Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 99 references

A proper-motion screen against surrounding red clump stars identifies five kinematically outlying LMC globular clusters that bias mass estimates by up to 30%.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:26 UTC pith:QDZRCU7S

load-bearing objection Sound new framework and a useful outlier catalog, but the headline count of five PM-only outliers rests on a miscalibrated 2D significance threshold that likely drops Hodge 11. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.10118 v2 pith:QDZRCU7S submitted 2026-03-10 astro-ph.GA

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

Tamojeet Roychowdhury , Navdha , Himansh Rathore , Knut A.G. Olsen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LMC globular clustersproper motionskinematic outliersdark matter profiletracer mass estimatorGaia DR3red clump starsgalactic kinematics
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.

The paper develops a way to spot Large Magellanic Cloud globular clusters whose motion is out of step with the stars around them. Comparing each cluster's proper motion (and, where available, 3D velocity) with the average motion of surrounding red clump stars, and accounting for both measurement errors and the LMC's intrinsic velocity dispersion, it finds five clusters that are outliers in proper motion alone and ten when line-of-sight velocities are added. Because these clusters are commonly used as tracers of the LMC's gravitational potential, keeping them in the sample shifts the inferred enclosed mass by 15–30%, which would propagate directly into dark matter estimates. The outliers cluster at 3–4 kpc from the LMC center, and the authors argue they are plausible candidates for accreted or halo clusters, motivating spectroscopic follow-up.

Core claim

The central claim is that a reliable sample of kinematically outlying LMC globular clusters can be obtained by comparing each cluster's velocity vector to the average velocity vector of the red clump stars surrounding it, using two metrics: Qerr (the velocity difference divided by the propagated measurement uncertainty) and Qdisp (the same difference divided by the local velocity dispersion). Under the adopted cuts of Qerr > 3 and Qdisp > 1, five clusters—NGC 1818, NGC 1978, NGC 2210, NGC 2231, and Hodge 11—are outliers in proper motion under both a data-driven and a model-driven comparison, and ten clusters are outliers when 3D velocities are considered. The outlier sample is spatially clus

What carries the argument

The central device is the local velocity-reference comparison: for each cluster, the mean proper motion and intrinsic dispersion of red clump stars in an annulus around the cluster are estimated from Gaia DR3 astrometry using a likelihood-maximization estimator, and also predicted from an existing kinematic model of the LMC disk. The two metrics Qerr and Qdisp then separate kinematic peculiarity from measurement noise and from the disk's velocity dispersion. The annulus design (inner radius 0.05°, outer radius tuned to gather 2000–3500 stars) ensures that spatially correlated systematic errors in the astrometry cancel when forming the difference.

Load-bearing premise

The framework treats the magnitude of the 2D proper-motion difference as a 1D Gaussian deviate when defining the Qerr > 3 threshold; under the null this magnitude is Rayleigh-distributed, so the nominal 3-sigma cut may not have the stated significance.

What would settle it

Take the five PM-only outliers, form the 2D difference vector reported in Table 1, and compute the two-dimensional Gaussian p-value for the magnitude against the reported per-component errors (and the local velocity dispersion). If any of the five has p > 0.003, the Qerr > 3 criterion is miscalibrated for that cluster and the catalog claim is weakened.

