Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Formation of the Two-Armed Phase Spiral from Multiple External Perturbations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Milky Way's inner-disk two-armed phase spiral is an apparent structure formed by two one-armed spirals from two external perturbations separated by about 180 Myr.

desk verdict Good observational work on the two-armed phase spiral, but the two-perturber claim needs a single-perturber control. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04705 v2 pith:JA2OHPTQ submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.GA

Junxian Lin , Zhao-Yu Li , Rui Guo , Jason A. S. Hunt , Teresa Antoja , Chengye Cao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords two-armedphasespiralMilkyWaydiskGaiaDR3externalperturbationssatelliteencounterstest-particlesimulationsverticalspacegalacticdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the two-armed phase spiral seen in Gaia data near the inner Milky Way disk is not a single symmetric wave but the apparent overlap of two separate one-armed spirals, each imprinted by a different external perturbation. It reports that the two branches carry systematically different perturbation ages, about 500 Myr and 320 Myr, implying two close encounters separated by roughly 180 Myr. A test-particle simulation with two successive satellite passages reproduces the observed branch swapping and the age difference, showing that a newer impact need not erase the phase-space record of an older one. If correct, the Milky Way's recent assembly history includes a second, closely spaced perturbation, and phase spirals become readable archives of multiple events.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is phase wrapping in vertical phase space: a perturbation tilts stars in the $Z$-$V_Z$ plane, and differential vertical oscillation frequencies wind the tilted distribution into a spiral, which appears as a set of nearly parallel stripes in the $\theta_z$-$\Omega_z$ plane whose slope equals the perturbation time. The paper's key move is to trace the two visible branches separately and show that they have different slopes, then to explain that difference as two one-armed spirals from two impacts seen at different azimuths. The machinery also includes binning the Gaia sample by $J_\phi$ and $\theta_\phi$, tracing spiral branches in density-contrast maps, and a test-particle simulation with two impulsive satellite passages in a fixed Milky Way potential.

What would settle it

Take a single-perturber N-body simulation with self-gravity, slice it in the same $J_\phi$ and $\theta_\phi$ bins used in this paper, and measure the $\theta_z$-$\Omega_z$ slope separately for the two traced branches; reproducing the roughly 180 Myr slope split would show the two-perturber inference is not required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the apparent two-armed phase spiral in the inner disk is a superposition effect, not an intrinsic symmetric structure: it forms when two one-armed phase spirals, generated by two perturbations at different times, overlap in azimuth. In the Gaia DR3 RVS sample, segmenting stars by angular momentum $J_\phi$ and azimuthal angle $\theta_\phi$ reveals that as $\theta_\phi$ increases the significance of the two branches swaps, and the perturbation times read off from the $\theta_z$-$\Omega_z$ slopes differ systematically: roughly 500 Myr for one branch and roughly 320 Myr for the other. The authors interpret the about 180 Myr gap as the time between two external perturbers, and their test-particle simulation with two satellite passages separated by 180 Myr produces a similar apparent two-armed spiral whose branch slopes differ by roughly 150 Myr; the second impact strongly perturbs some azimuthal regions while leaving others to preserve the first spiral. The paper stresses that in the test-particle limit these structures are kinematic phase-space responses rather than self-gravitating breathing modes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the differing slopes of the two traced spiral branches come from two separate physical impacts, rather than from measurement, azimuthal viewing effects, or a single perturbation acting differently at different radii; the simulation's second satellite was deliberately chosen to produce the observed feature, so it does not independently prove that such a perturber exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way likely experienced two external perturbations about 180 Myr apart, the older roughly 500 Myr ago and the newer roughly 320 Myr ago.
  • A later encounter does not necessarily erase the vertical phase-space signature of an earlier one; the older spiral can survive in azimuthal regions the newer impact barely touches.
  • The two-armed phase spiral should be a transient, azimuth-dependent pattern: in test particles it fades into a one-armed spiral with a weak secondary branch within about 100 Myr, so the second perturber must be recent.
  • Branch swapping with azimuth becomes a diagnostic: at some $\theta_\phi$ sectors one branch dominates, at others the other, reproducing what is observed.
  • Intrinsic bar-driven two-armed spirals may still exist in lower angular-momentum regions, so the inner disk could host both mechanisms at once.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The azimuthal position of the branch swap could be mapped to the sky direction of the second impact site; a sharper prediction of where the newer spiral should dominate is a natural extension the paper does not work out.
  • Combining the branch-age split with measurements of the vertical potential, as done in prior phase-spiral work, might turn the apparent two-armed spiral into a joint constraint on the disk potential and the timing of both encounters.
  • A full self-gravitating N-body version of the two-impact scenario could test how long the older spiral survives against collective damping; if it survives much longer than in test particles, the 100 Myr persistence limit is not a strong constraint.
  • If the second perturber is real, it should leave independent traces elsewhere, for example in radial or planar phase space or in stellar streams; a search for a roughly 320-Myr-old kinematic event in other Gaia samples would test the claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Gaia DR3 RVS stars binned by angular momentum J_phi and azimuthal angle theta_phi to study the two-armed phase spiral in the Z-Vz plane. The authors trace two branches of the spiral in different azimuthal sectors and fit the relation theta_z = Omega_z t_pert + theta_z0 (Eq. 1) to derive perturbation times. They find that the blue branch (traced in -15 to -5 deg) yields t_pert ~ 500 Myr, while the green branch (traced in 5 to 15 deg) yields t_pert ~ 320 Myr, with the central sector giving ~380 Myr. Interpreting this systematic difference as the azimuthal overlap of two one-armed spirals from two distinct perturbations, they conclude that the Galactic disk experienced two external perturbers separated by ~180 Myr. They support this with test-particle simulations of two consecutive satellite passages separated by 180 Myr, which produce an apparent two-armed phase spiral and recover a ~150 Myr slope difference in the theta_z-Omega_z plane.

