Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

This paper tests six Milky Way potential models against the full observed morphology of the Palomar 5 stream and finds that none reproduces all properties simultaneously, pointing to missing ingredients such as small-scale perturbers and a

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 19:11 UTC pith:27COBMVI

load-bearing objection A genuinely new set of direct N-body experiments for Pal 5, honest about its limits, but the spherical-vs-flattened halo comparison is compromised by a different progenitor snapshot. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17040 v1 pith:27COBMVI submitted 2026-07-19 astro-ph.GA

Disentangling the Morphology of Palomar~5: Effects of the Bar, Spiral Arms, LMC, and Halo Flattening

Zhenghao He , Long Wang , Zi-yi Zhou , Yang Huang , Eugene Vasiliev This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Palomar 5tidal streamMilky Way potentialgalactic bardark matter halo flatteningLarge Magellanic CloudN-body simulationsglobular cluster evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks which features of the Milky Way's gravitational potential shape the Palomar 5 globular cluster and its thin tidal stream. Using collisional direct N-body simulations over the last 3 billion years, it compares six potential models that vary halo flattening, the galactic bar (constant-speed and decelerating), spiral arms, and the Large Magellanic Cloud. It finds that the halo's flattening is the dominant control on the stream's on-sky track, the bar controls stream length and redistributes debris into density structures and leading–trailing asymmetries, and the LMC acts mostly indirectly by lifting the cluster's pericenter and slowing its mass loss. But no single model matches all observed stream properties, which the authors take as evidence that smooth potentials are insufficient and that progenitor uncertainties and small-scale perturbers must be included. A sympathetic reader would see this as an extension: it converts Pal 5 from a 'potential probe' into a case study in how multiple Galactic components and cluster evolution jointly shape a stream.

Core claim

No single model in a suite of six direct N-body simulations of Palomar 5 simultaneously reproduces the observed evolution of the cluster and all measured stream properties — length, projected track, transverse width, and line-density profile. The simulations attribute distinct roles to Galactic components: halo flattening shifts the projected stream track, with flattened halos matching the observed track better than spherical ones; the rotating bar strongly affects stream length and redistributes debris, producing model-dependent density structures and leading–trailing asymmetries, with a decelerating bar elongating the trailing tail; the LMC directly alters the present-day morphology only m

What carries the argument

The central object is the Palomar 5 globular cluster's tidal stream, a thin, dynamically cold tracer of the Milky Way force field. The argument is carried by collisional direct N-body simulations that embed the cluster in time-dependent analytic Galactic potentials, plus a backward orbit integration that maps present-day observations onto initial conditions for each potential. The comparison machinery is a set of forward-modeled stream observables — track, width, line density, and mock-observable stream length — evaluated against two independent observational datasets. The pivotal mechanism is the pericentric distance: tidal mass-loss and the resulting stream properties are highly sensitive

Load-bearing premise

The results stand or fall on whether the adopted starting cluster snapshots actually represent Pal 5 as it was 3 billion years ago; the spherical-halo model even uses a different, earlier and heavier snapshot because the standard one dissolved too quickly, so mismatches blamed on the potential could actually be mismatches in the progenitor's initial state.

What would settle it

Measure the full 6D phase-space track of the Pal 5 stream, especially the outer ~20° of the leading and trailing tails, with proper-motion precision better than ~0.05 mas/yr: the models disagree sharply there — the decelerating-bar model predicts a long trailing tail reaching ϕ1 ≈ +24° with a compact clump near ϕ1 ≈ −15°, while constant-speed barred flattened-halo models predict a shorter, ~26° stream with a leading-side overdensity near the progenitor. Also, if a deep uniform survey confirms a genuine overdensity near ϕ1 ≈ +15° (as in the reconstructed Xiao data), that single feature would fa

