Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 98 references

No tidal debris links Boötes III to the Styx stream; the dwarf's tails are either too faint or already erased.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 02:46 UTC pith:PDMEHMYT

load-bearing objection Careful multi-survey null on Boo3–Styx: new CaHK metallicities plus a geometric orbit mismatch that stands independent of selection completeness. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28594 v1 pith:PDMEHMYT submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.GA

Characterizing the disruption of B\"ootes III: a missing link in the Galactic halo?

Jaclyn Jensen , Daniel A. Boyea , Alan W. McConnachie , Rapha\"el Errani , Akshara Viswanathan , Nicolas Martin , Zhen Yuan , Guillaume F. Thomas
show 9 more authors
Julio F. Navarro Kim A. Venn Pascale Jablonka Khyati Malhan Anya Dovgal Simon E.T. Smith Gustavo E. Medina Thomas de Boer Gregory S.H. Paek
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarf galaxiesMilky Way Galaxystellar streamsLocal Groupstellar photometrygalaxy dynamicsBoötes IIIStyx
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Boötes III has long been treated as the likely parent of the long Styx stellar stream because the two sit in the same sky region and the dwarf looks tidally stressed: it is diffuse, has a large velocity dispersion, a small pericenter, and an excess of candidate stars far from its center. This paper re-tests that association with Gaia members, new calcium H&K photometry, blue-horizontal-branch and red-giant tracers, and matched-filter maps from SDSS and DELVE. None of those searches recovers a coherent stream aligned with Boötes III's orbit or with Styx. The authors conclude that either the debris is too low in surface brightness for current data or the dwarf's eccentric, close-in orbit has already dispersed any coherent tails. The result matters because it removes a simple progenitor-stream pair from the Galactic halo census and shows that even systems that look actively disrupting can leave no detectable stream without deeper spectroscopy and more complete dynamical models.

Core claim

Despite multi-tracer kinematic searches and matched-filter maps of SDSS and DELVE, there is no observational evidence that directly links Boötes III to Styx. Candidate stars beyond about five half-light radii fail both distance and proper-motion tests against the dwarf's orbit, and only a few extreme orbits graze Styx's reported track. Either Boötes III's extended debris is too diffuse to detect, or its particular orbit has erased a coherent tidal signature.

What carries the argument

A dual search: (1) sigma-clipping of UNIONS BHB and RGB tracers in proper-motion versus sky position, anchored by mock Boötes III stars so the fit is not pulled by foreground errors; (2) matched-filter density maps built from a single old, metal-poor isochrone on SDSS and DELVE, compared directly to the integrated orbit and to digitized Styx nodes.

Load-bearing premise

That the kinematic clip and the isochrone matched filters would have recovered a real Boötes III stream if one existed above the estimated surface-brightness limit along the predicted orbit, so non-detection is astrophysical rather than a selection or distance-gradient failure.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic radial velocities and metallicities for a statistically useful sample of stars lying on the predicted leading or trailing orbit (especially the nearby 10–20 kpc trailing segment) that either match Boötes III or rule it out; or a deeper photometric detection of a stream whose surface brightness exceeds the ~33.4 mag arcsec−² upper limit reported here.

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

If this is right

  • Styx should be treated as an orphan stream until a different progenitor is identified.
  • Boötes III joins the short list of ultra-faint dwarfs whose disruption may leave no coherent tails above present detection limits.
  • Upper limit on any Boötes III stream surface brightness is roughly 33.4 mag arcsec−².
  • Future models of the system must include a rotating bar and the LMC if they are to test whether debris has been chaotically fanned or impulsively stripped.
  • Deeper multi-band imaging plus spectroscopy remains the only practical route to settle membership of the outer candidate stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The steep distance gradient predicted near the dwarf may systematically hide leading-arm stars even in well-tuned matched filters, so null results for other eccentric UFDs should be checked against the same gradient effect.
  • If bar-driven chaotic fanning operated at the most recent pericenter, similar non-detections should appear among other polar, low-pericenter streams once comparable multi-tracer searches are applied.
  • The revised, narrower metallicity dispersion makes chemical tagging of any future candidate members cleaner than earlier spectroscopic estimates allowed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript re-examines the long-suspected association between the ultra-faint dwarf Boötes III and the Styx stellar stream. Using Gaia-selected candidates, new CFHT/MegaCam CaHK photometry (yielding [Fe/H] = −2.1 ± 0.1 and σ_Fe/H = 0.2 ± 0.1), UNIONS BHB/RGB tracers with a kinematic sigma-clipping search, and matched-filter maps from SDSS DR17 and DELVE DR2, the authors find no co-moving debris beyond ~5 rh consistent with Boo3’s orbit and no geometric alignment between Styx’s on-sky path and the bulk of Monte Carlo orbits drawn within Boo3’s observational errors (only ~4–6% of orbits pass near ≥3 Styx nodes, preferentially at extreme μδ). They conclude there is no direct observational link, attribute the non-detection either to debris below ~33.4 mag arcsec−2 or to orbital erasure of a coherent signature, and call for spectroscopy and more complete dynamical modeling.

