Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

The Monoceros Ring is a tidally induced spiral arm, and its winding pattern records the Sagittarius dwarf's last two disk passages.

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

2026-08-03 09:08 UTC pith:BNRGV25W

load-bearing objection Solid observational kinematics for the MRi/ACS pair, but the FFT-based Sgr passage times rest on an unresolved peak and need synthetic-recovery work before they can be believed. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.14562 v2 pith:BNRGV25W submitted 2026-01-21 astro-ph.GA

Signatures of a Tidally Induced Spiral Arm at the Anticenter of the Milky Way and a Kinematically Extended Anticenter Stream Using DESI DR2

Mika Lambert , Constance M. Rockosi , Sergey E. Koposov , Ting S. Li , Monica Valluri , Leandro Beraldo e Silva , Songting Li , Joa\~o A. S. Amarante
show 41 more authors
Amanda Bystr\"om Gustavo E. Medina Nathan R. Sandford Joan Najita Namitha Kizhuprakkat Jessica N. Aguilar Steven Ahlen Davide Bianchi David Brooks Todd Claybaugh Kyle Dawson Axel de la Macorra Peter Doel Jaime E. Forero-Romero Enrique Gazta\~naga Satya Gontcho A Gontcho Gaston Gutierrez Dick Joyce Anthony Kremin Claire Lamman Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Marc Manera Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel John Moustakas Adam Myers Seshadri Nadathur Will Percival Francisco Prada Ignasi Perez-Rafols Graziano Rossi Eusebio Sanchez David Schlegel Michael Schubnell Joseph H. Silber David Sprayberry Gregory Tarle Benjamin A. Weaver Rongpu Zhou Hu Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Monoceros RingAnticenter Streamtidally induced spiral armsSagittarius dwarf galaxyGalactic anticenterdisk kinematicsmain-sequence turn-off starsMilky Way outer disk
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.

Analyzing full three-dimensional velocities of 61,883 main-sequence turn-off stars in the Galactic anticenter, this paper argues that the Monoceros Ring — a giant stellar overdensity in the outer disk — is not a separate accreted cloud of stars but a corotating spiral arm excited when the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy last swept through the Milky Way. Because the arm corotates with the disk, its wind-up rate is a clock: the oscillation of radial velocity with angular momentum yields two recent Sagittarius pericenter passages, 0.25 ± 0.09 and 1.10 ± 0.23 billion years ago. The same data show the Anticenter Stream moves opposite the Ring in both radial and vertical velocity, and those stream-like motions continue below the stream's photometric boundary, suggesting the stream is part of a broader vertical wave in the outer disk rather than a discrete object. If the interpretation holds, the paper converts a known overdensity into a chronometer for the Milky Way's recent interactions with its satellites.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Monoceros Ring (MRi) — a stellar overdensity at Galactocentric radii 14–18 kpc in the anticenter — shows the diagnostic kinematics of a tidally induced spiral arm: the most negative radial velocity V_R coincides with the arm's density peak, and the azimuthal velocity difference Vφ − ⟨Vφ(R)⟩ passes through zero there, meaning the arm corotates with the disk. This is the pattern predicted when a satellite galaxy delivers an impulsive gravitational kick to disk stars, causing their orbits to crowd into a winding arm. Because the arm winds at the disk's circular speed, the oscillation frequency of V_R as a function of inverse angular momentum gives the time since ea

What carries the argument

The key instrument is the kinematic signature of a transient tidally induced spiral arm: a spatial coincidence between the minimum of radial velocity, the density peak, and the inflection point of Vφ − ⟨Vφ(R)⟩ (the corotation condition). To turn this into a clock, the paper computes the median V_R in bins of inverse angular momentum L_Z^{-1} (assuming a flat rotation curve) over one 10-degree longitude slice, takes a fast Fourier transform, and maps the two strongest frequency peaks to pericenter times using a published relation (Equation 1). Everything about the timing depends on that mapping's assumption that the observed oscillation is the coherent winding of a single arm.

