Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

$S^5$: New insights from deep spectroscopic observations of the tidal tails of the globular clusters NGC 1261 and NGC 1904

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tidal debris around NGC 1904 is escaping through the cluster's inner and outer Lagrange points as it nears apocenter, and its kinematics and distances match N-body predictions.

desk verdict Solid spectroscopic confirmation of extra-tidal debris around two GCs, with a plausible apocenter L1/L2 interpretation for NGC 1904 that the abstract states more strongly than the evidence allows. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08991 v1 pith:LEHDBLZY submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.GA

Petra Awad , Ting S. Li , Denis Erkal , Reynier F. Peletier , Kerstin Bunte , Sergey E. Koposov , Andrew Li , Eduardo Balbinot
show 17 more authors
Rory Smith Marco Canducci Peter Tino Alexandra M. Senkevich Lara R. Cullinane Gary S. Da Costa Alexander P. Ji Kyler Kuehn Geraint F. Lewis Andrew B. Pace Daniel B. Zucker Joss Bland-Hawthorn Guilherme Limberg Sarah L. Martell Madeleine McKenzie Yong Yang Sam A. Usman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords globularclusterstidaltailsstellarstreamsNGC19041261BayesianmixturemodelN-bodysimulationsLagrangepoints
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 argues that the puzzling cross-shaped arrangements of stars around the globular clusters NGC 1261 and NGC 1904 are real tidal tails, not field contamination, and that their shapes are set by each cluster's orbital phase. Combining deep spectroscopy with Gaia proper motions and DECam photometry, the authors isolate high-probability member stars and compare them with N-body simulations. For NGC 1904, the clearest result is a detection of debris escaping the inner and outer Lagrange points, exactly what is expected when a cluster sits near the apocenter of an eccentric orbit. For NGC 1261, the data confirm a broad extra-tidal distribution but do not decisively match the simulations, leaving its double-stream appearance unexplained. The work matters because tidal tails are direct tracers of the Galactic potential and of a cluster's orbital history, and because it shows which extra-tidal features can be trusted as genuine stripped stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a Bayesian two-component Gaussian mixture model. The stream component has means for radial velocity and proper motion that are quadratic in the orbital coordinate $\phi_1$ and a constant mean metallicity; the background is a single Gaussian with constant means. Separate member fractions $f_{\rm in}$ and $f_{\rm out}$ are fit inside and outside the Jacobi radius $r_J$, and each star receives a membership probability from the posterior. This selection is cross-checked against N-body simulations run in a combined Milky Way plus Large Magellanic Cloud potential, using King-profile initial conditions and literature phase-space coordinates. The interpretive key is the orbital-phase dependence of inner tidal tails: near apocenter, the inner tails point toward the Galactic center and anti-center, which is the morphology seen in NGC 1904.

What would settle it

Measure photometric or parallax distances for the 51 outer NGC 1904 candidates: genuine L1/L2 debris should show the predicted $\sim 2$ kpc near/far split along $\phi_2$ and the sign flip in $\Delta v_{\rm gsr}$ across $\phi_2$, whereas field interlopers would scatter around one distance and one velocity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the top and bottom stellar overdensities around NGC 1904 are genuine cluster stars being stripped through the L1 and L2 Lagrange points as the cluster approaches apocenter. The evidence is layered: high-probability members extracted from a Bayesian mixture model share the cluster's radial velocity, proper-motion, and metallicity, align along a globular-cluster isochrone, show the same sign flip in $\Delta v_{\rm gsr}$ between the two sides that the N-body simulation produces, and display a $\sim 2$ kpc distance gradient along $\phi_2$ that, when corrected, collapses the three groups back onto one main sequence. For NGC 1261, the authors confirm a broad distribution of extra-tidal members consistent with earlier work but caution that their simulations do not reproduce the double-stream morphology, suggesting either a more complex formation history or an incomplete Milky Way model.

