Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A direct collision with the LMC about 100 million years ago — not a rotating disk — explains the Small Magellanic Cloud's scrambled stars and gas.

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 18:15 UTC pith:HK4GPDNY

load-bearing objection A plausible, honest simulation case that a recent SMC–LMC collision drives the SMC's disequilibrium; the 'necessary' claim outruns the tested orbit space. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.06075 v3 pith:HK4GPDNY submitted 2025-12-05 astro-ph.GA

A Galactic Transformation -- Understanding the SMC's Structural and Kinematic Disequilibrium

Himansh Rathore (U. Arizona) , Gurtina Besla (U. Arizona) , Roeland P. van der Marel (STSci) , Nitya Kallivayalil (U. Virginia) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Small Magellanic CloudLarge Magellanic Cloudgalaxy collisionstidal tailsram pressuredwarf irregular galaxiesgalaxy kinematicsBaryonic Tully-Fisher Relation
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.

This paper argues that the Small Magellanic Cloud's strange structure and kinematics — a large line-of-sight depth, dispersion-dominated old stars with nearly no rotation, a HI velocity gradient that looks like rotation, and offset stellar and gas centers — all trace back to one event: a direct collision with the Large Magellanic Cloud about 100 million years ago, with an impact parameter of roughly 2 kpc. Using hydrodynamic simulations that start with rotating stellar and gas disks, the authors show that this single encounter produces a tidal tail that accounts for the depth, heats the stellar disk until rotation is negligible (v/σ≈0.2), converts the gas velocity field into radial outflow that masquerades as a rotation gradient, and gives the gas a ~30 km/s ram-pressure kick that separates it from the stars. If correct, the SMC is not a rotating disk and does not lie on the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation; it is a galaxy caught in mid-transformation from a rotating dwarf irregular into a pressure-supported dwarf spheroid. The consequence is that equilibrium-based mass estimates (rotation curves, virial theorem) are unreliable for this galaxy, and a collision-based framework is needed to read its data.

Core claim

The central claim is that a single recent (<200 Myr ago), direct SMC-LMC collision with impact parameter ~2 kpc is necessary and sufficient to explain the observed disequilibrium of the SMC. In the simulations, the initial SMC is a rotating disk of stars and gas, consistent with isolated dwarf irregulars and the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation. After the collision, the LMC's tides strip a tidal tail that, viewed along the line of sight, produces the SMC's large depth; the same tides redistribute stars so that the stellar kinematics become dispersion-dominated with v/σ≈0.2, with radially outward motions at R>2 kpc and a small remnant rotation only inside 1-2 kpc; the gas is even more disturbed

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a direct collision between the SMC and LMC in N-body+hydrodynamic simulations: the LMC's tidal field reshapes the SMC's disk into a tidal tail and bridge, while hydrodynamics adds a ram-pressure interaction between the two galaxies' gas disks. The collision does two distinct kinds of work: tides heat and tear the stellar disk, reducing rotation-to-dispersion ratio from ~0.8 to <0.2 and creating the elongated tail that explains the line-of-sight depth; and the LMC's gaseous disk, during the ~2 Myr disk crossing, exerts a ram pressure more than an order of magnitude larger than the SMC's restoring force, kicking the SMC's gas by ~30 km/s — enough to erase gas rota

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on whether the SMC and LMC really had a direct collision with impact parameter ≈2 kpc about 100 Myr ago; the paper itself notes that the SMC-LMC orbit is not tightly constrained and that such a collision is allowed by, but not the mean result of, the proper-motion data.

What would settle it

Compute the SMC-LMC relative orbit from improved proper motions: if the most recent pericenter separation was ≳6 kpc (as in earlier models), the tidal heating, the ~30 km/s ram-pressure kick, and the tidal tail would all be too weak to reproduce the observed v/σ≈0.2 stellar kinematics and the ~1 kpc offset between stellar and gas centers.

