Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

A North-South Metallicity Asymmetry in the Outer Galactic disk -- Evidence for the Pericentric Passage of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Beyond 11 kpc, the Milky Way's disk is chemically lopsided: stars north of the plane are up to 0.15 dex richer in metals toward the anti-center, which the authors attribute to the Sagittarius dwarf's recent passage through the disk.

desk verdict A plausible outer-disk metallicity asymmetry that needs a selection-function analysis before I'd believe it isn't a LAMOST/APOGEE footprint artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21551 v2 pith:AFTCDLI2 submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.GA

Chun Wang , Yang Huang , Timothy C. Beers , Payel Das , Haibo Yuan , Lizhi Xie , Shi Shao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords North-SouthmetallicityasymmetryouterGalacticdiskredclumpstarsLAMOSTAPOGEESagittariusdwarfgalaxypericentricpassageperturbation
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

The paper claims that the outer Milky Way disk is not chemically symmetric about the midplane. Using red clump stars from the LAMOST and APOGEE surveys, it finds that beyond a Galactocentric radius of $R > 11$ kpc, and especially in the anti-Galactic-center wedge $-5^\circ < \Phi < 15^\circ$, stars in the Northern Hemisphere have systematically higher metallicities than their Southern counterparts by roughly $0.0$ to $0.15$ dex. The asymmetry appears in every mono-age population but is clearest for stars younger than about 6 Gyr and weaker for stars older than 8 Gyr. If real, this is a localized chemical fossil of a recent external perturbation, most plausibly the last pericentric passage of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, and it would mean the disk's chemistry cannot be treated as purely axisymmetric and vertically symmetric.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are red clump stars, core helium-burning giants whose nearly constant intrinsic luminosity makes them standard candles with distances accurate to roughly 5--10 percent, combined with survey-based metallicities and ages. The argument's machinery is the $R$--$Z$ metallicity-offset map: stars are split into six azimuthal bins, the mean metallicity in each radial bin is subtracted to remove the known radial gradient, and the residual north--south offset is read off the maps and summarized by the asymmetry measure $A$. Mono-age cuts in 2 Gyr steps are what connect the asymmetry to a recent event, because younger populations should retain a vertical perturbation better than older, kinematically hotter ones.

What would settle it

Recompute the metallicity-offset maps with a sample whose selection function is matched on both sides of the plane, such as a strictly magnitude-limited all-sky catalog with uniform footprint, and check whether the north--south difference at $R > 11$ kpc and $-5^\circ < \Phi < 15^\circ$ persists; if it disappears, the claim is refuted. A second decisive test is to run the identical analysis on mock observations drawn from an axisymmetric chemical model observed through the real survey footprints; if the footprints alone reproduce a north--south offset near 0.1 dex, the interpretation collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is an azimuthally localized chemical asymmetry in the outer disk. After removing the radial metallicity gradient by subtracting the mean $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ in each $R$ bin, the mean-metallicity-offset maps in the $R$--$Z$ plane show mirror symmetry for $R < 11$ kpc but not beyond it: in the wedge $-5^\circ < \Phi < 15^\circ$ the northern side is more metal-rich by up to $0.15$ dex. The paper quantifies this with the asymmetry measure $A = ([\mathrm{Fe/H}]_{\rm North} - [\mathrm{Fe/H}]_{\rm South})/([\mathrm{Fe/H}]_{\rm North} + [\mathrm{Fe/H}]_{\rm South})$, which is positive near the midplane and declines with height. Splitting the sample by age, the asymmetry is present for all populations but is significantly weaker for $\tau > 8$ Gyr, which the authors attribute to larger age uncertainties, fewer stars in the outer disk, and the kinematically hotter nature of old populations. They conclude that the most plausible origin is the perturbing passage and tidal force of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy within the last few gigayears.