Significance. A careful multi-tracer null result on a widely assumed progenitor–stream pair is valuable for Galactic archaeology. The work strengthens the case that morphological and kinematic disruption indicators in UFDs need not imply a detectable, coherent stream, and it supplies an independent CaHK metallicity and a reduced metallicity dispersion that will be useful for future membership work. The geometric MC orbit test against digitized Styx nodes is a particularly clean, selection-independent pillar of the non-association claim. The particle-spray exploration of distance gradients and the explicit surface-brightness upper limit make the null falsifiable with deeper data. Credit is due for the honest framing and for cross-checking SDSS against DELVE to discard an observing-stripe artifact.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 12] §5.2 and Fig. 12: The claim that only 4% (static) / 6% (evolving) of MC orbits align with Styx rests on nodes digitized by hand from Grillmair (2009) and transformed via Stoughton et al. (2002). The manuscript does not quantify digitization or transformation uncertainty, nor does it show how the alignment fraction changes if nodes are perturbed by plausible on-sky errors (e.g., ±0.5–1°). Because this geometric mismatch is a load-bearing pillar of the non-association result, a short sensitivity test (or an explicit uncertainty on the node positions) should be added so readers can judge robustness.
  2. [§7] §7: The stream surface-brightness upper limit of ~33.4 mag arcsec−2 is obtained from the ratio of MF surface density within 1 rh of Boo3 to that of a similar area along the orbit. The procedure is only sketched; the precise apertures, background treatment, and conversion from MF weight density to mag arcsec−2 are not specified. Given that this limit is used to interpret the null as astrophysical rather than purely methodological, the calculation should be written out (or moved to an appendix) with enough detail to be reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 lists RV = 197.5 ± 3.8 km s−1 with citation “(−)”; please supply the reference (presumably Carlin et al. 2009 or an update).
  2. [§5.1] §5.1: The injection of 10,000 mock Boo3 stars to anchor the sigma-clip fit is reasonable for a null search, but a one-sentence statement that the mocks are used only to stabilize the fit (and are removed before reporting the surviving sample) would avoid confusion about sample purity.
  3. [Fig. 11] Fig. 11 / Appendix B.2: The SDSS stripe artifact argument is convincing; consider marking the stripe direction explicitly on the main MF figure so readers need not flip to the appendix.
  4. [§6.1] §6.1: The search of galstreams for a trailing-arm counterpart at 10–20 kpc is useful; briefly state the search criteria (sky box, distance window) so the non-match is reproducible.
  5. [Introduction / §4] The footnote on Li et al. (2026) spectroscopic members at 3–6 rh is important; a short comparison of their positions/kinematics to your Gaia/CaHK sample in §4 or §5 would strengthen continuity with concurrent work.
  6. Minor typography: “Bo¨ otes” / “Boötes” spacing is inconsistent in places; “DEL VE” is split oddly throughout; unify to Boötes and DELVE.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: null Boo3–Styx association is an independent multi-survey non-detection, not a fit or self-definition.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§3.1; §5.1 (sigma-clip anchoring)]
    "The first dataset used in this work is the resulting candidate list for Boo3, obtained by Jensen et al. (2024). ... In order to ensure that the trendlines indeed remain consistent to that of Boo3 ... we stabilize the fit by generating 10,000 MC sampled “stars” to represent the dwarf. ... These mock stars are appended to our sample prior to running the routine, which serves to anchor the fit to Boo3’s observables."

