Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

New perspective on the multiple population phenomenon in Galactic globular clusters from a wide-field photometric survey

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The fraction of first-generation stars in globular cluster outskirts is bifurcated, splitting the clusters into two groups with distinct orbital histories.

desk verdict A valuable wide-field GC dataset with a plausible but under-proved two-group dichotomy; the central split rests on by-eye classification and needs an automated, formal test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02585 v1 pith:EEDC5N2U submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.GA

S. Jang , A. P. Milone , A. F. Marino , M. Tailo , E. Dondoglio , M. V. Legnardi , G. Cordoni , T. Ziliotto
show 5 more authors
E. P. Lagioia M. Carlos A. Mohandasan E. Bortolan Y.-W. Lee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersmultiplestellarpopulationschromosomemapsfirst-generationstarswide-fieldphotometryradialdistributionperigalacticdistanceorbitaldynamics
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

Using ground-based chromosome maps of red giant stars in 29 Galactic globular clusters, this paper extends the multiple-population census from the small Hubble field of view to the whole cluster. The authors find that the fraction of first-generation (1G) stars outside the half-light radius, plotted against cluster mass, splits cleanly into two sequences: Group I clusters retain a higher outer 1G fraction, while Group II clusters show a lower one. They interpret the split as evidence that Group II clusters have efficiently shed their 1G stars from the outermost regions, and they connect the groups to orbital parameters: Group II clusters tend to have perigalactic distances below 3.5 kpc and higher orbital energy. If correct, the result turns a continuum of stellar-population ratios into two empirically distinct dynamical classes, with consequences for how globular clusters form and dissolve in the Galactic potential.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the ground-based chromosome map (ChM), a pseudo two-color diagram $\Delta c_{U,B,I}$ versus $\Delta B{-}I$ built from red giant branch stars, where the first-generation (1G) and second-generation (2G) sequences separate. For each cluster and each radial annulus, the authors draw by eye a straight line that separates 1G from 2G stars, rotate the diagram by that line's angle, fit a Gaussian to the histogram of the rotated coordinate for the selected 1G stars, and take the ratio of the Gaussian area to the total star count as the 1G fraction. The same procedure applied in radial bins yields the radial distribution of the 2G fraction, and combining those fractions with HST-based inner fractions from the literature lets the paper compare inner and outer behavior. The mechanism that carries the argument is therefore a visual classification in a carefully chosen color-color space, not a generative model of cluster evolution.

What would settle it

Recompute the outer 1G fractions for the same 29 clusters using an automated two-population decomposition of the chromosome maps, for example a Gaussian mixture model on the rotated coordinate $\Delta_2$ with no by-eye line, and check whether the distribution of $N_{\rm 1G}/N_{\rm TOT}(>r_{\rm hl})$ at fixed cluster mass remains bimodal. If the automated fits yield a continuous spread, the bifurcation is an artifact of the manual separation; if they reproduce two separated sequences, the dichotomy is a property of the clusters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the number fraction of first-generation stars outside the half-light radius, $N_{\rm 1G}/N_{\rm TOT}(>r_{\rm hl})$, is not a smooth function of cluster mass but is clearly bifurcated across all mass ranges. On the $N_{\rm 1G}/N_{\rm TOT}$ versus mass plane, the 29 clusters separate by eye into Group I (higher outer 1G fraction) and Group II (lower outer 1G fraction); the dichotomy persists when only stars outside the half-light radius are counted, and it is not seen in the inner HST-based fractions. The paper argues that Group II clusters have more efficiently lost their 1G stars in the outermost regions, that nearly all Group II clusters have spatially mixed 1G and 2G populations, and that Group II clusters preferentially have perigalactic distances smaller than 3.5 kpc and higher energies in the integrals-of-motion diagram. The authors present this as the first clear dichotomy of Galactic globular clusters in the 1G-to-total number ratio at fixed mass.

