Toward the fabric of the Milky Way I. The density of disk streams from a local $250^3$ pc$^3$ volume

Emily L. Hunt; Jo\~ao Alves; N\'uria Miret-Roig; Sebastian Ratzenb\"ock; Stefan Meingast; Torsten M\"oller

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Toward the fabric of the Milky Way I. The density of disk streams from a local $250^3$ pc$^3$ volume

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A local Gaia census finds ~820 disk streams per cubic kiloparsec—10 to 100 times more than simulations predict.

desk verdict The headline density is a raw count from an uncalibrated census, so don't quote 820/kpc^3 yet, but the paper is a serious first attempt at a volume census of disk streams and deserves a fair referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07075 v2 pith:7CPDPBBX submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

Sebastian Ratzenböck , João Alves , Emily L. Hunt , Núria Miret-Roig , Stefan Meingast , Torsten Möller This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

keywords diskstreamsMilkyWayGaiaDR3unsupervisedclusteringopenclusterdissolutionstellarassociationslocalvolumecensus

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that disk streams—elongated, coeval groups of stars being pulled apart in the Milky Way's disk—are far more common than current models predict. Counting 12 such streams inside a fully sampled local volume of roughly (250 pc)^3, it derives a density of about 820 streams per kpc^3 (about 160 per kpc^2 projected on the disk plane). That is one to two orders of magnitude above N-body estimates, which predicted only 2–20 detectable streams per kpc^3 with Gaia. If the count is right, either disk streams form much more efficiently or they survive disruption much longer than assumed, and they are numerous enough to serve as a population of dynamical probes in the local disk.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a volume-controlled census: 12 stream-like populations previously flagged as interlopers in a Sco-Cen survey are re-expanded beyond the search box using the SigMA clustering pipeline on 6D phase space and the Uncover membership method on 5D data, then counted against the true box volume of 14.625×10^6 pc^3. The working definition of a disk stream—coeval and comoving with aspect ratio >3:1—sets what is being counted; extreme deconvolution supplies cleaned velocity dispersions, and Jacobi-radius analysis separates streams with bound cores from fully unbound ones.

What would settle it

Count stream-like structures in a different, comparably complete local volume (e.g., a 250^3 pc^3 box away from Sco-Cen) while injecting synthetic disk streams with known lengths and velocity dispersions into Gaia-like data to measure the pipeline's recovery fraction; if the completeness-corrected count is tens per kpc^3 rather than roughly 800, the density claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that disk streams—coeval, comoving stellar structures with aspect ratios above 3:1—are abundant in the local Milky Way disk. From 12 such streams found inside a fully sampled 300×250×195 pc box (the '250^3 pc^3' volume), the authors derive a volume density of about 820 streams per kpc^3 for |Z|<100 pc and a projected surface density of about 160 streams per kpc^2. The streams are dynamically cold, with 3D velocity dispersions of 2.1–5.1 km/s, highly elongated (average aspect ratio 7:1, lengths 120–430 pc), and have ages from about 50 Myr to 1 Gyr with a median near 100 Myr. Because the observed density exceeds the N-body prediction by one to two orders of magnitu

