The DECam Field of Streams: a deep view of the Milky Way halo

Nora Shipp; Peter Ferguson

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The DECam Field of Streams: a deep view of the Milky Way halo

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new wide-area halo map reveals Milky Way tidal streams out to 100 kpc.

desk verdict Useful wide-area visual census of known halo substructure, but the 'uniform' deep map claim is not established because the DECaLS depth normalization is a crude additive offset. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05469 v1 pith:KHCBZMDF submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.GA

Peter Ferguson , Nora Shipp This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords stellarstreamsMilkyWayhalomatchedfilterDarkEnergyCameraSurveyDECaLStidaldebrissubstructure

topics Dark Energy

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

This paper presents a wide-area false-color map of the Milky Way's stellar halo, built from 18,700 square degrees of Dark Energy Camera imaging in the Dark Energy Survey and the DECam Legacy Survey. Selecting old, metal-poor stars with an isochrone-based matched filter, the map colors three distance slices blue, green, and red and reveals the network of tidal debris including dwarf galaxies, globular clusters, and numerous stellar streams out to 100 kpc. The authors' central claim is that modern DECam data already permit deep, uniform observations of halo substructure across the entire southern sky, and that providing the code and minimal data makes the map reproducible. The value of the claim is that it turns two public photometric surveys into a direct visual census of the Milky Way's accretion history.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an isochrone-based matched filter applied in g vs. g-r color-magnitude space. The filter is built from 12 Gyr, Z=0.0001 ([Fe/H]=-2.17) Dotter (2016) isochrones and parameterized as in Shipp et al. (2018): a magnitude-dependent width of twice the median photometric error, an asymmetric color spread C=(0.05, 0.1), and a distance-modulus spread of 0.5 mag. It is shifted in apparent magnitude to select stars at distance moduli 15 to 20 (10-100 kpc) in 0.1-mag steps, and the selected stars are binned into nside=512 healpixels. To make the RGB image, three distance slices (10-15, 15-26, 26-100 kpc) are averaged and assigned to blue, green, and red. DECaLS depth variations are removed by using PSFDEPTH maps to apply an additive bias to deeper regions, non-contiguous and low-latitude (|b|<20) areas are masked, and a skimage diameter-closing operation fills small gaps.

What would settle it

Take a stream that the map colors red (26-100 kpc) and cross-match it with Gaia DR3 proper-motion-selected members or the S5 spectroscopic stream catalog; if the stream's track, width, or distance disagrees, or if a stream that crosses the DES/DECaLS boundary changes color or breaks, the map's features are artifacts of the depth normalization or filter tuning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is the DECam Field of Streams itself: a false-color density map in which every pixel encodes the number of stars consistent with a 12 Gyr, [Fe/H]=-2.17 population at a given distance slice, with blue at 10-15 kpc, green at 15-26 kpc, and red at 26-100 kpc. The map visibly recovers the Sagittarius stream wrapping around the sky, the LMC and SMC, and a large set of known streams and clusters - ATLAS, Aliqa Uma, Elqui, Tucana III, Phoenix, Chenab/Orphan, the Jet stream, Triangulum-Pisces, 300S, Palomar 5, and Palomar 13. The paper's claim is that this is the first DECam-wide view of tidal debris that is deep and uniform over the southern sky to 100 kpc.

Load-bearing premise

The matched-filter parameters, tuned to empirically match globular clusters and low-mass dwarf galaxy populations, together with the additive-bias depth correction, must produce a clean, unbiased map of old, metal-poor halo stars; otherwise apparent streams could be survey artifacts and their distance colors could shift or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The DECam Field of Streams gives a uniform, wide-area visual census of halo substructure in the southern sky, extending the original Sloan Field of Streams to greater depth and sky coverage.
The map recovers a substantial fraction of known streams, clusters, and dwarf galaxies, showing that matched-filtered two-band photometry alone traces tidal debris out to 100 kpc.
The three-distance color coding provides approximate heliocentric distance information for halo structures across the entire footprint.
Releasing the code and minimal data allows other researchers to regenerate the map and adapt the filter to other surveys.
The same approach can be applied directly to the upcoming LSST survey, promising a deeper and nearly all-sky census of the outer halo.