Load-bearing premise

The entire Group I/II dichotomy rests on the line the authors draw by eye in each cluster's chromosome map to separate first- and second-generation stars, together with the Gaussian fit used to count the 1G stars; if that boundary or fit shifts systematically, the fractions and the dichotomy change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bifurcation is real, globular clusters are not a single family in their population ratios; they separate into two classes with different dynamical histories.
  • Group II clusters, with lower outer 1G fractions and mixed populations, must have lost a larger share of their first-generation stars from the outskirts, which bears directly on the mass-budget problem for forming multiple populations.
  • The correlation with perigalactic distance below 3.5 kpc and with higher orbital energy identifies the Galactic environment as a driver of the loss, so the dichotomy should be tied to orbit rather than to cluster mass alone.
  • The disappearance of the dichotomy in the inner HST-based fractions indicates that the difference is an outer-region phenomenon, so models must reproduce a radial dependence, not just a global ratio.
  • For dynamically old clusters the spread in 1G fractions narrows, suggesting that mixing erases the initial population structure; this links the Group I/II split to relaxation timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether the bifurcation survives an automated 1G/2G classification; replacing the by-eye boundary with an unsupervised two-component fit in the same 29 chromosome maps would either confirm the split or reveal it as a classification artifact.
  • The mass-budget problem, which requires most 1G stars to have been lost, may apply preferentially to Group II clusters; formation scenarios could be discriminated by asking which group they reproduce with plausible initial masses.
  • The orbital correlation suggests tidal disturbance as a driver; a direct check is whether Group II clusters preferentially show tidal tails, asymmetric outer profiles, or low concentration parameters compared with Group I at the same mass.
  • Because the inner fractions do not separate the groups, the outer 1G fraction could serve as a practical observable proxy for the dynamical history of a cluster, usable where relaxation times are not well measured.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes wide-field ground-based photometry of 29 Galactic globular clusters to construct chromosome maps and derive the radial distribution of the fraction of second-generation (2G) stars and the overall fraction of first-generation (1G) stars. The authors report that the 1G fraction outside the half-light radius, plotted against cluster mass, appears 'clearly bifurcated' across the full mass range, allowing them to define two groups: Group I (higher outer 1G fraction) and Group II (lower outer 1G fraction). They further find that most Group II clusters have spatially mixed populations and that Group II clusters tend to have smaller perigalactic distances and higher orbital energy (based on Gaia integrals of motion), which they interpret as evidence that Group II clusters have efficiently lost 1G stars in their outer regions.

Significance. If the claimed dichotomy is real, this would be a valuable empirical result linking the multiple-population phenomenon to the dynamical and accretion history of Galactic globular clusters. The paper makes good use of a homogeneous wide-field sample, builds on publicly available catalogs (Stetson et al. 2019, Gaia eDR3), and includes comparisons with independent kinematic data from Gaia and orbital classifications by Massari et al. (2019). The clear reporting of bootstrap uncertainties and the explicit acknowledgment of selection effects (96% of stars outside the core, 81% outside the half-light radius) are strengths. However, the central bifurcation claim rests on two visual steps—the by-eye definition of the 1G/2G separation line in the chromosome map and the by-eye grouping of clusters in the 1G-fraction-versus-mass diagram—with no statistical test of bimodality and no sensitivity analysis. The external kinematic correlations provide some support but do not by themselves establish that the apparent bifurcation is not an artifact of the measurement procedure. The paper therefore contains an interesting but not yet fully supported central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 2]
  2. [Section 4, Figure 6 and Table 1]
  3. [Section 3 and Section 4, Table 1 and Figure 10]
  4. [Abstract and Section 4.1]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 caption]
  2. [Section 3]
  3. [Abstract and Section 5]
  4. [Introduction and Section 2]

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed bifurcation in the outside-half-light 1G fraction is nearly identical to the quantity used to define the groups, making the central 'prediction' a restatement of the group definition.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, 'The fraction of 1G stars and global cluster parameters' (Figure 6); Section 2 (sample selection)]
    "we divided them into two groups of GCs based on the visually identifiable separation, Group I with higher 1G fraction and Group II with lower 1G fraction at a given mass... As expected, despite of a larger uncertainty due to a smaller number of analyzed stars, the dichotomy still exists when removing stars within the half-light radius. ... 96% and 81% of the analyzed stars in 29 GCs are located outside their core and half-light radii, respectively."