Load-bearing premise

The two-component Gaussian mixture model, which treats field stars as one smooth background population and assumes stream kinematics follow a quadratic curve in $\phi_1$, must assign membership correctly; if the background is lumpy or the track is misshapen, the extra-tidal structures could be model artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The candidate member lists (28 outer stars for NGC 1261 and 51 for NGC 1904) give follow-up observers specific targets to confirm membership and measure the velocity and metallicity structure of the tails.
  • NGC 1904, sitting near apocenter, is a place to search for epicyclic or periodic motions in the tidal debris, as the paper itself suggests.
  • The same Bayesian mixture modeling and N-body comparison can be applied to other globular clusters with multiple tail candidates, such as NGC 288 and NGC 2298.
  • The agreement for NGC 1904 between the observed $\Delta v_{\rm gsr}$ pattern and the simulation supports using such clusters to test the Galactic potential used in the models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the NGC 1904 detection is correct, other globular clusters observed near apocenter with the Sun placed above their orbital planes should show the same radially oriented inner-tail morphology; this is a testable prediction for a small survey of apocenter clusters.
  • The NGC 1261 mismatch between observations and simulations hints that the Milky Way bar, which the paper names as a possible culprit, can create the appearance of multiple streams; a simulation including a bar could decide whether the double stream is dynamical or an artifact of the member-selection model.
  • The paper's inflated metallicity dispersions suggest the low-resolution survey metallicities carry a systematic accuracy floor near 0.2 dex; if so, abundance spreads derived from such data should be read as upper limits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses spectroscopic measurements from the Southern Stellar Stream Spectroscopic Survey (S5), Gaia DR3 proper motions, and DECam photometry to study the extra-tidal regions of the globular clusters NGC 1261 and NGC 1904. The authors construct a two-component Bayesian mixture model (Section 3.2, Eqs. 1-16) in which the stream component has mean radial velocity and proper motions varying quadratically with the along-orbit coordinate phi1 and the background is a single Gaussian in velocity, proper motion, and metallicity. After assigning membership probabilities and applying a 60% threshold, they compare the selected stars with N-body simulations of the two clusters in a Milky Way plus LMC potential. They report recovery of the Shipp et al. (2018) cross-shaped extra-tidal features and, for NGC 1904, claim a clear detection of tidal debris escaping the inner and outer Lagrange points, supported by a velocity sign reversal, a distance gradient, and a CMD that follows the cluster isochrone. The paper concludes that the extra-tidal morphology is linked to the clusters' orbital phase: NGC 1904 is near apocenter while NGC 1261 has recently passed apocenter.