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

If this is right

  • The SMC's HI velocity gradient of 60-100 km/s should be interpreted as radial outflow, not disk rotation; the SMC therefore does not lie on the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation.
  • Mass estimates built on equilibrium assumptions — rotation-curve fitting or virial estimators — can be off by factors of ~2-6 for the SMC; a non-equilibrium approach is needed.
  • The stellar photometric center, not the gas kinematic center, is the appropriate reference for SMC kinematics and for converting proper motions to 3D velocities.
  • A collision can transform a rotation-supported dwarf irregular into a dispersion-dominated dwarf spheroid in ~100 Myr, providing a formation channel for dwarf ellipticals/spheroidals in groups.
  • The gaseous tidal tail formed in the collision explains the observed bimodal HI distribution along the line of sight without invoking a foreground/background galaxy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ram-pressure kick is real, the SMC's gas systemic velocity should differ from its stellar systemic velocity by roughly 30 km/s; this is a measurable, testable offset that the paper does not flag as a headline prediction.
  • The mapping between the tidal tail and the line of sight implies that a subset of the SMC's old stars and HI should share a coherent radial expansion axis; future proper-motion studies can test whether that axis aligns with the LMC-SMC direction.
  • The same collision framework suggests that other gas-rich dwarf satellites in loose groups may be misread as rotating disks when their gas is actually in radial outflow, potentially biasing Tully-Fisher and dark-matter studies for low-mass galaxies.
  • A natural extension of this work is to include supernova feedback and a circumgalactic medium, which the paper notes would likely strengthen its conclusions by making gas retention even harder.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the existing B12 N-body/SPH simulations of the LMC–SMC–MW system to argue that a recent (≈100 Myr ago) direct collision between the SMC and LMC, with impact parameter ≈2 kpc, simultaneously explains the SMC's large line-of-sight depth, its dispersion-dominated old stellar kinematics, the radially outward gas motions that masquerade as a rotation gradient, and the offset between the stellar photometric center and the HI kinematic center. Model 2 (collision) is compared to Model 1 (no collision, pericenter >30 kpc), and the authors conclude that such a collision is necessary to explain the observed disequilibrium. The paper also presents an analytical ram-pressure estimate (Gunn–Gott 1972) and discusses implications for virial mass estimates and the dIrr→dE/dSph transformation.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, this is a valuable step: it offers a plausible, physically concrete scenario that resolves the long-standing discrepancy between the SMC's gas and stellar kinematics without invoking an ad hoc separate component, and it shifts the interpretation of the SMC's HI velocity gradient from rotation to radial expansion. The paper's strengths include the use of a full hydrodynamic simulation with live halos and gas disks, careful centering and kinematic-center algorithms, a transparent analytical ram-pressure calculation (§4.1), and the ability to explain several independent observables (LoS depth, v/σ, center offset, velocity gradient) within a single framework. It also makes falsifiable predictions, notably that the gas velocity field is dominated by radial motions and that the stellar kinematic center is the reliable center for the SMC. However, the necessity claim rests on a very narrow exploration of the orbital parameter space, and the simulated present-day SMC–LMC separation is a factor of two smaller than observed, so the quantitative connection to the real SMC remains partly heuristic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, §3.2, §4.5] The paper's central conclusion — that a recent direct collision with impact parameter ≈2 kpc is 'necessary' to explain the SMC's disequilibrium — is not established by the presented simulations. The comparison is only between Model 2 (b≈2 kpc) and Model 1 (pericenter >30 kpc). The authors themselves note in §4.5 that the SMC–LMC orbit is not tightly constrained and that the collision is 'not the mean result' within the proper-motion error space. Intermediate pericenters, such as the ≈6 kpc closest approach in DB12, are not tested. Such encounters would produce weaker tidal heating and a smaller ram-pressure kick, but they could still generate a large LoS depth and a dispersion-dominated stellar component. To support the word 'necessary', the authors must either (a) run simulations with at least one intermediate pericenter (e.g., 5–10 kpc) and show that it fails to reproduce the observed