Load-bearing premise

The two surveys observe the northern and southern sides of the disk with different footprints and target selection, and the paper does not model or correct for these selection effects; if the northern sample is biased toward brighter, more metal-rich stars, the measured 0.0 to 0.15 dex asymmetry would be an artifact rather than a property of the Galaxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the asymmetry is physical, the outer disk's chemical profile cannot be reduced to a single vertical gradient; models of the disk must accommodate a localized north--south chemical offset near the anti-center.
  • The confinement of the signal to $R > 11$ kpc and $-5^\circ < \Phi < 15^\circ$ gives a spatial anchor for where a perturbing dwarf crossed the disk.
  • The presence of the asymmetry in every mono-age population, strongest for stars younger than about 6 Gyr, implies the event occurred recently enough that it has not yet been fully phase-mixed away.
  • The weaker signal in stars older than 8 Gyr is consistent with kinematic heating and larger age errors, and predicts that better age measurements should sharpen the old-population asymmetry if the interpretation is correct.
  • The azimuthal localization argues against the Galactic warp's line of nodes as the cause and points instead to a disk-crossing dwarf, with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy as the leading candidate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not carry out: simulate the same survey selection functions and ask whether they alone produce a false north--south difference of order 0.1 dex; if they do, the Sagittarius interpretation is unsupported.
  • If the gas-compression picture is right, the northern outer disk should show a localized excess of young stars and elevated star formation in the same azimuthal wedge, which future high-precision photometry and astrometry could confirm.
  • The same analysis applied to external edge-on or mildly inclined disk galaxies with recent minor mergers could search for analogous chemical asymmetries across their midplanes.
  • Because the oldest populations show the weakest signal, targeted observations of outer-disk red giants with precise ages are the most direct way to decide whether the age dependence is physical or a sample-size effect.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines LAMOST DR8 and APOGEE DR17 red clump stars (110,550 and 35,512 stars) to construct mean-metallicity-offset maps in the Galactocentric R–Z plane in six azimuthal bins, after subtracting the mean metallicity per radial bin. The authors report that the inner disk (R < 11 kpc) is North–South symmetric, while the outer disk (R > 11 kpc), especially toward the anti-Galactic center (−5° < Φ < 15°), shows higher median metallicities in the North than in the South by about 0.0–0.15 dex. Splitting by stellar age, they claim the asymmetry is present across all mono-age populations but weaker for τ > 8 Gyr, and they interpret the signal as evidence of the recent pericentric passage and tidal force of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy.

Significance. If the asymmetry is real, it would be an interesting, localized chemo-structural signature of external perturbation in the outer Milky Way disk, adding to the body of evidence linking Sgr passages to disk asymmetries. The analysis uses a large red clump sample with homogenized ages and metallicities, including an explicit cross-survey age calibration on common stars, which are genuine strengths. The main limitation is that the result currently rests on an unmodeled combination of two surveys with very different footprints and target selection; because the quoted asymmetry range includes 0.0 dex and no formal significance test is reported, the observational claim is not yet separated from survey systematics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.1] The paper does not model or correct for the target selection, completeness, magnitude limits, or footprint differences of LAMOST and APOGEE. The reported asymmetry is localized to R > 11 kpc and −5° < Φ < 15°, precisely the anti-center region where a declination-limited northern survey (LAMOST) and a target-flagged survey (APOGEE) are not symmetric about b = 0. In that region Z > 0 corresponds to positive Galactic latitude, so any latitude-dependent difference in survey mix, signal-to-noise completeness, or reddening coverage can produce a Z-dependent [Fe/H] offset of the quoted size. The sample definition in Section 2.1 and the radial-gradient subtraction in Section 3.1 do not address this. A survey-split analysis (LAMOST only, APOGEE only) or an explicit selection-function correction is necessary to support the claim that the asymmetry is a property of the Galaxy rather than of the sample.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Figure 4] No formal significance test is provided for the asymmetry. Figures 3–6 show binned maps and median profiles, and Equation (1) defines A as the difference of the Northern and Southern median metallicities divided by their sum, but the paper does not give uncertainties on A, confidence intervals, or a null-hypothesis test (e.g., bootstrap or permutation test) for the null A = 0. Because the reported metallicity difference is stated as 0.0–0.15 dex and the lower end of the quoted range is zero, the visual impression in the maps is not sufficient to establish a detection. The authors should quantify the significance of the asymmetry in the specific bins and azimuthal range where they claim it.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Figure 6c] The abstract and Section 3.2 state that the asymmetry is detected 'across all mono-age stellar populations,' but Figure 6c and the accompanying text in Section 3.2 say that for older populations (τ > 8 Gyr) the metallicity asymmetry is 'not so significant' and that the asymmetries shown in that panel 'are not significant.' These statements are inconsistent. Either the claim of detection for all mono-age populations should be weakened to a claim for younger populations, or additional evidence (e.g., a significance test for the old-age bins) must be provided. As written, the paper's own Figure 6c undermines the 'all populations' claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and header] There are typos in the abstract and running header: 'purturbation' should be 'perturbation', and the header 'Evidence for the percentric passage' should be 'pericentric passage'.
  2. [Section 2.1] In the sentence defining the coordinate system, 'Φ = 0 defined alone the anti-center Galactic direction' should read 'defined along the anti-center direction'.
  3. [Equation (1)] The definition A = ([Fe/H]_North − [Fe/H]_South)/([Fe/H]_North + [Fe/H]_South) is unconventional because the median metallicities are negative quantities, so A is not a fractional difference in the usual sense; a simple difference with bootstrap uncertainties would be more interpretable.
  4. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'In the case of these stars, we focused on investigating the metallicity asymmetry within the most heterogeneous stellar populations' is awkward and unclear; consider rewriting to say that the analysis is restricted to the azimuthal range −5° < Φ < 15°.
  5. [Figures 3 and 5] The color scales in Figures 3 and 5 are different, which makes visual comparison of the asymmetry amplitude between the full sample and the age-split sample difficult; using a common color scale would help the reader evaluate the claimed age dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the north-south metallicity asymmetry is a direct observational statistic, the age/metallicity calibrations use external common-star anchors, and the Sagittarius origin is explicitly speculative rather than derived.