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, smooth axisymmetric or steadily barred Milky Way potentials are ruled out for Pal 5: matching the stream requires additional physics, such as dark-matter subhalos, giant molecular clouds, or a time-evolving halo and disk.
  • Halo flattening is a first-order variable for stream track: any future stream-based measurement of the Galactic force field must fit the halo axis ratio rather than assuming sphericity.
  • The LMC's dominant dynamical effect on Pal 5 is indirect (pericenter shift and mass-loss rate), not direct stream warping, so LMC corrections enter cluster-evolution modeling even when the projected stream looks unaffected.
  • Stream length is not a clean observable: the same underlying debris can appear shorter or longer depending on how the bar redistributes density, so length comparisons need a detection model and density threshold.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to rerun all six potentials with one common, well-calibrated progenitor snapshot. The paper already uses different snapshots for one model (an earlier, heavier cluster), so part of the inter-model spread in stream length and width likely reflects progenitor differences, not potential differences.
  • If halo flattening turns out to be the main driver of stream-track shape, measuring tracks of other cold globular-cluster streams could map the halo's oblateness almost directly, with the bar and LMC treated as nuisance parameters that mostly affect density and length, not track.
  • The bar's ability to create density overdensities near the progenitor that mimic epicyclic features, and the decelerating bar's off-center clump, means that interpreted stream gaps are not uniquely attributable to dark-matter subhalo impacts; checking whether a putative gap has a corresponding track kink or width change could help separate the two.
  • The paper lists progenitor uncertainty as a limitation but does not explore it; a direct next step is a small grid of cluster concentrations and mass functions to see whether any smooth potential plus a different progenitor can match all observations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents collisional direct N-body simulations (PeTar) of Palomar 5 over the last 3 Gyr in six Milky Way potential models that vary halo flattening, bar presence/pattern speed, LMC inclusion, and bar deceleration. The authors compare the simulated cluster evolution, stream length, projected track, width, and line-density profile with observations from Erkal et al. (2017) and a reconstruction from Xiao et al. (2025). They conclude that no single model reproduces all observed properties, that halo flattening strongly affects the projected stream track, that the bar redistributes debris and changes stream length, and that the LMC mainly affects pericentric distance and hence mass loss.