Load-bearing premise

The timing chain rests on treating the wiggles in the median radial velocity across one narrow 10-degree slice of sky as the clean imprint of a single corotating spiral arm winding up, so that the Fourier peak frequencies can be converted directly into Sagittarius passage times.

What would settle it

Construct a DESI-like mock catalog from a smooth, axisymmetric disk model (no satellite perturbation) with the same selection function and completeness; if the identical Fourier pipeline yields comparable power-spectrum peaks, the V_R oscillation is not uniquely attributable to a tidally induced spiral arm. Alternatively, if the two dominant peaks move significantly when the longitude window is expanded from 10° to 20° or shifted by 5°, the coherent single-arm assumption fails.

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

If this is right

  • The Monoceros Ring being a tidally induced spiral arm provides a direct observational link between the Sagittarius dwarf's orbit and the spiral structure of the outer Milky Way disk.
  • The two pericenter times (0.25 and 1.10 Gyr) add a kinematic constraint on Sgr's recent orbital history that is independent of stream modeling and star-formation fits.
  • Because the arm corotates, the same V_R wind-up method can in principle clock other satellite encounters, such as the LMC's first infall.
  • The Anticenter Stream's kinematic extension below its photometric boundary shifts its interpretation from a stripped stream to a vertical phase-space fold, meaning future studies should treat it as part of the disk's disequilibrium rather than an accreted remnant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification is right, the paper implies that the outer disk's spiral pattern is predominantly transient and satellite-driven, rather than a long-lived density wave; a testable extension would be predicting a matching gas response at a slightly different arm phase.
  • The timing analysis could be stress-tested by repeating the Fourier fit in adjacent longitude windows (e.g., 165°–175° and 185°–195°); if the recovered peak frequencies do not stay within uncertainties, the single-slice coherent-winding assumption would be in question.
  • The vertical-wave interpretation of the ACS suggests the solar-neighborhood phase spiral and the anticenter vertical folds may share a common perturbing event; comparing their inferred perturbation ages (≈0.25 Gyr) could unify both phenomena.
  • A natural validation is to run the same pipeline on simulated DESI-like catalogs from an axisymmetric disk with no satellite; if power-spectrum peaks persist, the passage-time extraction would need an independent background subtraction.