Load-bearing premise

The density estimate treats the 12 streams recovered in the Sco-Cen-centered search box as a complete, independent census of disk streams in that volume, and treats that volume as representative of the local disk, although the pipeline's detection completeness is not quantified and the box is not randomly placed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Disk streams are not rare byproducts of cluster dissolution; the local census implies hundreds of them per cubic kiloparsec near the mid-plane, making them a common phase in stellar life.
N-body estimates of Gaia-detectable streams need revision: either birth conditions produce far more elongated structures, or GMC encounters destroy them far more slowly than the 10–100 Myr timescales usually assumed.
Because the streams are cold and coeval, they can act as dynamical tracers: their orbits, lengths, and internal velocity structure probe the Galactic potential and the gas distribution on kiloparsec scales.
The four streams with bound cores hold most of their mass outside the core (~65%), so even 'surviving' clusters are mostly dissolving into the field; older streams are almost all fully unbound, suggesting core dissolution is a late stage.
The apparent non-correlation between stream length and age challenges simple tidal-tail growth models, implying either initial conditions dominate or current Gaia data miss the faintest tails.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the local density of ~160 streams/kpc^2 holds across the star-forming disk, the Milky Way would host of order 10^5 disk streams within 100 pc of the mid-plane—a population large enough to make stream statistics a standard tool for cluster disruption studies.
Beyond the paper: the same pipeline's sensitivity limit (median stream density ~50 times below the field) means the 820/kpc^3 count is likely a lower limit; Gaia DR4's better astrometry should reveal longer, hotter streams and could push the census higher, not lower.
Beyond the paper: the reported absence of age-length and age-velocity-dispersion correlations may be a selection effect of density-based clustering, which cannot recover tails with signal-to-noise near 1; a test would be to re-cluster in action-angle space and see if the correlations appear.
Beyond the paper: the apparent disruption of Theia 368 inside Sco-Cen suggests primordial gas, not just GMC encounters, can shape streams; if a traceback with the association's gas mass confirms it, OB-association gas should be added to N-body destruction models.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The number that will get cited is the 820 streams/kpc^3, and it's not yet a measured density. It's a raw count of 12 streams in a box that was not the product of a blind, completeness-calibrated search; the streams were interlopers in Paper I's Sco-Cen-targeted run. There's no injection-recovery test, no statement of what fraction of streams in that volume the pipeline would have missed, and no uncertainty on the density—not even Poisson. The box is also not random: it's centered on Sco-Cen, and the local environment may inflate the count. The authors acknowledge some of this, but they hand-wave the representativeness issue with an age-spread argument that doesn't really address it.

Having said that, this is not a throwaway paper. The census itself—the first volume-complete empirical list of disk streams—is genuinely new. The membership extension (roughly doubling known populations) is useful, and Ratzenboeck 1 is a real discovery. The contamination validation is the strongest part: CMD narrowing, velocity signal-to-noise, and XD outlier modeling all point in the same direction, and the reported contamination rates are plausible. The authors are also transparent about many limitations, which counts for something.

The central tension with N-body predictions, if it survives scrutiny, is important—one to two orders of magnitude is a big deal. But the comparison rests partly on an unpublished manuscript (HCT21), which weakens the current version. The lack of any completeness estimate is the load-bearing soft spot; the environment concern is real but secondary.

Who should read this? Anyone working on cluster dissolution, moving groups, or Gaia-based structure finding. The data products (source catalog, memberships) will be used regardless of the density's fate. A serious referee should be assigned, but the authors should be pushed to add a completeness calibration (even a rough injection-recovery test), give error bars, and discuss the Sco-Cen environment more quantitatively before the density claim appears in a journal.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a follow-up census of 12 elongated, coeval, comoving structures ('disk streams') first flagged as interlopers in the Sco-Cen-targeted SigMA run of Paper I (Ratzenböck et al. 2023a) inside a 300×250×195 pc box. Using SigMA and Uncover on Gaia DR3 6D/5D data, the authors extend the member lists, measure lengths, aspect ratios, ages, masses, velocity dispersions, and boundedness, and count these 12 objects to derive a local disk stream volume density of ~820/kpc3 and surface density ~160/kpc2, one to two orders of magnitude above N-body predictions (HCT21). They also report tentative evidence that Theia 368 is being disrupted by Sco-Cen gas.

Significance. The paper offers a valuable catalog of nearby stream-like systems and the first attempt to turn Gaia detections into a stream density. The contamination checks (CMD narrowing, S/N, XD outlier modeling) are sensible and support that the 12 systems are real coherent structures. The expanded membership and the public source catalog are useful. However, the headline density is not yet a calibrated measurement: the initial detection was not a blind, completeness-controlled stream census, and the search volume is centered on Sco-Cen. The central claim therefore needs additional selection-function work before it can be compared directly to N-body predictions.

major comments (3)