Significance. If the results are accepted, the paper provides a useful demonstration that smooth, quasi-static axisymmetric or simple barred Milky Way potentials cannot simultaneously match Pal 5's full morphology, and that small-scale perturbers or progenitor uncertainties are likely required. The direct N-body treatment with a realistic stellar-mass function and a time-dependent potential is a strength, as is the explicit multi-observable comparison with two independent observational datasets. However, the positive claim about halo flattening rests on a comparison that is not controlled: the SHT2024 model uses a different, more massive and more compact initial snapshot than all other models. This weakens the paper's strongest claim and requires either a re-run or a substantial reframing before the conclusions can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Table 2; Sec. 3.1, Table 8] The comparison between SHT2024 and FHT2024 is not controlled. Table 2 shows SHT2024 was initialized from the 8.2 Gyr snapshot (M_ini = 41,135.5 Msun, N = 102,038) while all other models use the 8.8 Gyr snapshot (M_ini = 38,287.1 Msun, N = 94,290). The paper states this was because the standard snapshot disrupted too early in the SHT2024 potential. Thus the difference in RMS track residual (0.562 deg for SHT2024 vs. 0.317 deg for FHT2024) and the claimed halo-shape effect on the stream track conflate halo flattening with progenitor mass, concentration, and dynamical age. The 0.6 Gyr age offset alone is not a sufficient defense: the 7.4% higher initial mass and altered internal structure change the mass-loss history, as Figure 4 itself shows. Either run SHT2024 with the same snapshot used for FHT2024 (with a modified integration strategy or survival criterion), run FHT2024 with the 8.2 Gyr
  2. [Sec. 3.3.2, Tables 8-9 and Fig. 8] The quantitative width comparison is made after multiplying each simulated width profile by a per-model factor s_sim chosen to match the median width of Erkal+2017 (s_sim = 0.70-1.05). Consequently, the RMS width values in Table 9 measure only the shape mismatch, not the absolute width agreement. Since the paper lists 'width' among the observed properties that no model reproduces, an unscaled comparison is needed; otherwise the claim is limited to 'no model reproduces the shape of the width profile after normalizing by the observed median width.' The raw median widths in Table 9 are informative but are not compared directly to the observed median, and no uncertainty is propagated from s_sim. Please either report an absolute-width RMS or explicitly state that the width constraint is used only in shape-normalized form.
  3. [Sec. 4, second limitation paragraph] The paper correctly lists progenitor-model uncertainty as a limitation, but this limitation is load-bearing for the interpretation of the main no-match conclusion. The simulations use a single Pal 5 progenitor snapshot from Wang+2024, and no exploration of initial mass, concentration, mass function, or tidal filling is performed. Because the observed discrepancies in stream length, track, and density could in principle be removed by a different, equally plausible progenitor state, the statement that 'a more precise match likely requires better constraints on the initial properties of the Pal 5 progenitor and a more complex Galactic potential' is only weakly supported. The no-match result is internally valid for the adopted progenitor, but any astrophysical interpretation that assigns the mismatch to missing potential complexity needs at least a small grid of progenitor variants or a syst
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Sec. 4] Spiral arms appear in the title and abstract and are included in the Hunter et al. (2024) based models, but no model isolates their effect. Section 4 explicitly states that the paper does not separately isolate spiral-arm effects. Please either add a no-spiral control or revise the title/abstract to avoid implying a dedicated spiral-arm study.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.1] The reconstruction of the Xiao+2025 observational profile depends on the adopted HDBSCAN parameters, isochrone choices, and background treatment, but no comparison is shown between the reconstructed profiles and the tabulated Xiao+2025 values beyond a qualitative statement. A direct overlay or residual statistic would strengthen confidence in the observational reference.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.2] The mock observable stream length uses a detection threshold of at least ten particles per 0.1 deg bin. The threshold is arbitrary and no sensitivity test is reported. Given that the stream-length ordering (Tables 8) is a key qualitative result, a short robustness check varying the threshold would be useful.
  4. [Sec. 2.2] There is a typo: 'sphercial' should read 'spherical'.
  5. [Figure 7] The vertical offsets used to separate model streams are labeled as 'Y - 0.0 kpc', 'Y - 15.0 kpc', etc., which is confusing because the plotted tracks are shifted downward. Please clarify the sign convention in the caption or use an offset arrow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the sensitivity results are not forced by the fitted inputs; the main caveats are a confounded SHT2024 control and normalization of width residuals, which affect validity but not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims—halo flattening changes the projected track, the bar changes stream length and debris redistribution, and the LMC changes pericenter/mass loss—are obtained by forward N-body evolution under different external potentials, starting from a common (Wang+2024) Pal 5-like snapshot. The output stream properties are not defined in terms of the input potential parameters, and no target observable is used as a fitting constraint in these runs. Comparisons against Erkal+2017 and Xiao+2025 are external benchmarks; the paper explicitly reports mismatches ('no single model reproduces all observed properties'), which is the opposite of forcing agreement. The width RMS residuals are computed after a per-model scaling s_sim to the observed median width, but the table also quotes raw unscaled widths, and the scaling is stated to isolate shape rather than absolute scale, so this is not a hidden fit. The main circularity-adjacent concern is that SHT2024 is initialized from a different (8.2 Gyr, 41,135 Msun) snapshot than the other models (8.8 Gyr, 38,287 Msun) to prevent early disruption, so the SHT vs FHT halo-shape comparison is not perfectly controlled; the paper discloses this and lists progenitor uncertainty as a limitation. That is a validity confound, not a case where a prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The Wang+2024 initial condition is a self-citation (co-author L. Wang), but it is an externally published, falsifiable N-body model and is additionally checked against the observed surface-density profile (Figure 5), so it does not make the argument circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims are comparative simulation results, not derivations. They rest on chosen potential parameters, an inherited cluster snapshot, and approximate orbital histories. The paper introduces no new physical entities; its conclusions are conditional on these inputs.

