Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

The Virgo Overdensity and Hercules-Aquila Cloud were created by the LMC's tidal alignment of highly eccentric GSE orbits within the last ~1 Gyr, not by the ancient GSE merger geometry.

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

2026-08-02 18:22 UTC pith:F7OSGJMN

load-bearing objection A real advance in LMC perturbation modelling, but the abstract's 'created by' claim overreaches; the simulations show the LMC can create VOD/HAC-like overdensities from an initially axisymmetric halo, not that the observed ones necessarily originate that way. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.11159 v2 pith:F7OSGJMN submitted 2026-03-11 astro-ph.GA

GSE vs. LMC: reshaping of radially biased stellar haloes by satellites

Adam M. Dillamore , Jason L. Sanders , Richard A.N. Brooks This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galaxy: haloGalaxy: kinematics and dynamicsLarge Magellanic CloudGaia Sausage-Enceladusvelocity anisotropytidal alignmentVirgo OverdensityHercules-Aquila Cloud
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.

Stars in the Milky Way's inner stellar halo — debris from the ancient Gaia Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) merger — travel on extremely radial orbits. The paper argues that the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), on its current first passage, has reshaped this halo far more than previously recognised, because earlier simulations used velocity anisotropies β≲0.5 rather than the GSE's observed β≈0.9. In a β=0.9 halo, the LMC's tidal field drives the apocenters of orbits with eccentricity ≳0.95 into alignment with the LMC's orbital plane on a ~1 Gyr timescale, creating ~40% overdensities at heliocentric distances of 15–25 kpc. These overdensities land precisely on the Virgo Overdensity and Hercules-Aquila Cloud. The authors conclude that these structures are therefore transient, LMC-induced alignments — not fossilised relics of the GSE merger geometry — and that equilibrium models of the GSE must be corrected for the LMC's perturbation.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the well-known Virgo Overdensity (VOD) and Hercules-Aquila Cloud (HAC) — previously read as surviving geometry of the GSE merger — are instead produced by the dynamical alignment of highly eccentric orbits by the Large Magellanic Cloud. The authors construct an analytic model in which the LMC's tidal torque drives the apocentric angle of near-radial orbits like a pendulum, with stable alignment at apocenters pointing along the satellite's orbital plane; the criterion for libration shows that orbits with e≳0.95 — which include a large fraction of GSE stars — are trapped, on a timescale of order 1 Gyr. Test-particle simulations of an initially axisymmetric GSE

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a pendulum equation for the apocentric angle ψ of a highly eccentric orbit under the LMC's tidal torque: ψ̈ ≈ (3/8) Ω²_sat ⟨R²⟩ (b^{1/2} a^{3/2})^{-1} sin 2ψ, where Ω²_sat = Gm_LMC sin(2θ_sat)/r³_sat encodes the satellite's mass and position. Stable equilibria at ψ = ±π/2 mean orbits librate toward apocenters aligned with the satellite's orbital plane; the libration condition k²_min < 1 shows that only orbits with eccentricity e ≳ 0.95 are trapped at low energy. This analytic prediction is tested with orbit-superposition construction (equilibrium models assembled from a library of orbits) of haloes with varying anisotropy β ∈ [0.5, 0.9], evolved as massless test part

Load-bearing premise

The simulation assumes the stellar halo was already a perfect, axisymmetric, equilibrium sphere immediately before the LMC's infall (~3.9 Gyr ago) and that it reacts as massless test particles in a rigid Milky Way + LMC potential — if the real GSE halo was already triaxial or tilted, or if the live dark matter halo deforms in response to the LMC, the proposed overdensities' strength, orientation, and timing would change.