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

If this is right

  • The five proper-motion outliers (NGC 1818, NGC 1978, NGC 2210, NGC 2231, Hodge 11) are prime candidates for an external or accreted origin and should be prioritized for spectroscopic follow-up.
  • Any future attempt to measure the LMC's dark matter profile using globular clusters as dynamical tracers should first screen the sample for kinematic outliers; an unscreened sample can bias enclosed mass estimates by 15–30%.
  • The clustering of outlying clusters at 3–4 kpc from the LMC center points to a shared origin or a single dynamical event, possibly connected to the LMC–SMC interaction.
  • Because no statistically significant correlation is found between cluster age and kinematic difference, the outliers cannot be explained by comparing clusters of different ages with the red clump field.
  • The same comparison framework can be applied to other galaxies where proper motions of field stars are available, providing a general method for identifying accreted star clusters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the significance calculation is corrected for the 2D Rayleigh distribution of the proper-motion difference magnitude, some of the five PM-only outliers may drop below a true 3-sigma threshold; the catalog should be read as a ranked list for follow-up rather than a strict detection list.
  • The 3–4 kpc concentration coincides with the transition of the LMC rotation curve from rising to flat; a dynamical perturbation at that radius could produce coherent velocity residuals, a possibility the paper acknowledges but does not fully model.
  • Comparing the chemical abundances and ages of the six model-flagged outliers with SMC clusters could directly test the accretion scenario the paper proposes.
  • The 15–30% mass bias, being a lower limit (the tracer-mass parameters were held fixed), implies that previous LMC mass estimates based on the full cluster catalog may carry an unaccounted systematic error.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a statistical framework for identifying kinematically outlying LMC globular clusters by comparing each cluster's Gaia DR3/Bennet et al. (2022) proper motion and radial velocity with the kinematics of surrounding red clump stars. Two routes are used: a data-driven comparison with Gaia DR3 field-star proper motions and a model-driven comparison using the Choi et al. (2022) LMC kinematic model and Vasiliev (2018) velocity dispersions. The authors define Q_err and Q_disp metrics and flag clusters with Q_err>3 and Q_disp>1. They report five proper-motion outliers (NGC 1818, NGC 1978, NGC 2210, NGC 2231, Hodge 11), six when adding the model-only case (including NGC 2005), and ten when 3D velocities are used. They further argue that removing these outliers changes the Watkins et al. (2024) tracer-mass estimate by 15–30%, implying that GC-based LMC dark matter inferences are sensitive to the kinematic outlier sample.