free parameters (7)
  • Dark-matter halo axis ratio q_rho = 0.84
    Flattened halo in FHT2024/FNHT2024/FLHT2024/FDHT2024; chosen by hand as a 'controlled flattened-halo test' without exploring q_rho; drives the central halo-shape conclusions.
  • Bar deceleration parameters (Omega_1, Omega_2, eta) = 75.47 and 34 km/s/kpc; eta=0.003; t0~3 Gyr, t2~2.7 Gyr
    FDHT2024 model; chosen following Chiba+2021 and Dillamore+2024; central to the bar-slowdown conclusions.
  • SHT2024 initial snapshot choice = age 8.2 Gyr, M_ini=41135.5 Msun, N=102038; standard snapshot: age 8.8 Gyr, M_ini=38287.1 Msun, N=94290
    Adopted after SHT2024 disrupted too early in preliminary runs; breaks the controlled comparison and confounds SHT2024 stream and mass-loss results.
  • Stream-width normalization factor s_sim = 0.97, 0.98, 0.70, 0.88, 0.76, 1.05 per model
    Each simulated width profile is scaled to match the median observed width of Erkal+2017 before computing RMS residuals; this is a fit to the comparison data.
  • Mock stream detection threshold = >=10 particles per 0.1 deg bin
    Defines the mock observable stream length L_stream in Table 8; arbitrary and changes the length comparison.
  • Initial snapshot cutoff radius r_cut = 35 pc
    Filters the Wang+2024 snapshot; changes initial mass and the amount and structure of retained stars.
  • NFW halo density parameters rho0, r_s = 1.21e7 Msun/kpc^3, 14.39 kpc
    Adopted from Huang+2016 for SHT2024/FHT2024 family; defines the circular-velocity curve and all orbital integrations.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption PeTar + AGAMA correctly integrate collisional N-body dynamics in a time-dependent external potential.
    No internal verification is provided in this paper; all results depend on the correctness of the code and its AGAMA coupling.
  • domain assumption The Chandrasekhar dynamical-friction LMC orbit (AGAMA example script) approximates the real MW-LMC trajectory.
    The FLHT2024 central claim depends on the LMC's past orbit; the paper notes the script was calibrated to a reference MW potential and applies it to a modified host.
  • domain assumption The Wang+2024 noBin-BH snapshot is a valid Pal 5 progenitor at t=-3 Gyr.
    Used as the initial condition for five of six models; if the snapshot does not match the real Pal 5, all stream morphologies change. SHT2024 uses a different, earlier snapshot.
  • domain assumption The adopted present-day Pal 5 phase-space coordinates and solar parameters are correct.
    Backward orbital integration and the final stream comparison depend on these; no observational uncertainty is explored.
  • domain assumption The smooth analytic potentials (Hunter+2024 and modifications) represent the Milky Way sufficiently for this comparison.
    The paper's grid is discrete and is not a full parameter search; the absence of small-scale perturbers is acknowledged.
  • domain assumption Survey completeness and background in DESI and SDSS are adequately modeled by the independent isochrone + HDBSCAN reconstruction.
    The Xiao+2025 catalogue was obtained via private communication and the exact isochrone implementation was unspecified, so the reconstruction is an assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25929 in / 14490 out tokens · 138041 ms · 2026-08-01T19:11:49.299521+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Palomar~5 (Pal~5) globular cluster and its tidal tails provide a sensitive probe of globular-cluster evolution in the time-dependent Milky Way potential. We study the past 3~Gyr evolution of Pal~5 using collisional direct \(N\)-body simulations with \texttt{PeTar}, adopting Galactic potential models that include spiral arms, the Galactic bar, halo flattening, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), and bar deceleration. We find that halo shape strongly influences the projected stream track, reflecting Pal~5's sensitivity to Galactic force-field flattening. The LMC causes only modest direct changes to the present-day projected stream morphology, but can alter the pericentric distance and hence the progenitor's mass evolution. The Galactic bar strongly affects stream length and debris redistribution along the tails, producing model-dependent density structures and leading--trailing asymmetries. Comparison with observations from Erkal et al. (2017) and Xiao et al. (2025) shows that no single model simultaneously reproduces all observed properties of Pal~5, including cluster evolution, stream length, track, width, and line-density profile. Although our simulations capture several global properties, the remaining discrepancies indicate that a more precise match likely requires better constraints on the initial properties of the Pal~5 progenitor and a more complex Galactic potential, including perturbations from small-scale perturbers such as dark matter subhalos and giant molecular clouds. Future work may combine self-consistent direct \(N\)-body simulations with particle-spray methods to investigate these discrepancies more efficiently.