What would settle it

Measure the orbital poles and ages of stars in the VOD and HAC: the model predicts their apocenters cluster along the LMC's past orbital plane with a ~1 Gyr alignment timescale. Finding that the stars align instead with the GSE merger plane, or that the overdensity contains stars substantially older than ~2 Gyr, would falsify the LMC-alignment origin; likewise, an astrometric survey that does not see the predicted quadrupole pattern in median L_z near the Sun (R<10 kpc) among high-eccentricity stars would rule the mechanism out.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, the VOD and HAC are ~1 Gyr old transient features, so they should not be used to infer the geometry of the ancient GSE merger or to argue for a long-lived tilted dark matter halo.
  • Equilibrium models of the GSE debris — including orbit-superposition models — must be corrected for the LMC's perturbation, otherwise inferred Milky Way masses and halo shapes will be biased.
  • The predicted quadrupole pattern in median angular momentum L_z, present even at R<10 kpc among high-eccentricity stars, offers a new observable for constraining the Milky Way–LMC interaction.
  • The strong β-dependence means the LMC spatially fractionates halo components: a β=0.9 population doubles its density contrast relative to a β=0.5 population in two sky regions tied to the LMC's past orbit.
  • The LMC alone cannot fully reproduce the observed GSE triaxiality (the simulated intermediate-to-long axis ratio stays ~0.9, above the observed ~0.55), so some initial triaxiality or tilt of the pre-LMC halo may still be required.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • By the same mechanism the authors note for the dark matter halo, a radially anisotropic dark matter halo would be reshaped by the LMC, changing the potential that governs the LMC's own orbit; a live-N-body simulation including self-gravity could reveal whether this feedback strengthens or suppresses the overdensity signal.
  • A sharp, testable extension: the model predicts the VOD/HAC overdensities should extend beyond 25 kpc and be accompanied by a matching feature near the Eridanus-Phoenix overdensity — a blind prediction that upcoming wide-area surveys can check.
  • If the HAC and VOD are LMC-made, the 'Virgo Radial Merger' interpretation of the VOD as a distinct recent accretion event becomes unnecessary; a clean chemical and age comparison of VOD stars with GSE stars would distinguish the two scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the response of highly radially anisotropic stellar haloes (beta up to 0.9, appropriate for Gaia Sausage-Enceladus debris) to the gravitational perturbation of the LMC. It develops an analytic pendulum-like model predicting that orbits with e>0.95 and low angular momentum are azimuthally aligned by the LMC tidal field on ~0.3-1 Gyr timescales, and it tests this with test-particle simulations of initially axisymmetric GSE-like haloes in a rigid Milky Way + LMC potential. The fiducial beta=0.9 simulation becomes triaxial (axis ratios ~1:0.89:0.77), tilts by ~13 degrees, and develops on-sky density contrasts of ~30-40% in the Virgo Overdensity and Hercules-Aquila Cloud regions. The authors propose that the HAC and VOD are not necessarily fossil relics of GSE merger geometry but are LMC-induced dynamical alignments, and that previous equilibrium GSE models need LMC corrections.