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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper uses 61,883 main-sequence turn-off stars from DESI DR2 in the anticenter region (150° < l < 220°, 20° < b < 40°) to map the 6D kinematics of the Monoceros Ring (MRi) and Anticenter Stream (ACS). The authors report that the MRi overdensity has kinematics consistent with a tidally induced spiral arm driven by Sagittarius (Sgr), specifically a negative radial velocity region, a V_phi inflection line, and corotation at the overdensity. They then apply the Antoja et al. (2022) frequency-analysis method to the median V_R versus L_Z^{-1} curve and derive two recent Sgr pericenter passage times, 0.25 ± 0.09 Gyr and 1.10 ± 0.23 Gyr. For the ACS, they find positive V_R and V_Z kinematics that extend to lower Galactic latitudes, and they interpret the ACS as part of a broader vertical wave rather than a discrete kinematically distinct stream.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper would provide a direct observational identification of the MRi as a corotating, tidally induced spiral arm—a relatively rare classification in the Milky Way—and would demonstrate that outer-disk kinematic oscillations can be used to recover Sgr's recent pericenter timing. The DESI DR2 sample extends previous work to fainter magnitudes and larger distances, and the paper makes its data products publicly available, which is a strength. The MRi/ACS kinematic decoupling and the extension of ACS kinematics to lower latitudes are well supported by Figures 5, 12–14 and are consistent with APOGEE and Gaia-based studies. However, the quantitative passage-time claim rests on a Fourier analysis that, as presented, lacks validation against synthetic or null data and whose lowest-frequency peak is not resolved within the sampled baseline. The timing claim is therefore not yet on the same footing as the spatial/kinematic characterizations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 10] The lowest FFT peak is unresolved and is the basis for the headline 0.25 Gyr passage time. For L_Z ∈ [2000, 4500] km s^-1 kpc, the sampled range in x = L_Z^{-1} is T ≈ 2.78×10^-4 (km s^-1 kpc)^-1. The peak at f = 1313 ((km s^-1 kpc)^-1)^-1 has a period ≈ 7.62×10^-4, which is 2.7 times longer than the entire sampled span, so the data contain less than half a cycle of this putative oscillation. The nominal Fourier resolution ~1/T ≈ 3600 is larger than 1313, meaning this peak lies below the Rayleigh resolution; its quoted Gaussian width (477) is smaller than the resolution, consistent with a window/trend artifact rather than a resolved winding frequency. Because this peak directly yields the 0.25 ± 0.09 Gyr timing in Table 1, the central timing claim is not supported without a synthetic recovery test, a null test on a smooth disk model, or a demonstration that the peak is stable under chang
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (1)] The quoted uncertainties on the passage times (0.09 and 0.23–0.28 Gyr) are only the formal widths from Gaussian fits to the FFT peaks after Monte-Carlo propagation of V_R errors. They do not include systematic errors from: the choice of the restricted l-slice 175° < l < 185°, the completeness correction being applied only in RA/Dec bins (not in distance or l,b), the number and width of L_Z bins, the subtraction of the background disk model, or the arbitrary impulsive-perturber parameters in the Antoja et al. (2022) model (ΔV = 10 km s^-1, D = 20 kpc). The mapping from FFT frequency to time via Eq. (1) assumes a single coherent, corotating tidally induced spiral arm winding in a flat rotation curve; no mock or N-body test is provided to show that a known input passage time is recovered within the claimed errors. The agreement with literature values in Table 1 is reassuring but is not a su
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 6] The identification of the MRi as a tidally induced spiral arm rests on a visual / qualitative comparison: the overdensity, the −V_R region, and the fitted V_ϕ − ⟨V_ϕ(R)⟩ inflection line all appear spatially coincident. The inflection line itself is fit to the data in a way that is not fully specified (a cubic in each annulus, then a linear fit to the zero crossings), and no uncertainty is given for the magenta line. The paper does not quantitatively compare the observed V_R and V_ϕ patterns to the Antoja et al. (2022) models or the Stelea et al. (2024) simulations, nor does it test whether a simpler disk model (e.g., a warp, flare, or a smooth radial oscillation) could produce the same pattern. Since this classification is the foundation for the subsequent timing analysis, a quantitative model comparison or at least a null test on a smooth, unperturbed disk would materially strengthen th