Significance. If the NGC 1904 L1/L2 detection holds, the paper would provide a rare direct observational confirmation of a predicted tidal-stripping signature at apocenter and would strengthen the case that such morphology can be used as an orbital-phase diagnostic. The manuscript has real strengths: the mixture model is specified in full with priors and best-fit values (Table 1), the polynomial tracks are fit without using the simulation, parameter uncertainty is propagated through posterior draws (Fig. 9), and a robustness run that drops mu_delta recovers the same track (Fig. 8). The comparison with the independent Ibata et al. (2024) stream catalog for NGC 1261 is also valuable. However, the central detection claim currently rests on a sample that was photometrically preselected, on a unimodal Gaussian background assumption, and on a qualitative N-body comparison; these issues must be addressed before the 'clear detection' wording in the abstract is justified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 4 (Figs. 4-5)] The CMD agreement is not an independent confirmation. Section 2 states that S5 targets were selected to have dereddened g/r colors and magnitudes similar to known GC members using DES DR2 photometry, so the sample entering the mixture model is already photometrically prefiltered. The statement in Section 4 that 'no information about the colour or magnitude of the stars has been involved in the modelling' is true of the mixture model but not of the sample construction, and the same point applies to Conclusion item 4. The authors should quantify the selection effect, for example by applying the same photometric cuts to the full DES field-star catalog and showing that the high-probability members are substantially more concentrated around the isochrone than the preselected input population.
  2. [Sections 4 and 5.1, Fig. 7] The 'clear detection' of NGC 1904 L1/L2 debris lacks a null-hypothesis test. The evidence presented is a KDE density map with a 1.5 degree kernel and a visual match to one N-body realization. Because the S5 fields were placed on the Shipp et al. (2018) overdensities and along the expected orbit, the top and bottom phi2 overdensities could be produced by the survey footprint even if the underlying field population is smooth or multimodal. I recommend reporting a significance estimate for the phi2 peaks, such as comparing the observed phi2 distribution of the 51 stars outside rJ with the distribution predicted by the background-only model, or by a label-shuffling test, and separately checking what the same analysis yields in S5 fields not targeted at these overdensities.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (1) and (10)-(13)] The single-Gaussian background is an assumption, not a tested result. The robustness test in Section 5.1 drops mu_delta but keeps the same Gaussian background, so it does not address the possibility that the 'stream' component is absorbing a second halo component or a multimodal field population. A posterior predictive check of the background model, or a fit with a two-component background, is needed to support the membership assignments on which the NGC 1904 claim rests. This is particularly relevant because the stream and background metallicity means are close for NGC 1261 (Table 1: -1.29 vs -1.32), so metallicity has little separating power in that cluster.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Figs. 6-7, 10-11] The N-body comparison is qualitative and includes several adjustable choices, including the softening length, the decision to start the simulations '4 apocenters ago,' and a positional offset correction. For the headline claim, the comparison should be made quantitative, for example with a likelihood or KS test between the observed members and the simulated particles within the S5 footprint, marginalizing over the offset and the simulation start time. As written, the statements that NGC 1261 members agree 'within two standard deviations' and that the NGC 1904 features 'directly overlap' with the simulation do not by themselves validate the L1/L2 interpretation, since the same qualitative comparison would also be consistent with a range of other models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Tables B.1 and B.2] The printed rows list identical values for RA and Dec for every star; presumably one column is missing or the formatting is wrong. Please correct the tables or clarify the column definitions.
  2. [References and Section 1] The citation 'Martell, S. L. et al. 2011' is formatted inconsistently with the rest of the reference list; use 'Martell et al. 2011' in the text and adjust the reference entry.
  3. [Section 2] The target-selection cuts would be clearer if the units and direction of the parallax cut were stated explicitly; as written, 'variants with 3-sigma parallax < 0.2' appears to be a negative-parallax rejection cut but is easy to misread.
  4. [Figure 11] The right panel shows that the distance correction makes the three groups overlap, but the text does not quote the median distance of each group or its uncertainty; reporting these numbers would strengthen the distance-gradient argument.
  5. [Section 5.4] The proposed 'systematic accuracy floor of ~0.2 dex' for rvspecfit metallicities is presented as a suspicion; consider rephrasing it as a testable statement or adding a supporting comparison, since it is used to explain the metallicity dispersion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Two supporting checks for the NGC 1904 L1/L2 claim are partly circular (CMD pre-selection and simulation-assigned distances), but the core kinematic/spatial detection remains independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (target selection) and Section 4 (CMD confirmation, Figures 4-5)]
    "The targets were further selected to have similar color and magnitude as known GC members using the photometry from DES DR2 (Abbott et al. 2021). Specifically, dereddened g and r magnitudes are used for target selection ... It is therefore significantly noteworthy to see that the majority of the stars highlighted as high-probability members have such a distribution in the CMD, especially since no information about the colour or magnitude of the stars has been involved in the modelling."