full rationale

The central claim is a direct empirical statistic: Eq. (1) defines A from observed median metallicities, and the reported 0.0–0.15 dex offset is read off the resulting maps, not produced by any fitted parameter. The only calibration steps are (i) the COBS age relation in §2.2, fit to common LAMOST/APOGEE stars and then subtracted from the age scale, and (ii) the LAMOST metallicity scale, which is anchored to APOGEE via common-star training (Wang et al. 2022); both are external anchors, and neither is varied to produce the asymmetry. The radial-gradient removal in §3.1 subtracts the mean metallicity in each R bin, a standard centering procedure that does not by construction generate a North-South difference. The interpretation involving a Sagittarius passage is presented as a possible origin ('may be the consequence'), not as a derived consequence of the data, and is supported by independent simulations (Chequers et al. 2018) and prior observations (An 2019). Self-citations (Wang et al. 2019b, 2022, 2023) supply published catalogs and a prior azimuthal constraint, but the asymmetry measurement does not reduce to them. The unmodeled North/South selection functions of LAMOST and APOGEE are a real systematic risk that the paper does not address, but that is a data-quality concern, not a circularity: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are mainly analysis choices (binning, cutoffs) and a calibration polynomial used to harmonize ages between surveys. The most consequential unstated assumption is that the survey selection functions do not create a north-south metallicity bias.

free parameters (2)
  • COBS age-correction polynomial = Coefficients not reported
    Fifth-order polynomial fitted to common LAMOST/APOGEE red clump stars to remove systematic age offsets; affects age-resolved maps but not the overall asymmetry.
  • Outer-disk cutoff = 11 kpc
    Chosen by hand to separate inner and outer disk; the asymmetry is only claimed for R > 11 kpc, so this threshold defines the result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Red clump stars are standard candles with 5-10% distance accuracy.
    Section 2.1; distances determine R and Z bins, so errors in distance can smear or shift the maps.
  • domain assumption LAMOST and APOGEE metallicities are on a consistent scale with no systematic north-south offset.
    Section 2.2; relies on common-star training set; if residual offset varies with sky position, it could fake an asymmetry.
  • domain assumption The radial metallicity gradient can be removed by subtracting the mean metallicity in each R bin without introducing an artificial north-south asymmetry.
    Section 3.1; if the true mean gradient differs north and south, this subtraction could create or erase a signal.
  • ad hoc to paper The sample selection functions of LAMOST and APOGEE do not produce a spurious metallicity difference between hemispheres.
    Assumed throughout Section 3; not tested or modeled, and this is the main threat to the central claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A North-South Metallicity Asymmetry in the Outer Galactic disk -- Evidence for the Pericentric Passage of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFTCDLI2

@misc{pith2026250721551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A North-South Metallicity Asymmetry in the Outer Galactic disk -- Evidence for the Pericentric Passage of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFTCDLI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21551}
}
abstract