  4. [§2.4, Fig. 4] The completeness correction is computed as the ratio of observed MAIN-BLUE targets to the full DESI target catalog in one-degree RA/Dec bins. This corrects for the survey footprint and tiling pattern but does not address completeness as a function of distance, magnitude, or Galactic latitude at fixed RA/Dec. If selection incompleteness correlates with kinematics—for example through distance-dependent MSTO sampling or dust-extinction-dependent proper-motion quality—the median V_R vs L_Z curve in Figure 9 could be biased. Given that the timing analysis uses the shape of this curve, the paper should quantify how robust the FFT peaks are to alternative completeness treatments (e.g., binning in l,b and distance, or weighting by the inverse completeness in each phase-space bin).
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.4] The definition of L_Z is given as L_Z = R V_Z, which appears to be a typo: angular momentum about the Galactic center in cylindrical coordinates is L_Z = R V_ϕ (the azimuthal velocity). Please correct and ensure all subsequent uses of L_Z are consistent.
  2. [§3.4 vs Fig. 9 caption] The text states the median V_R is computed in 75 bins over L_Z ∈ [2000, 4500] km s^-1 kpc, while the Figure 9 caption says 70 bins over L_Z ∈ [1400, 45000] km s^-1 kpc. These numbers and ranges should be reconciled.
  3. [§3.4] The second passage time is reported as 1.10 ± 0.28 Gyr in the body text but as 1.10 ± 0.23 Gyr in the abstract and Table 1. Please make these consistent and specify which uncertainty (Gaussian width only, or including systematic terms) is being quoted.
  4. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is reproduced from Antoja et al. (2022) but the typesetting is garbled and the units discussion is confusing ('time×length^-2' vs '(time/length)^2×time^-1'). Please provide a clean symbolic derivation or a clear statement of the units of each term so the conversion from frequency to Gyr is reproducible by a reader.
  5. [Fig. 10] No significance threshold or false-alarm probability is assigned to the FFT peaks. The authors should state how 'significant' is defined (e.g., versus the noise floor or versus peaks in null simulations), or explicitly avoid the word 'significant'.
  6. [§2.4] Typo: 'We can assume the the completeness' should read 'We can assume that the completeness'.
  7. [References] Several references appear duplicated with identical DOIs (e.g., Bernet et al. 2022 listed twice; Antoja et al. 2018a and 2018b share the same DOI/page numbers but are cited as separate works). Please check whether these are genuinely distinct papers or should be merged/corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular step found: Sgr passage times are deterministic transforms of measured FFT peaks using an external published relation, not fits to the claimed times.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: (i) the MRi overdensity is first located by completeness-corrected star counts after subtracting an exponential disk model fit in an off-MRi longitude bin (Sec. 2.4, Sec. 3.2, Figs. 4,6,7), independent of the kinematic signatures; (ii) the tidal-arm interpretation is supported by matching -V_R and V_phi - <V_phi(R)> inflections to external simulations (Antoja et al. 2022; Stelea et al. 2024) and to APOGEE results (Eilers et al. 2020; Qiao et al. 2024); (iii) the pericenter times in Sec. 3.4 are computed by an FFT of the observed median V_R(L_Z) in a fixed l-slice, followed by a fixed analytic conversion (Eq. 1, taken from Antoja et al. 2022). The peak frequencies 1313 and 5879 are measured from DESI data; the times 0.25 and 1.10 Gyr are deterministic functions of those peaks with stated constants (n=0, V0, R0). No parameter is fitted to the literature passage times, and the results are compared with independent orbit models and star-formation analyses (Table 1). Antoja et al. (2022) does share one co-author with this paper (J. A. S. Amarante), but the equation used is a published analytic relation with stated assumptions, not a private uniqueness claim, and the interpretation is corroborated by non-overlapping simulations and observations; this is model dependence rather than self-referential reduction. The skeptic's concern about the 1313 peak being below the Fourier resolution is a resolvability/systematic-uncertainty issue, not a definitional or construction-level circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is built on standard astrometric/spectroscopic assumptions, the A22 tidal-spiral framework, and several hand-chosen sample/background/model settings. No new physical entities are introduced. The main fitted quantities are the exponential disk scale length and the ACS/ridge fits; the main untested model step is the conversion of FFT peaks to Sgr passage times.

