red points mark K￾giants outside the 95% contour. The gray dashed rectangle indicates the selection box described in section 2.2. 20 40 60 80 100 r helio /kpc 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Mr (m a g) m_r = 16 (mag) m_r = 19 (mag) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of our K-giant catalog in absolute magnitude (Mr) with heliocentric distance. The red and black dashed lines indicate the bright (r = 16) and faint (r = 19) magnitude limits of the MWS main survey. A handful of stars observed by the dark-time DESI programs fall outside these limits. broadly similar, although with systematic offsets that may reflect differences in the spectral fitting pipelines… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of stars in the DESI footprint. The Galactic plane is shown by a solid red line. Left panel: distribution of our K-giant sample. The track of the Sagittarius stream is clearly visible. The red star symbols represent the dwarf galaxies and the black star symbols represent globular clusters; these correspond to hotspots in the map. Right panel: distribution of all stars in the DESI Y3 catalog. W… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An overview of the K-giant sample selected from the DESI Y3 catalog. The sequence of panels runs from top left to bottom right. Panel (a) shows the distribution in Etot − Lz space. The labels indicate the approximate peak positions of previously reported structures: Sag (Sagittarius), Ce (Cetus), Al (Aleph), LMS-1/Wukong, HS (Helmi streams), GSE, Th (Thamnos) and Retro (retrograde structures – Arjuna, Sequ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Etot − Lz distribution of our K-giants in different metallicity bins (linear scale). Metallicity increases from left to right. many well-known structures, the DESI dataset is sig￾nificantly larger than previous studies and extends to larger distances , potentially offering better characteri￾zation of these features and the possibility of discovering additional features. The currently known structures in th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the first pass of HDBSCAN algorithm. The gray background points show the whole halo K-giant sample and the markers of different colors show the four clusters identified by HDBSCAN. From top left to bottom right, panels show the distribution of stars in spaces defined by (a) energy and angular momentum (IoM space). The black solid line at Lz < 0 represents the track of Milky Way’s disk while the … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summary of the HDBSCAN passes. The gray background points show the whole halo K-giant sample and the markers of different colors show the five clusters identified by HDBSCAN. From top left to bottom right, panels show the distribution of stars in spaces defined by (a) energy and angular momentum (IoM space). The black solid (dashed) line at Lz < 0 represents the track of prograde (retrograde) circular orbi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Second summary of the HDBSCAN results. From top left to bottom right, panels show the distribution of stars: (a) in equatorial coordinates (coherent structures and concentrations around the Galactic plane and Galactic center are readily apparent) (b) in proper motions; (c) in an alternative angular momentum space of Lz and L⊥; (d) in action space. The legend in panel (b) gives the color scheme for the clus… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Summary plots for Cluster 2, associated with Aleph. Panels show distributions in (a) Galactic coordinates (l, b); (b) Etot − Lz; (c) cylindrical coordinates (R, Z); (d) eccentricity and vertical excursion, zmax; (e) tangential velocity, Vϕ; and (f) [Fe/H]. The grayscale distribution in the background of each panel shows the whole halo K-giant sample and the maroon points show stars in Cluster 2. Lines in p… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Summary plots for Clusters 1 and 4, associated respectively with the southern and northern Galactic hemisphere sections of the Sagittarius stream. Panels show distributions in (a) Galactic coordinates (l, b); (b) Etot − Lz; (c) cylindrical coordinates (R, Z); (d) eccentricity and vertical excursion, zmax; (e) alpha abundance, [α/F e]; and (f) [Fe/H]. The grayscale distribution in the background of each pa… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Clusters identified as Sagittarius by HDBSCAN compared to the Sagittarius model from Vasiliev et al. (2021). Grey points show the whole halo K-giant sample. Our HDBSCAN clusters 1 and 4 are shown by purple and green contours. The Sagittarius model stars within the DESI footprint are shown by sea green points in the northern hemisphere and dark blue points in the southern hemisphere. We divide the higher-e… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of Sagittarius model stars in Etot − Lz space. Y3 K-giant sample is shown in the gray background. The olive-colored markers shows the Sagittar￾ius model stars. The purple and lawn green markers shows the HDBSCAN clusters 1 and 4, associated with Sagittarius. Top panel: A fiducial Gaussian error of 20% is added to the distances before calculating their Etot and Lz, making the model stars to sc… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of K-giants in chemo-dynamic spaces compared to the Sagittarius model stars. Distribution of the whole K-giant sample is shown in the gray background. The olive colored points and purple and light green contours shows the distribution of Sagittarius model stars, K-giants from HDBSCAN clusters 1 and 4, respectively. The red colored points represent the K-giants matched with Sagittarius model s… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distribution of stars we associate with the Sagittarius spur (black points) compared to the Vasiliev et al. (2021) Sagittarius model (convolved with a fiducial error of 20% on distance as descried in the text). Other colors have the same meaning as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Summary