Significance. The observational finding of a systematic azimuthal branch swap in the two-armed phase spiral (Fig. 1) and the associated difference in fitted perturbation times is interesting and, if confirmed, would add to the evidence that the Milky Way's vertical phase-space structure records a complex, multi-event perturbation history. The paper is careful to state important limitations: it acknowledges that self-gravity is neglected, that the test-particle simulation is a toy model, and that the second satellite is 'artificially designed' to reproduce the observed feature. The comparison with existing intrinsic-breathing-mode models (bar, spiral arms) is a useful framing. However, the central claim that the ~180 Myr offset uniquely requires two distinct perturbation events is not supported by a critical control, and the simulation's predictive power is limited by its construction. The paper therefore presents a plausible scenario rather than a definitive falsification of single-perturber alternatives.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (1), Fig. 3] test
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4, Fig. 6] test
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 3] test
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] test
  2. [Figure 3 caption] test
  3. [Sec. 2] test
  4. [Sec. 4] test

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulation confirmation is circular: the 180 Myr input separation is recovered as the 'predicted' ~150 Myr offset, while the observational branch analysis itself is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Test Particle Simulation setup (Fig. 4 and surrounding text)]
    "After approximately 180 Myr, similar to the perturbation time difference measured from different branches shown in Fig. 3, a second satellite of mass 1×10 10M⊙ crosses the disk at (x, y, z) = (−10,4,0) kpc ... The chosen time separation of ∼180 Myr between two consecutive perturbations qualitatively matches the time difference between the two branches of the phase spirals in different azimuthal sectors (see Fig. 3)."

    The simulation's key free parameter — the time interval between the two perturbing satellites — is set to the observational value it is later said to confirm. The conclusion then states: 'We also set the time interval between the two perturbations in the simulation to be approximately 180 Myr, and derive a similar separation (∼150 Myr) between the phase spirals across different azimuthal sectors.' Recovering an interval similar to the one inserted into the initial conditions is a consistency check of the setup, not an independent prediction of two distinct perturbers separated by ~180 Myr.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Test Particle Simulation setup (second paragraph)]
    "The orbit and mass of the second satellite are artificially designed to create an apparent two-armed phase spiral feature without completely erasing the signature of the previous perturbation. This setup is not intended to represent any particular satellite of the Milky Way, but rather to explore how consecutive external perturbations may superpose to generate complex vertical phase space structures."