    Membership probabilities and the PM-fit anchor both originate in prior/overlapping-author work and Boo3’s own observables. This is minor and non-load-bearing: the Styx non-association is independently supported by external UNIONS distances/PM vectors, SDSS/DELVE MF geometry, and the MC orbit–node mismatch, none of which are forced by the Jensen catalogue or the mocks.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claim is a hedged observational null (no direct link between Boo3 and Styx; debris either too diffuse or orbitally erased). That conclusion is built from (i) UNIONS BHB/RGB tracers run through a sigma-clip that is checked against independent photometric distances and solar-reflex PM vectors, (ii) matched-filter maps on external SDSS DR17 and DELVE DR2 photometry that recover known satellites and Styx itself, and (iii) a geometric MC orbit test (1000 draws of µα*, µδ, D, RV in static and LMC-evolving AGAMA potentials) showing only 4–6% of orbits pass within 0.5° of ≥3 digitized Styx nodes, and those successes require µδ largely outside the 1σ Gaia error. None of these steps equals its inputs by construction: the MF template is a fixed 12 Gyr, [Fe/H]=−2.1 isochrone likelihood ratio, not a fit to Styx; the particle-spray is illustrative, not used to select candidates; metallicity ([Fe/H]=−2.1±0.1, σ=0.2±0.1) is newly fit to CaHK data and used only as a selection prior. The sole minor self-dependence is reuse of Jensen et al. (2024) Gaia membership probabilities (overlapping authors) plus 10k mock Boo3 stars to anchor the PM–RA linear fit against foreground pull—methodological stabilization, not a predicted quantity forced by a fit. Central null remains externally falsifiable and does not reduce to those inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim is an observational non-detection conditioned on standard Galactic-dynamics and photometric-selection machinery. Load-bearing inputs are adopted MW+LMC potentials, Boo3 phase-space observables, isochrone/MF templates, and the premise that current tracers would show a coherent stream if one existed above the stated limit.