    The Group I/II split is defined in the total-field N1G/NTOT versus mass plane, but the analyzed field is overwhelmingly composed of stars outside the half-light radius (81%, and 100% for NGC 1851 and NGC 2808 in Table 1). Hence the 'outside half-light radius' fraction used to demonstrate the dichotomy is almost the same measurement as the defining total-field fraction. For the most extreme cases the two numbers are exactly equal, so the claim that the dichotomy persists outside rhl is not an independent confirmation but a near tautological restatement of the group definition.

full rationale

The paper's central discovery is the 'clearly bifurcated' 1G fraction outside the half-light radius. However, the groups are defined from the total-field 1G fraction, and the paper itself states that 81% of the analyzed stars lie outside rhl — for some clusters all of them do. Thus the outside-half-light fraction is not a fresh diagnostic but a slightly filtered version of the plotting variable used to draw the Group I/II separation. This makes the headline bifurcation partly circular: the authors split the sample by eye on essentially the same quantity they then report as a finding. The independent content comes from the comparison with the inner HST-based fractions (which do not separate the groups) and the external kinematic correlations (perigalactic distance, IOM energy); these provide real, though secondary, evidence. The by-eye 1G/2G line placement and the lack of a formal bimodality test are additional methodological weaknesses that compound the circularity risk, but they are correctness concerns rather than circular steps per se. Overall, the central claim reduces in part to its own defining measurement, so a moderate circularity score is warranted.

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

The central claims depend on a per-cluster by-eye separation line and a Gaussian fit to the 1G histogram, both of which are free parameters fitted to the data. The physical assumptions are the usual ones for chromosome-map studies, plus the representativeness of the outer-region sample.

free parameters (2)
  • 1G/2G separation line angle Θ = not specified, set by eye per cluster
    Defines which stars are classified as 1G; directly determines the 1G fraction and the Group I/II grouping.
  • Gaussian mean and sigma of the 1G histogram in rotated coordinate = not listed
    The 1G fraction is computed as the area under the fitted Gaussian divided by the total number of stars, so these fitted values control the derived fractions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The U,B,I pseudo-color chromosome map separates first and second generation stars based on light-element abundances
    Inherited from Monelli et al. (2013) and Jang et al. (2022); if the photometric separation is poor, the derived fractions are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The 1G population is normally distributed in the rotated coordinate delta2
    The Gaussian fit assumes a symmetric, single-mode 1G distribution; this is a modeling choice not verified against independent data.
  • domain assumption The analyzed sample, mostly outside the core and half-light radius, is representative for comparing radial population trends between clusters
    Acknowledged in Section 2: 96% (81%) of analyzed stars are outside the core (half-light radius); blending removes central stars.
  • domain assumption The inner-region 1G fractions from Milone et al. (2017) are accurate
    Used for computing fractions inside the half-light radius and for the difference measure in Figure 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New perspective on the multiple population phenomenon in Galactic globular clusters from a wide-field photometric survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEDC5N2U

@misc{pith2026250202585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New perspective on the multiple population phenomenon in Galactic globular clusters from a wide-field photometric survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEDC5N2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02585}
}
read the original abstract

Wide-field photometry of Galactic globular clusters (GCs) has been investigated to overcome limitations from the small field of view of the Hubble Space Telescope in the study of multiple populations. In particular, 'chromosome maps' (ChMs) built with ground-based photometry were constructed to identify the first and second generation stars (1G and 2G) over the wide-field of view. The ChMs allow us to derive the fraction of distinct populations in an analyzed field of view. We present here the radial distribution of the 2G fraction in 29 GCs. The distributions show that all the GCs either have a flat distribution or more centrally concentrated 2G stars. Notably, we find that the fraction of 1G stars outside the half-light radius is clearly bifurcated across all mass range. It implies that a group of GCs with lower 1G fractions (hereafter Group II) have efficiently lost their 1G stars in the outermost cluster regions. In fact, in connection with the trends of the radial distribution, most GCs of Group II have spatially mixed populations, while only less massive GCs in Group I (a group with higher 1G fraction) show that feature. Lastly, we investigate links between these two groups and host cluster parameters. We find that most GCs of Group II are distributed along a broader range of galactocentric distances with smaller perigalactic distances < 3.5 kpc. Besides, by using the Gaia data, it is observed that Group II GCs have higher energy on the integrals of motion diagrams than Group I GCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rmedian against the tidal radius of the cluster (from the 2010 version of the Harris 1996, catalog). The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (Rs) are reported in each panel. between the kinematic information of GCs and the two groups of GCs identified in this study implies that Group II GCs have experienced more drastic dynamic evolution, losing more stars in the outermost cluster region. Although additional wo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panels: the figure illustrates the procedure used to identify 1G and 2G stars in NGC 2808 and derive the number fraction of each population. The top left panel shows the wide-field ground based ChM ∆cU,B,I versus ∆B,I in NGC 2808, which is adopted from Jang et al. (2022). The red-dashed line drawn by eye separates the selected 1G and 2G stars, which are colored blue and black, respectively. The green line has … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fraction of 2G stars as a function of radial distance for NGC 5927, NGC 6366, NGC 104, NGC 6838, NGC 6712, NGC 2808, NGC 6121, NGC 1851, NGC 1261, NGC 5904, NGC 288, NGC 6218, NGC 6981, NGC 6934, NGC 5272, and NGC 7006. The clusters are sorted according to their metallicity, from the most metal-rich to the most metal-poor. Black circles mark the results derived from ground-based ChMs of GCs, whereas the aqua circle … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fraction of 1G stars against the present-day cluster mass for Galactic GCs. Gray dots indicate literature results, which were derived from the HST-based ChMs (Milone et al. 2017; Dondoglio et al. 2021), whereas the fraction calculated from the ground-based ChMs are mar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The top left panel is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as the middle panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of 1G stars as a function of dynamical age, which is defined as the ratio of the cluster’s age to its half￾mass relaxation timescale. Gray dots plotted in the left panel represent literature results derived from the HST-based ChMs (Milone et al. 2017; Dondogli…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The fraction of 1G stars as a function of galactic and perigalactic radius. The Group I and Group II GCs defined in the N1G/NTOT and cluster mass plane are represented with blue and red circles, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper panel: E vs. Lz projections of the integral of motion space for 151 GCs (from Massari et al. (2019)). Group I and Group II GCs are colored in blue and red, shape-coded according to their associations with different progenitors (open circles mark the Main Progeni…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: N1G/NTOT vs. Lz for Galactic GCs. N1G/NTOT in the upper panel and the lower panel mark the results derived from ground-based and HST photometry, respectively. Group I and Group II GCs are colored in blue and red in the upper panel, respectively. Clusters are shape-cod…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Multiple populations along the asymptotic giant branch: a Gaia+APOGEE study of 22 Galactic globular clusters