Significance. If correct, the paper would substantially revise the interpretation of two well-known inner-halo substructures: the VOD and HAC would be ~1 Gyr-old transient alignments rather than preserved merger geometry, and equilibrium models of the GSE would need to incorporate a much stronger LMC perturbation than previously considered. The paper has genuine strengths: the analytic model is explicit and tractable, the alignment criterion is derived rather than fitted, the simulations are designed to test the analytic prediction, the anisotropy dependence is explored systematically, and the code is publicly available. The predicted anisotropy-dependent 'fractionation' and the quadrupole pattern in median L_z are falsifiable observational signatures. The main weakness is that the central causal claim rests on the assumption that the pre-infall stellar halo was axisymmetric and disc-aligned; the paper itself provides evidence that this assumption may fail, and the alternative triaxial initial condition is not tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1; Eqs. (44)-(45)] The abstract and conclusion (v) state that the HAC and VOD 'were created by the dynamical alignment of highly eccentric orbits by the LMC.' This causal interpretation rests entirely on the initial condition imposed in Section 3.3: the GSE halo is 'initially axisymmetric and aligned with the Galactic plane' at t=-3.9 Gyr. Because the overdensity contrast is defined relative to the azimuthally averaged, z-symmetric density (Eqs. 44-45), the simulated VOD/HAC features are generated by the LMC by construction. However, Section 4.1 itself shows that the final axis ratio p~0.89 is far rounder than the observed fits (p~0.55 for Lane et al. 2023; outside the 1-sigma band of Han et al. 2022a) and concludes that 'the initial shape may have needed to be triaxial to explain the current configuration.' If the pre-infall GSE was already triaxial and tilted, its apocentric-angle distribution was not un
  2. [Section 3.3 and final paragraph of Section 5] The simulations are test-particle integrations in rigid Milky Way and LMC potentials; stellar halo self-gravity and the live response of the dark matter halo are neglected. The final discussion paragraph acknowledges that the Milky Way's potential will deform in response to the LMC and that this 'may affect the strength or geometry of the HAC and VOD features.' This is not a minor technicality: the quantitative predictions in Figs. 8-9 (30-40% overdensities) and Fig. 5 (tilt ~13 degrees) are quoted as concrete numbers. A live dark matter halo with high radial anisotropy could respond in a similar way, changing orbital frequencies and the amplitude/orientation of the alignment effect. I would like to see either a quantitative estimate of this systematic uncertainty (e.g. one comparison simulation with a live halo) or a clear statement that the quoted amplitudes are order-of-magnitude pred
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 1] The identification of the simulated overdensities with the VOD and HAC is based on sky-position and distance overlap with the Table 1 boxes. The comparison is qualitative: no observational selection function, background contamination, or true observed density map is included, and the simulation produces HAC-N as weak or underdense while the observed HAC is detected primarily in HAC-S. The claimed 30-40% contrast is compared to one literature estimate (Bonaca et al. 2012) but is not fitted or assessed for significance. A more quantitative comparison, or at least an explicit estimate of the expected contrast in the actual survey footprints, would significantly strengthen the claim that the simulated features explain the observed substructures.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] Typo: 'neglibible' should be 'negligible'.
  2. [Section 5 (v)] Typos: 'unnmixed' should be 'unmixed'.
  3. [Section 2] The analytic model treats only in-plane orbits and assumes constant inclination, as stated. It would be helpful to state explicitly in the text that the e>0.95 criterion is derived in the plane and that the 3D vertical response (tilt) is a simulation result, not an analytic prediction.
  4. [Fig. 5] In the bottom-left panel, it would be clearer to mark the 1-sigma uncertainty ellipses for the Lane et al. (2023) and Han et al. (2022a) long-axis measurements, since the main text says Lane et al.'s tilt is consistent with zero.
  5. [Section 4.2 / Fig. 9] The HAC-N contrast is often negative in the distance bins. This is consistent with the authors' statement that HAC-N is difficult to form with the LMC, but it would be worth stating explicitly in the main text that the model predicts an underdensity in HAC-N, which can be checked against future data.
  6. [Section 4.1 / Fig. 5] The axis ratio p in Fig. 5 is defined by the inertia tensor over 6<r/kpc<60, while the initial q in Eq. (42) is the density flattening parameter. The statement in conclusion (ii) that the ratio changes from 'approximately 1:1:0.77' should clarify which definition is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LMC-alignment prediction is externally parameterized; VOD/HAC coincidence is not fitted.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The analytic model (Section 2) derives the pendulum alignment criterion, Eq. (28) k^2_min<1, using the isochrone potential with M=2.35e11 Msun, b=3 kpc (following Dillamore et al. 2024) and LMC parameters m=1.5e11 Msun, r_sat=50 kpc, theta_sat=237 deg from external measurements (Vasiliev et al. 2021; Pietrzynski et al. 2019; van der Marel et al. 2002). The e>0.95 threshold is a derived condition, not fitted to VOD/HAC (Fig. 2). The simulations use beta=0.9 constrained by independent GSE kinematics (Lancaster et al. 2019; Iorio & Belokurov 2021; Bird et al. 2021), and the VOD/HAC regions (Table 1) are defined a priori from Perottoni et al. (2022), not from the simulation output. The overdensity definition (Eqs. 44-45) is relative to the azimuthal average of the final density, so in a simulation that starts from an exactly axisymmetric halo the LMC is by construction the only source of asymmetry; however, the paper's substantive claim is the spatial coincidence of the induced overdensities with VOD/HAC and the beta-dependence, neither of which is tuned. Self-citations to Dillamore & Sanders (2025) and Dillamore et al. (2024) provide the Schwarzschild construction method and potential parameters, but are not load-bearing for the causal claim; beta=0.9 is independently cited. The paper itself flags the key assumption and limitations: Section 3.3 notes 'the stellar halo was unlikely to be in perfect equilibrium before the LMC's infall'; Section 4.1 concedes 'the initial shape may have needed to be triaxial to explain the current configuration'; and the final discussion acknowledges that a deforming MW potential 'may affect the strength or geometry of the HAC and VOD features.' These are robustness/correctness caveats, not circular steps: the simulation demonstrates that the LMC can create such overdensities from a smooth axisymmetric halo, but does not by itself prove the observed VOD/HAC were created this way. The paper's language ('We propose', 'may be at least partially responsible') is appropriately hedged. Minor self-citation justifies score 2 rather than 0, but no circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its free parameters are astrophysical inputs drawn from observations and prior fits: beta, LMC mass, the initial GSE-like density profile, and the Milky Way potential. The main unstated assumptions are the axisymmetric equilibrium initial state and the rigid/test-particle treatment of the halo.