free parameters (6)
  • Boo3 mean [Fe/H] and σ_Fe/H from CaHK MCMC = [Fe/H]=−2.1±0.1, σ=0.2±0.1
    Fit via maximum-likelihood MCMC to 39 P_max≥0.2 stars; used to gate RGB tracer selection (−2.3 to −1.9 dex).
  • MF isochrone age and fixed RGB color width = 12 Gyr; 0.1 mag
    12 Gyr Padova isochrone at [Fe/H]=−2.1 and 0.1 mag intrinsic RGB width set the satellite CMD likelihood map.
  • Sigma-clip PM radius and distance window = 2 mas yr−1; 35–80 kpc
    Hand cuts: PM within 2 mas yr−1 of Boo3; heliocentric distances 35–80 kpc; spatial box 200°≤RA≤220°, +18°≤Dec≤+35°.
  • Gaussian MF smoothing and background polynomial degree = 0.2°; degree 5
    0.2° smoothing kernel and 5th-degree polynomial background after masking known satellites.
  • Particle-spray start time and escape seeding = 3 Gyr lookback; Δt=5 Myr
    Debris initialized 3 Gyr ago; 2 massless particles per 5 Myr at Lagrange points with Plummer escape speed.
  • Stream SB upper-limit ratio method = ~33.4 mag arcsec−2
    Ratio of MF surface density within 1 rh to a similar area along the orbit yields ~33.4 mag arcsec−2.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Static Thomas & Battaglia (2022)-like and Vasiliev et al. (2021) MW+LMC potentials adequately represent the true Galactic potential for Boo3’s orbit over ±5 Gyr.
    Section 2; orbits and particle sprays are compared only in these two potentials.
  • domain assumption Gaia membership probabilities P_max≥0.2 from Jensen et al. (2024) plus CaHK quality cuts select a sufficiently pure Boo3 RGB sample for metallicity and spatial tests.
    Sections 3.1 and 4; sample narrowed to 39 stars for MDF.
  • domain assumption Pristine-style CaHK–Gaia photometric metallicity calibration (Martin et al. 2024) is unbiased for Boo3 RGB stars in the applied color and mcfrac range.
    Section 4.1; metallicities drive RGB tracer cuts.
  • ad hoc to paper Styx’s on-sky path is adequately represented by nodes digitized from Grillmair (2009) MF maps and transformed via Stoughton et al. (2002).
    Section 5.2 and Appendix A; alignment statistics depend on these nodes.
  • domain assumption Absence of co-moving UNIONS tracers and MF overdensity along the orbit implies no detectable coherent Boo3 stream above the survey limits (not merely a failed selection).
    Sections 5–7; core interpretation of the null.
  • standard math Standard astropy Solar position/velocity and right-handed Galactocentric frame conversions.
    Section 2.1 initial conditions.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 36549 in / 3708 out tokens · 71482 ms · 2026-07-31T02:46:51.664764+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The B\"ootes III (Boo3) dwarf galaxy has long been suspected of being the progenitor of Styx, a ~50{\deg}-long stellar stream that was simultaneously discovered in the same region of sky. Boo3's diffuse morphology, large velocity dispersion, small pericenter, and excess of candidate stars at large radii suggest it is undergoing active tidal disruption. A link to Styx is therefore logical; however, a clear connection between these structures has not yet been clearly demonstrated. Here, we re-examine the Boo3-Styx association by searching for Boo3's tidal debris using a combination of Gaia-selected members, new CaHK narrow-band imaging with CFHT/MegaCam, and stellar tracer catalogues of blue horizontal branch and red giant branch stars. We also conduct a broad search for a putative stream using matched filter techniques applied to SDSS DR17 and DELVE DR2. Despite our extensive search, we find no observational evidence directly linking Boo3 to Styx. Furthermore, our results suggest that either Boo3's extended substructure is too diffuse to be detected with current data, or that its particular orbit may have erased a coherent tidal signature. Boo3 thus remains an enigmatic system, and exemplifies the need for spectroscopic follow-up to properly disentangle the nature between this faint Milky Way satellite and nearby stream.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28594 by Akshara Viswanathan, Alan W. McConnachie, Anya Dovgal, Daniel A. Boyea, Gregory S.H. Paek, Guillaume F. Thomas, Gustavo E. Medina, Jaclyn Jensen, Julio F. Navarro, Khyati Malhan, Kim A. Venn, Nicolas Martin, Pascale Jablonka, Rapha\"el Errani, Simon E.T. Smith, Thomas de Boer, Zhen Yuan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rotation curves for the total static potential (con￾sisting of a composite 3-component disk, a bulge, and a DM halo) in olive and a time-evolving potential (including the LMC) in orange. We find good agreement between our cho￾sen models in comparison to the MW’s observed rotation curve (Eilers et al. 2019; cyan error bars), and also note that both models accurately reproduce the circular velocity of the Su… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gaia candidate stars of Bo¨otes III from Jensen et al. (2024). Data are colored according to their radial distance from the center, in units of elliptical half-light radii (rh). Left: Tangent plane projection of candidates, overlain on MW field stars (grey). Globular clusters within the field are labeled in white text. Right: Stellar density profile of candidates as a function of elliptical rh, in units of… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Equatorial coordinates of UNIONS BHBs (blue) and RGBs (red) stellar population catalogues for the largest contiguous area surrounding Boo3 (magenta star icon). The grey box highlights the region surrounding Boo3 selected for the sigma-clipping routine, described in Section 5. aru HyperSuprime-Cam of the Euclid Sky (WISHES) and g-band imaging through the Waterloo-Hawaii IfA g-band Survey (WHIGS). Although p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tangent position centered on Bo¨otes III (left), proper motions (center), and CMD (right) of stars from our observing runs. Black points in this figure indicate the Gaia candidate members (as in the color-coded points in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Metallicity distribution function of our Boo3 observations. The left panel presents the results of the MCMC for the metallicity and metallicity dispersion. The right shows photometric metallicities and errors for stars we consider members of Boo3 (probabilities > 20%) as a function of elliptical half-light radius (rell) in units of rh. Each star is colored corresponding to its CaHK magnitude, and previous … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proper motion space of the T18 (left panel) and T19 (right panel) catalogues represented as grey points. The data from these catalogues that are retained for the sigma– clipping routine are indicated by the colored points; blue for the BHB sample and red for the RGBs. The systemic motion of Boo3 is indicated as the magenta star icon. while also permitting us to explore potential distance gradients in the p… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Equatorial positions, proper motions, and heliocentric distances of the BHB + RGB sample. The left panels show the subset of data used in the routine (BHBs in blue, RGBs in red) compared to the total catalogues in grey. The right panels showcase the sample surviving the routine (now as green points) against the original BHB + RGB subsample (now in grey squares). We also show the expected orbit of Boo3 in t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: On-sky positions of the UNIONS BHB + RGB subsample (grey squares) compared to the sample remaining after the sigma-clipping routine (green). Vectors on these data represent the solar-corrected proper motions. The black dashed ellipse indicates 5rh, for comparison. Stars stripped from Boo3 should have similar proper motions to that of the dwarf (magenta arrow), yet we only find a limited number of stars mov… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of the CMD “lookup maps” used to estimate a star’s likelihood of association to Boo3. The final likelihood function in the right panel represents the matched filter template used to create the density map. sity function (PDF), whose mean is centered on the isochrone and whose width extends in color for a given bin in g. The width and amplitude of this Gaussian ac￾counts for (i) the uncertainties o… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Tangent plane projections of the matched filter maps produced using SDSS (left panels) and DELVE (right panels). Note that the top and bottom panels are the same maps, just with added annotations. Boo3, located at (0, 0), is highlighted with the magenta star and black dashed ellipse (representing 5rh). To indicate the differences between Boo3’s trajectory and the approximate location of Styx, we plot both… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MC sampled orbits of Boo3 in the static (olive) and time-evolving (orange). Left: As shown in the tangent plane, the Styx stream (red nodes) does not obviously align with a majority of the explored orbits. The location of Boo3 and its mean orbit (for both potentials) are indicated in magenta. Right: Distribution of initial conditions used, for only the orbits which fall within 0.5◦ of at least 3 nodes (in… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of simulated particles in various observables versus their on-sky position in RA (α) or Galactic longitude (ℓ). The phase-space trends of sprayed particles for both the static (olive) and evolving (orange) potentials are largely similar, including the significant heliocentric gradient of the leading arm (−180◦ ≲ α ≲ −150◦ ). For comparison, we indicate the location of Boo3 in each observable … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Characterizing the disruption of Bo¨otes III25 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10....