  2. [§2.1, Fig. 2, §4.5] The simulated SMC–LMC separation at the nominal present day is ≈10 kpc, whereas the observed 3D separation is ≈20 kpc (a factor of two discrepancy). The authors explicitly decline to label simulation epochs as 'present day' and instead analyze times since collision. This is a reasonable choice, but it weakens the direct quantitative comparison to observations. In particular, the strength of the tidal field and the ram-pressure kick at the simulated encounter may be enhanced relative to the real system because the Clouds are closer. The paper should either quantify how the rate of v/σ decline and the center offset scale with separation, or clearly state that the mechanism is demonstrated only at a qualitative level. As written, the abstract and conclusions make quantitative claims ('imparts ≈30 km s−1 kick', 'consistent with observations') that depend on the simulated separation.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (11)] The ram-pressure kick estimate is an order-of-magnitude calculation, not a direct result of the simulation. The authors properly acknowledge that standard SPH underestimates ram pressure and that a multiphase ISM is needed. However, the value Δv≈30 km s−1 is then used to argue that gas rotation is destroyed. The calculation uses an assumed LMC gas density at impact parameter from the initial conditions and a disk crossing time Δt≈2 Myr, both of which are uncertain. Given that the conclusion that the gas center offset is due to ram pressure rests heavily on this analytic estimate, the authors should test the sensitivity of Δv to the assumed LMC gas density and crossing time, or at least present a range rather than a single value. This does not invalidate the mechanism, but it makes the quantitative claim less robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3] Typo: 'Viral mass estimator' should be 'Virial mass estimator' (two occurrences). Also, the calibration of f=0.9 in Eq. (12) is opaque; please specify what gravitational self-energy ratio is used and why f differs from the usual homogeneous-sphere value.
  2. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption says 'vϕ,max/σ<0.6 (HZ06, denoted by the pink shaded region)' — the pink region in the figure is not always clearly visible in black-and-white print. Consider using cross-hatching or a grayscale alternative.
  3. [§3.1.1] The moment-of-inertia axis-ratio calculation uses all stars within fixed radii (5, 10, 15 kpc) about the density center. It would be helpful to state whether the contribution of the LMC (or its tidal debris) has been excluded; the LMC appears within 10–15 kpc in Model 2 and could affect the inertia tensor at large radii.
  4. [§4.5] The limitations discussion is honest and clear, but the phrase 'a collision, while allowed within the proper motion error space, is not the mean result' undercuts the abstract's stronger claim. This should be reconciled in the concluding section.
  5. [§3.3] The statement 'we were unable to reliably determine the SMC gas kinematic center' is important, but it is presented only in passing. Since the paper later recommends using the stellar kinematic center for gas studies, it would be useful to show a supplementary figure demonstrating the non-convergence and sensitivity to hyper-parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the post-collision SMC state is an emergent simulation outcome, not fitted; the 'necessary' wording overstates admitted orbital constraints but no step reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities—the large LoS depth, dispersion-dominated stellar kinematics (v/σ≈0.2), radially outward gas motions masquerading as rotation, and the stellar/gas center offset—are emergent outputs of the B12 hydrodynamic Model 2, not parameters fitted to the SMC observations they explain. The simulated SMC is initialized as a rotating disk consistent with the BTFR by construction, but the post-collision transformation is an emergent result of the N-body/SPH evolution. The ram-pressure explanation is an independent GG72 analytic estimate (Eq. 9–11), not derived from the observed offsets it is used to explain. The collision premise is supported by external observational evidence (Gaia/HST proper motions, LMC bar/disk morphology) and by the B12 model's reproduction of independent Magellanic features, so it is not a self-citation-only argument. The paper's own §4.5 limitation—'the SMC-LMC orbit is not tightly constrained and a collision, while allowed within the proper motion error space, is not the mean result'—means the concluding word 'necessary' is stronger than the tested parameter space (only b≈2 kpc vs. b>30 kpc is compared), but this is a scientific overstatement/robustness gap, not a circular reduction of the form Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction. The score of 2 reflects the overlapping-author citation cluster used to motivate the collision scenario and the admitted non-uniqueness of the orbit, while recognizing that the headline predictions are genuinely emergent and externally checkable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is conditional on the chosen orbital history (b≈2 kpc, ~100 Myr lookback), the initial rotating-disk configuration of the SMC, the viewing geometry that places the tidal tail along the LoS, and the GG72 order-of-magnitude treatment of ram pressure. These are stated in the paper (Sections 2.1, 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.5). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • SMC-LMC collision impact parameter (b) = ≈2 kpc
    Model 2 orbit in B12; central to the tidal disruption and ram-pressure estimates. Not the mean proper-motion orbital solution (§4.5).
  • Collision lookback time = ≈100 Myr
    Defines the 'present day' snapshot; the observed SMC is assumed to be ~100 Myr post-collision. The paper analyzes 100-200 Myr post-collision.