    The CMD check is presented as an independent confirmation ('no information about the colour or magnitude of the stars has been involved in the modelling'), but the input sample was already pre-selected to have dereddened g/r colors and magnitudes similar to known GC members. A narrow isochrone-like CMD distribution is therefore partly built into the target list, not independently produced by the kinematic mixture model. The check still has some content because the kinematic selection is not driven by photometry, but the claimed independence is overstated and the confirmation partially reduces to the input selection.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3, Figure 11 discussion]
    "we attribute a distance measure to each star in our sample equal to the distance of its nearest neighbour in the simulation particles. By correcting the magnitudes of the potential members given their distances, we then obtain a measure of their absolute magnitudes Mg. The right panel of the figure shows the result of this procedure where we observe that the three selected groups of stars now overlap after this correction, supporting the presence of the distance gradient predicted by the simulations and further consolidating the true membership of these stars to the GC."

    The distance gradient is not measured from the data: each observed star is assigned the distance of the nearest particle in the N-body simulation, and magnitudes are then corrected using those assigned distances. Overlap of the top/bottom/rJ groups in the corrected CMD is therefore imposed by the simulation's distance field rather than independently detected. The procedure can demonstrate photometric self-consistency with the simulated distances, but it cannot, as claimed, independently 'support the presence of the distance gradient predicted by the simulations' or independently consolidate membership from that gradient.

full rationale

The central NGC 1904 claim—clear detection of tidal debris escaping the inner and outer Lagrange points near apocenter—retains substantial independent content. The mixture model (Eqs. 1-19) fits stream means as quadratic functions of phi1 without using the simulations; the paper explicitly states that the polynomial tracks are solely a fit to the data with no assumption about the GC orbits or Milky Way potential. The spatial overdensities above and below the cluster in phi2 and the sign flip of Delta(v_gsr) between phi2 < 0 and phi2 > 0 are model-independent outputs, and the robustness run that removes mu_delta from the fit provides a genuine check against the stream component being purely an artifact of the assumed model. The N-body predictions rest on external inputs (Bovy 2015 potential, Vasiliev & Baumgardt 2021 phase-space, Baumgardt & Hilker 2018 masses) and are not justified by a self-citation chain. However, two supporting confirmations are partly circular. First, the CMD agreement is weakened because the S5 targets were pre-selected on g/r colors and magnitudes similar to known GC members, so the 'independent' isochrone check is contaminated by the input selection. Second, the distance-gradient confirmation assigns each star the distance of its nearest simulation particle before reporting that the corrected CMD overlaps and thereby 'supports' the predicted gradient; this is an input-imposed consistency check rather than a detection. These circularities inflate confidence in the NGC 1904 debris identification, but they do not, by themselves, make the central claim equivalent to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation was found. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in supporting arguments with an otherwise independent central derivation.

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

The analysis has no newly posited physical entities. Its load-bearing inputs are literature potentials, initial conditions, and the parametric form of the mixture model; the main fitted quantities are the mixture model parameters and the ad hoc threshold and alignment choices.