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    In nine of 22 globular clusters the most extreme second-population stars are underrepresented on the AGB relative to the RGB, with anomalous stars showing even stronger AGB-manqué signatures.

  2. Isochrone fitting of Galactic globular clusters - IX. Tip of the red-giant branch for 27 clusters and constraints on new particle physics

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No anomalous energy loss is seen in the red-giant tips of 27 globular clusters, yielding g_ae < 3.8e-14 at 95% confidence, the strongest bound for axion-electron coupling below about 1 keV.

  3. Cracking the relation between mass and 1P-star fraction of globular clusters: III. Initial distributions of in-situ and ex-situ clusters

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Back-calculated initial masses of Galactic globular clusters show the pristine-star fraction versus mass relation is tighter for disk-born clusters than for accreted groups, and generalizes the fixed 2P-star formation...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    The Acs Survey of Globular Clusters. V. Generating a Comprehensive Star Catalog for each Cluster

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    R., Miocchi , P., & Vesperini , E

    Alessandrini , E., Lanzoni , B., Ferraro , F. R., Miocchi , P., & Vesperini , E. 2016, , 833, 252, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/252

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/252 2016

  5. [5]

    2018, , 480, 3739, 10.1093/mnras/sty2100

    Bastian , N., Kamann , S., Cabrera-Ziri , I., et al. 2018, , 480, 3739, 10.1093/mnras/sty2100

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2100 2018

  6. [6]

    Bastian , N., Lamers , H. J. G. L. M., de Mink , S. E., et al. 2013, , 436, 2398, 10.1093/mnras/stt1745

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1745 2013

  7. [7]

    2017, , 464, 2174, 10.1093/mnras/stw2488

    Baumgardt , H. 2017, , 464, 2174, 10.1093/mnras/stw2488

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2488 2017

  8. [8]

    2018, , 478, 1520, 10.1093/mnras/sty1057

    Baumgardt , H., & Hilker , M. 2018, , 478, 1520, 10.1093/mnras/sty1057

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1057 2018

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 482, 5138, 10.1093/mnras/sty2997

    Baumgardt , H., Hilker , M., Sollima , A., & Bellini , A. 2019, , 482, 5138, 10.1093/mnras/sty2997

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., D'Orazi , V., Lucatello , S., & Gratton , R. G. 2010, , 519, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014996

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    G., et al

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., Gratton , R. G., et al. 2009, , 505, 117, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912096

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, , 758, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/21

    Conroy , C. 2012, , 758, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/21

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Marino , A

    Cordoni , G., Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., et al. 2020, , 898, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba04b

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4325, 10.1038/s41467-022-31977-y

    ---. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4325, 10.1038/s41467-022-31977-y