plots for Cluster 3, associated to the known structure GSE. Panel (a): Distribution of GSE on Galactic coordinates l and b. Panel (b): Distribution in Etot−Lz space. Panel (c): Distribution in R - Z plane. Panel (d): Distribution of Eccentricity vs vertical excursion zmax. Panel (e): Density histogram of alpha abundance, [α/Fe]. Panel (f): Density histogram of [Fe/H]. The gray color distribution i… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Summary plots for Cluster A, which we identify with the Cetus-Palca stream. Stars selected in this feature are shown in orange, and the whole sample as the grayscale background. The panels have the same meaning as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Summary plots for Cluster B, which we identify with the Orphan-Chenab stream. Stars selected in this feature are shown in orange, and the whole sample as the grayscale background. The panels have the same meaning as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Distributions for stars not assigned to any HDBSCAN cluster, divided into prograde (Lz < −1.5) and retrograde (Lz > 1.5) subsets. From left to right; metallicity; alpha abundance; Galactocentric radial velocity (Vr); and Galactocentric distance (rgal). Blue shading represents the prograde subset, red represents the retrograde subset. The corresponding distributions for our GSE sample (top row) and Sagitta… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: GMM fits to the MDFs of different data samples. In each panel, the histogram shows the metallicity distribution of the sample, the orange curve shows a skew-normal fit, the dotted black curve shows the total GMM fit and the dashed colored curves show the individual Gaussian components. Panels (a) and (b) use a 4-component GMM; panels (c) to (e) use a 2-component GMM. From top left, the samples are (a) pro… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Distribution of overdensities identified in the Milky Way’s stellar halo. Panel (a) shows the distribution of K-giants (gray) between 10 < rgal < 30 kpc in Galactic (l, b) coordinates. The red, cyan and magenta colored ellipses shows the apparent positions and extents of the structures VOD, HAC-S and HAC-N, respectively. Panel (b) shows the subset of K-giants (gray) and BHBs (blue) at rgal > 60 kpc. Possi… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Median estimated distances for globular clusters and dwarf galaxies with likely members matched to our K-giant catalog, compared to their literature distances. The circle and square markers represent globular clusters and dwarf galaxies respectively. Hollow markers represent those structures contributing fewer than 3 stars to the K-giant catalog. The error bars represent the median absolute deviation of t… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Results of the second pass of HDBSCAN on the unclustered data from the first pass with [min_cluster_size, min_samples] = [100,20]. The left panel shows the distribution of clusters identified in this pass on the Etot − Lz space. The right panel shows, with dashed contours, the regions corresponding to clusters from the first pass. Points, corresponding to second pass cluster members, are colored here acco… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Results of an alternative second pass of HDBSCAN on the unclustered data from the first pass, again with [min_cluster_size, min_samples] = [100,20] as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Comparison of Galactocentric distance (left) and apparent magnitude (right) distributions between the full Xue et al. (2014) SEGUE and DESI Y3 K-giant catalogs. The histograms are normalized to unit area. 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 [Fe/H]/dex 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 D e n sity( ) DESI - Y3 SEGUE 400 200 0 200 Vhelio /km s 1 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Log g /dex 0.1 0.3 … view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Comparison of atmospheric parameters measured by SEGUE (SSPP; blue) and MWS (RVS; red) for the subset of stars in both catalogs (matched on the sky to 0.5"). From left to right panels show [Fe/H], heliocentric velocity, log g and Teff . The dashed blue line in the first panel corresponds to the Koposov et al. (2025) recalibration of [Fe/H] from the RVS pipeline for DESI K-giants, to account for a systemat… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a sample of 88,959 K-giants from DESI Milky Way Survey Year 3 data, which we use to characterize the chemo-dynamical properties of the stellar halo at Galactocentric distances of 12 to ~100 kpc. Using HDBSCAN, we identify five prominent stellar halo substructures: Aleph, the Sagittarius stream, Gaia Sausage-Enceladus (GSE), Cetus-Palca and the Orphan-Chenab stream. We present the properties of each of these structures as they appear in our catalog, and examine how uncertainties on distance affect the characterization of substructure with this approach. We also examine regions associated with previously reported overdensities (such as the Virgo Overdensities and the Sagittarius spur) that we do not recover with HDBSCAN. The size and distance range of our catalog allows us to explore in detail the residual stellar halo, comprising stars that we do not associate with any substructure. We find that samples of ~2000 outer halo stars with both highly prograde and highly retrograde angular momenta have similar metallicity distribution functions (MDFs), which do not resemble the MDFs of either GSE or Sagittarius. Both the prograde and retrograde residual halo MDFs are bimodal, with a metal-poor peak at [Fe/H] ~ -2 and a metal-rich peak at [Fe/H] ~ -1.3 (prograde) or -1.5 (retrograde). The MDF for lower angular momentum residual halo K-giants does not show clear evidence for a metal-poor peak, and broadly resembles the MDF of GSE, even at much lower binding energies than GSE itself. We discuss possible interpretations of these findings for GSE accretion scenarios.