free parameters (4)
  • Halo anisotropy beta = 0.9 (fiducial); grid 0.5-0.9
    Set from GSE measurements (Lancaster et al. 2019; Iorio & Belokurov 2021; Bird et al. 2021). The amplitude of overdensities and the degree of reshaping depend strongly on this input.
  • LMC total mass M_LMC = 1.5e11 M_sun
    Adopted from Erkal et al. (2019)/Vasiliev et al. (2021). Directly sets the tidal torque Omega_sat in Equation (8) and the LMC orbit.
  • Stellar halo density profile (r_b1=11.85 kpc, r_b2=28.33 kpc, slopes 1.70/3.09/4.58, q*=0.73) = Taken from Han et al. (2022a) fit to GSE
    The initial halo is built from an observational GSE density fit, then compared at the end to fits by Han et al. and Lane et al. This couples the initial conditions to the target structure, though the initial model is deliberately axisymmetric and disc-aligned.
  • Milky Way potential parameters (bulge, disc, halo masses and scale lengths) = Fiducial Vasiliev (2023) potential
    Controls the LMC orbit, orbital precession frequencies, and dynamical friction calculation. Adopted from the literature, not fitted here.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption At t0 approximately -3.9 Gyr the stellar halo is a perfect axisymmetric equilibrium aligned with the Galactic disc.
    Section 3.3: 'The Schwarzschild models are therefore very close to equilibrium at the beginning of the simulations.' If the real GSE halo was already triaxial/tilted before LMC infall, the fraction of the final signal attributable to the LMC changes.
  • domain assumption Stars are test particles; stellar halo self-gravity and live dark-matter response are neglected.
    Section 3 and final paragraph: 'we have used only test particle simulations... the Milky Way's potential will deform in response to the infalling LMC.' This could alter the strength and geometry of the predicted overdensities.
  • domain assumption The LMC past orbit is computed with Chandrasekhar dynamical friction in a rigid Milky Way potential.
    Equations (35)-(39). If the dynamical friction formula or the Milky Way's live response is inaccurate, Omega_sat(t) and the alignment timescale change.
  • standard math The analytic model uses the linear tidal approximation |r| << r_sat and takes orbital inclination as constant.
    Equation (3) and the statement 'We now ignore changes to the inclination by setting i=constant.' This is valid for inner orbits but approximate at 60 kpc; the simulations are used to check it.
  • domain assumption The GSE has beta approximately 0.9 within 25 kpc, as reported by cited observational studies.
    Section 1 and Section 3.3. This motivates the fiducial simulation; if the true GSE anisotropy is lower, the predicted overdensities weaken substantially (Figure 9).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20397 in / 12444 out tokens · 118522 ms · 2026-08-02T18:22:30.102590+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Perturbations from the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) of the Milky Way's stellar and dark matter haloes are well-established. However, studies have generally not considered the high radial anisotropy of the Milky Way's inner halo caused by the accreted debris of Gaia Sausage-Enceladus (GSE). We run a series of test particle simulations of stellar haloes being perturbed by the LMC, with different halo velocity anisotropies $\beta\in[0.5,0.9]$. The LMC causes these initially axisymmetric haloes to become approximately triaxial. Their major axes are aligned with its orbital plane and tilted by up to $\sim14^\circ$ with respect to a fixed Galactic disc. These effects become much more dramatic as $\beta$ increases, causing the halo to fractionate spatially according to anisotropy. This confirms the expectations of an analytical model, which predicts that orbits with eccentricities $e\gtrsim0.95$ should azimuthally align with the tidal field of the LMC. The reshaping of the $\beta=0.9$ halo creates strong overdensities of $\sim40\%$ at heliocentric distances as close as 15 kpc. These coincide with the well-known Virgo Overdensity (VOD) and Hercules-Aquila Cloud (HAC), which have previously been associated with the GSE. We propose that the HAC and VOD were created by the dynamical alignment of highly eccentric orbits by the LMC, and are not necessarily relics of the GSE merger geometry. We conclude that previous works have significantly underestimated perturbations from the LMC in the inner stellar halo by not considering sufficiently high velocity anisotropy. This effect should be corrected for when constructing equilibrium models of the GSE debris.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11159 by Adam M. Dillamore, Jason L. Sanders, Richard A.N. Brooks.