    The simulation's target outcome — an apparent two-armed phase spiral with a preserved old signature — is explicitly engineered by choosing the second satellite's orbit and mass. Therefore, the later statement that the simulation 'successfully generated a two-armed phase spiral similar to the observation' is not a first-principles validation of the two-perturber scenario; it is a demonstration that the authors could construct a model that reproduces the feature. The built-in design of the output prevents the simulation from serving as independent evidence for the inferred ~180 Myr double-perturber history.

full rationale

The observational part of the derivation is not circular. The two branches are traced independently in Fig. 1, and the perturbation times in Fig. 3 are obtained by fitting Eq. 1 to the theta_z–Omega_z slopes of the blue and green branches; the ~500 Myr versus ~320 Myr difference is a measured quantity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The circularity is confined to the simulation confirmation. The paper chooses the input time separation of the two satellites to be 'similar to the perturbation time difference measured from different branches shown in Fig. 3' and designs the second satellite 'artificially ... to create an apparent two-armed phase spiral feature'; it then reports recovering a ~150 Myr separation as support for the model. That is a by-construction consistency check, not an independent recovery of the observed offset. A further robustness issue, although not itself circularity, is that the paper does not run a single-perturber control, despite citing Gandhi et al. (2022) for one perturbation producing distinct excitation times and Asano et al. (2025) for a single-satellite asymmetric two-armed spiral; such a control would be needed to show that the azimuthal t_pert spread cannot arise from one finite-duration encounter. Overall, the central observational claim retains independent content, but the simulation-based confirmation partially reduces to its own input, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard Gaia-based phase-spiral measurement pipeline, on the assumed MWPotential2014 model, and on a test-particle simulation whose second perturber is deliberately tuned. The ledger records the tuned simulation parameters as free parameters and the second satellite as an invented entity without independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • second satellite mass = 1e10 M_sun
    Chosen ad hoc to create the apparent two-armed phase spiral without erasing the first perturbation's signature (Section 4).
  • second satellite orbit = (x,y,z)=(-10,4,0) kpc, (Vx,Vy,Vz)=(100,155,-300) km/s
    The paper states the orbit and mass are 'artificially designed' to produce the feature; this is a free tuning to match the observed morphology.
  • time separation between the two perturbations = 180 Myr
    Set to match the observed ~180 Myr difference in perturbation times (Fig. 3); the simulation's recovered ~150 Myr difference is therefore partly by construction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 accurately describes the Galactic potential for computing actions and integrating orbits
    Used in Section 2 for action computation and in Section 4 for orbit integration; if wrong, the mapping between Z-VZ and theta_z-Omega_z and the t_pert estimates change.
  • domain assumption The phase spiral in Z-VZ space maps to a set of roughly parallel lines in theta_z-Omega_z space whose slope equals t_pert
    Invoked in Section 3.2 via Equation (1); this is the standard phase spiral theory from prior work, but the paper relies on it to convert measured shapes into perturbation times.
  • domain assumption The density-contrast wedge method reliably traces the phase spiral branches
    Section 2; the branch identification is a measurement method with subjective choices (e.g., discarding outer regions), and the paper does not validate it against mock data.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-gravity can be neglected in the test-particle simulation for the qualitative purpose
    Section 4 and Conclusion explicitly neglect self-gravity, which the paper notes affects mixing timescales and the persistence of the spiral; this is a modeling assumption specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption The first satellite orbit from de la Vega et al. (2015) represents a plausible real perturber
    Section 4 adopts this orbit from the literature; the second satellite is explicitly artificial, but the first is also not independently established as the actual perturber.
invented entities (1)
  • Second satellite perturber
    purpose: To generate the apparent two-armed phase spiral by providing a second vertical impulse 180 Myr after the first, without erasing the first spiral in some azimuthal regions
    The paper states 'This setup is not intended to represent any particular satellite of the Milky Way' (Section 4). No predicted observable mass, orbit, or timing is given outside the phase-spiral morphology itself, and the orbit/mass are tuned to reproduce the observed feature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of the Two-Armed Phase Spiral from Multiple External Perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JA2OHPTQ

@misc{pith2026250604705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of the Two-Armed Phase Spiral from Multiple External Perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JA2OHPTQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04705}
}
abstract