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Milone , A

    Cordoni , G., Marino , A. F., Milone , A. P., et al. 2023, , 678, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347189

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02330, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02330

    Cordoni , G., Casagrande , L., Milone , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02330, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02330

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2019, , 884, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab45f7

    Dalessandro , E., Cadelano , M., Vesperini , E., et al. 2019, , 884, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab45f7

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, , 458, 2122, 10.1093/mnras/stw387

    D'Antona , F., Vesperini , E., D'Ercole , A., et al. 2016, , 458, 2122, 10.1093/mnras/stw387

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Pols , O

    de Mink , S. E., Pols , O. R., Langer , N., & Izzard , R. G. 2009, , 507, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913205

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2007, , 464, 1029, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066013

    Decressin , T., Meynet , G., Charbonnel , C., Prantzos , N., & Ekstr \"o m , S. 2007, , 464, 1029, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066013

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Hartwick , F

    Denissenkov , P. A., & Hartwick , F. D. A. 2014, , 437, L21, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt133

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    D'Ercole , A., Vesperini , E., D'Antona , F., McMillan , S. L. W., & Recchi , S. 2008, , 391, 825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13915.x

    2008

  15. [23]

    P., Lagioia , E

    Dondoglio , E., Milone , A. P., Lagioia , E. P., et al. 2021, , 906, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc882

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Marino , A

    Dondoglio , E., Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., et al. 2023, , 526, 2960, 10.1093/mnras/stad2950

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, , 649, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    ---. 2021, , 649, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Gieles , M., Charbonnel , C., Krause , M. G. H., et al. 2018, , 478, 2461, 10.1093/mnras/sty1059

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, , 27, 8, 10.1007/s00159-019-0119-3

    Gratton , R., Bragaglia , A., Carretta , E., et al. 2019, , 27, 8, 10.1007/s00159-019-0119-3

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2004, , 42, 385, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.133945

    Gratton , R., Sneden , C., & Carretta , E. 2004, , 42, 385, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.133945

    2004

  22. [30]

    A., & Andersen , M

    Grundahl , F., VandenBerg , D. A., & Andersen , M. I. 1998, , 500, L179, 10.1086/311419

    1998 doi

  23. [31]

    Harris , W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487, 10.1086/118116

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Bonatto , C

    Hartmann , E. A., Bonatto , C. J., Chies-Santos , A. L., et al. 2022, , 515, 4191, 10.1093/mnras/stac1411

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2015, , 218, 31, 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/31

    Jang , S., & Lee , Y.-W. 2015, , 218, 31, 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/31

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Joo , S

    Jang , S., Lee , Y. W., Joo , S. J., & Na , C. 2014, , 443, L15, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu064

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Lagioia , E

    Jang , S., Milone , A. P., Lagioia , E. P., et al. 2021, , 920, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1861

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Legnardi , M

    Jang , S., Milone , A. P., Legnardi , M. V., et al. 2022, , 517, 5687, 10.1093/mnras/stac3086

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, , 635, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936843

    Kamann , S., Giesers , B., Bastian , N., et al. 2020, , 635, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936843

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    J., & Lee , Y.-W

    Kim , J. J., & Lee , Y.-W. 2018, , 869, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec67

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2010, , 512, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913749

    Kravtsov , V., Alca \' no , G., Marconi , G., & Alvarado , F. 2010, , 512, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913749

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    Kravtsov , V., & Calder \'o n , F. A. 2021, , 161, 7, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc423

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., Pfeffer , J. L., Reina-Campos , M., Crain , R. A., & Bastian , N. 2019, , 486, 3180, 10.1093/mnras/sty1609

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Milone , A

    Lagioia , E. P., Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., & Dotter , A. 2019, , 871, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf729

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Milone , A

    Lagioia , E. P., Milone , A. P., Legnardi , M. V., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ee

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, , 844, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b8c

    Lee , J.-W. 2017, , 844, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b8c

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, , 833, 236, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/236

    Lee , Y.-W., & Jang , S. 2016, , 833, 236, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/236

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Joo , J

    Lee , Y. W., Joo , J. M., Sohn , Y. J., et al. 1999, , 402, 55, 10.1038/46985

    1999 doi

  39. [47]

    2015, , 453, 3906, 10.1093/mnras/stv1980

    Lee , Y.-W., Joo , S.-J., & Chung , C. 2015, , 453, 3906, 10.1093/mnras/stv1980

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    2005, , 621, L57, 10.1086/428944