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17040 by Eugene Vasiliev, Long Wang, Yang Huang, Zhenghao He, Zi-yi Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Circular-velocity curves for the SHT2024, FHT2024, and original Hunter2024 models. For each model, the total circular velocity is shown with a solid line, while the corresponding dark-matter halo contribution is shown with a dashed line of the same colour. The remaining potential components are plotted with transparent coloured lines. Observational measurements from A.-C. Eilers et al. (2019) and Y. Zhou e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Orbital evolution of the Pal 5 cluster across six potential models (columns). The top row displays the trajectory in the inertial Galactocentric X–Y frame. The middle row shows the projection in the meridional plane (RG–Z), where RG = √ X2 + Y 2. The bottom row presents the orbit in the bar-corotating frame (Xrot–Yrot), where the color scale indicates the absolute vertical distance |Z| from the Galactic mi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of the Galactocentric distance (r) for the Pal 5 progenitor across the six potential models over the full 3 Gyr backward integration (from t = −3 Gyr to the present day t = 0) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structural evolution and absolute mass-loss rate of the Pal 5 progenitor across the tested Galactic potentials. To eliminate apparent phase shifts caused by varying orbital frequencies, the horizontal axis is normalized by the average orbital period (P) of each model, ending at the present day (0). The upper panel displays the smoothed half-mass radius (rh), the middle panel shows the bound mass evolution … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The surface number density Σ(R) profiles are shown for the N-body models along with observational data from R. A. Ibata et al. (2017). The colored curves represent the simulation results at the present day for different Galactic potential models. Black circles show the observed profile, with error bars indicating uncertainties. Vertical lines are used to indicate the “effective radius” , the radius contain… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the Palomar 5 tidal stream in the Pal 5 stream coordinate system implemented in gala as Pal5PriceWhelan18. The top panel shows the spatial distribution of candidate stream stars in the (ϕ1, ϕ2) plane, with the stellar density color-coded on a logarithmic scale. The blue curve marks the best-fit stream track, µ(ϕ1), and the shaded band indicates the corresponding µ±σ region. The second pane… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial morphology of the simulated Palomar 5 streams across the tested Galactic potentials at the present day. The top row displays the stream distributions in the Galactocentric Cartesian X–Y and X–Z planes, followed by the equatorial projection in RA–Dec coordinates. The bottom row presents the on-sky morphology in the rotated stream coordinate system (ϕ1, ϕ2), where the coordinate transformation is ado… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the scaled stream-width profiles of the Palomar 5 stream between observations and simulations. In each panel, the grey histogram represents the scaled N-body stream width derived from this work. The red line with shaded error bands shows the stream width profile derived from the high-probability members identified in Y.-A. Xiao et al. (2025). For reference, the width profile from D. Erkal et … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the normalized linear density profiles of the Palomar 5 stream between observations and simulations. In each panel, the grey histogram represents the simulated stream profile derived from this work. The red line with shaded error bands shows the stream line-density profile derived from the high-probability members identified in Y.-A. Xiao et al. (2025). For reference, the profile from D. Erka… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of the 2:1 Outer Lindblad Resonance (OLR) angle for the Pal 5 progenitor in the SHT2024 potential. The resonant angle remains bounded over the 3 Gyr integration, indicating sustained libration rather than circulation. For the subsequent models incorporating a flattened dark matter halo (e.g., FHT2024), the altered potential changes the intrinsic radial frequency ΩR. A similar frequency anal… view at source ↗