Recent studies using the Gaia DR3 data have revealed a two-armed phase spiral in the $Z-V_Z$ phase space in the inner disk. In this study, we present new features of the two-armed phase spiral revealed by the Gaia Data and a new mechanism to explain such features with multiple external perturbations. By segmenting the Gaia DR3 RVS catalog based on $J_{\phi}$ (or $R_{g}$) and $\theta_\phi$, we confirm the existence of the clear two-armed phase spiral in the inner disk. Moreover, we identify a different two-armed phase spiral pattern at slightly larger radii, resembling a weak secondary branch along with the prominent major branch. At a given radius, with the azimuthal angle increasing, we observe a systematic transition of the two-armed phase spiral, with the significance of one branch weakened and another branch enhanced. This two-armed phase spiral may be due to the overlapping of distinct one-armed phase spirals. At different radii, the perturbation times estimated from each branch of the two-armed phase spiral are $\sim 320$ Myr and $\sim 500$ Myr, respectively, suggesting that the Galactic disk could be impacted by double external perturbers separated by $\sim 180$ Myr. We also performed test particle simulations of the disk perturbed by two satellite galaxies, which successfully generated a two-armed phase spiral similar to the observation. Both the observation and simulation results suggest that the signature in the $Z-V_Z$ phase space of earlier perturbations may not be completely erased by the more recent one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density contrast map ∆N of the Z − VZ phase space with Jϕ increasing from top to bottom rows and θϕ in￾creasing from left to right columns. In each panel, the blue and green lines represent the major and secondary branches. Note that the major (or secondary) branch in the left col￾umn becomes the secondary (or major) branch in the right column. 2019; Li & Shen 2020), we generate the number density contrast map (∆N) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The perturbation times derived from the two￾armed phase spirals in different azimuthal ranges shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The setup of the multiple perturbation sce￾nario in the test particle simulation, where the color rep￾resents the simulation time. The first satellite with a mass of 2.5×1010 M⊙ will encounter the Milky Way at (x, y, z) = (−21, −4, 0)kpc at 300 Myr. After a further 180 Myr, the second perturbation occurs at (x, y, z) = (−10, 4, 0) kpc with the satellite mass of 1 × 1010 M⊙. function (Binney 2010; Binney & McMillan 2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Z − VZ phase space number density maps for stars with 1500 < Jϕ < 1600 of the test particle simulation at 200 Myr after the secondary passage of the satellite perturbation at 85◦ < θϕ < 105◦ , 105◦ < θϕ < 125◦ , and 125◦ < θϕ < 145◦ shown in the left three panels. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The θz − Ωz space corresponding to the Z − VZ phase space of the test particle simulation with 1500 < Jϕ < 1600 km s−1 kpc (without separating θϕ) at 200 Myr after the second passage of the satellite. The green and blue lines are the best fit linear relations for the t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The face-on view (xact − yact) of the simulation at the time of the first impact (left panel: T = 300Myr), the second impact (second panel: T = 480Myr), and the final snapshot (right panel: T = 680 Myr). The green and blue dots represent the test particles in the final…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distance distributions of green and blue particles relative to the impact sites of the first (left) and second (right) impacts. In the second impact, the green particles are located much closer to the impact site compared to the blue particles. 5.1. Comparison with…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the apparent two-armed phase spirals in different azimuthal ranges with 1500 < Jϕ < 1600 km s−1 kpc. Panels with the apparent two-armed phase spiral (or secondary branch) are highlighted with blue boxes. From top to bottom rows, the time increases from 660…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., & Bensby, T

    Alinder, S., McMillan, P. J., & Bensby, T. 2023, A&A, 678, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346560 —. 2024, A&A, 690, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451387

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346560 2023

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 673, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 2023

  3. [3]

    2022, A&A, 668, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244064

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244064 2022

  4. [4]

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

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

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

  5. [5]

    Ripples spreading across the Galactic disc. Interplay of direct and indirect effects of the Sagittarius dwarf impact

    Asano, T., Fujii, M. S., Baba, J., Portegies Zwart, S., & B´ edorf, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12436 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12436 2025

  6. [6]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  8. [8]

    Bennett, M., Bovy, J., & Hunt, J. A. S. 2022, ApJ, 927, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 2318, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15845.x