Reading between the lines

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

Applying the same matched-filter pipeline to LSST data could yield a full-sky version of the Field of Streams and likely discover many faint, distant streams beyond 100 kpc.
A quantitative completeness test, such as injecting synthetic streams and recovering them, would turn this visual map into a statistical census; the paper does not present such a test.
The fact that the map visibly reproduces known streams at various distances suggests the additive-bias depth normalization is at least roughly working, but features unique to this map should be treated as candidates until confirmed with proper motions or spectroscopy.
Because the depth normalization normalizes counts by an additive bias rather than a full model of completeness, features near the DES/DECaLS boundary deserve special scrutiny for artifacts.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a data-product paper, and the new thing is the combined 18,700 deg^2 map with three distance bins, not the method or the streams. The map is likely a useful qualitative atlas for the community and a sensible benchmark ahead of LSST. The code and minimal data are on GitHub, which is good practice.

The paper does well in being transparent about the data cuts and the matched-filter construction. It labels known streams and clusters clearly, and the distance-bin RGB rendering is a reasonable way to show halo structure. The authors also correctly note that DES and DECaLS have different depths and attempt to account for that.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. First, the DECaLS depth equalization is an additive bias applied to deeper regions so their mean counts match shallower areas. As your stress-test note says, that can suppress genuine density contrasts that correlate with the depth pattern and can create steps at depth boundaries. The claim in Section 3 of 'deep, uniform observations' is therefore not established; the uniformity is partly enforced. Second, the filter is tuned to empirically match globular clusters and low-mass dwarfs in the same data, and those objects subsequently appear in the map. That is circular in a weak sense, but the paper does not claim new discoveries; it is a visualization. Still, the map cannot be used to validate the filter. Third, there is no completeness or contamination quantification, and the thresholds for 'regions of increased depth' are not specified, so the normalization is not reproducible from the text. Fourth, the GitHub release has no pinned commit hash, which hurts reproducibility.

I do not think these issues sink the paper. The central claim is a useful map, not a new physical detection, and the map likely delivers on that. But the 'uniform' adjective should be toned down or supported with external checks. The authors could compare the map to known stream positions from Gaia, run injection tests to quantify completeness and contamination, and either improve the depth normalization or present it as a limitation.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. It is a short, useful community resource that should be published after moderate revision. I would bring it to reading group out of curiosity, but I would not cite it in my own work until the validation is added.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Ferguson and Shipp present the 'DECam Field of Streams', a wide-angle false-color map of the Milky Way stellar halo built from DECam imaging in DES Y6 and DECaLS DR10, covering ~18,700 square degrees. They apply an isochrone-based matched filter targeting old, metal-poor populations, bin the selected stars into three distance slices (10-15, 15-26, 26-100 kpc), and render the density maps as an RGB image. The Galactic plane and Magellanic Clouds are masked and filled with a Gaia-based stellar density map. The paper describes the data selection, matched-filter parameters, a heuristic depth-normalization step for DECaLS, and a visual census of known streams, globular clusters, and dwarf galaxies. The code and minimal data are released on GitHub.