free parameters (5)
  • Membership probability threshold = 0.6 (60%)
    Chosen by inspecting the probability distribution and CMD in Section 4; a lower 0.5 threshold is used in robustness runs. This cut determines which stars enter the potential member sample.
  • Mixture model stream and background parameters (24 total) = Table 1
    Quadratic track coefficients for vgsr, mu_alpha, mu_delta, mean metallicities, intrinsic dispersions, and fin/fout are fitted to the S5 sample. The membership probabilities and the resulting member sample depend on these fits.
  • N-body softening length = 5e-2 pc
    Selected among four trial values to best maintain the King profile in isolation (Section 3.1).
  • N-body positional offset correction = 0.18 deg (NGC 1904), 0.57 deg (NGC 1261)
    Simulated clusters are shifted in RA/Dec to match observed present-day positions (Section 3.1). This ad hoc alignment adjusts the comparison.
  • N-body evolution start and duration = Injection 4 apocenters back, 2 Gyr total
    Both GCs are rewound 2 Gyr and injected at apocenter to adjust to tides before pericenter; results may depend on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 (Bovy 2015) represents the Milky Way.
    Used in all orbit integrations and N-body runs (Section 3.1). An incorrect potential would change predicted tidal tracks and the apocenter interpretation.
  • domain assumption The LMC is a Hernquist potential with mass 1.5e11 Msun and scale radius 17.13 kpc, with dynamical friction.
    LMC parameters from Erkal et al. (2019) are adopted without re-fitting; the LMC perturbs the GC orbits and tails.
  • domain assumption The GCs start as King profiles with W, tidal radius, and mass from literature.
    de Boer et al. (2019) and Baumgardt & Hilker (2018) provide initial conditions; stripping rate and tail morphology depend on them.
  • domain assumption The clusters have orbited on essentially their current orbits for 2 Gyr, with accretion via Gaia-Enceladus.
    The rewind and 4-apocenter start assume a 2 Gyr orbital history; a different accretion history changes the simulated debris distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-component Gaussian mixture model (Eqs. 1-16) is a correct description of stream plus field stars.
    Stream means vary quadratically in phi1 and the background is a single Gaussian. Model misspecification would bias the membership probabilities and the extracted structures.
  • domain assumption PARSEC isochrones at literature ages and metallicities describe the cluster populations.
    Used in Section 4 to separate true members from CMD contaminants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $S^5$: New insights from deep spectroscopic observations of the tidal tails of the globular clusters NGC 1261 and NGC 1904." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEHDBLZY

@misc{pith2026241108991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $S^5$: New insights from deep spectroscopic observations of the tidal tails of the globular clusters NGC 1261 and NGC 1904},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEHDBLZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08991}
}
abstract

As globular clusters (GCs) orbit the Milky Way, their stars are tidally stripped forming tidal tails that follow the orbit of the clusters around the Galaxy. The morphology of these tails is complex and shows correlations with the phase of the orbit and the orbital angular velocity, especially for GCs on eccentric orbits. Here, we focus on two GCs, NGC 1261 and NGC 1904, that have potentially been accreted alongside Gaia-Enceladus and that have shown signatures of having, in addition of tidal tails, structures formed by distributions of extra-tidal stars that are misaligned with the general direction of the clusters' respective orbits. To provide an explanation for the formation of these structures, we make use of spectroscopic measurements from the Southern Stellar Stream Spectroscopic Survey ($S^5$) as well as proper motion measurements from Gaia's third data release (DR3), and apply a Bayesian mixture modeling approach to isolate high-probability member stars. We recover extra-tidal features similar to those found in Shipp et al. (2018) surrounding each cluster. We conduct N-body simulations and compare the expected distribution and variation in the dynamical parameters along the orbit with those of our potential member sample. Furthermore, we use Dark Energy Camera (DECam) photometry to inspect the distribution of the member stars in the color-magnitude diagram (CMD). We find that the potential members agree reasonably with the N-body simulations and that the majority of them follow a simple stellar population-like distribution in the CMD which is characteristic of GCs. In the case of NGC 1904, we clearly detect the tidal debris escaping the inner and outer Lagrange points which are expected to be prominent when at or close to the apocenter of its orbit. Our analysis allows for further exploration of other GCs in the Milky Way that exhibit similar extra-tidal features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D sky plots for NGC 1261 (top) and NGC 1904 (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the targeted stars, each colored by their membership probability of belonging to NGC 1261 (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Modelled properties of stars within the sample (left for NGC 1261 and right for NGC 1904) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dereddened colour-magnitude diagram for likely NGC 1261 cluster and stream members using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Distribution in the modelled properties of the stars belonging to NGC 1261 and its stream as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A comparison between the full-fit runs described in Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We quantify the robustness of the probabilities we mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper and lower rows refer to NGC 1261 and NGC 1904 respectively. Left panels: the potential member stars within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Distance gradient along ϕ2 seen in the simulations of NGC 1904. Middle left: the top and bottom overdensities of stars are selected in cyan and magenta respectively. Potential GC members that fall within rJ are shown with empty black circles while those outside …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbits of NGC 1261 (upper row) and NGC 1904 (lower row). Each column presents a di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison with the results of Ibata et al. (2024) around NGC 1261. Streams found by Ibata et al. (2024) surrounding NGC 1261 and thought to be associated to the GC are plotted here colored differently according to the corresponding stream ID. We overplot the potentia…