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

81 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., G´ omez, F

    Amorisco, N. C., G´ omez, F. A., Vegetti, S., & White, S. D. M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw148

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw148 2016

  2. [2]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    doi:10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 1992

  3. [3]

    1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0

    Barnes, J., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0

    doi:10.1038/324446a0 1986

  4. [4]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 340, 227, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    Baumgardt, H., & Makino, J. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 340, 227, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    W., Price-Whelan, A

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873 2019

  6. [6]

    M., et al

    Bonaca, A., Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5afe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5afe 2020

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/9

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/9 2015

  8. [8]

    K., & Kallivayalil, N

    Bovy, J., Bahmanyar, A., Fritz, T. K., & Kallivayalil, N. 2016, ApJ, 833, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/31

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/31 2016

  9. [9]

    Brooks, R. A. N., Garavito-Camargo, N., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad93a7 2025

  10. [10]

    G., Grillmair, C

    Carlberg, R. G., Grillmair, C. J., & Hetherington, N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/75 2012

  11. [11]

    1985, ApJ, 298, 80, doi: 10.1086/163586

    Casertano, S., & Hut, P. 1985, ApJ, 298, 80, doi: 10.1086/163586

    work page doi:10.1086/163586 1985

  12. [12]

    Y., & Ash, N

    Chen, Y., Valluri, M., Gnedin, O. Y., & Ash, N. 2025, ApJS, 276, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9904

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad9904 2025

  13. [13]

    Chiba, R., Friske, J. K. S., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 4710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3585

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3585 2021

  14. [14]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1094 Correa Magnus, L., & Vasiliev, E

    Chiba, R., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1094 Correa Magnus, L., & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3726

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1094 2021

  15. [15]

    M., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1789

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1789 2024

  16. [16]

    M., Sanders, J

    Dillamore, A. M., Sanders, J. L., & Brooks, R. A. N. 2026, GSE vs. LMC: reshaping of radially biased stellar haloes by satellites, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11159 2026

  17. [17]

    W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M

    Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 2019

  18. [18]

    1969, Astronomische Nachrichten, 291, 97, doi: 10.1002/asna.19692910402

    Einasto, J. 1969, Astronomische Nachrichten, 291, 97, doi: 10.1002/asna.19692910402

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.19692910402 1969

  19. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2122

    Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2122

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2122 2015

  20. [20]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1957

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Bovy, J., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1957

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1957 2016

  21. [21]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1371

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1371 2019

  22. [22]

    E., & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D., Koposov, S. E., & Belokurov, V. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 60, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1208

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1208 2017

  23. [23]

    J., Belokurov, V., et al

    Erkal, D., Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1828

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1828 2021

  24. [24]

    A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1198

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1198 2015

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 698, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553923

    Ferrone, S., Montuori, M., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553923

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553923 2025

  26. [26]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb 2019

  27. [27]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 2021

  28. [28]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Gieles, M., Erkal, D., Antonini, F., Balbinot, E., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01392-2 2021

  29. [29]

    J., & Dionatos, O

    Grillmair, C. J., & Dionatos, O. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, L37, doi: 10.1086/503802

    work page doi:10.1086/503802 2006

  30. [30]

    J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1481, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9 2023

  31. [31]

    Hattori, K., Erkal, D., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1007

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1007 2016

  32. [32]

    2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6

    Helmi, A. 2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6

    doi:10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6 2008

  33. [33]

    W., Yuan, H

    Huang, Y., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 2623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2096

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2096 2016

  34. [34]

    H., Sormani, M

    Hunter, G. H., Sormani, M. C., Beckmann, J. P., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450000

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450000 2024

  35. [35]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 551, 294, doi: 10.1086/320060

    Ibata, R., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 551, 294, doi: 10.1086/320060

    doi:10.1086/320060 2001

  36. [36]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Martin, N. F. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/1 26

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/1 2016

  37. [37]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7514

    Chapman, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7514

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7514 2017

  38. [38]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz134

    Iwasawa, M., Namekata, D., Nitadori, K., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz134

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz134 2020

  39. [39]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, 54, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw053

    Iwasawa, M., Tanikawa, A., Hosono, N., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, 54, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw053

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psw053 2016

  40. [40]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1343

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1343

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1343 2016

  41. [41]