  • Initial SMC stellar/gas rotation amplitude = ≈60 km/s (peak)
    B12 initial conditions set the SMC on the BTFR by design; post-collision evolution depends on this initial state.
  • LMC gas density at impact parameter (ρ) = derived from MW infall snapshot, surface density / scale height 0.34 kpc
    Used in GG72 ram-pressure estimate (Eq. 9); controls Δv≈30 km/s.
  • SMC-LMC relative speed at collision (v) = ≈200 km/s
    Used in Eq. 9 for P_ram; affects the velocity kick.
  • Disk crossing time (Δt) = ≈2 Myr (h/v)
    Impulsive ram-pressure timescale in Eq. 11; sets the kick.
  • Virial factor f = 0.9
    Calibrated with Model 1 to test the virial estimator (§4.3); not a central claim, but a load-bearing value for that test.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The SMC's old stellar population was initially in a rotating disk (dIrr morphology) consistent with the BTFR before the collision.
    Section 2.1 and Figure 1; motivated by local gas-rich dwarfs but not directly observed for the SMC; if the SMC was already a spheroid, the transformation narrative changes.
  • domain assumption The observed SMC is viewed with its stellar tidal tail roughly along the line of sight.
    Section 3.1.2/3.3; needed to translate the simulated major axis into a LoS depth and to interpret the gas LoS gradient; the paper argues θobs=133° is within the simulated range θsim=100–160°.
  • ad hoc to paper B12 Model 2's physical mechanisms are representative despite the simulated SMC-LMC separation being ≈10 kpc vs observed ≈20 kpc.
    Section 2.1 and §4.5; the paper deliberately avoids direct epoch comparison; if the separation mismatch indicates a different orbital phase, the gas morphology could differ.
  • domain assumption Ram pressure can be estimated with the GG72 formula using a single LMC gas density and crossing time.
    Section 4.1; standard order-of-magnitude treatment, but the SPH simulation itself underestimates ram pressure; the paper does not resolve this hydrodynamically.
  • standard math Newtonian gravity and the SPH sub-resolution ISM model used in Gadget-3 faithfully capture the tidal response of a dwarf galaxy.
    Section 2.1; background simulation methodology.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 41678 in / 15104 out tokens · 137186 ms · 2026-08-03T18:15:18.108392+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The SMC is in disequilibrium. Gas line-of-sight (LoS) velocity maps show a gradient of $60-100$ km s$^{-1}$, generally interpreted as a rotating gas disk consistent with the Tully-Fisher relation. Yet, the stars don't show rotation. Despite a small on-sky extent ($\sim4$ kpc), the SMC exhibits a large ($\sim10$ kpc) LoS depth, and the stellar photometric center is offset from the HI kinematic center by $\sim$1 kpc. With N-body hydrodynamical simulations, we show that a recent ($\sim$100 Myr ago) SMC-LMC collision (impact parameter $\sim2$ kpc) explains the observed SMC's internal structure and kinematics. The simulated SMC is initialized with rotating stellar and gaseous disks. Post-collision, the SMC's tidal tail accounts for the large LoS depth. The SMC's stellar kinematics become dispersion dominated ($v/\sigma\approx0.2$), with radially outward motions at $R>2$ kpc, and a small ($<10$ km s$^{-1}$) remnant rotation at $R<2$ kpc, consistent with observations. Post-collision gas kinematics are also dominated by radially outward motions, without remnant rotation. Hence, the observed SMC's gas LoS velocity gradient is due to radial motions as opposed to disk rotation. Ram pressure from the LMC's gas disk during the collision imparts $\approx30$ km s$^{-1}$ kick to the SMC's gas, sufficient to destroy gas rotation and offset the SMC's stellar and gas centers. Our work highlights the critical role of group processing through galaxy collisions in driving dIrr to dE/dSph transformation, including the removal of gas. Consequently, frameworks that treat the SMC as a galaxy in transformation are required to effectively use its observational data to constrain interstellar medium and dark matter physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.06075 by Gurtina Besla (U. Arizona), Himansh Rathore (U. Arizona), Nitya Kallivayalil (U. Virginia), Roeland P. van der Marel (STScI).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Placing the SMC on the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation (BTFR). The black dashed line denotes the BTFR fit taken from S. S. McGaugh et al. (2000), with the grey shaded region denoting the 1−σ uncertainty. The SMC’s total baryonic mass (stars + HI) is (7.0 ± 0.6) × 108 M⊙ (S. Stanimirovic et al. 1999; J. Harris & D. Zaritsky 2004). Symbols denote the SMC’s inferred peak HI rotation velocity of 56 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The SMC’s orbit about the LMC in B12 Model 1 (orange dash-dot line) and Model 2 (purple solid line) simu￾lations, after their MW infall. Three additional key epochs corresponding to Model 2 are marked with vertical dashed lines: SMC-SMC collision (impact parameter ≈ 2 kpc); 100 Myr and 200 Myr post-collision. The fiducial present day is denoted as time = 0, and in Model 2, this corresponds to 100 Myr post-… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top row: Identifying the stellar density center of the simulated SMC. The left (right) panel shows the x-y (x-z) projection of the SMC’s stellar surface density distribution 100 Myr after the SMC-LMC collision in B12 Model 2. The Galactocentric axes are translated to the inferred density center, depicted by the red star at (0, 0). The red star is a reasonable representation of the SMC’s stellar density pea… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Identifying the stellar kinematic center of the Model 2 simulated SMC. The SMC is oriented edge-on (x ′ − z ′ projection) and the in-plane velocities are mapped (v ′ y in this projection) through the color bar. The red (blue) colors depict the values of v ′ y for stars going into (coming out of) the plane of the paper. Three epochs are shown - MW infall (left panel), 100 Myr, and 200 Myr post SMC-LMC colli… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of the Model 2 SMC’s stellar surface density distribution in the plane of rotation. MW infall epoch, 100 Myr and 200 Myr post-collision are shown. The red star marks the stellar density center. Contour levels represent 5%, 10%, 20%, 40% of the peak surface density. The arrow points towards the LMC. Post-collision, the SMC’s stellar distribution becomes significantly elongated along tidal str… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The left panel shows a projection of the Model 2 simulated SMC’s stellar density distribution 200 Myr after the SMC-LMC collision. The x’ and y’ axis correspond to the SMC plane of rotation. The stellar density centers of the SMC and LMC are marked by the red star and green circle, respectively. The LMC-SMC bridge and the SMC’s tidal tail can be clearly seen. The latter is likely responsible for the SMC’s … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The angle between the Model 2 SMC’s longest axis and (1) the LMC-SMC position vector (RLMC−SMC) (θsim, left panel), (2) the SMC’s angular momentum vector (Jang) (ϕ, right panel). Left panel: The longest axis is computed for varying radial extents (5 kpc, 10 kpc, 15 kpc), as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The stellar velocity field and rotation curve of the simulated Model 2 SMC at three epochs: MW infall (top left); 100 Myr post LMC-SMC collision (top right); 200 Myr post-collision (bottom left). Velocity fields are computed in the SMC’s plane of rotation. The arrows denote the direction of the average velocity vector in a 0.8 kpc × 0.8 kpc spatial bin, with the color scale representing the magnitude. The … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ratio of the peak stellar rotation speed to the stellar velocity dispersion in the Model 2 SMC, as a func￾tion of time. The orange shaded band depicts the time-av￾eraged mean ratio (0.87) and the standard deviation (0.05) for the Model 1 simulation (where the SMC and LMC do not collide). The green solid line depicts the Model 2 sim￾ulation (where the SMC and LMC collide). Three epochs are marked with … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The Model 2 simulated SMC’s gas velocity fields, computed in the stellar plane of rotation , and the gas rotation curve. The velocity field is shown for three epochs: MW infall (top left); 100 Myr post LMC-SMC collision (top right); and 200 Myr post collision (bottom left). The grey arrow is centered at the SMC’s stellar kinematic center, and points in the direction of the LMC. The smaller arrows denote t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Gas kinematic maps for the Model 2 simulated SMC at three epochs: MW infall; 100 Myr post LMC-SMC collision; and 200 Myr post collision. The coordinate axes are aligned with the principal axes of the stellar distribution (x”, y”), with the z”-axis being the longest axis. The color map depicts the velocity along the z”-axis, mimicking the LoS velocity field. Contours of the stellar (gas) density field are … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ram pressure (green solid line) exerted on the SMC’s gas disk by the LMC’s gas disk during an impulsive SMC-LMC collision. The orange dashed line denotes the restoring thrust applied by the SMC’s mass distribution on its gas. The ram pressure from the LMC is more than an order of magnitude larger than the SMC’s restoring thrust. Due to ram pressure, the SMC’s gas gets an impulsive veloc￾ity kick of ≈ 30 k… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distribution of gas as a function of distance along the longest axis of the stellar distribution in the Model 2 simulated SMC. A distance of 0 kpc on the x-axis corresponds to the SMC’s stellar density center, and positive values are in the direction of the tidal tail. Gas particles are selected to reside within 4 kpc cylinder about the longest axis. Three epochs are shown - 100 Myr (left panel), 150 … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Testing the accuracy of the Virial estimator for measuring the Model 2 simulated SMC’s enclosed mass within 2 kpc of its stellar density center. The Virial estimator used has been calibrated with the Model 1 simulation. The ratio of the enclosed mass predicted by the Virial estimator and the actual enclosed mass in the simulation (y-axis) is plotted as a function of time. Pre-collision, the Virial esti￾ma… 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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. $V/\sigma$ Trends with Mass for Dwarf Galaxies from the Marvelous Massive Dwarfs Suite