free parameters (5)
  • Exponential disk scale length h_R = 3.46 kpc
    Fit to completeness-corrected MSTO density in l=210-215; used to estimate the MRi residual overdensity in Fig 6.
  • Inflection-line coefficients (magenta line) = Y = 1.04 X - 15.84
    Linear fit to V_phi-<V_phi(R)> zero crossings; used to define the corotation ridge that marks the spiral arm.
  • ACS photometric parabola fits (upper edge, peak) = not quoted in text
    Parabolic fits to Pan-STARRS density define the ACS region; kinematics depend on this boundary.
  • L_Z binning for FFT = 75 bins, 2000-4500 km/s kpc
    Choice of bin count/range affects FFT peak locations and recovered times.
  • Sample selection boundaries = M_g 3.3-5.7, g-r 0.2-0.4; b 20-40, l 150-220; Vphi 140-277 km/s
    Hand-chosen sample cuts; central result could depend on them; authors tested a redder color range only.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Astrometric and spectroscopic inputs (Gaia DR3 proper motions, DESI RVs, rvsdistnn distances) are accurate with quoted uncertainties.
    Distance cross-check with SpecDis gives median ratio 0.98, but the pipeline is otherwise treated as reliable.
  • domain assumption MW circular-velocity curve is flat (n=0) over the relevant radii; V0=239.26 km/s, R0=8.277 kpc.
    Adopted from Poder et al. 2023 / Binney & Vasiliev 2024; used throughout the timing analysis.
  • domain assumption A tidally induced spiral arm is corotating, has its minimum V_R at the arm overdensity, and has a V_phi inflection at the same radius.
    Kalnajs 1973; Antoja et al. 2022. This is the interpretive template for the MRi feature.
  • domain assumption Equation (1) (A22 Eq. 11) correctly converts the V_R oscillation frequency in L_Z^{-1} to the time since the perturber's pericenter passage.
    The FFT-to-time conversion is adopted from Antoja et al. 2022; no synthetic validation is performed in this paper.
  • domain assumption Sgr is the dominant perturber responsible for the MRi feature; the LMC only modulates amplitude.
    Based on prior literature (Laporte, Stelea, etc.), not independently established here.
  • domain assumption The completeness correction based on MAIN-BLUE targets applies to the MSTO sample.
    Stated in Section 2.4; needed for density maps but less so for kinematic maps.
  • domain assumption The MRi overdensity is composed of Milky Way disk stars rather than accreted material.
    Well-accepted from prior chemical/kinematic work; required for the disk-perturbation interpretation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33594 in / 18988 out tokens · 206299 ms · 2026-08-03T09:08:55.257386+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Using the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Milky Way Survey (DESI MWS), we examine the 6D space of the anticenter region of the stellar disk (150$^\circ$ $<$ Galactic longitude $<$ 220$^\circ$) using 61,883 main-sequence turnoff stars. We focus on two well-known stellar overdensities in the anticenter, the Monoceros Ring (MRi) and Anticenter Stream (ACS). We find that the MRi overdensity has kinematics consistent with a tidally induced spiral arm, a type of dynamic spiral arm created by an interaction with a satellite galaxy, most likely the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (Sgr). We use the kinematics of the MRi to calculate the two most recent passage times of Sgr are 0.25 $\pm$ 0.09 Gyrs and 1.10 $\pm$ 0.23 Gyrs from the present day. We validate that the ACS is kinematically decoupled from the MRi because they are moving in opposite radial and vertical directions. We find that the kinematics associated with the ACS are not confined to our defined overdensity. The features we see in the ACS region are likely part of a broader distribution of stars with the same kinematic signature as detected in other places, like the vertical wave in the outer disk and phase spiral.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.14562 by Aaron Meisner, Adam Myers, Amanda Bystr\"om, Anthony Kremin, Axel de la Macorra, Benjamin A. Weaver, Claire Lamman, Constance M. Rockosi, David Brooks, Davide Bianchi, David Schlegel, David Sprayberry, Dick Joyce, Enrique Gazta\~naga, Eusebio Sanchez, Francisco Prada, Gaston Gutierrez, Graziano Rossi, Gregory Tarle, Gustavo E. Medina, Hu Zou, Ignasi Perez-Rafols, Jaime E. Forero-Romero, Jessica N. Aguilar, Joan Najita, Joa\~o A. S. Amarante, John Moustakas, Joseph H. Silber, Kyle Dawson, Laurent Le Guillou, Leandro Beraldo e Silva, Marc Manera, Martin Landriau, Michael Schubnell, Mika Lambert, Monica Valluri, Namitha Kizhuprakkat, Nathan R. Sandford, Peter Doel, Ramon Miquel, Rongpu Zhou, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, Sergey E. Koposov, Seshadri Nadathur, Songting Li, Steven Ahlen, Ting S. Li, Todd Claybaugh, Will Percival.