We present maps of the mean metallicity distributions on the Galactocentric $R$--$Z$ plane at different azimuthal angles using red clump stars selected from the LAMOST and APOGEE surveys. In the inner disk ($R < $ 11\,kpc), the metallicity distribution is symmetric between the upper and lower disk. However, we find a North-South metallicity asymmetry in the outer disk ($R > 11$\,kpc), especially towards the anti-Galactic center ($-5^\circ < \Phi < 15^\circ$) direction. By further dissecting the map in age space, we detect this asymmetry across all mono-age stellar populations. However, the asymmetry is less pronounced in older populations ($\tau > 8$ Gyr) compared to younger ones ($\tau < 6$\,Gyr). This reduced significance likely stems from three factors: larger age uncertainties, fewer stars in the outer disk, and the kinematically hotter nature of older populations. The observed metallicity asymmetry may be the consequence of the purturbation of the recent pericentric passage through the Galactic disk and tidal force of the well-known Sagittarius dwarf galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spatial distribution of the final adopted red clump stellar sample in the Galactic cylindrical coordinate with the first row displaying results of LAMOST: the R–Z plane (left) and R–Φ plane (right). The second row presents the corresponding distributions for the APOGEE sample. In both cases, hexbin plots encode stellar number densities via the color bars. These stars exhibit a distribution across the Milky Way s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of stellar age determinations between LAMOST and APOGEE red clump stars. Left panel: Relationship between LAMOST and APOGEE ages derived from the constrained B-splines (COBS) nonparametric regression quantiles. The central 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile intervals are denoted by blue solid and dashed lines, while the polynomial fit is shown as red dashed lines. Right panel: Comparison of corrected ages. T… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Metallicity-offset distributions of our red clump stellar sample in the R-Z plane across different azimuthal angles. The colors represent the metallicity offsets (the mean metallicity with radial metallicity gradients removed), coded in the color bar to the right. White bins are those containing fewer than three stars. A = [Fe/H]North − [Fe/H]South [Fe/H]North + [Fe/H]South (1) , where [Fe/H]North and [Fe/H]South re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: North-South metallicity asymmetries in the outer disk (R > 11 kpc). Median metallicity variations with respect to Z for stellar populations at different azimuthal angles. Panel b: Variations of the metallicity asymmetry (A, see text), as a function of |Z|, for stellar …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Metallicity-offset distributions for various stellar populations of different ages within the azimuthal range of −5 ◦ to 15◦ , as coded in the color bar to the right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The North-South metallicity asymmetry for R > 11 kpc and −5 ◦ < Φ < 15◦ across distinct stellar age groups. Panel a: Metallicity variations, with respect to Z, for different stellar populations. Panel b: Variations of the metallicity asymmetry A, as a function of |Z|, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distributions of original metallicity (the first and third rows) and the subtracted radial mean metallicity (the second and fourth rows) of our red clump stellar sample in the R-Z plane across different azimuthal angles. The colors represent the metallicity, coded …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, ApJL, 878, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2467

    An, D. 2019, ApJL, 878, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2467

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2467 2019

  2. [2]

    Spectroscopic age estimates for APOGEE red-giant stars: Precise spatial and kinematic trends with age in the Galactic disc

    Anders, F., Gispert, P., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.08276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.08276

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.08276 2023

  3. [3]

    Johnson, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 835, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224 2017

  4. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3244

    Annem, B., & Khoperskov, S. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3244

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3244 2023

  5. [5]

    2008, A&A, 490, 135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809519

    Antoja, T., Figueras, F., Fern´ andez, D., & Torra, J. 2008, A&A, 490, 135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809519

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809519 2008

  6. [6]

    2018, Nature, 561, 360, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7

    Antoja, T., Helmi, A., Romero-G´ omez, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 360, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2018

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  8. [8]

    1992, ARA&A, 30, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.000411

    Binney, J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.000411

    work page arXiv 1992

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 3168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab704

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Tepper-Garc ´ ıa, T. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab704

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Bovy, J., Nidever, D. L., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/127

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    L., DeLaunay, J., Newberg, H

    Carlin, J. L., DeLaunay, J., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L5

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Widrow, L

    Chequers, M. H., Widrow, L. M., & Darling, K. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2114

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2008, A&A, 483, 401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809413

    Colavitti, E., Matteucci, F., & Murante, G. 2008, A&A, 483, 401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809413

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3344

    Das, P., Huang, Y., Ciuc˘ a, I., & Fragkoudi, F. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3344

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    1999, ApJL, 524, L35, doi: 10.1086/312299

    Dehnen, W. 1999, ApJL, 524, L35, doi: 10.1086/312299

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Liu, C., et al

    Deng, L.-C., Newberg, H. J., Liu, C., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 735, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/003 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016a, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 —. 2016b, AJ, 151, 14...