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    R., Pace, A

    Atzberger, K. R., Pace, A. B., Kallivayalil, N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21283, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.21283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21283 2026

  3. [3]

    F., & Fritz, T

    Battaglia, G., Taibi, S., Thomas, G. F., & Fritz, T. K. 2022, A&A, 657, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141528

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141528 2022

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    J., Ferguson, A

    Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, L84, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu089

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu089 2014

  6. [6]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, NewAR, 100, 101713, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101713

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/115 2013

  8. [8]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  9. [9]

    S., & Johnston, K

    Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931, doi: 10.1086/497422

    doi:10.1086/497422 2005

  10. [10]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz365

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz365 2019

  11. [11]

    L., Grillmair, C

    Carlin, J. L., Grillmair, C. J., Mu˜ noz, R. R., Nidever, D. L., & Majewski, S. R. 2009, ApJL, 702, L9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L9

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/l9 2009

  12. [12]

    L., & Sand, D

    Carlin, J. L., & Sand, D. J. 2018, ApJ, 865, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad8c1 2018

  13. [13]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020

  14. [14]

    B., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Cerny, W., Pace, A. B., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 910, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1af —. 2021b, ApJL, 920, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2d9a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe1af 2041

  15. [16]

    Correnti, M., Bellazzini, M., & Ferraro, F. R. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L26, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00677.x

    arXiv 2009

  16. [17]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19237.x

    arXiv 2011

  17. [18]

    J., Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., et al

    Deason, A. J., Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3984

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3984 2021

  18. [19]

    2025, A&A, 700, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554252

    Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., Helmi, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554252

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554252 2025

  19. [20]

    S., Adam´ ow, M., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Ferguson, P. S., Adam´ ow, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac78eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac78eb 2022

  20. [21]

    W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M

    Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 2019

  21. [22]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1371 2019

  22. [23]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3349 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Errani, R., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3349 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3349 2020

  23. [24]

    A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1198

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1198 2015

  24. [25]

    W., Belokurov, V., et al

    Fellhauer, M., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1171, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11404.x

    arXiv 2007

  25. [26]

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

    Ferguson, P., & Shipp, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05469, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05469

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.05469 2025

  26. [27]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  27. [28]

    S., White, S

    Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Davis, M., & Efstathiou, G. 1988, ApJ, 327, 507, doi: 10.1086/166213 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.10...

    doi:10.1086/166213 1988

  28. [29]

    2002, A&A, 391, 195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020612 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., et al. 2002, A&A, 391, 195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020612 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020612 2002

  29. [30]

    2024, gregreen/dustmaps: v1.0.13, v1.0.13, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10517733