Significance. If the statistics are correct, this is a useful and timely framework: it directly connects Gaia-era cluster kinematics to the LMC disk velocity field and provides a concrete catalog to guide spectroscopic follow-up. The approach is largely non-circular, because the C22 model was fitted to red clump stars rather than to the GC sample being tested. The paper also makes a practical contribution by quantifying the sensitivity of tracer-mass estimates to sample selection. However, the central claims currently rest on a threshold calibration error and on model uncertainties that are not propagated; these issues affect the headline outlier list and the mass-bias percentages.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.2–3.3.3; Tables 1 and 2] Δpm is the magnitude of a two-dimensional PM difference vector. Under the null, with independent Gaussian measurement errors, Qerr = Δpm/εpm is not a Gaussian deviate but a Rayleigh variable (or a generalized 2D Gaussian magnitude if εα≠εδ). Therefore Qerr>3 is not a 3σ criterion: P(Rayleigh>3)=exp(−9/2)≈1.1%, equivalent to roughly 2.5σ two-sided. A true two-sided 3σ threshold requires Qerr≈3.44. In Table 1, Hodge 11 has Qerr=3.165 and Qdisp=1.034, so it would no longer be a PM-only outlier under a calibrated threshold; this changes the abstract's '5 GCs based on PM differences alone' and the cluster-removal set in §5.3. With 30 clusters, even the current cut expects ~0.33 false positives under the null. Please recalibrate Qerr using the 2D null distribution (or FDR) and repeat the outlier and mass-bias calculations.
  2. [Section 3.3.2–3.3.3; Tables 1 and 2] In the model-driven scenarios M2Dmodel and M3Dmodel, the uncertainty in the surrounding-star velocity is set to zero, and the C22 model parameter uncertainties are not propagated. The V18 dispersion curve is also used without uncertainty (Eq. 12–13). This systematically inflates the model-based Qerr values and makes the model-driven outlier set (including NGC 2005) optimistic. Since §5.3 uses these outlier sets to quantify the mass bias, the headline 15–30% numbers need to be re-evaluated with conservative model uncertainties or a robustness test against C22/V18 parameter variations.
  3. [Section 5.3, Eq. (16)] The 'bias' claim is not a measured bias but a sensitivity test. The TME is recomputed using the fixed α, β, γ parameters from Watkins et al. (2024) on a sample that differs from theirs (it adds NGC 2210, NGC 2159, NGC 1466, NGC 1841, Reticulum). The bootstrap significances are only ≈1.65–2σ (Section 5.3 and Figure 5), which is weak evidence that the excluded GCs produce a systematic bias rather than expected scatter. The abstract's 'bias of up to 30%' is therefore overstated. Please rederive α, β, γ for each sample or propagate their covariance, and report whether the mass differences are significant relative to a fully re-fit model.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (7); Table 1] Qdisp is used for outlier selection with a threshold Qdisp>1, but no uncertainty is attached to σpm. Several selections hinge on Qdisp values just above unity (NGC 1818: 1.019, Hodge 11: 1.034, NGC 1978: 1.14). Given the data-derived dispersions are themselves uncertain, particularly in the crowded inner 2 kpc (Section 4 / Figure 3), a hard threshold at 1 without propagated dispersion uncertainty is fragile. The authors should include uncertainties on σpm or use a probabilistic classification that accounts for them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] 'upto' should be 'up to' in both the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure 2] The text says '6 GCs identified as outliers in Table 1', but Table 1 lists five outliers. The six-cluster set is from M2Dmodel, and Figure 2's caption claims six clusters under both Mdata and M2Dmodel, which is inconsistent. Please correct the wording/caption.
  3. [Section 4, right panel] The KS-test p-values are given as 0.046 for the full population and 0.011 for outlier vs non-outlier, while the Figure 2 caption quotes p≈0.01. Please unify the quoted values and state clearly which comparison each p-value refers to.
  4. [Section 2.2.1] The threshold wording is ambiguous: 'upper error threshold that we adopt (≥0.05 mas/yr)' implies the threshold is a lower rejection bound, while the surrounding text says clusters with such errors are rejected. Please rephrase to avoid confusion.
  5. [Table 2 caption] The caption says 'The last 6 GCs have a significantly different PM and 3D velocity', but the table's row ordering and the text in Section 5 refer to the last six plus four preceding LoS-only outliers. A clearer grouping would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the outlier metric compares GC PMs to independent RC-star references, and the mass-bias claim is a sensitivity analysis rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation compares each GC's PM (Bennet et al. 2022, Gaia+HST) with the average PM of surrounding RC stars measured from Gaia DR3 using the V19 likelihood fit, and cross-checks with the C22 kinematic model whose parameters were fit to RC stars, not to the GCs. The metrics Qerr = Delta_pm/epsilon_pm and Qdisp = Delta_pm/sigma_pm (Eqs. 5-7) are therefore not fitted to the target outlier list; no equation in the paper defines the outlier criterion in terms of the mass estimate or vice versa. The TME section (Eq. 16) uses the external Watkins et al. (2024) estimator and parameters, and the 15-30% mass change is a direct propagation of removing the kinematically deviant clusters; while this sensitivity outcome is unsurprising, it is not a self-definitional reduction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (Rathore et al. 2025a,b,c; Foote et al. 2026) provide completeness fractions, center/coordinate caveats, and context, but none is load-bearing for the outlier catalog, and the catalog is also checked against independent data and the external C22/V18/JA23 products. The Rayleigh-vs-Gaussian issue with Qerr>3 (a 2D PM magnitude is not Gaussian) is a genuine statistical miscalibration that can affect the marginal outlier Hodge 11 and the multiple-testing interpretation, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on statistical thresholds, sample-selection choices, and adopted external models (C22, V18, Watkins TME parameters). The most problematic input is the treatment of a 2D PM difference as a Gaussian significance variable, plus the noiseless-model assumption.