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geometry of our analytic model setup. Top panel: top-down view of the Galactic plane, with an illustration of an orbit around its apocentre at radius 𝑟apo and azimuth 𝜓. Bottom panel: edge-on view of the Galactic plane with the location of the satellite marked, at radius 𝑟sat and polar angle 𝜃sat. An example of an orbit with inclination 𝑖 is also shown. on how the LMC affects the distribution of orbital or… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Integral of motion space (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐸) coloured by the minimum dimen￾sionless pendulum energy 𝑘 2 min ≡ 𝑘 2 ( 𝜃 = 0). The black dotted line indicates orbits with eccentricity 𝑒 = 0.95, and the contours show the GSE. A circu￾lar orbit at the Sun’s radius is shown with the ⊙ symbol. At low energies alignment by the satellite’s tidal field is only possible (𝑘 2 min < 1) on highly eccentric orbits (𝑒 ≳ 0.95). times… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Past orbit of the LMC in our simulations. Top panel: the orbit in Galactic coordinates (𝑙, 𝑏) (where 𝑙 increases to the left). The approximate regions of the HAC and VOD are shown for comparison. The HAC is split into two regions, north (HAC-N) and south (HAC-S) of the Galactic disc (see Section 4.2). The Middle panel: the track of the orbit in the (𝑦, 𝑧) plane, close to the LMC’s orbital plane. The curren… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected density of our fiducial simulation (with 𝛽 = 0.9), in the initial (top row) and final (bottom row) snapshots. The left-hand panels show the top-down view of the Galactic plane, and the others show edge-on projections. The LMC and its past orbit are marked, and the location of the Sun is shown with a ⊙ symbol. The LMC causes the halo to become triaxial and tilted with respect to the Galactic plane… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the axis ratios and orientations of the 𝛽 = 0.9 stellar halo. Top row: the Galactic longitude 𝑙long and latitude 𝑏long of the halo’s long axis as a function of time, where we have taken 180◦ ≤ 𝑙long < 360◦ . The vertical dashed lines mark the time at which the LMC is 200 kpc from the Milky Way. Bottom-left panel: the track of the long axis in Galactic coordinates (𝑙long, 𝑏long ) compared to th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final shape of the stellar haloes in our simulation as a function of anisotropy 𝛽. The fiducial simulation shown in Figs. 4 and 5 is on the far right. The top and bottom panels show respectively the axis ratios and tilt of the long axis out of the Galactic plane. The dashed line in the top panel indicates the initial short-to-long axis ratio 𝑞 of each simulation (the initial value of 𝑝 is 1). As 𝛽 increase… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fractional excess density compared to an azimuthally averaged and 𝑧-reflection symmetric density distribution for the 𝛽 = 0.9 simulation. The three panels show three different projections. The black dashed line marks the orbit of the LMC, and the location of the Sun is marked with the ⊙ symbol. The 3D HAC and VOD regions (defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fractional difference in the on-sky density between the simulated stellar halo and its azimuthal average. Each row shows a different range of Heliocentric distances, and each column shows a different velocity anisotropy 𝛽. The projections are in Galactic coordinates, with (𝑙, 𝑏) = (0, 0) in the centre and 𝑙 increasing to the left. The black boxes indicate the Hercules-Aquila Cloud (HAC) and Virgo Overdensi… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction of on-sky density (in the distance range 10 < 𝑑/kpc < 25) contributed by a halo component with 𝛽 = 0.9. The initial distribution is made up of two components with different anisotropies 𝛽 = {0.5, 0.9}, but the same initial density distribution. The top and bottom panels show the initial (at 𝑡 = 𝑡0) and final (present-day) distributions. While the two populations initially have equal contributions… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Median angular momentum as a function of position in the Galaxy. Each panel shows a simulation with different anisotropy 𝛽. The median is taken across all stars in a column −30 < 𝑧/kpc < 30. The dashed line and ⊙ indicate the LMC’s orbit and the Sun respectively. As 𝛽 increases, a quadrupole pattern of positive and negative median 𝐿𝑧 emerges, roughly aligned with the LMC’s orbital plane. the simulation. W… 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 3 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Direct N-body simulations of Palomar 5 show that no single Milky Way potential model—with or without a bar, flattened halo, LMC, or decelerating bar—reproduces all observed stream properties.