Significance. If the map is reliable, it is a useful community resource: a single wide-area visualization of known halo substructure with publicly released code and minimal data, and a preview of what LSST will deliver. The release of code and data is commendable and makes the analysis reproducible in principle. However, the paper's central claim that the map represents 'deep, uniform observations' is not yet supported: the depth-equalization step is an unvalidated additive-bias correction, and the matched-filter parameters are empirically tuned without robustness tests. With additional validation and specification, this would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, depth normalization; Section 3] The additive-bias depth normalization is the only step that addresses DECaLS depth variations, but the manuscript does not specify the threshold that defines 'regions of increased depth' nor the area over which the average counts are computed. More importantly, adding a constant offset to deeper regions forces only the mean count to match the shallower regions; it cannot correct for a depth-dependent completeness or contamination function. Any real density contrast correlated with the depth pattern is partially subtracted, while artifacts that are uniform within a region survive. A stream crossing a depth boundary would receive different offsets on each side, creating a step at exactly the boundary. Because Section 3 explicitly claims uniformity, this step is load-bearing. Please provide the exact procedure and a validation, for example by comparing the corrected map with an independent density estimate in the DES/DECaLS overlap region, or by demonstrating that known streams crossing depth gradients remain continuous in the map.
[Section 2.1 and Section 3] The matched-filter parameters are 'selected to empirically match globular clusters and low-mass dwarf galaxy stellar populations in the data,' and Section 3 then identifies those same systems as prominent features in Figure 1. This is a weak circularity: the map cannot independently validate the filter, and any newly apparent features are not secured by the current analysis. Please add robustness checks, such as maps produced with different filter widths, distance-modulus spreads, or isochrone parameters, and state more explicitly in the text that the map is an illustrative rendering of known systems, not an independent detection tool.
[Section 2.1 and Figure 1] The survey magnitude limits (DES g<=24.0, DECaLS g<=23.5) are well below the expected main-sequence turnoff for the adopted 12 Gyr, [Fe/H]=-2.17 isochrone at the farthest distance bin (26-100 kpc; m-M up to 20). For example, the turnoff at 100 kpc would be near g~24.6, beyond the DECaLS limit, so the red channel likely selects only the evolved giant branch and possibly the horizontal branch. The three color channels therefore do not trace the same stellar populations, and the apparent distances of features could be biased. Please quantify the fraction of the filter's expected stars above the magnitude limits as a function of distance, or discuss the impact of this incompleteness on the interpretation of the red features such as Elqui at ~50 kpc.

minor comments (6)

[Title] The title contains a typo: 'Milky W ay' should be 'Milky Way'.
[Section 2] There is a duplicated word in 'of of g ≤ 23.5'; it should be 'of g ≤ 23.5'.
[Section 2] The symbols RLMC and RSMC are used without definition; please state explicitly that they are angular separations from the LMC and SMC centers, respectively.
[Section 2.1] The matched filter's functional form is only described by reference to Shipp et al. (2018); since the code is released this is acceptable, but a brief inline equation or a statement that the full parametrization is in the code would improve readability.
[Section 3] The figure contains many annotations; consider providing a version with a legend or a zoom-in on the DES footprint to help the reader identify the labeled streams and clusters.
[Section 2.1] Please specify whether the three RGB channels are normalized independently before combining; the relative scaling affects the visual contrast and the interpretation of colors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the matched filter is calibrated to known old, metal-poor populations, while the stream features that form the paper's subject are not used in the calibration.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a cut-and-measure visualization, not a fitted prediction. The matched filter is built from 12 Gyr, [Fe/H] = -2.17 Dotter isochrones in Section 2.1, and the parameters are 'selected to empirically match globular clusters and low-mass dwarf galaxy stellar populations in the data.' This is calibration of the selection function to known stellar populations, not a fit to the tidal debris structures that constitute the map's main content. The globular clusters and dwarf galaxies that appear in Figure 1 are therefore expected landmarks rather than independent predictions, and the paper does not claim them as new detections. The additive-bias normalization of DECaLS depth variations in Section 2 is a potential systematic that could suppress or distort real density structure, but it is not circular: it uses survey depth maps rather than the positions of the target streams, so any concern belongs to correctness or robustness, not to circularity. The citation to Shipp et al. (2018) for the matched-filter parametrization is a method citation to prior refereed work with independent data; it is not a load-bearing self-citation of this paper's own conclusion, and the underlying isochrones and photometric catalogs are external. No equation redefines an output as an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Consequently, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The map rests on several unvalidated modeling choices: an adopted isochrone, empirically tuned filter widths, hand-chosen distance-bin edges, and an additive depth correction for DECaLS. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fit to a quantitative science target, but the visualization is not independent of the known systems used to tune the filter.

free parameters (6)