free parameters (7)
  • Qerr and Qdisp significance thresholds = Qerr > 3, Qdisp > 1
    Chosen by hand in Section 4 to define outliers; no multiple-testing correction and no calibration of the 2D magnitude distribution.
  • Surrounding-star annulus radii and star-count window = R_in = 0.05 deg; R_out tuned 0.1-0.2 deg for 2000-3500 stars
    Ad hoc sample-selection choices in Section 2.2.1 that affect the measured mean PM and dispersion.
  • PM-selection cut and membership probability threshold = (mu*_alpha - 1.8593)^2 + (mu_delta - 0.3747)^2 <= 1.5^2; P_LMC > 0.52
    Selection thresholds in Section 2.2 taken from prior work; they shape the surrounding-star sample.
  • C22 kinematic model parameters v0, r0, eta = Adopted from Choi et al. 2022; values not quoted in this paper
    Used as noiseless model velocities in M2Dmodel and M3Dmodel; parameter uncertainties are not propagated.
  • V18 velocity-dispersion model = sigma_R,phi and sigma_z from Vasiliev 2018
    Used to compute Qdisp; no uncertainty propagated for the model dispersion.
  • TME power-law indices alpha, beta, gamma = Adopted from Watkins et al. 2024
    Reused without refitting for the altered GC sample; the authors acknowledge this in Section 5.3.
  • LMC systemic motion, center, and inclination = Kallivayalil 2013, McConnachie 2012, van der Marel 2001/2002, C22
    Coordinate/frame inputs; systemic PMs cancel in GC-surrounding differences but affect E-Lz and model comparisons.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Delta_pm / epsilon_pm can be treated as a Gaussian 3-sigma deviate.
    Eqs. 5-7 and the Qerr>3 threshold in Section 4; invalid for a 2D vector magnitude, which follows a Rayleigh distribution under a Gaussian null.
  • domain assumption Surrounding red-clump stars trace the local disk velocity at the GC's three-dimensional position.
    Core framework assumption in Sections 2.2 and 3; projection effects or halo GCs would violate it, as acknowledged in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Spatially correlated Gaia systematic errors cancel between GC and surrounding-star PMs.
    Section 3.3.1 assumes identical systematic error at the GC and across the annulus; B22 GC PMs also include HST data, so cancellation is imperfect.
  • domain assumption The C22 model and V18 dispersion model are valid, noiseless descriptions of the LMC disk.
    Sections 3.3.2-3.3.3 set model errors to zero; LMC-SMC interaction may invalidate the C22 model, as noted in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption GCs excluded from outlier analysis due to missing surrounding stars do not bias the TME comparison.
    Section 5.3 includes NGC 1466, NGC 1841, and Reticulum in the mass estimate even though they were not part of the outlier identification.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30422 in / 13638 out tokens · 123487 ms · 2026-08-02T18:26:15.973974+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The LMC's Globular Clusters (GCs) bring a novel opportunity to understand the LMC's assembly history and dark matter (DM) properties, provided the kinematically outlying GCs can be reliably identified. However, traditional diagnostics like the Energy-Angular Momentum space fail because of large uncertainties on the GC velocities. In this work, we develop a new, robust statistical framework for identifying kinematically outlying LMC GCs, by using their Gaia-DR3 Proper Motions (PMs) combined with previous Line-of-Sight (LoS) velocity measurements. We use the difference between a GC's velocity vector and the average velocity vector of the surrounding red clump stars as a metric for quantifying a GC's kinematic peculiarity. We account for both the velocity measurement uncertainties and the LMC's intrinsic velocity dispersion. We find 5 LMC GCs to be kinematically outlying based on PM differences alone, and additional 6 GCs if LoS velocity information is also used. Majority of the GCs with outlying PMs are clustered at a distance of 3-4 kpc from the LMC center. The inclusion of outlying LMC GCs introduces a bias of upto 30% in the LMC's enclosed mass estimates derived using GCs as dynamical tracers; caution must be exercised in choosing the GC sample for precisely determining the LMC's DM content. We discuss the possibility that the kinematically outlying LMC GCs may be located in the LMC's elusive stellar halo and/or they could be accreted from external galaxies. Our work thus motivates future spectroscopic follow-up of these outlying GCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10118 by Himansh Rathore, Knut A.G. Olsen, Navdha, Tamojeet Roychowdhury.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The sample of LMC GCs used in our work is plotted in the specific energy (E, x-axis) v/s specific angu￾lar momentum (Lz, y-axis) space, with their 1σ errorbars. The coordinate frame is described at the start of section 2.3. Given the large errorbars on most of the GCs, it is challeng￾ing to identify kinematic outliers with traditional diagnostics like the E-Lz space, and a new framework is needed. The grey… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: PM difference vectors (in grey) between the GC (in blue) and their surrounding RC stars (in magenta). Only the 6 GCs having a statistically significant difference with their surrounding stars under both Gaia DR3 data (Mdata) and the RC kinematic model (M2Dmodel) are shown (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: GC velocity differences are compared with the velocity dispersion of the surrounding stars, as a function of the radial coordinate (R). The velocity dispersions are obtained in two ways - using Gaia DR3 data (green solid line) and using the RGB model of Vasiliev (2018) (orange dashed line). The 6 high difference GCs identified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the kinematic differences between the LMC GC population and their surrounding stars on the GC ages. The red points correspond to the entire GC sample analyzed in this work, categorized into young GCs (age < 0.5 Gyr, 4 in number), intermediate age GCs (0.5 Gyr ≤ age ≤ 4 Gyr, 16 in number) and old GCs (age ≳ 10 Gyr, 10 in number). The blue squares denote the 6 outliers in the M2Dmodel scenario.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The GC based LMC tracer mass estimate (TME) with the full GC sample (solid blue line) v/s the estimate obtained by removing the outlier GCs flagged by Mdata, M2Dmodel and M3Dmodel (solid red line in the left, middle and right panel respectively). The turquoise histogram depicts the TME distribution of the bootstrapped realizations obtained by randomly removing the same number of GCs as the oulying GCs and … 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