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 analyzes 88,959 K-giant stars from DESI Y3 data at 12-100 kpc, applies HDBSCAN to identify five substructures (Aleph, Sagittarius, GSE, Cetus-Palca, Orphan-Chenab), and characterizes the residual halo. It reports that ~2000 outer-halo stars with highly prograde and highly retrograde angular momenta exhibit similar bimodal MDFs (metal-poor peak at [Fe/H] ~ -2, metal-rich at -1.3/-1.5) that differ from GSE and Sgr, while lower-angular-momentum residual stars resemble GSE; implications for accretion scenarios are discussed.

Significance. If the residual-halo MDF bimodality and similarity hold after rigorous error propagation, the result constrains the Milky Way's accretion history by indicating that the distant residual halo contains distinct components beyond the dominant known mergers. The homogeneous, large-distance sample is a clear strength for halo studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and residual-halo MDF section] The central claim that the prograde and retrograde residual-halo MDFs are bimodal and similar rests on clean HDBSCAN separation of the five substructures from the residual sample. Although the manuscript examines distance uncertainties for substructure characterization, it does not quantify how these uncertainties propagate into angular-momentum values, the 'highly prograde/retrograde' selection cuts, or the resulting MDF shapes for the ~2000-star samples (see abstract and the section on residual halo analysis).
  2. [Results section on substructure recovery] Post-hoc region definitions for previously reported overdensities (Virgo Overdensities, Sagittarius spur) that are not recovered by HDBSCAN are mentioned but their overlap with the residual halo and any effect on the reported bimodal MDFs remain unquantified.
  3. [Discussion section] The statement that the lower-angular-momentum residual-halo MDF resembles GSE 'even at much lower binding energies' requires explicit details on binding-energy calculation and a test of distance-error sensitivity, as this comparison underpins the discussion of GSE accretion scenarios.
minor comments (2)
  1. The exact numerical thresholds or cuts defining 'highly prograde' and 'highly retrograde' angular momenta should be stated explicitly (text or table) rather than left as qualitative descriptors.
  2. Figure captions for MDF panels should include the number of stars in each prograde/retrograde residual sample and the binning method used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to strengthen the analysis of uncertainties and provide additional details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and residual-halo MDF section] The central claim that the prograde and retrograde residual-halo MDFs are bimodal and similar rests on clean HDBSCAN separation of the five substructures from the residual sample. Although the manuscript examines distance uncertainties for substructure characterization, it does not quantify how these uncertainties propagate into angular-momentum values, the 'highly prograde/retrograde' selection cuts, or the resulting MDF shapes for the ~2000-star samples (see abstract and the section on residual halo analysis).

    Authors: We agree that propagation of distance uncertainties into the angular-momentum selection and MDFs of the residual halo samples was not quantified in detail, even though distance effects on substructure recovery were examined. We will add Monte Carlo realizations of distance errors to assess their impact on the Lz cuts and the resulting MDF shapes for the prograde and retrograde residual samples. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on substructure recovery] Post-hoc region definitions for previously reported overdensities (Virgo Overdensities, Sagittarius spur) that are not recovered by HDBSCAN are mentioned but their overlap with the residual halo and any effect on the reported bimodal MDFs remain unquantified.