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Simulations of dwarf galaxies show V/σ rising with stellar mass, with HI gas and young stars more rotation-supported than old stars.

  2. A Statistical Framework to Identify Kinematically Outlying LMC Globular Clusters and Implications for the LMC's Dark Matter Profile

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    About 5 LMC globular clusters move significantly differently from surrounding red-clump disk stars, and these outliers can bias LMC enclosed-mass estimates by up to 30%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 963, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12183.x

    Agertz, O., Moore, B., Stadel, J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 963, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12183.x

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    R., Nidever, D

    Almeida, A., Majewski, S. R., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae373

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae373 2024

  3. [3]

    Sharina, M. E. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 138, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13010.x

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  5. [5]

    2008, ApJL, 679, L89, doi: 10.1086/589441

    Bekki, K., & Chiba, M. 2008, ApJL, 679, L89, doi: 10.1086/589441

    doi:10.1086/589441 2008

  6. [6]

    2009, PASA, 26, 37, doi: 10.1071/AS08020

    Bekki, K., & Chiba, M. 2009, PASA, 26, 37, doi: 10.1071/AS08020

    work page doi:10.1071/as08020 2009

  7. [7]

    2009, MNRAS, 395, 342, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14514.x Beraldo e Silva, L., de Siqueira Pedra, W., Sodr´ e, L.,

    Bekki, K., & Stanimirovi´ c, S. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 342, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14514.x Beraldo e Silva, L., de Siqueira Pedra, W., Sodr´ e, L.,

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Perico, E. L. D., & Lima, M. 2017, ApJ, 846, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa876e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa876e 2017

  9. [9]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts192

    Besla, G., Hernquist, L., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts192

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts192 2013

  10. [10]

    2010, ApJL, 721, L97, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L97

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2010, ApJL, 721, L97, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L97

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/l97 2010

  11. [12]

    P., et al

    Besla, G., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/20

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/20 2016

  12. [13]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

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

    2008

  13. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    Federrath, C. 2024, ApJ, 968, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118 2024

  14. [15]

    D., Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., Jameson, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/12 2011

  15. [16]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 37, doi: 10.21105/astro.2307.07549

    Bowden, H., Behroozi, P., & Hearin, A. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 37, doi: 10.21105/astro.2307.07549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    Braun, R., & Thilker, D. A. 2004, A&A, 417, 421, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034423 Br¨ uns, C., Kerp, J., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, 45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040321

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034423 2004

  17. [18]

    Burhenne, C., McQuinn, K. B. W., Cohen, R. E., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae13af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae13af 2026

  18. [19]

    T., Wechsler, R

    Busha, M. T., Wechsler, R. H., Behroozi, P. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/117

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/117 2011

  19. [20]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bf 2023

  20. [21]

    Choi, Y., Olsen, K. A. G., Besla, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e90

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e90 2022

  21. [22]

    L., Olsen, K., et al

    Choi, Y., Nidever, D. L., Olsen, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae083

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae083 2018

  22. [23]

    Cioni, M. R. L., van der Marel, R. P., Loup, C., & Habing, H. J. 2000, A&A, 359, 601, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0003223 2000

  23. [25]