[§1, §3.1, §4.3, §5.2] The central density estimate in §5.2 is a raw count: 12 streams divided by 14,625,000 pc3. The initial identification of these 12 systems (Paper I) was not a blind stream survey; they are interlopers in a Sco-Cen-targeted SigMA run (§2). No injection-recovery or other false-negative calibration is provided, so the selection function of the stream census is unknown. The sensitivity statement in §4.3 ('median stream densities ... 0.001 stars/pc3') describes the average density of the streams actually recovered, not a demonstrated detection limit; a lower-contrast or differently oriented stream could be missed. The paper itself notes in §5.1 that members with velocity offsets of a few km/s are lost at S/N~1. Thus the 'volume-complete sample' claim in §1 is unsupported. As written, 820/kpc3 cannot be treated as a point estimate; at best it is a lower limit under an unverified assumption of z
[§2, §5.2, §5.4] The search volume was not drawn randomly from the local disk: X=[-50,250], Y=[-200,50], Z=[-95,100] pc was the box used in Paper I to study Sco-Cen, and §5.4 shows that the streams 'are tightly packed' around Sco-Cen, with S1, S2, and S8 spatially overlapping the association. The statement in §5.2 that the box 'lies within a region ... representative of typical stellar populations' is an assertion; the age spread argument is not a test of stream density. Because the central comparison is to N-body predictions for the average disk, the authors need to show that the stream density in this Sco-Cen-centered volume is not enhanced by the OB association environment. A concrete step would be to measure stream counts in independent subvolumes of the same 500 pc data (e.g., boxes away from Sco-Cen) or to compare with all-sky cluster/stream catalogs over a matched volume. Without that, the '820/kp
[§5.2, §4.6] The comparison to HCT21 in §5.2 may conflate different definitions of 'disk stream.' HCT21's predictions are for streams detectable with a specific Gaia DR2 astrometric selection and cluster disruption model, whereas this paper defines streams purely morphologically (aspect ratio >3:1) and includes unbound associations, moving groups, tidal tails, and cluster coronae (§1). The paper partially addresses this by removing the four bound-core clusters, but even the remaining eight include structures whose physical nature (e.g., moving groups, tidal tails) may differ from the N-body 'streams' in HCT21. The 1-2 dex gap in §5.2 should be accompanied by a quantitative discussion of how much of the gap is due to this definitional mismatch rather than to a failure of destruction mechanisms.

minor comments (5)

[§4.3, Appendix E.2] The mean S/N is quoted as 28 in §4.3 and as 27 in Appendix E.2; the values in Table 1 average to ~26.8. Please harmonize.
[Table 1] The 'Size' column is not defined in the caption; it appears to be the number of selected members and should be labeled as such.
[Table 1] Minor typographical issues: 'V olans-Carina' contains a spurious space, and the aspect ratio column would benefit from an explicit statement that the first number is the ratio of the largest to the smallest principal component.
[§5.2] The density estimates are quoted without uncertainties. Please provide at least Poisson counting uncertainties and a brief systematic error budget.
[Appendix D.1] The XD contamination estimate has a built-in floor: the background component is constrained to account for at least 5% of the observations. This should be stated when interpreting the mean 9% contamination rate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the stream density is a raw count divided by a fixed volume; self-citations provide tools/sample but do not force the result.

full rationale

The central density estimate (820 objects/kpc^3) is computed directly as 12 streams divided by the fixed Paper I search-box volume of 14,625,000 pc^3 (Sects. 2 and 5.2). It is a measurement, not the output of a fitted model: no parameter is adjusted to match a target density, and no equation reduces the density to the algorithm parameters. The 12 streams are inherited from the authors' Paper I interloper list, but the current paper re-detects them with SigMA and Uncover and validates them with three independent checks (XD outlier component, CMD isochrone concentration, velocity S/N; Sect. 4.3, Apps. D-E), so the count is not an unexamined fitted input. The comparison to HCT21 N-body predictions is an external benchmark. The self-citations (Paper I, Ratzenböck et al. 2020, 2023a,b; MAR21) supply detection tools and a prior catalog; they do not define the density, and the density would be unchanged if different published tools had been used. The acknowledged limitations—no injection-recovery completeness calibration, the non-random Sco-Cen-centered box, and the possible loss of low-contrast velocity-tail members (Sect. 5.1)—are real validity threats to interpreting 820/kpc^3 as a complete census, but they are completeness/representativeness concerns, not circular reductions. The sensitivity statement in Sect. 4.3 reports the average densities of the streams actually found; it is descriptive and does not enter the density calculation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited; the non-zero score reflects only the presence of several self-citations, none load-bearing for the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central density estimate rests on the completeness of the stream census, the representativeness of the Sco-Cen-centered volume, and the definition of what counts as a disk stream. The clustering hyperparameters and the XD modeling choices are secondary but affect member selection and derived velocity dispersions.