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional histogram of the color–absolute magnitude diagram of the MWS MAIN-BLUE sample using 70 bins in each direction. The magenta box shows our MSTO star selection, which is defined as 3.3 < Mg < 5.7 and 0.2 < g − r < 0.4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Two-dimensional histogram of the R–Z projection of the MSTO anticenter sample with five bins per kpc in both directions. The top left panel shows the density distribution, and the bottom left panel is color mapped to the median Vϕ distribution. We see stars with comparable disk velocities extend to large R and Z. Right: X–Y projection using the same sample of stars as the left panels, with five bins … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Projection in l–b space of the uncorrected density distribution of the MSTO sample with one bin per degree in l and two bins per degree in b. Middle: Same as above, except showing the density distribution corrected for incompleteness. Bottom: Same as above, mapped to the completeness ratio. We see that the middle panel is more homogeneous than the top panel due to the completeness correction. in coord… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: l–b projection of the MSTO anticenter sample with R > 14 kpc where color is mapped to the median value of VR (left), VZ (middle), and [Fe/H] (right) with one bin per degree along both axes. Bottom: R–Z of the MSTO anticenter sample with the same colormapping as above. We see distinct kinematic groups in VR and VZ where the blue/yellow regions, illustrating −VR and −VZ , are located in the region assoc… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: X–Y plane of the relative density distribution of MSTO anticenter sample with 0 < Z < 5 kpc computed by subtracting a decreasing exponential function modeling the stellar density of the disk with two bins per kpc in X and 1 kpc per bin in Y . Second panel from left: X–Y distribution of stars in the MSTO anticenter sample with color mapped to the median VR in each bin. The large −VR (blue) region corr… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Completeness-corrected star count versus R for the MSTO anticenter sample in a range between 210◦ < l < 215◦ (left) and 180◦ < l < 185◦ (right) and in blue. The magenta dashed line is a decreasing exponential function fit to the data between 210◦ < l < 215◦ overlaid in both panels. We see the exponential function matches well to the left panel, the region where we do not expect to see the MRi overdensity t… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: R–Vϕ phase space of the density distribution of stars in the MRi selection from the MSTO anticenter sample above Y > 0 kpc with 2 bins per kpc in R and 0.25 bins per km s−1 in Vϕ. Middle: R–Vϕ with the same binning as the left panel color mapped to median VR per bin. Right: Same as left panel but with color mapped to median VZ . We remove bins with less than 20 stars, and density contours are illustr… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mean VR in a given bin in a range in LZ of 1400 to 45000 km s−1 kpc over 70 bins in LZ . The error bars represent the error on the mean. The −VR dip at LZ ∼ 3100 km s−1 kpc is associated with the MRi region. et al. 2022). As described in Section 3.2, the location of the minima in VR corresponds to the overdensity asso￾ciated with the spiral arm as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 2D histogram of the ACS region in l,b space using two bins per degree along each axis of stars from Pan￾STARRS photometry with 0.2 < g−r < 0.4 and 18 < g < 21. The ACS overdensity has a sharp upper edge in b, which we fit to a parabola indicated by the cyan dashed line. We fit the peak overdensity in b to a parabola which is illustrated by the magenta dashed line. We do not fit a lower edge in b of the AC… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: MSTO anticenter sample with distance from the Sun greater than 10 kpc plotted in l,b space with bins color mapped to median VR, and has two degrees per bin in both l and b. Middle: Same as the left panel, but bins are color mapped to median VZ . Right: Same as the left panel, but bins are color mapped to median metallicity. Compared to the top row in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: MSTO anticenter sample with distance from the Sun greater than 10 kpc plotted in b–VZ . Left column plots all stars color coded to VR in l bins of 10◦ from 150◦ < l < 200◦ as labeled in each row. The middle column plots only stars with +VR, while the right column plots stars with −VR. The cyan line represents the b value associated with the parabolic fit to the upper edge of the ACS photometric overdensit… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: MSTO anticenter sample with distance from the Sun greater than 10 kpc in b–VR space. Left column plots all stars color coded to VZ , middle column plots stars with +VZ , and right column plots stars with −VZ . The top row plots stars between 160◦ < l < 170◦ , and the bottom row plots stars between 190◦ < l < 200◦ as labeled in each row. The cyan line, magenta line, and gray region are the same as [PITH_F… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