    Binney, J. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 2318, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15845.x

    2010

  2. [10]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18268.x

    Binney, J., & McMillan, P. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18268.x

    2011

  3. [11]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2225

    Binney, J., & Piffl, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2225

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2378

    Binney, J., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2378

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

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

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

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 1167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz217

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sharma, S., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz217

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

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

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

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

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

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

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    L., DeLaunay, J., Newberg, H

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

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

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

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

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20869, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20869

    Chiba, R., Frankel, N., & Hamilton, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.20869, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20869

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Darling, K., & Widrow, L. M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3508

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Johnston, K. V. 2023, ApJ, 955, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf1fc de la Vega, A., Quillen, A. C., Carlin, J. L., Chakrabarti, S., & D’Onghia, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2055 de Salas, P. F., & Widmark, A. 2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 104901, d...

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Sanderson, R., et al

    Donlon, T., Newberg, H. J., Sanderson, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1264 11 D’Onghia, E., Madau, P., Vera-Ciro, C., Quillen, A., &

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/4

    Hernquist, L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/4

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Frankel, N., Bovy, J., Tremaine, S., & Hogg, D. W. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad908 Gaia Collaboration, Katz, D., Antoja, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832865

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Johnston, K

    Gandhi, S. S., Johnston, K. V., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac47f7 Garc ´ ıa-Conde, B., Antoja, T., Roca-F` abrega, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347446

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada963 G´ omez, F

    Gilman, D., Bovy, J., Frankel, N., & Benson, A. 2025, ApJ, 980, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada963 G´ omez, F. A., Minchev, I., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts327

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., Fragkoudi, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1969 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040208

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad037b

    Guo, R., Li, Z.-Y., Shen, J., Mao, S., & Liu, C. 2024, ApJ, 960, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad037b

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1483

    Guo, R., Liu, C., Mao, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1483

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86cd

    Guo, R., Shen, J., Li, Z.-Y., Liu, C., & Mao, S. 2022, ApJ, 936, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86cd

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, ApJL, 879, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25f3

    Hernquist, L. 2019, ApJL, 879, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25f3

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5

    Huang, Y., Feng, Q., Khachaturyants, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Johnston, K. V., Pettitt, A. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 818, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1987

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    Darragh-Ford, E. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunt, J. A. S., & Vasiliev, E. 2025, NewAR, 100, 101721, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101721

    2025

  29. [37]

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

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

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

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

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2199

    Li, C., Siebert, A., Monari, G., Famaey, B., & Rozier, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2199

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Li, H., & Widrow, L. M. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab574 —. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad244

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea17

    Li, Z.-Y. 2021, ApJ, 911, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea17

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, in Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys, ed

    Li, Z.-Y., & Shen, J. 2020, in Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys, ed. M. Valluri & J. A. Sellwood, Vol. 353, 10–12, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319008007

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    A., et al

    Lin, J., Guo, R., Bird, S. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae175

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

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

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

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, A&A, 651, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, A&A, 643, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038535 Sch¨ onrich, R

    Famaey, B. 2020, A&A, 643, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038535 Sch¨ onrich, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 274, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21631.x Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2020

  39. [47]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1342, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/017

    Sun, N.-C., Liu, X.-W., Huang, Y., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1342, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/017

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

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

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

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad577

    Tremaine, S., Frankel, N., & Bovy, J. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad577

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Widmark, A., Hunt, J. A. S., Laporte, C. F. P., & Monari, G. 2022a, A&A, 663, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243173

    doi

  44. [52]

    Widmark, A., Laporte, C., & de Salas, P. F. 2021a, A&A, 650, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140650

    doi

  45. [53]

    Widmark, A., Laporte, C. F. P., de Salas, P. F., & Monari, G. 2021b, A&A, 653, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141466

    doi

  46. [54]

    Widmark, A., Laporte, C. F. P., & Monari, G. 2022b, A&A, 663, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142819

    doi

  47. [55]

    Widrow, L. M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad973

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

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

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

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

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

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Carlin, J

    Xu, Y., Newberg, H. J., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/105

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Petersen, M

    Yaaqib, R., Naik, A. P., Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Petersen, M. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04095, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04095

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.