free parameters (4)

Disk stream aspect ratio threshold = 3:1
Defines which of the 48 interloper clusters in Paper I count as disk streams; the density estimate depends directly on this threshold (Sect. 1).
SigMA kinematic scale factors = 20 values in range 1.5 to 35.2
Hyperparameters of the clustering algorithm, chosen from eigenvalues of the progenitor streams (Appendix A); they affect which overdensities are recovered and thus the stream census.
Velocity pre-selection cut = 20 km/s
Used to remove unlikely members before clustering (Sect. 3); an ad hoc choice that can affect which low-contrast tails are recovered.
XD background constraints = Diagonal covariance > 10 km/s; minimum background weight 5%
Modeling choices in the velocity dispersion estimation that prevent the background component from collapsing; they may bias dispersions low (Appendix D.1).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Gaia DR3 positions, parallaxes, proper motions, and radial velocities are accurate enough for the claimed phase-space resolution.
The entire analysis relies on Gaia DR3 data quality; unrecognized systematic errors would affect membership and stream properties.
ad hoc to paper The Paper I SigMA run inside the box provides a complete census of clusters and streams in that volume.
The 12 streams are selected from the 48 clusters found in Paper I; the completeness of that run for stream-like objects is not quantified in this work (Sects. 2, 3.1).
ad hoc to paper The 250^3 pc^3 volume is representative of the local Milky Way disk.
Stated in Sect. 5.2 ('we believe this region is representative'), but the box is centered on the massive Sco-Cen OB association and no control volume is analyzed.
domain assumption The 12 streams are independent structures, not fragments of larger parent populations.
The density count assumes each stream is a separate object; the paper tests this with Mahalanobis distances and traceback, but the split of Ratzenboeck 1 and Theia 386 is not conclusive (Appendix D.3).
domain assumption PARSEC isochrones and a Kroupa IMF at solar metallicity describe the stream populations.
Used for age and mass estimation (Sect. 4.4); errors in the models propagate into the derived physical parameters, though not into the central count.

invented entities (1)

Ratzenboeck 1 (disk stream S1) independent evidence
purpose: A newly identified disk stream previously unreported in the literature.
It is a data-driven discovery from Gaia DR3 phase-space data, with a public member catalog; future Gaia releases and radial-velocity follow-up can independently test whether the members are truly coeval and comoving.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward the fabric of the Milky Way I. The density of disk streams from a local $250^3$ pc$^3$ volume." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CPDPBBX

@misc{pith2026250907075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward the fabric of the Milky Way I. The density of disk streams from a local $250^3$ pc$^3$ volume},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CPDPBBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07075}
}