    Green, G., Edenhofer, G., Krughoff, S., et al. 2024, gregreen/dustmaps: v1.0.13, v1.0.13, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10517733

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10517733 2024

  30. [31]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1118 2009

  31. [32]

    W., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al

    Gwyn, S., McConnachie, A. W., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13783. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

  33. [34]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    doi:10.1086/118116 1996

  34. [35]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97, doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 1970

  35. [36]

    Hattori, K., Erkal, D., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1006

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1006 2016

  36. [37]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  37. [38]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  38. [39]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53, doi: 10.1038/46980

    doi:10.1038/46980 1999

  39. [40]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3179

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3179 2023

  40. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 26J. Jensen et al

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  41. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d 2024

  42. [43]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M. J., & Cambr´ esy, L. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 921, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05360.x

    arXiv 2002

  43. [44]

    A., McConnachie, A., Cuilland re, J.-C., et al

    Ibata, R. A., McConnachie, A., Cuilland re, J.-C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa855c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa855c 2017

  44. [45]

    R., Sestito, F., et al

    Jensen, J., Hayes, C. R., Sestito, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3322

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3322 2024

  45. [46]

    W., et al

    Jensen, J., Thomas, G., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2325

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2325 2021

  46. [47]

    V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1999, ApJL, 512, L109, doi: 10.1086/311876 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    doi:10.1086/311876 1999

  47. [48]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    arXiv 2001

  48. [49]

    Bo\"otes III is a Tidally Disrupting Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxy on an Eccentric Polar Orbit

    Li, T. S., Erkal, D., Pace, A. B., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.07803, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.07803

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07803 2026

  49. [50]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/96 2015

  50. [51]

    P., Li, T

    Limberg, G., Ji, A. P., Li, T. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02177, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02177

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02177 2025

  51. [52]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

  52. [53]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039653 2021

  53. [54]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1986 —

    Longeard, N., Martin, N., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1986 —. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2854

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1986 2018

  54. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    Longeard, N., Jablonka, P., Arentsen, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1827

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1827 2022

  55. [56]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2227

    Longeard, N., Jablonka, P., Battaglia, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2227

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2227 2023

  56. [57]

    A., & Cuillandre, J

    Magnier, E. A., & Cuillandre, J. C. 2004, PASP, 116, 449, doi: 10.1086/420756

    doi:10.1086/420756 2004

  57. [58]

    Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082, doi: 10.1086/379504

    doi:10.1086/379504 2003

  58. [59]

    A., & Martin, N

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2474 2018

  59. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1885

    Malhan, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2024, ApJ, 964, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1885

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1885 2024

  60. [61]

    F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al

    Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347633 Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, C. E., Cerny, W., Vivas, A. K., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2368

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347633 2024

  61. [62]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad321 2023

  62. [63]

    B., et al

    Mau, S., Cerny, W., Pace, A. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6c67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6c67 2020

  63. [64]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4 2012

  64. [65]

    W., & Venn, K

    McConnachie, A. W., & Venn, K. A. 2020, AJ, 160, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba4ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba4ab 2020

  65. [66]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  66. [67]

    G., & Walker, M

    Moskowitz, A. G., & Walker, M. G. 2020, ApJ, 892, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7459 2020

  67. [68]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 2020

  68. [69]

    Pace, A. B. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 142, doi: 10.33232/001c.144859

    doi:10.33232/001c.144859 2025

  69. [71]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Johnston, K. V. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 633, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0220-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0220-3 2017

  70. [72]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460

    doi:10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 1911

  71. [73]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., & Ness, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2819 2017

  72. [74]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, Gala: Galactic astronomy and gravitational dynamics, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1707.006. http://ascl.net/1707.006

    2017

  73. [75]

    M., Sesar, B., Johnston, K

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sesar, B., Johnston, K. V., & Rix, H.-W. 2016, ApJ, 824, 104, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/104

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/104 2016

  74. [76]

    Kleyna, J. T. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 387, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09959.x

    arXiv 2006

  75. [77]

    M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E

    Rockosi, C. M., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 349, doi: 10.1086/340957

    doi:10.1086/340957 2002

  76. [78]

    V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w 2022

  77. [79]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  78. [80]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    arXiv 1998

  79. [81]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab Characterizing the disruption of Bo¨otes III27

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab Characterizing the disruption of Bo¨otes III27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab 2018

  80. [82]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93 2021

Showing first 80 references.