  2. Galactic Amnesia: The Information Washout of the Milky Way Merger History

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Mutual information analysis of TNG50 simulations shows gravitational potential and total energy retain merger mass and infall time information longest, while radial velocity loses it within ~5 Gyr, with washout depend...

  3. The DECam MAGIC Survey $-$ Mapping the Ancient Galaxy in CaHK: Overview and Summary of Early Science

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    The MAGIC survey provides photometric metallicities for RGB stars over ~3000 deg² using CaHK narrow-band imaging plus DELVE g,r,i data, recovering 13/14 known ultra-faint dwarfs and confirming a distant Reticulum II member.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Balbinot E., Helmi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..15B 654, A15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141015 2021

  2. [2]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657L..89B 657, L89

    work page doi:10.1086/513144 2007

  3. [3]

    L., Fattahi A., Smith M

    Belokurov V., Sanders J. L., Fattahi A., Smith M. C., Deason A. J., Evans N. W., Grand R. J. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3880B 494, 3880

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  4. [4]

    J., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Vasiliev E., Deason A. J., Koposov S. E., Fattahi A., Dillamore A. M., Davies E. Y., Grand R. J. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6200B 518, 6200

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3436 2023

  5. [5]

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

    2008

  6. [6]

    A., Xue X.-X., Liu C., Shen J., Flynn C., Yang C., Zhao G., Tian H.-J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...66B 919, 66

    Bird S. A., Xue X.-X., Liu C., Shen J., Flynn C., Yang C., Zhao G., Tian H.-J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...66B 919, 66

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9e 2021

  7. [7]

    Bonaca A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....143..105B 143, 105

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/105 2012

  8. [8]

    Bonaca A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897L..18B 897, L18

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa 2020

  9. [9]

    Boubert D., Belokurov V., Erkal D., Iorio G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4562B 482, 4562

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3014 2019

  10. [10]

    Brooks R. A. N., Sanders J. L., Chandra V., Garavito-Camargo N., Dillamore A. M., Price-Whelan A. M., Ting Y.-S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.04735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251004735B p. arXiv:2510.04735

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04735 2025

  11. [11]