abstract

We studied 12 disk streams found in a 250$^3$ pc$^3$ volume in the solar neighborhood, which we define as coeval and comoving stellar structures with aspect ratios greater than 3:1. Using Gaia Data Release 3 data and the advanced clustering algorithms SigMA and Uncover, we identified and characterized these streams beyond the search volume, doubling, on average, their known populations. We estimate the number density of disk streams to be $\approx 820$ objects / kpc$^3$ (for $|Z| < 100$ pc), or surface densities of $\approx 160$ objects / kpc$^2$. These estimates surpass N-body estimates by one to two orders of magnitude and challenge the prevailing understanding of their destruction mechanisms. Our analysis reveals that these 12 disk streams are dynamically cold with 3D velocity dispersions between 2 and 5 km s$^{-1}$, exhibit narrow sequences in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, and are highly elongated with average aspect ratios of 7:1, extending up to several hundred parsecs. We find evidence suggesting that one of the disk streams, currently embedded in the Scorpius-Centaurus association, is experiencing disruption, likely due to the primordial gas mass of the association.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07075 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** 3D distribution of 12 disk streams (in color) alongside Sco-Cen from Ratzenböck et al. (2023b). The Sun is at (0,0,0) and is represented by the red “x.” For better visualization, see the link to the interactive 3D version of this figure, which allows the user to toggle on and off individual sources and the initial search box of 2503 pc3 . data. SigMA is an unsupervised hierarchical density-based learning method tha… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Spatial distribution of our selection for 12 disk streams in heliocentric Galactic coordinates. Colors have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** On-sky distribution of our selection for 12 disk streams on top of the Planck dust map (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014). All the streams were identified inside a fully sampled 2503 pc3 in the local Milky Way. Colors have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Examples of challenging cluster comparisons highlighted in the X-Y plane. The colored scatter points show the identified disk streams Ratzenboeck 1, Mamajek 2, and Theia 371/OCSN 87 (from top to bottom). The black scatter points show the crossmatch to a literature clu…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: KDE (colored lines) of the age distribution along individual data points (vertical marks on the x-axis), stratified by cluster boundedness: those with evidence of a bound core (blue) and those that are fully unbound (orange). The unbound clusters have a slightly older…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Evidence suggesting an interaction between disk stream Theia 368 (in green) and Sco-Cen (in gray). The black arrows show a running median of the stream’s motion relative to its bulk motion, depicted by the purple arrow. The relative motion is scaled up by a factor of 3…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[1]

J., Curtis, J

Andrews, J. J., Curtis, J. L., Chanam \'e , J., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 275

2022
[2]

M., Sip o cz , B

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

2018
[3]

P., Tollerud , E

Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

2013
[4]

Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

2021
[5]

Beccari, G., Boffin, H. M. J., & Jerabkova, T. 2019, , 491, 2205

2019
[6]

Beccari , G., Boffin , H. M. J., & Jerabkova , T. 2020, , 491, 2205

2020
[7]

& Bovy , J

Bennett , M. & Bovy , J. 2019, , 482, 1417

2019
[8]

& Fernique , P

Boch , T. & Fernique , P. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay , 277

2014

Show all 92 references

[9]

2000, , 143, 33

Bonnarel , F., Fernique , P., Bienaym \'e , O., et al. 2000, , 143, 33

2000
[10]

2019, , 623, A108

Bossini , D., Vallenari , A., Bragaglia , A., et al. 2019, , 623, A108

2019
[11]

2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29

Bovy, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29

2015
[12]

2016, , 116, 121301

Bovy, J. 2016, , 116, 121301

2016
[13]

W., & Roweis, S

Bovy, J., Hogg, D. W., & Roweis, S. T. 2011, The Annals of Applied Statistics, 5, 1657

2011
[14]

& Anders , F

Cantat-Gaudin , T. & Anders , F. 2020, , 633, A99

2020
[15]

2020, , 643, A114

Chen , B., D'Onghia , E., Alves , J., & Adamo , A. 2020, , 643, A114

2020
[16]

L., Agüeros, M

Curtis, J. L., Agüeros, M. A., Mamajek, E. E., Wright, J. T., & Cummings, J. D. 2019, Astron. J., 158, 77

2019
[17]

2019, , 623, A112

Damiani , F., Prisinzano , L., Pillitteri , I., Micela , G., & Sciortino , S. 2019, , 623, A112

2019
[18]

P., Laird, N

Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. 1977, J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 39, 1

1977
[19]

Eggen, O. J. 1996, Astron. J., 112, 1595

1996
[20]

Ernst, A., Just, A., Berczik, P., & Petrov, M. I. 2010, , 524, A62

2010
[21]

Fisher, R. A. 1934, in Breakthroughs in statistics (Springer), 66--70

1934
[22]