    W., Kawata, D., Maddison, S

    Connors, T. W., Kawata, D., Maddison, S. T., & Gibson, B. K. 2004, PASA, 21, 222, doi: 10.1071/AS04014

    work page doi:10.1071/as04014 2004

  24. [26]

    H., Sarajedini, A., Piatti, A

    Crowl, H. H., Sarajedini, A., Piatti, A. E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 220, doi: 10.1086/321128

    work page doi:10.1086/321128 2001

  25. [27]

    R., Mackey, A

    Cullinane, L. R., Mackey, A. D., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac733 De Leo, M., Carrera, R., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 98, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1122 De Leo, M., Read, J. I., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2428

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac733 2022

  26. [28]

    R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S

    Dhanush, S. R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S. 2024, ApJ, 968, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4453

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4453 2024

  27. [29]

    R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S

    Dhanush, S. R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S. 2025, ApJ, 980, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada55f Di Teodoro, E. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Jameson, K. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3095

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada55f 2025

  28. [30]

    S., Oliveira, R

    Dias, B., Angelo, M. S., Oliveira, R. A. P., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040015

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040015 2021

  29. [31]

    C., Angelo, M., et al

    Dias, B., Parisi, M. C., Angelo, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac259 28Rathore et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac259 2022

  30. [32]

    D., & Bekki, K

    Diaz, J. D., & Bekki, K. 2012, ApJ, 750, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/36

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/36 2012

  31. [33]

    D., Cole, A

    Dobbie, P. D., Cole, A. A., Subramaniam, A., & Keller, S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu910 2014

  32. [34]

    A., Ford, H

    Dopita, M. A., Ford, H. C., Lawrence, C. J., & Webster, B. L. 1985, ApJ, 296, 390, doi: 10.1086/163457

    work page doi:10.1086/163457 1985

  33. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/148

    Emerick, A., Mac Low, M.-M., Grcevich, J., & Gatto, A. 2016, ApJ, 826, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/148

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/148 2016

  34. [36]

    R., Besla, G., Mocz, P., et al

    Foote, H. R., Besla, G., Mocz, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace533

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 2023

  35. [37]

    R., Rathore, H., Besla, G., et al

    Foote, H. R., Rathore, H., Besla, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.00946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00946 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Luri, X., Chemin, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039588

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.00946 2026

  36. [38]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb 2019

  37. [39]

    T., & Noguchi, M

    Gardiner, L. T., & Noguchi, M. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.1.191

    doi:10.1093/mnras/278.1.191 1996

  38. [40]

    I., et al

    Gatto, A., Fraternali, F., Read, J. I., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt896

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt896 2013

  39. [41]

    R., Masjedi, M., & West, A

    Geha, M., Blanton, M. R., Masjedi, M., & West, A. A. 2006, ApJ, 653, 240, doi: 10.1086/508604

    work page doi:10.1086/508604 2006

  40. [42]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7 G´ omez, F. A., White, S. D. M., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2957 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/ad61e7 2024

  41. [43]

    2009, A&A, 496, 375, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809828

    Gonidakis, I., Livanou, E., Kontizas, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 496, 375, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809828

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200809828 2009

  42. [44]

    D., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., & Clayton, G. C. 1998, ApJ, 500, 816, doi: 10.1086/305774

    doi:10.1086/305774 1998

  43. [45]

    E., & Gott, III, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  44. [46]

    2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 120901, doi: 10.1063/5.0204214

    Hamilton, C., & Fouvry, J.-B. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 120901, doi: 10.1063/5.0204214

    doi:10.1063/5.0204214 2024

  45. [47]

    B., & Azzopardi, M

    Hardy, E., Suntzeff, N. B., & Azzopardi, M. 1989, ApJ, 344, 210, doi: 10.1086/167790

    work page doi:10.1086/167790 1989

  46. [48]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  47. [49]

    2004, AJ, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2004, AJ, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953

    doi:10.1086/381953 2004

  48. [50]

    2006, AJ, 131, 2514, doi: 10.1086/500974

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2006, AJ, 131, 2514, doi: 10.1086/500974

    doi:10.1086/500974 2006

  49. [51]

    2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243 2009

  50. [52]

    D., & Hawkins, M

    Hatzidimitriou, D., Cannon, R. D., & Hawkins, M. R. S. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/261.4.873