99 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Minniti, J. H. 2019, PASP, 131, 024101, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae660

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae660 2019

  2. [2]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade30d 18 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy C...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade30d 2025

  3. [3]

    R., & Flower, P

    Baird, S. R., & Flower, P. J. 1986, AJ, 91, 1336, doi: 10.1086/114108

    work page doi:10.1086/114108 1986

  4. [4]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 433, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09367.x

    Battaglia, G., Helmi, A., Morrison, H., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 433, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09367.x

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    J., Beasley, M

    Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., Beasley, M. A., et al. 2004, ApJL, 610, L93, doi: 10.1086/423372

    work page doi:10.1086/423372 2004

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3920 2024

  7. [7]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac81c9

    Bennet, P., Alfaro-Cuello, M., del Pino, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac81c9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac81c9 2022

  8. [8]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 949, doi: 10.1086/521385

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 949, doi: 10.1086/521385

    doi:10.1086/521385 2007

  9. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 2109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20466.x

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20466.x

    arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    P., et al

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

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

  11. [11]

    Besla, G., Peter, A. H. G., & Garavito-Camargo, N. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 013, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/013

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/013 2019

  12. [12]

    R., Stierwalt, S., et al

    Besla, G., Patton, D. R., Stierwalt, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2041

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2041 2018

  13. [13]

    Binney, J., & Wong, L. K. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx234

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx234 2017

  14. [15]

    The puzzling theoretical predictions for the luminosity of clumping He burning stars

    Castellani, V., Degl’Innocenti, S., Girardi, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, 150, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911432

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9911432 2000

  15. [16]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19d0

    Chamberlain, K., Besla, G., Patel, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad19d0 2024

  16. [17]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e90 2022

  17. [18]

    L., Olsen, K., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae083 2018

  18. [19]

    C., Jerjen, H., Kim, D., & Schirmer, M

    Conn, B. C., Jerjen, H., Kim, D., & Schirmer, M. 2018, ApJ, 852, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9eda Correa Magnus, L., & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3726

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9eda 2018

  19. [20]

    Galactic kinematics of various stellar types

    Cowley, C. R., & Stencel, R. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06161, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06161

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.06161 2024

  20. [21]

    Where do High-Velocity Dark Matter Particles come from in the Milky Way?