2019, , 624, L11

F \"u rnkranz , V., Meingast , S., & Alves , J. 2019, , 624, L11

2019
[23]

2024, , 961, 113

Fürnkranz, V., Rix, H.-W., Coronado, J., & Seeburger, R. 2024, , 961, 113

2024
[24]

& Faherty , J

Gagn \'e , J. & Faherty , J. K. 2018, , 862, 138

2018
[25]

E., Malo , L., et al

Gagn \'e , J., Mamajek , E. E., Malo , L., et al. 2018c, , 856, 23
[26]

K., & Mamajek, E

Gagné, J., Faherty, J. K., & Mamajek, E. E. 2018, , 865, 136

2018
[27]

K., Moranta, L., & Popinchalk, M

Gagné, J., Faherty, J. K., Moranta, L., & Popinchalk, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915, L29

2021
[28]

Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

2023
[29]

Gieles, M., Zwart, S. F. P., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 793

2006
[30]

2024, , 683, A33

Golovin, A., Reffert, S., Vani, A., et al. 2024, , 683, A33

2024
[31]

2021, , 652, A2

Grasser , N., Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Alves , J., et al. 2021, , 652, A2

2021
[32]

2018, , 615, L15

GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., et al. 2018, , 615, L15

2018
[33]

J., Freeman, K

Grillmair, C. J., Freeman, K. C., Irwin, M., & Quinn, P. J. 1995,

1995
[34]

2011, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 503--509

Hampel, F., Ronchetti, E., Rousseeuw, P., & Stahel, W. 2011, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 503--509

2011
[35]

2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 2422

Hawkins, K., Lucey, M., & Curtis, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 2422

2020
[36]

Hunt, E. L. & Reffert, S. 2023, , 673, A114

2023
[37]

Hunt, E. L. & Reffert, S. 2024, , 686, A42

2024
[38]

Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[39]

A., Lewis, G

Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Martin, N. F. 2016, , 819, 1

2016
[40]

Jerabkova, T., Boffin, H. M. J., Beccari, G., et al. 2021, , 647, A137

2021
[41]

2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.02050

Kamdar , H., Conroy , C., & Ting , Y.-S. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.02050

2021 arXiv
[42]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 173

Kamdar, H., Conroy, C., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 173

2019
[43]

Kerr , R. M. P., Rizzuto , A. C., Kraus , A. L., & Offner , S. S. R. 2021, , 917, 23

2021
[44]

1962, , 67, 471

King , I. 1962, , 67, 471

1962
[45]

& Covey , K

Kounkel , M. & Covey , K. 2019, , 158, 122

2019
[46]

2001, , 322, 231

Kroupa, P. 2001, , 322, 231

2001
[47]

2022, Mon

Kroupa, P., Jerabkova, T., Thies, I., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 517, 3613

2022
[48]

Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pelupessy, F. I., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Icke, V. 2011, , 414, 1339

2011
[49]

R., McKee, C

Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, , 57, 227

2019
[50]

1960, Robust tests for equality of variances

Levene, H. 1960, Robust tests for equality of variances

1960
[51]

A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al

Lindegren , L., Klioner , S. A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2021, , 649, A2

2021
[52]

A., & Martin, N

Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., & Martin, N. F. 2018, , 481, 3442

2018
[53]

Mamajek, E. E. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 2198

2006
[54]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 77

Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 77

2017
[55]

2023, Mon

Mateu, C. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc

2023
[56]

& Alves , J

Meingast , S. & Alves , J. 2019, , 621, L3

2019
[57]

2019, , 622, L13

Meingast , S., Alves , J., & F \"u rnkranz , V. 2019, , 622, L13

2019
[58]

2021, , 645, A84

Meingast , S., Alves , J., & Rottensteiner , A. 2021, , 645, A84

2021
[59]

Miret-Roig , N., Galli , P. A. B., Brandner , W., et al. 2020, , 642, A179

2020
[60]

Moranta, L., Gagn \'e , J., Couture, D., & Faherty, J. K. 2022, , 939, 94

2022
[61]