    Authors: The post-hoc regions are noted for context, but we concur that their potential overlap with the residual halo and any contribution to the bimodal MDFs should be quantified. We will add an assessment of the stellar fractions in these regions that enter the residual sample and evaluate their effect on the reported MDFs. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion section] The statement that the lower-angular-momentum residual-halo MDF resembles GSE 'even at much lower binding energies' requires explicit details on binding-energy calculation and a test of distance-error sensitivity, as this comparison underpins the discussion of GSE accretion scenarios.

    Authors: We will include the explicit binding-energy formula and computation method in the revised text. We will also add a distance-error sensitivity test for the lower-angular-momentum residual sample to confirm the robustness of the MDF resemblance to GSE. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational measurements

full rationale

The paper reports direct empirical measurements of MDFs from DESI K-giant catalog data after applying HDBSCAN clustering to identify and remove substructures. No derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citation chains, or ansatzes are present in the load-bearing steps. The central claims about bimodal MDF shapes in prograde/retrograde residual halo samples are computed directly from the selected stars without reduction to inputs by construction. This is self-contained observational analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational catalog paper; no explicit free parameters, axioms or invented entities stated in abstract. Relies on standard assumptions of stellar spectroscopy and clustering validity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6063 in / 1078 out tokens · 16998 ms · 2026-06-26T20:35:10.856221+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

174 extracted references · 135 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abdul Karim, et al., Phys

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 747 Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2006

  2. [2]

    arXiv , keywords =

    Aganze, C., Chandra, V., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.11687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11687 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 804, doi: 10.1086/498131 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:10.48550/arxiv.2504.11687 2025

  3. [3]

    Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  4. [4]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Koposov, S. E., & Laporte, C. F. P. 2024, A&A, 690, A166

    2024

  5. [5]

    Amorisco, N. C. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2017

  6. [6]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    Baumgardt, H., & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 2021

  7. [7]

    and Starkenburg, E

    Bayer, M., Starkenburg, E., Thomas, G. F., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554131

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554131 2025

  8. [8]

    F., Zucker, D

    Bell, E. F., Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 295

    2008

  9. [9]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  10. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4456

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4456

    2023

  11. [11]

    W., Bell, E

    Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Bell, E. F., et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, L89

    2007

  12. [12]

    and Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., Evans, N. W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1862

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1862 2014

  13. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  14. [14]

    2025, A&A, 700, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555272

    Berni, L., Spina, L., Magrini, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555272

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555272 2025

  15. [15]

    A., Xue, X.-X., Liu, C., et al

    Bird, S. A., Xue, X.-X., Liu, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafd2e —. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2036

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafd2e 2019

  16. [16]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  17. [17]

    D., Rossi, S., et al

    Borbolato, L., Perottoni, H. D., Rossi, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad02fb 2024

  18. [18]

    D., Ji, A

    Brauer, K., Andales, H. D., Ji, A. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b9 2022

  19. [19]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1242 2021

  20. [20]

    S., & Johnston, K

    Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931

    2005

  21. [21]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 33 Byström, A., Koposov, S. E., Lilleengen, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 560

    2001

  22. [22]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. 2013, in Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ed. J. Pei, V. S. Tseng, L. Cao, H. Motoda, & G. Xu (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 160–172

    2013

  23. [23]

    L., Liu, C., Newberg, H

    Carlin, J. L., Liu, C., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 16

    2016

  24. [24]

    C., Chiba, M., et al

    Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 692, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/692

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/692 2010

  25. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab517c

    Carollo, D., Chiba, M., Ishigaki, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab517c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab517c 2019

  26. [26]

    J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

    Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3274

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3274 2024

  27. [27]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 26 xxxvi

    2023

  28. [28]

    and Ji, Alexander P

    Chandra, V., Cargile, P. A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 283, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae448a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae448a 2026

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc338

    Chang, J., Yuan, Z., Xue, X.-X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc338

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc338 2020

  30. [30]

    Chiba, M., & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 119, 2843, doi: 10.1086/301409

    work page doi:10.1086/301409 2000

  31. [31]

    1998, AJ, 115, 168, doi: 10.1086/300177

    Chiba, M., & Yoshii, Y. 1998, AJ, 115, 168, doi: 10.1086/300177

    work page doi:10.1086/300177 1998

  32. [32]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 2019

  33. [33]