    Brooks R. A. N., Sanders J. L., Dillamore A. M., Garavito-Camargo N., Price-Whelan A. M., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf2111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.545f2111B 545, staf2111

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2111 2026

  12. [12]

    Bystr \"o m A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.542..560B 542, 560

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1219 2025

  13. [13]

    Chandra V., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/addab6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988..156C 988, 156

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addab6 2025

  14. [14]

    Chandrasekhar S., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1943ApJ....97..255C 97, 255

    doi:10.1086/144517 1943

  15. [15]

    P., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Conroy C., Naidu R. P., Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.592..534C 592, 534

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

  16. [16]

    Correa Magnus L., Vasiliev E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.2610C 511, 2610

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3726 2022

  17. [17]

    J., Belokurov V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NewAR..9901706D 99, 101706

    Deason A. J., Belokurov V., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NewAR..9901706D 99, 101706

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    M., Sanders J

    Dillamore A. M., Sanders J. L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251000095D p. arXiv:2510.00095

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00095 2025

  19. [19]

    M., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.4389D 532, 4389

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1789 2024

  20. [20]

    J., Weiss J., Amy P., Thompson J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...76D 886, 76

    Donlon II T., Newberg H. J., Weiss J., Amy P., Thompson J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...76D 886, 76

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f72 2019

  21. [21]

    Erkal D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.2685E 487, 2685

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1371 2019

  22. [22]

    A., Parkin D

    Erkal D., Belokurov V. A., Parkin D. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5574E 498, 5574

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2840 2020

  23. [23]

    Erkal D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2677E 506, 2677

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1828 2021

  24. [24]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..163F 954, 163

    Foote H. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..163F 954, 163

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 2023

  25. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

  26. [26]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...7G 649, A7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039588 2021

  27. [27]

    Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Laporte C. F. P., Johnston K. V., G \'o mez F. A., Watkins L. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...51G 884, 51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb 2019

  28. [28]

    Garavito-Camargo N., Besla G., Laporte C. F. P., Price-Whelan A. M., Cunningham E. C., Johnston K. V., Weinberg M., G \'o mez F. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..109G 919, 109

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 2021

  29. [29]

    Gibbons S. L. J., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..794G 464, 794

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2328 2017

  30. [30]

    J., Carlin J

    Grillmair C. J., Carlin J. L., 2016, in Newberg H. J., Carlin J. L., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 420, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond. p. 87 ( @eprint arXiv 1603.08936 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-19336-6_4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    J., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..249H 164, 249

    Han J. J., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..249H 164, 249

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9

  32. [32]

    J., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...14H 934, 14

    Han J. J., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...14H 934, 14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f

  33. [33]

    J., Semenov V., Conroy C., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..24H 957, L24

    Han J. J., Semenov V., Conroy C., Hernquist L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..24H 957, L24

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0641 2023

  34. [34]

    Henon M., 1959, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959AnAp...22..126H 22, 126

    1959

  35. [35]

    Iorio G., Belokurov V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3868I 482, 3868

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2806 2019

  36. [36]

    Iorio G., Belokurov V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5686I 502, 5686

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab005 2021

  37. [37]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4936K 521, 4936

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4936K 521, 4936

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad551 2023

  38. [38]

    E., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Lancaster L., Koposov S. E., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Deason A. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486..378L 486, 378

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz853 2019

  39. [39]

    Lane J. M. M., Bovy J., Mackereth J. T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.1209L 526, 1209

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2834 2023

  40. [40]

    R., Majewski S

    Law D. R., Majewski S. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714..229L 714, 229

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

  41. [41]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..135L 817, 135

    Li T. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..135L 817, 135

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/135 2016

  42. [42]

    arXiv:2512.01350

    Li S., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251201350L p. arXiv:2512.01350

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Lilleengen S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..774L 518, 774

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3108 2023

  44. [44]

    arXiv:2510.03221

    Lucey M., Mateu C., Price-Whelan A., Hogg D., Rix H.-W., Sanderson R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.03221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251003221L p. arXiv:2510.03221