Matched-filter isochrone age and metallicity = 12 Gyr, Z = 0.0001 ([Fe/H] = -2.17)
Chosen in Section 2.1 to represent old, metal-poor populations. The map's distance assignments and stream visibility depend on this choice.
Matched-filter color spread C = (0.05, 0.1)
Section 2.1 states these parameters are selected to empirically match globular clusters and low-mass dwarf galaxy stellar populations in the data. The subsequent highlighting of these structures is partly dependent on this fit.
Distance modulus spread Delta(m-M) = 0.5 mag
Section 2.1 uses a hand-chosen extra spread in the matched filter. It affects completeness and the effective distance resolution of the map.
DECaLS depth-normalization additive bias = Not stated
Section 2 describes renormalizing deeper DECaLS regions with an additive bias so they match the average counts of shallower regions. This fitted correction can imprint or remove density variations.
Distance bin boundaries = 15 and 26 kpc
Section 2.1 chooses these boundaries for the RGB channels. They set the color coding and distance interpretation of Figure 1.
Faint magnitude limits = g <= 24.0 (DES), g <= 23.5 (DECaLS)
Section 2 sets different depth cuts for the two surveys. The difference complicates the uniformity of the matched-filter selection.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Dotter (2016) 12 Gyr, Z=0.0001 isochrones accurately represent the color-magnitude locus of old, metal-poor halo populations.
Section 2.1 builds the matched filter on these models. Mismatch would bias the selection away from true halo stars.
domain assumption The Schlegel et al. (1998) and Schlafly and Finkbeiner (2011) extinction maps correctly correct g and r magnitudes across the full footprint.
Section 2 uses these maps for both DES and DECaLS. Errors here shift stars in color-magnitude space and change the filter response.
domain assumption The additive-bias depth normalization removes survey depth variations without creating artificial overdensities or wiping out real structures.
Section 2 states deeper regions are normalized to the average of shallower regions. This assumption is not validated in the paper.
domain assumption The empirical matched-filter parameters tuned to known clusters and dwarfs generalize to the rest of the halo, including fainter or more distant streams.
Section 2.1 selects parameters to empirically match globular clusters and low-mass dwarf galaxies without an independent validation sample.
domain assumption Gaia DR3 stellar density is a suitable visual proxy for the Galactic plane and Magellanic Clouds regions where the matched filter is replaced.
Section 2 replaces the matched filter with Gaia density in these regions. The visualization there does not trace the same old, metal-poor population.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The DECam Field of Streams: a deep view of the Milky Way halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHCBZMDF

@misc{pith2026250605469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The DECam Field of Streams: a deep view of the Milky Way halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHCBZMDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05469}
}

abstract

We present a Field of Streams visualizing stellar structures in the Milky Way halo as viewed by the Dark Energy Camera (DECam). We use $g$- and $r$-band imaging from the Dark Energy Survey and the DECam Legacy Survey, covering $18{,}700 \deg^2$ across the sky. Using an isochrone-based matched filter in $g$ vs. $g-r$, we select old and metal-poor stars in three distance bins, and generate a false-color RGB image of the number density of selected stars. The DECam Field of Streams shows a variety of Milky Way halo structures, including dwarf galaxies, globular clusters, and an abundance of stellar streams, illustrating the significant progress that has been made in recent years in uncovering the building blocks of the Milky Way's stellar halo in deep, wide-area photometric surveys. This view of our Galaxy will be improved in the coming years as the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) begins to collect data to greater depths and across a larger fraction of the sky than ever before.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05469 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The DECam Field of Streams shows the spatial density of stars that are consistent with belonging to a metal poor stellar population in color-magnitude space. The RGB color channels correspond to the filter applied at three different distance bins with blue showing the closest bin (10 < d⊙ < 15) kpc, Green an intermediate bin (15 < d⊙ < 26 kpc) and red the furthest bin (26 < d⊙ < 100 kpc). This representation of the … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Characterizing the disruption of B\"ootes III: a missing link in the Galactic halo?
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

Extensive Gaia, CaHK, UNIONS, SDSS, and DELVE searches find no observational evidence that Boötes III is the progenitor of the Styx stream.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 2018
[2]

Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021
[3]

S., et al

Balbinot, E., Yanny, B., Li, T. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 58, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/58

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/58 2016
[4]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05739

Bechtol, K., Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05739

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05739 2025
[5]

B., Evans, N

Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 642, L137, doi: 10.1086/504797

doi:10.1086/504797 2006
[6]

J., Ferguson, A

Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2134

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2134 2016
[7]

2012, ApJL, 760, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L6

Bonaca, A., Geha, M., & Kallivayalil, N. 2012, ApJL, 760, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L6

doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/l6 2012
[8]

W., Price-Whelan, A

Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, ApJ, 880, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873 2019

Show all 36 references

[9]

Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19410

2024 doi arXiv
[10]

P., Conroy, C., et al

Bonaca, A., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa9 4

2021 doi
[11]

L., Rykoff, E

Burke, D. L., Rykoff, E. S., Allam, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22

2018 doi
[12]

J., Lang, D., et al

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

2019 doi
[13]

2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

2016 doi
[14]

S., et al

Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/109

2015 doi
[15]

Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1371

2019 doi
[16]

T., Honscheid, K., et al

Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

2015 doi
[17]

D., et al

Geha, M., Willman, B., Simon, J. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1464, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1464

2009 doi
[18]

J., & Dionatos, O

Grillmair, C. J., & Dionatos, O. 2006, ApJL, 643, L17, doi: 10.1086/505111

2006 doi
[19]

E., et al

Hilmi, T., Erkal, D., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02953, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02953

2024 doi arXiv
[20]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 5342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2226

Jethwa, P., Torrealba, G., Navarrete, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2226

2018 doi
[21]

E., Irwin, M., Belokurov, V., et al

Koposov, S. E., Irwin, M., Belokurov, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L85, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu060

2014 doi
[22]

E., Erkal, D., Li, T

Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad551

2023 doi
[23]

W., & Mykytyn, D

Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Mykytyn, D. 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astronomical source detection and measurement, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1604.008

2016
[24]

S., Koposov, S

Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb18

2021 doi
[25]

S., Ji, A

Li, T. S., Ji, A. P., Pace, A. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3

2022 doi
[26]

A., & Martin, N

Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., & Martin, N. F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2474

2018 doi
[27]

2023, MNRAS, 520, 5225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad321

Mateu, C. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad321

2023 doi
[28]

A., Menanteau, F., et al

Morganson, E., Gruendl, R. A., Menanteau, F., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 074501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aab4ef

2018 doi
[29]

K., Rockosi, C

Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2001, ApJL, 548, L165, doi: 10.1086/319095

2001 doi
[30]

M., & Bonaca, A

Price-Whelan, A. M., & Bonaca, A. 2018, ApJL, 863, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7b5

2018 doi
[31]

F., & Finkbeiner, D

Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

2011 doi
[32]

J., Finkbeiner, D

Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

1998 doi
[33]

M., Tavangar, K., Mateu, C., & Drlica-Wagner, A

Shipp, N., Price-Whelan, A. M., Tavangar, K., Mateu, C., & Drlica-Wagner, A. 2020, AJ, 160, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abbd3a

2020 doi
[34]

2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

2018 doi
[35]

2021, ApJ, 923, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

Shipp, N., Erkal, D., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

2021 doi
[36]

2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

2021 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 2018

[2] [2]

Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

[3] [3]

S., et al

Balbinot, E., Yanny, B., Li, T. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 58, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/58

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/58 2016

[4] [4]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05739

Bechtol, K., Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05739

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05739 2025

[5] [5]

B., Evans, N

Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 642, L137, doi: 10.1086/504797

doi:10.1086/504797 2006

[6] [6]

J., Ferguson, A

Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2134

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2134 2016

[7] [7]

2012, ApJL, 760, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L6

Bonaca, A., Geha, M., & Kallivayalil, N. 2012, ApJL, 760, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L6

doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/l6 2012

[8] [8]

W., Price-Whelan, A

Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, ApJ, 880, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873 2019