    V., et al

    Johnston, K. V., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 512, L109, doi: 10.1086/311876

    doi:10.1086/311876 1999

  42. [42]

    E., et al

    Koposov, S. E., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 260, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/260

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

  43. [43]

    E., Erkal, D., Li, T

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad551 2023

  44. [44]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x K¨ upper, A

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x K¨ upper, A. H. W., Balbinot, E., Bonaca, A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/80 K¨ upper, A. H. W., Kroupa, P., Baumgardt, H., & Heggie, D. C. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15690.x K¨ upper, A. H. W., Lane, R. R., &...

    arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    S., Erkal, D., et al

    Lilleengen, S., Petersen, M. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3108

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3108 2023

  46. [46]

    P., Li, T

    Limberg, G., Ji, A. P., Li, T. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02177, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02177

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02177 2025

  47. [47]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177170

    work page doi:10.1086/177170 1996

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add0a9

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add0a9 2025

  49. [49]

    N., et al

    Nibauer, J., Bonaca, A., Spergel, D. N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e8 2025

  50. [50]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, L165, doi: 10.1086/319102

    Odenkirchen, M., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, L165, doi: 10.1086/319102

    work page doi:10.1086/319102 2001

  51. [51]

    K., Dehnen, W., et al

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Dehnen, W., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2385, doi: 10.1086/378601

    doi:10.1086/378601 2003

  52. [52]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 63, 881, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.4.881

    Oshino, S., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 63, 881, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.4.881

    doi:10.1093/pasj/63.4.881 2011

  53. [53]

    E., Rodriguez, C

    Panithanpaisal, N., Sanderson, R. E., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea7 2026

  54. [54]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    Patel, E., Kallivayalil, N., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75 2020

  55. [55]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2015, ApJ, 799, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/28 2015

  56. [56]

    M., & Johnston, K

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

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

  57. [57]

    S., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Petersen, M. S., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2020, MNRAS, 494, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029 2020

  58. [58]

    S., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Petersen, M. S., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01254-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01254-3 2021

  59. [59]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S. L. W., van Elteren, E.,

    doi:10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 1911

  60. [60]

    2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024

    Pelupessy, I., & de Vries, N. 2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 2013

  61. [61]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 388, doi: 10.21105/joss.00388

    doi:10.21105/joss.00388 2017

  62. [62]

    M., Johnston, K

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Johnston, K. V., Valluri, M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2383

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2383 2016

  63. [63]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv245

    Renaud, F., & Gieles, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv245 2015

  64. [64]

    Roberts, D., Gieles, M., Erkal, D., & Sanders, J. L. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf321

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf321 2025

  65. [65]

    M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E

    Rockosi, C. M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 349, doi: 10.1086/341033 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    arXiv 2002

  66. [66]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

    Shipp, N., Erkal, D., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93 2021

  67. [67]

    H., Sneden, C., & Kraft, R

    Smith, G. H., Sneden, C., & Kraft, R. P. 2002, AJ, 123, 1502, doi: 10.1086/338855

    work page doi:10.1086/338855 2002

  68. [68]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1855 2021

  70. [70]

    Starkman, N., Bovy, J., & Webb, J. J. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa534

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa534 2020

  71. [71]

    1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Teuben, P. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 398

    1995

  72. [72]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2672 2019

  73. [73]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673 27

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673 27

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3673 2021

  74. [74]

    2013, ApJL, 773, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L4

    Vera-Ciro, C., & Helmi, A. 2013, ApJL, 773, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L4

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/l4 2013

  75. [75]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3657

    Wang, L., Gieles, M., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3657

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3657 2024

  76. [76]

    2020a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    Wang, L., Iwasawa, M., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1915

  77. [77]

    2020b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    Wang, L., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa480

  78. [78]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.09964

    Xiao, Y.-A., Zou, H., Feng, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.09964. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09964

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    H., Johnston, K

    Yoon, J. H., Johnston, K. V., & Hogg, D. W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/58

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/58 2011

  80. [80]

    W., et al

    Zhang, H., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc261

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc261 2025

Showing first 80 references.