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

  1. Neighbors, Not Kin: Kinematic evidence for tidal tails from NGC 7492 along the Sagittarius stream

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    GIRAFFE radial velocities and metallicities confirm NGC 7492 tidal tails extending ≥1.8 deg, kinematically and chemically distinct from the overlapping Sagittarius stream.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18

    2018

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adamów, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20

    2021

  3. [3]

    & Gieles, M

    Balbinot, E. & Gieles, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2479

    2017

  4. [4]

    X., da Costa, L

    Balbinot, E., Santiago, B. X., da Costa, L. N., Makler, M., & Maia, M. A. G. 2011, mnras, 416, 393

    2011

  5. [5]

    2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 061

    Banik, N., Bertone, G., Bovy, J., & Bozorgnia, N. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 061

    2018

  6. [6]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 325, 1323

    Baumgardt, H. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 325, 1323

    2001

  7. [7]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    2018

  8. [8]

    W., Price-Whelan, A

    Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, The Astro- physical Journal, 880, 38

    2019

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Bonaca, A., Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 70

    2020

  2. [10]

    2016, Phys

    Bovy, J. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 121301 Capuzzo Dolcetta, R., Di Matteo, P., & Miocchi, P. 2005, aj, 129, 1906

    2016

  3. [11]

    A., Martínez-Delgado, D., Navarrete, C., et al

    Carballo-Bello, J. A., Martínez-Delgado, D., Navarrete, C., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 683

    2017

  4. [12]

    Carlberg, R. G. 2012, apj, 748, 20

    2012

  5. [13]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 466, 3937 Correa Magnus, L

    Claydon, I., Gieles, M., & Zocchi, A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 466, 3937 Correa Magnus, L. & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2610

    2017

  6. [14]

    J., Heggie, D

    Daniel, K. J., Heggie, D. C., & Varri, A. L. 2017, mnras, 468, 1453 de Boer, T. J. L., Gieles, M., Balbinot, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4906

    2017

  7. [15]

    M., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4389

    2024

  8. [16]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V ., Bovy, J., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 102

    2016

  9. [17]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V ., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2685

    2019

  10. [18]

    & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D. & Belokurov, V . A. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2554

    2020

  11. [19]

    E., & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D., Koposov, S. E., & Belokurov, V . 2017, MNRAS, 470, 60

    2017

  12. [20]

    I., & Kroupa, P

    Fellhauer, M., Wilkinson, M. I., & Kroupa, P. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 954

    2009

  13. [21]

    R., Messineo, M., Fusi Pecci, F., et al

    Ferraro, F. R., Messineo, M., Fusi Pecci, F., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1738

    1999

  14. [22]

    & Heggie, D

    Fukushige, T. & Heggie, D. C. 2000, mnras, 318, 753

    2000

  15. [23]

    J., Freeman, K

    Grillmair, C. J., Freeman, K. C., Irwin, M., & Quinn, P. J. 1995, aj, 109, 2553

    1995

  16. [24]

    M., Webb, J

    Grondin, S. M., Webb, J. J., Leigh, N. W. C., Speagle, J. S., & Khalifeh, R. J. 2023, mnras, 518, 4249

    2023

  17. [25]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

    1996

  18. [26]

    Hattori, K., Erkal, D., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 497

    2016

  19. [27]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    1990

  20. [28]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1385

    2021

  21. [29]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6

    2013

  22. [30]

    F., Irwin, M., Totten, E., & Quinn, T

    Ibata, R., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M., Totten, E., & Quinn, T. 2001, ApJ, 551, 294