R., Mann, A

Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2021, AJS, 161, 65

2021
[62]

2000, , 143, 23

Ochsenbein , F., Bauer , P., & Marcout , J. 2000, , 143, 23

2000
[63]

K., Rockosi, C

Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2001, , 548, L165

2001
[64]

, Ade, P

Planck Collaboration , Abergel, A. , Ade, P. A. R. , et al. 2014, , 571, A11

2014
[65]

2015, Collaborative data science, Montreal, QC

Plotly Technologies Inc. 2015, Collaborative data science, Montreal, QC

2015
[66]

F., McMillan, S

Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L., & Gieles, M. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 431

2010
[67]

Price-Whelan, A. M. & Bonaca, A. 2018, , 863, L20

2018
[68]

2023, , 265, 12

Qin, S., Zhong, J., Tang, T., & Chen, L. 2023, , 265, 12

2023
[69]

E., Alves, J., et al

Ratzenb \"o ck, S., Gro schedl, J. E., Alves, J., et al. 2023b, , 678, A71
[70]

o ck, S., Gro schedl, J. E., M \

Ratzenb \"o ck, S., Gro schedl, J. E., M \"o ller, T., et al. 2023a, , 677, A59
[71]

o ck , S., Meingast , S., Alves , J., M \

Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Meingast , S., Alves , J., M \"o ller , T., & Bomze , I. 2020, , 639, A64

2020
[72]

o ck, S., Oberm\

Ratzenb\" o ck, S., Oberm\" u ller, V., M\" o ller, T., Alves, J. a., & Bomze, I. M. 2023, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29, 3855

2023
[73]

W., et al

Riello , M., De Angeli , F., Evans , D. W., et al. 2021, , 649, A3

2021
[74]

2019, , 621, L2

R \"o ser , S., Schilbach , E., & Goldman , B. 2019, , 621, L2

2019
[75]

Schmitt , J. H. M. M., Czesla , S., Freund , S., Robrade , J., & Schneider , P. C. 2022, , 661, A40

2022
[76]

1999, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'99 (Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press), 582–588

Sch\" o lkopf, B., Williamson, R., Smola, A., Shawe-Taylor, J., & Platt, J. 1999, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'99 (Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press), 582–588

1999
[77]

2010, , 403, 1829

Sch \"o nrich , R., Binney , J., & Dehnen , W. 2010, , 403, 1829

2010
[78]

Scott, D. W. 1979, Biometrika, 66, 605

1979
[79]

2022, , 659, A59

Tarricq, Y., Soubiran, C., Casamiquela, L., et al. 2022, , 659, A59

2022
[80]

Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

2005
[81]

2020, Astrophys

Tian, H.-J. 2020, Astrophys. J., 904, 196

2020
[82]

C., & Varoquaux , G

van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22

2011
[83]

2000, , 143, 9

Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9

2000
[84]

Wilson, D. J. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 1195

2019
[85]

A., Alves, J., et al

Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al. 2022 a , Nature, 601, 334

2022
[86]

Zucker, C., Peek, J. E. G., & Loebman, S. 2022 b , , 936, 160

2022
[87]

Zuckerman, B., Song, I., & Bessell, M. S. 2004, , 613, L65

2004
[88]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...
[89]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
[90]

@esa (Ref

\@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...
[91]

@stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...
[92]

<S O S s cR8 s kT3 &''׭(

@open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

1996 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J., Curtis, J

Andrews, J. J., Curtis, J. L., Chanam \'e , J., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 275

2022

[2] [2]

M., Sip o cz , B

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

2018

[3] [3]

P., Tollerud , E

Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

2013

[4] [4]

Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

2021

[5] [5]

Beccari, G., Boffin, H. M. J., & Jerabkova, T. 2019, , 491, 2205

2019

[6] [6]

Beccari , G., Boffin , H. M. J., & Jerabkova , T. 2020, , 491, 2205

2020

[7] [7]

& Bovy , J

Bennett , M. & Bovy , J. 2019, , 482, 1417

2019

[8] [8]

& Fernique , P

Boch , T. & Fernique , P. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay , 277

2014