    P., Parry, O

    Cooper, A. P., Parry, O. H., Lowing, B., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3185

    2015

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 744, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16740.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16740.x 2010

  35. [35]

    and Koposov, Sergey E

    Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0

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

  36. [36]

    Cui, et al

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  37. [37]

    and Hunt, Jason A

    Cunningham, E. C., Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad187b 2024

  38. [38]

    and Belokurov, Vasily and Monty, Stephanie and Evans, N

    Davies, E. Y., Belokurov, V., Monty, S., & Evans, N. W. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L73, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae001 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae001 2024

  39. [39]

    J., & Belokurov, V

    Deason, A. J., & Belokurov, V. 2024, NewAR, 99, 101706, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 2024

  40. [40]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints

    2017

  41. [41]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., & Lancaster, L. 2018, ArXiv e-prints

    2018

  42. [42]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Sanders, J. L. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3426 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 —. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207, doi: 10.384...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2019

  43. [43]

    J., Lang, D., et al

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

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

  44. [44]

    E., Najita, J

    Dey, A., Koposov, S. E., Najita, J. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.17230. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17230

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    M., Belokurov, V., Font, A

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1867

    2022

  46. [46]

    M., & Sanders, J

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1264 2025

  47. [47]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 095015, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ade522

    Ding, L., Li, J., Xue, X.-X., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 095015, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ade522

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ade522 2025

  48. [48]

    M., Helmi, A., et al

    Dodd, E., Callingham, T. M., Helmi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L2

    2023

  49. [49]

    C., Helmi, A., Morrison, H., et al

    Dohm-Palmer, R. C., Helmi, A., Morrison, H., et al. 2001, ApJL, 555, L37, doi: 10.1086/321734

    work page doi:10.1086/321734 2001

  50. [50]

    J., Sanderson, R., et al

    Donlon, T., Newberg, H. J., Sanderson, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1264

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1264 2024

  51. [51]

    J., Kim, B., & Lépine, S

    Donlon, II, T., Newberg, H. J., Kim, B., & Lépine, S. 2022, ApJL, 932, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7531

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7531 2022

  52. [52]

    J., Sanderson, R., & Widrow, L

    Donlon, II, T., Newberg, H. J., Sanderson, R., & Widrow, L. M. 2020, ApJ, 902, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f6 2020

  53. [53]

    J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 154

    2013

  54. [54]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 210, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b

    Drimmel, R., & Poggio, E. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 210, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b 2018

  55. [55]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 2011

  56. [56]

    Evans, N. W. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 353, Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys, ed. M. Valluri & J. A. Sellwood, 113–120

    2020

  57. [57]

    J., et al

    Fattahi, A., Belokurov, V., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz159

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz159 2019

  58. [58]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe31 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Folsom, D., Lisanti, M., Necib, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe31 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbe31 2025

  59. [59]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    work page doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  60. [60]

    D., Preibisch, T., & Minniti, D

    Gupta, A., Ivanov, V. D., Preibisch, T., & Minniti, D. 2024, A&A, 692, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451078

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451078 2024

  61. [61]

    , keywords =

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

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

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    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

  63. [63]

    J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9 2022

  64. [64]

    Harris and K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  65. [65]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  66. [66]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  67. [67]

    Helmi, A., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03895.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03895.x 2000

  68. [68]

    Helmi, A., & White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 495

    1999

  69. [69]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53, doi: 10.1038/46980

    work page doi:10.1038/46980 1999

  70. [70]

    A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J

    Holtzman, J. A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/148

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/148 2015

  71. [71]

    C., Lee, Y

    Hong, J., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4a6f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4a6f 2024

  72. [72]

    Horta, D., & Schiavon, R. P. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 107, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04370-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04370-y 2024

  73. [73]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3179 2023

  74. [74]

    W., Yuan, H

    Huang, Y., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2096

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2096 2016

  75. [75]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2021, A&A, 646, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039341

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039341 2021

  76. [76]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  77. [77]

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

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    work page doi:10.1038/370194a0 1994

  78. [78]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3868 Ivezić, Ž., Sesar, B., Jurić, M., et al

    Iorio, G., & Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3868 Ivezić, Ž., Sesar, B., Jurić, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 287

    2019

  79. [79]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/80 2016

  80. [80]

    2017, A&A, 604, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629691

    Jean-Baptiste, I., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629691

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629691 2017

Showing first 80 references.