    2012

  10. [18]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2006, ApJL, 651, L29, doi: 10.1086/509255

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    2018, ArXiv e-prints

    Grisoni, V., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11415

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D., Di Matteo, P., et al

    Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527567

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    C., & Zhang, H

    Huang, Y., Yuan, H., Beers, T. C., & Zhang, H. 2021, ApJL, 910, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69a

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1240, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/010

    Huang, Y., Liu, X.-W., Zhang, H.-W., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1240, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/010

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J

    Huang, Y., Feng, Q., Khachaturyants, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020a, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592 —. 2020b, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592 ...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/16

    Kobayashi, C., & Nakasato, N. 2011, ApJ, 729, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/16

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., Smith, M. C., & Hill, V. 2020, MNRAS, 492, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz167 10 W ang C. et al

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    Garavito-Camargo, N., & Besla, G. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Minchev, I., Johnston, K. V., & G´ omez, F. A. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz583

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Larson, R. B. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 31, doi: 10.1093/mnras/176.1.31

    1976 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C

    Levine, E. S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C. 2006, ApJ, 643, 881, doi: 10.1086/503091

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Y., Huang, Y., Chen, B

    Li, X. Y., Huang, Y., Chen, B. Q., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba61e

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, in IAU

    Liu, X.-W., Yuan, H.-B., Huo, Z.-Y., et al. 2014, in IAU

    2014

  24. [32]

    298, IAU Symposium, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 298, IAU Symposium, ed. S. Feltzing, G. Zhao, N. A. Walton, & P. Whitelock, 310–321, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313006510

    doi

  25. [33]

    R., Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V

    Loebman, S. R., Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/8

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 245, doi: 10.1086/338983

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

    T., & Maechler, M

    Ng, P. T., & Maechler, M. 2015, COBS: COnstrained

    2015

  30. [38]

    2004, A&A, 418, 989, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959

    B-Splines, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1505.010 Nordstr¨ om, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 989, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 2308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2397

    Pezzulli, G., & Fraternali, F. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2397

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 590, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Andrae, R., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 590, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2011, Nature, 477, 301, doi: 10.1038/nature10417

    Chakrabarti, S. 2011, Nature, 477, 301, doi: 10.1038/nature10417

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D

    Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D. P. 1993, ApJ, 403, 74, doi: 10.1086/172184

    1993 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130 Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R., Stinson, G. S., & Wadsley, J. 2008, ApJL, 684, L79, doi: 10.1086/592231

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1097-0 Sch¨ onrich, R., & Binney, J. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1145, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15365.x

    2020

  37. [45]

    A., & Binney, J

    Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x Tepper-Garc ´ ıa, T., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1359

    2002

  38. [46]

    2018, ApJL, 865, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae1f3

    Tian, H.-J., Liu, C., Wu, Y., Xiang, M.-S., & Zhang, Y. 2018, ApJL, 865, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae1f3

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab044

    Toyouchi, D., & Chiba, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab044

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Velazquez, H., & White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02354.x Villalobos, ´A., & Helmi, A. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1806, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13979.x

    1999

  41. [49]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4df7

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Yuan, H., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4df7

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, A&A, 675, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245809

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, H. 2023, A&A, 675, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245809

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Xiang, M

    Wang, C., Liu, X. W., Xiang, M. S., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 482, 2189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2797

    doi

  44. [52]

    B., et al

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 877, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1fdd

    doi

  45. [53]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L41

    Chen, H.-Y. 2012, ApJL, 750, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L41

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Williams, M. E. K., Steinmetz, M., Binney, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1522

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1209, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/009

    Xiang, M.-S., Liu, X.-W., Yuan, H.-B., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1209, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/009

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/91

    Yanny, B., & Gardner, S. 2013, ApJ, 777, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/91

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, AJ, 169, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9582

    Yu, Z., Chen, B., Lian, J., Wang, C., & Liu, X. 2025, AJ, 169, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9582

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Yuan, H.-B., Liu, X.-W., Huo, Z.-Y., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2723 Evidence for the percentric passage of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy 11 -2 -1 0 1 2 Z (kpc) 35 < < 15 15 < < 5 5 < < 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 Z (kpc) 35 < < 15 15 < < 5 5 < < 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 Z (kpc...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.