    2001

  23. [31]

    2021, apj, 914, 123

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Martin, N., et al. 2021, apj, 914, 123

    2021

  24. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 89

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 89

    2024

  25. [33]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M. J., & Quinn, T. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 332, 915

    2002

  26. [34]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Martin, N. F. 2016, ApJ, 819, 1

    2016

  27. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2212

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V . 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2212

    2016

  28. [36]

    P., Koposov, S

    Ji, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 32

    2021

  29. [37]

    V ., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V ., Spergel, D. N., & Haydn, C. 2002, apj, 570, 656

    2002

  30. [38]

    V ., Zhao, H., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V ., Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1999, ApJ, 512, L109

    1999

  31. [39]

    P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161

    2013

  32. [40]

    L., Kazantzidis, S., et al

    Klimentowski, J., Łokas, E. L., Kazantzidis, S., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 2162

    2009

  33. [41]

    K., & Martell, S

    Koch, A., Grebel, E. K., & Martell, S. L. 2019, A&A, 625, A75

    2019

  34. [42]

    Koposov, S. E. 2019, RVSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric param- eter fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.013

    2019

  35. [43]

    E., Erkal, D., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4936

    2023

  36. [44]

    E., Gilmore, G., Walker, M

    Koposov, S. E., Gilmore, G., Walker, M. G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 146

    2011

  37. [45]

    G., & Leigh, N

    Kounkel, M., Mcbride, A., Stassun, K. G., & Leigh, N. 2022, mnras, 517, 1946 Küpper, A. H. W., Lane, R. R., & Heggie, D. C. 2012, mnras, 420, 2700 Küpper, A. H. W., MacLeod, A., & Heggie, D. C. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1248

    2022

  38. [46]

    B., Da Costa, G

    Kuzma, P. B., Da Costa, G. S., & Mackey, A. D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 2881

    2017

  39. [47]

    B., Ferguson, A

    Kuzma, P. B., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1127

    2021

  40. [48]

    & Sills, A

    Leigh, N. & Sills, A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 2370

    2011

  41. [49]

    2000, aap, 359, 907

    Leon, S., Meylan, G., & Combes, F. 2000, aap, 359, 907

    2000

  42. [50]

    J., Cannon, R

    Lewis, I. J., Cannon, R. D., Taylor, K., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 279

    2002

  43. [51]

    & S5 Collaboration

    Li, T. & S5 Collaboration. 2021, Southern Stellar Stream Spectroscopic Survey: The First Public Data Release

    2021

  44. [52]

    S., Ji, A

    Li, T. S., Ji, A. P., Pace, A. B., et al. 2022, apj, 928, 30

    2022

  45. [53]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3508

    2019

  46. [54]

    O., Pérez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., Pérez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109

    2022

  47. [55]

    A., & Leigh, N

    Manwadkar, V ., Trani, A. A., & Leigh, N. W. C. 2020, mnras, 497, 3694 Article number, page 18 of 20 Awad et al.: The extra-tidal features of globular clusters NGC 1261 and NGC 1904

    2020

  48. [56]

    Martell, S. L. & Grebel, E. K. 2010, A&A, 519, A14

    2010

  49. [57]

    L., Shetrone, M

    Martell, S. L., Shetrone, M. D., Lucatello, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 146

    2016

  50. [58]

    L., Smolinski, J

    Martell, S. L., Smolinski, J. P., Beers, T. C., & Grebel, E. K. 2011, A&A, 534, A136

    2011

  51. [59]

    McConnachie, A. W. & Venn, K. A. 2020, AJ, 160, 124

    2020

  52. [60]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76

    2017

  53. [61]

    A., & Holz, D

    Merritt, D., Milosavljevi´c, M., Favata, M., Hughes, S. A., & Holz, D. E. 2004, apjl, 607, L9