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

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DESI K-giant catalog identifies Aleph, Sagittarius, GSE, Cetus-Palca and Orphan-Chenab, then shows residual halo high-angular-momentum stars have bimodal MDFs unlike GSE or Sagittarius.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  2. [2]

    D., Rossi, S., et al

    Abuchaim, Y., Perottoni, H. D., Rossi, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc9bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc9bc 2023

  3. [3]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028 Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A. P., Dey, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 188, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc1dc

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028 2025

  4. [4]

    2024, AJ, 168, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad60c2

    Anand, A., Guy, J., Bailey, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad60c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad60c2 2024

  5. [5]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 22

    Antoja, T., Ramos, P., Garc ´ ıa-Conde, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 22

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 2023

  6. [6]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 668, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244064

    Antoja, T., Ramos, P., L´ opez-Guitart, F., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 668, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244064

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244064 2022

  7. [7]

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

    Antoja, T., Helmi, A., Romero-G´ omez, M., et al. 2018a, Nature, 561, 360, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 —. 2018b, Nature, 561, 360, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2013

  8. [8]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 705, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003421

    arXiv 1992

  9. [9]

    Baugh, C. M. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 3101, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/12/R02

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/69/12/r02 2006

  10. [10]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    Benson, A. J. 2010, PhR, 495, 33, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.06.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010.06.001 2010

  13. [13]

    G., et al

    Bergemann, M., Sesar, B., Cohen, J. G., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 334, doi: 10.1038/nature25490

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25490 2018

  14. [15]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 667, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244070

    Bernet, M., Ramos, P., Antoja, T., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 667, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244070

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244070 2022

  15. [17]

    1981, MNRAS, 196, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/196.3.455

    Binney, J. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/196.3.455

    doi:10.1093/mnras/196.3.455 1981

  16. [18]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  17. [19]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3312

    Binney, J., & Vasiliev, E. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3312

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3312 2024

  18. [20]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 3168–3186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab704

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Tepper-Garc ´ ıa, T. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 3168–3186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab704

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab704 2021

  19. [21]

    D., Rossi, S., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad02fb 2024

  20. [22]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  21. [23]

    A., et al

    Buldgen, G., Noels, A., Baturin, V. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346928

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346928 2024

  22. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 292, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0e

    Cao, C., Li, Z.-Y., Sch¨ onrich, R., & Antoja, T. 2024, ApJ, 975, 292, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0e 2024

  23. [25]

    G., & Sellwood, J

    Carlberg, R. G., & Sellwood, J. A. 1985, ApJ, 292, 79, doi: 10.1086/163134

    doi:10.1086/163134 1985

  24. [26]

    V., Laporte, C

    Carr, C., Johnston, K. V., Laporte, C. F. P., & Ness, M. K. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2403

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2403 2022

  25. [27]

    An Eccentricity-Mass Relation for Galaxies from Tidally Disrupting Satellites

    Chakrabarti, S., Quillen, A., Chang, P., & Merritt, D. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1401.4182, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1401.4182

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1401.4182 2014

  26. [28]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  27. [29]

    Chiba, R., Friske, J. K. S., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2021a, MNRAS, 500, 4710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3585 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 500, 4710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3585 Chrob´ akov´ a,ˇZ., Nagy, R., & L´ opez-Corredoira, M. 2022, A&A, 664, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243296

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3585 2022

  28. [30]

    P., & Gerhard, O

    Clarke, J. P., & Gerhard, O. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac603

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac603 2022

  29. [31]

    P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al

    Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 534, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7 2021

  30. [32]

    P., Koposov, S

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 2023

  31. [33]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 de Boer, T

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 de Boer, T. J. L., Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2391 de la Vega, A., Quillen, A. C., Carlin, J. L., Chakrabarti, S., & D’Onghia, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv...

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

  32. [34]

    J., & Belokurov, V

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

    arXiv 2024

  33. [35]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2528 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 —. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 —. 2016c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037, doi: 10.48550...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2018

  34. [36]

    J., Lang, D., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  35. [37]

    Dierickx, M. I. P., & Loeb, A. 2017, ApJ, 836, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/92

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/92 2017

  36. [38]

    L., Theis, C., Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Theis, C., Pringle, J. E., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 625, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16161.x

    arXiv 2010

  37. [39]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    doi:10.1086/589654 2008

  38. [40]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351, doi: 10.1086/157753

    doi:10.1086/157753 1980

  39. [41]

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

    Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac0b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abac0b 2020

  40. [42]

    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

  41. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    Erwin, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3117 2018

  42. [44]