    Lee , Y.-W., Joo , S.-J., Han , S.-I., et al. 2005, , 621, L57, 10.1086/428944

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    V., Milone , A

    Legnardi , M. V., Milone , A. P., Armillotta , L., et al. 2022, , 513, 735, 10.1093/mnras/stac734

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    V., Milone , A

    Legnardi , M. V., Milone , A. P., Cordoni , G., et al. 2023, , 522, 367, 10.1093/mnras/stad1056

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, , 520, 1456, 10.1093/mnras/stad093

    Leitinger , E., Baumgardt , H., Cabrera-Ziri , I., Hilker , M., & Pancino , E. 2023, , 520, 1456, 10.1093/mnras/stad093

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, , 944, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaec6

    Libralato , M., Vesperini , E., Bellini , A., et al. 2023, , 944, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaec6

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2015, , 584, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526957

    Lucatello , S., Sollima , A., Gratton , R., et al. 2015, , 584, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526957

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    F., Villanova , S., Piotto , G., et al

    Marino , A. F., Villanova , S., Piotto , G., et al. 2008, , 490, 625, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810389

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Milone , A

    Marino , A. F., Milone , A. P., Legnardi , M. V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.06681, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.06681

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    H., & Helmi , A

    Massari , D., Koppelman , H. H., & Helmi , A. 2019, , 630, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Milone , A

    Mehta , V. J., Milone , A. P., Casagrande , L., et al. 2025, , 536, 1077, 10.1093/mnras/stae2542

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    P., & Marino , A

    Milone , A. P., & Marino , A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359, 10.3390/universe8070359

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Piotto , G., King , I

    Milone , A. P., Piotto , G., King , I. R., et al. 2010, , 709, 1183, 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1183

    2010 doi

  52. [60]

    P., Piotto , G., Bedin , L

    Milone , A. P., Piotto , G., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2012 a , , 744, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/58

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    2012 b , , 540, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384

    ---. 2012 b , , 540, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    P., Piotto , G., Renzini , A., et al

    Milone , A. P., Piotto , G., Renzini , A., et al. 2017, , 464, 3636, 10.1093/mnras/stw2531

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    P., Marino , A

    Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., Da Costa , G. S., et al. 2020, , 491, 515, 10.1093/mnras/stz2999

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Cordoni , G., Marino , A

    Milone , A. P., Cordoni , G., Marino , A. F., et al. 2023 a , , 672, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244798

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    P., Marino , A

    Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., Dotter , A., et al. 2023 b , , 522, 2429, 10.1093/mnras/stad1041

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Cordoni , G., et al

    Mohandasan , A., Milone , A. P., Cordoni , G., et al. 2024, , 681, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347424

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Stetson , P

    Monelli , M., Milone , A. P., Stetson , P. B., et al. 2013, , 431, 2126, 10.1093/mnras/stt273

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    2017, , 465, 4159, 10.1093/mnras/stw3084

    Niederhofer , F., Bastian , N., Kozhurina-Platais , V., et al. 2017, , 465, 4159, 10.1093/mnras/stw3084

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Bedin , L

    Piotto , G., Milone , A. P., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2015, , 149, 91, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/91

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    F., & Milone , A

    Renzini , A., Marino , A. F., & Milone , A. P. 2022, , 513, 2111, 10.1093/mnras/stac973

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2015, , 454, 4197, 10.1093/mnras/stv2268

    Renzini , A., D'Antona , F., Cassisi , S., et al. 2015, , 454, 4197, 10.1093/mnras/stv2268

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    Spitzer , L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    1987

  65. [73]

    B., Pancino , E., Zocchi , A., Sanna , N., & Monelli , M

    Stetson , P. B., Pancino , E., Zocchi , A., Sanna , N., & Monelli , M. 2019, , 485, 3042, 10.1093/mnras/stz585

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Vesperini , E., McMillan , S. L. W., D'Antona , F., & D'Ercole , A. 2013, , 429, 1913, 10.1093/mnras/sts434

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    2020, , 491, 440, 10.1093/mnras/stz3033

    Wang , L., Kroupa , P., Takahashi , K., & Jerabkova , T. 2020, , 491, 440, 10.1093/mnras/stz3033

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    2008, , 672, L29, 10.1086/525850

    Yong , D., & Grundahl , F. 2008, , 672, L29, 10.1086/525850

    2008 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Marino , A

    Zennaro , M., Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., et al. 2019, , 487, 3239, 10.1093/mnras/stz1477

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.