    2004

  54. [62]

    & Nagai, R

    Miyamoto, M. & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533

    1975

  55. [63]

    & García-Bellido, J

    Montanari, F. & García-Bellido, J. 2022, Physics of the Dark Universe, 35, 100978

    2022

  56. [64]

    2007, apj, 659, 1212 Muñoz, C., Geisler, D., Villanova, S., et al

    Montuori, M., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., Di Matteo, P., Lepinette, A., & Miocchi, P. 2007, apj, 659, 1212 Muñoz, C., Geisler, D., Villanova, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4676

    2007

  57. [65]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  58. [66]

    K., Dehnen, W., et al

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Dehnen, W., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2385

    2003

  59. [67]

    K., Rockosi, C

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, L165

    2001

  60. [68]

    B., Erkal, D., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 136

    2022

  61. [69]

    Pace, A. B. & Li, T. S. 2019, ApJ, 875, 77

    2019

  62. [70]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 121

    Patel, E., Kallivayalil, N., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 121

    2020

  63. [71]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Johnston, K. V . 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 633 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200

    2017

  64. [72]

    M., Sesar, B., Johnston, K

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sesar, B., Johnston, K. V ., & Rix, H.-W. 2016, ApJ, 824, 104

    2016

  65. [73]

    E., Kruijssen, J

    Reina-Campos, M., Hughes, M. E., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3422

    2020

  66. [74]

    P., Zamora, O., Carrera, R., et al

    Schiavon, R. P., Zamora, O., Carrera, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 501

    2017

  67. [75]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  68. [76]

    2006, in Proc

    Sharp, R., Saunders, W., Smith, G., et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 6269, So- ciety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 62690G

    2006

  69. [77]

    J., Boubert, D., Gänsicke, B

    Shen, K. J., Boubert, D., Gänsicke, B. T., et al. 2018, apj, 865, 15

    2018

  70. [78]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114

    2018

  71. [79]

    2020, mnras, 495, 2222

    Sollima, A. 2020, mnras, 495, 2222

    2020

  72. [80]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  73. [81]

    Stone, N. C. & Leigh, N. W. C. 2019, nat, 576, 406 van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., & Suntze ff, N. B. 2002, AJ, 124, 2639

    2019

  74. [82]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 623

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 623

    2019

  75. [83]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Vasiliev, E. & Baumgardt, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978

    2021

  76. [84]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V ., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279

    2021

  77. [85]

    G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E

    Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., Sen, B., & Woodroofe, M. 2009, AJ, 137, 3109

    2009

  78. [86]

    Walker, M. G. & Peñarrubia, J. 2011, apj, 742, 20

    2011

  79. [87]

    D., Oliver, W

    Wan, Z., Arnold, A. D., Oliver, W. H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 192

    2023

  80. [88]

    C., Kıro˘glu, F., Fragione, G., et al

    Weatherford, N. C., Kıro˘glu, F., Fragione, G., et al. 2023, apj, 946, 104

    2023

  81. [89]

    2024, aap, 684, A205

    Xu, C., Tang, B., Li, C., et al. 2024, aap, 684, A205

    2024

  82. [90]

    Zhang, S., Mackey, D., & Da Costa, G. S. 2022, mnras, 513, 3136 1 Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 A V Groningen, The Netherlands e-mail: p.awad@rug.nl 2 Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artifi- cial Intelligenc...

    2022

  83. [91]

    Chicago, IL 60637, USA 15 Lowell Observatory, 1400 W Mars Hill Rd, Flagsta ff, AZ 86001, USA 16 Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, A28, The Uni- versity of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 17 McWilliams Center for Cosmology, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes A...

    2006

  84. [92]

    Technologies, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia 20 Universidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Astronomia, Geofísica e Ciências Atmosféricas, Departamento de Astronomia, SP 05508- 090, São Paulo, Brasil 21 School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia Arti...

    1904

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.