    A., van der Marel, R

    Fardal, M. A., van der Marel, R. P., Law, D. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3428

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3428 2019

  43. [45]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 3324–3339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1875

    Fragkoudi, F., Katz, D., Trick, W., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 3324–3339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1875

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1875 2019

  44. [46]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 4324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2041 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Funakoshi, N., Matsunaga, N., Kawata, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2041 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Antoja, T., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039714

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2041 2024

  45. [47]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb G´ omez, F. A., White, S. D. M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2786

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb 2019

  46. [48]

    Grand, R. J. J., Bovy, J., Kawata, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1785 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142465

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1785 2015

  47. [49]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/509255 2006

  48. [50]

    J., Carlin, J

    Grillmair, C. J., Carlin, J. L., & Majewski, S. R. 2008, ApJL, 689, L117, doi: 10.1086/595973

    work page doi:10.1086/595973 2008

  49. [51]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  50. [52]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 2023

  51. [53]

    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

  52. [54]

    H., et al

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

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

  53. [55]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Hong, J., Bovy, J., Kawata, D., & Grand, R. J. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 3794–3803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2532

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2532 2018

  54. [56]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3918

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3918 2024

  55. [57]

    Hunt, J. A. S., & Vasiliev, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04075, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04075 2025

  56. [58]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  57. [59]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/370194a0 1994

  58. [60]

    C., & Malhotra, S

    Joshi, Y. C., & Malhotra, S. 2023, AJ, 166, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf7c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf7c8 2023

  59. [61]

    P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/161 2013

  60. [62]

    Kalnajs, A. J. 1973, PASA, 2, 174, doi: 10.1017/S1323358000013461

    doi:10.1017/s1323358000013461 1973

  61. [63]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, L108–L112, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly107

    Kawata, D., Baba, J., Ciucˇ a, I., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, L108–L112, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly107

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly107 2018

  62. [64]

    S., Zentner, A

    Kazantzidis, S., Bullock, J. S., Zentner, A. R., Kravtsov, A. V., & Moustakas, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 688, 254, doi: 10.1086/591958

    doi:10.1086/591958 2008

  63. [65]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 4962–4979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2462

    Khanna, S., Sharma, S., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 4962–4979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2462

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2462 2019

  64. [66]

    2022, A&A, 663, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141836

    Khoperskov, S., & Gerhard, O. 2022, A&A, 663, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141836

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141836 2022

  65. [67]

    Koposov, S. E. 2019, R VSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric parameter fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.013

    2019

  66. [68]

    E., Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A

    Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., Cooper, A. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1842

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1842 2024

  67. [69]

    E., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14787

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.14787 2025

  68. [70]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz167 2020

  69. [71]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1574

  70. [72]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Johnston, K. V., & Tzanidakis, A. 2019a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 1427–1436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2362

  71. [73]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Koposov, S. E., & Belokurov, V. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 510, L13–L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab109

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab109 2022

  72. [74]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Minchev, I., Johnston, K. V., & G´ omez, F. A. 2019b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 3134–3152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz583

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz583

  73. [75]

    R., & Majewski, S

    Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2010, ApJ, 714, 229, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/229 24

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/229 2010

  74. [76]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    Levi, M., Bebek, C., Beers, T., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1308.0847 2013

  75. [77]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa17

    Li, C., Zhao, G., Jia, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa17 2019

  76. [78]

    E., et al

    Li, S., Wang, W., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.01350, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.01350 —. 2025b, AJ, 170, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf1a0

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01350

  77. [79]

    S., Sheffield, A

    Li, T. S., Sheffield, A. A., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 844, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a0d —. 2017b, ApJ, 844, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a0d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a0d

  78. [80]

    C., & Shu, F

    Lin, C. C., & Shu, F. H. 1964, ApJ, 140, 646, doi: 10.1086/147955

    doi:10.1086/147955 1964

  79. [81]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adea70

    Lin, J., Li, Z.-Y., Guo, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adea70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea70 2025

  80. [82]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf153

    Liu, X., He, Z., Luo, Y., & Wang, K. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf153

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf153 2025

Showing first 80 references.