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/261.4.873 1993

  51. [53]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 1992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu957

    Vogelsberger, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu957 2014

  52. [54]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    doi:10.1086/168845 1990

  53. [55]

    Hindman, J. V. 1967, Australian Journal of Physics, 20, 147, doi: 10.1071/PH670147

    work page doi:10.1071/ph670147 1967

  54. [56]

    L., Rieke, G

    Hinz, J. L., Rieke, G. H., & Caldwell, N. 2003, AJ, 126, 2622, doi: 10.1086/379555

    doi:10.1086/379555 2003

  55. [57]

    A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al

    Hunter, D. A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/134

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/134 2012

  56. [58]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  57. [59]

    E., Bolatto, A

    Jameson, K. E., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 12, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/12 Jim´ enez-Arranz,´O., Horta, D., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553705 Jim´ enez-Arranz,´O., & Roca-F` abrega, S. 2025, A&A, 698, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555019 Jim´ enez-Arranz,´O., Roca-F` abrega, S....

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/12 2016

  58. [60]

    2023, A&A, 672, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245720

    Masana, E. 2023, A&A, 672, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245720

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245720 2023

  59. [61]

    Johnson, H. M. 1961, PASP, 73, 20, doi: 10.1086/127613

    work page doi:10.1086/127613 1961

  60. [62]

    A., Oh, S.-H., et al

    Johnson, M., Hunter, D. A., Oh, S.-H., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/152

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/152 2012

  61. [63]

    C., Hunter, D., Wood, S., et al

    Johnson, M. C., Hunter, D., Wood, S., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 196, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/196

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/196 2015

  62. [64]

    P., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., & Alcock, C. 2006a, ApJ, 652, 1213, doi: 10.1086/508014

    doi:10.1086/508014

  63. [65]

    P., Alcock, C., et al

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Alcock, C., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 638, 772, doi: 10.1086/498972

    doi:10.1086/498972

  64. [66]

    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

  65. [67]

    Moustakas, L. A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/98

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/98 2011

  66. [68]

    L., & Mayer, L

    Kazantzidis, S., Lokas, E. L., & Mayer, L. 2013, ApJL, 764, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L29

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/l29 2013

  67. [69]

    Moustakas, L. A. 2017, ApJL, 836, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5b8f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5b8f 2017

  68. [70]

    J., & Hindman, J

    Kerr, F. J., & Hindman, J. V. 1957, PASP, 69, 558, doi: 10.1086/127147

    work page doi:10.1086/127147 1957

  69. [71]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Arag´ on-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/4 SMC Structure & Kinematics29

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/4 2011

  70. [72]

    J., D’Onghia, E., et al

    Krishnarao, D., Fox, A. J., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 915, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05090-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05090-5 2022

  71. [73]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.15608 2021

  72. [74]

    Lewis, J. S. W., Ocvirk, P., Dubois, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad081 Lokas, E. L., Athanassoula, E., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1846 Lokas, E. L., Majewski, S. R., Kazantzidis, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/61 Lokas, E. L., Semczuk, M., Gajda, G., & D’...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad081 2023

  73. [75]

    Lucchini, S., D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2021, ApJL, 921, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338 2021

  74. [76]

    Lucchini, S., D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2024, ApJ, 967, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c3b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c3b 2024

  75. [77]

    1967, MNRAS, 136, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, MNRAS, 136, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101

    doi:10.1093/mnras/136.1.101 1967

  76. [78]

    R., Schiavon, R

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d 2017

  77. [79]

    2023, A&A, 679, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346723

    Markov, V., Gallerani, S., Pallottini, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346723

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346723 2023

  78. [80]

    Massana, P., Ruiz-Lara, T., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac030

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac030 2022

  79. [81]

    S., Cleary, M

    Mathewson, D. S., Cleary, M. N., & Murray, J. D. 1974, ApJ, 190, 291, doi: 10.1086/152875

    doi:10.1086/152875 1974

  80. [82]

    S., Ford, V

    Mathewson, D. S., Ford, V. L., & Visvanathan, N. 1986, ApJ, 301, 664, doi: 10.1086/163932 Matijevi´ c, L., Tomiˇ ci´ c, N., Marasco, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.17486, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.17486

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.17486 1986

Showing first 80 references.