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03221 2025

  45. [45]

    Lynden-Bell D., 1963, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963Obs....83...23L 83, 23

    1963

  46. [46]

    T., Bovy J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3631M 492, 3631

    Mackereth J. T., Bovy J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3631M 492, 3631

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa047 2020

  47. [47]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...76M 465, 76

    McMillan P. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...76M 465, 76

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  48. [48]

    P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...92N 923, 92

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...92N 923, 92

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d 2021

  49. [49]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  50. [50]

    J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..245N 569, 245

    Newberg H. J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..245N 569, 245

    doi:10.1086/338983 2002

  51. [51]

    A., Besla G., Erkal D., Ma Y.-Z., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456L..54P 456, L54

    Pe \ n arrubia J., G \'o mez F. A., Besla G., Erkal D., Ma Y.-Z., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456L..54P 456, L54

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv160 2016

  52. [52]

    D., Limberg G., Amarante J

    Perottoni H. D., Limberg G., Amarante J. A. S., Rossi S., Queiroz A. B. A., Santucci R. M., P \'e rez-Villegas A., Chiappini C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...936L...2P 936, L2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac88d6 2022

  53. [53]

    S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..11P 494, L11

    Petersen M. S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..11P 494, L11

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa029 2020

  54. [54]

    Pietrzy \'n ski G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.567..200P 567, 200

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4 2019

  55. [55]

    I., Erkal D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5799R 487, 5799

    Read J. I., Erkal D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5799R 487, 5799

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1320 2019

  56. [56]

    Rozier S., Famaey B., Siebert A., Monari G., Pichon C., Ibata R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..113R 933, 113

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7139 2022

  57. [57]

    Schwarzschild M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..236S 232, 236

    doi:10.1086/157282 1979

  58. [58]

    Sesar B., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708..717S 708, 717

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/717 2010

  59. [59]

    Shipp N., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..149S 923, 149

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93 2021

  60. [60]

    T., Belokurov V., Irwin M., Koposov S

    Simion I. T., Belokurov V., Irwin M., Koposov S. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..161S 440, 161

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu133 2014

  61. [61]

    T., Belokurov V., Koposov S

    Simion I. T., Belokurov V., Koposov S. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482..921S 482, 921

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2744 2019

  62. [62]

    Vasiliev E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1525V 482, 1525

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2672 2019

  63. [63]

    Vasiliev E., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11020059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...59V 11, 59

    doi:10.3390/galaxies11020059 2023

  64. [64]

    Vasiliev E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..437V 527, 437

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2612 2024

  65. [65]

    Vasiliev E., Belokurov V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.4162V 497, 4162

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2114 2020

  66. [66]

    Vasiliev E., Belokurov V., Erkal D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2279V 501, 2279

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3673 2021

  67. [67]

    K., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554L..33V 554, L33

    Vivas A. K., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554L..33V 554, L33

    work page doi:10.1086/320915 2001

  68. [68]

    D., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/239.2.549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.239..549W 239, 549

    Weinberg M. D., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/239.2.549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.239..549W 239, 549

    doi:10.1093/mnras/239.2.549 1989

  69. [69]

    S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3524Y 531, 3524

    Yaaqib R., Petersen M. S., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3524Y 531, 3524

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1363 2024

  70. [70]

    H., Shi W

    Yan H. H., Shi W. B., Chen Y. Q., Zhao J. K., Zhao G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..78Y 674, A78

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346249 2023

  71. [71]

    Ye D., Du C., Deng M., Liao J., Huang Y., Shi J., Ma J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2584Y 532, 2584

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1655 2024

  72. [72]

    P., Kallivayalil N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781..121V 781, 121

    van der Marel R. P., Kallivayalil N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781..121V 781, 121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/121 2014

  73. [73]

    P., Alves D

    van der Marel R. P., Alves D. R., Hardy E., Suntzeff N. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124.2639V 124, 2639

    doi:10.1086/343775 2002

  74. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...