    DeBrae, A., Behroozi, P., & Garavito-Camargo, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.17565, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17565 del Pino, A., Fardal, M. A., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5bf del Pino, A., Libralato, M., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70cf

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.17565 2025

  21. [22]

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

    Dhanush, S. R., Subramaniam, A., & Subramanian, S. 2024, ApJ, 968, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4453 D’Onghia, E., & Lake, G. 2008, ApJL, 686, L61, doi: 10.1086/592995

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4453 2024

  22. [23]

    A., Peter, A

    Dooley, G. A., Peter, A. H. G., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2001 2017

  23. [24]

    Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 2554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1238

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1238 2020

  24. [25]

    1987, MNRAS, 225, 155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.1.155

    Fasano, G., & Franceschini, A. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.1.155

    doi:10.1093/mnras/225.1.155 1987

  25. [26]

    R., Mucciarelli, A., Carretta, E., & Origlia, L

    Ferraro, F. R., Mucciarelli, A., Carretta, E., & Origlia, L. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, L33, doi: 10.1086/506178

    work page doi:10.1086/506178 2006

  26. [27]

    Flower, P. J. 1984, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 108, Structure and Evolution of the Magellanic Clouds, ed. S. van den Bergh & K. S. D. de Boer, 31, doi: 10.1017/S0074180900039802

    work page doi:10.1017/s0074180900039802 1984

  27. [28]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace533 2023

  28. [29]

    Mapping the Distorted Dark Matter Distribution of the LMC-SMC System Prior to Milky Way Infall with Basis Function Expansions

    Foote, H. R., Rathore, H., Besla, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.00946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00946

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.00946 2026

  29. [30]

    A., & Bridges, T

    Forbes, D. A., & Bridges, T. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1203–1214, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16373 Gaia Collaboration. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 —. 2022, Gaia Data Release 3: Summary of the content and survey properties, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2208.00211 Gaia Collaboration, Helmi, A., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A...

    arXiv 2010

  30. [31]

    K., Chaboyer, B., Cummings, J

    Gilligan, C. K., Chaboyer, B., Cummings, J. D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 5581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1174 —. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa822

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1174 2019

  31. [32]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 95, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023354 19

    Girardi, L. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 95, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023354 19

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023354 2016

  32. [33]

    K., & Koch, A

    Glatt, K., Grebel, E. K., & Koch, A. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 517, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014187

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014187 2010

  33. [34]

    S., Grebel, E

    Glatt, K., Gallagher, III, J. S., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1106, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1106 2008

  34. [35]

    Goodwin, S. P. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 286, L39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.3.L39

    doi:10.1093/mnras/286.3.l39 1997

  35. [36]

    A., & Ruiz, M

    Graham, J. A., & Ruiz, M. T. 1974, Astronomical Journal, 79, 363

    1974

  36. [37]

    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

  37. [38]

    L., & Chen, Y.-Q

    He, X.-J., Luo, A. L., & Chen, Y.-Q. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac484

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac484 2022

  38. [39]

    2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6

    Helmi, A. 2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6

    doi:10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6 2008

  39. [40]

    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

  40. [41]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/168845 1990

  41. [42]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  42. [43]

    D., Sales, L

    Jahn, E. D., Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac811

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac811 2022

  43. [44]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1343 Jiménez-Arranz, Ó., & Roca-Fàbrega, S

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D., & Belokurov, V. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1343 Jiménez-Arranz, Ó., & Roca-Fàbrega, S. 2025, A&A, 698, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555019 Jiménez-Arranz, Ó., Roca-Fàbrega, S., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349058 Jiménez-Arranz, Ó ., Romero-Gómez, M., Luri, X., et al. 20...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1343 2016

  44. [45]

    Somerville, R. S. 1999, ApJ, 527, 199, doi: 10.1086/308066

    work page doi:10.1086/308066 1999

  45. [46]

    A., Beaulieu, S

    Johnson, R. A., Beaulieu, S. F., Gilmore, G. F., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 367, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04291.x

    arXiv 2001

  46. [47]

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

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/161 2013

  47. [48]

    A., et al

    Kim, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 473, doi: 10.1086/376980

    doi:10.1086/376980 2003

  48. [49]

    A., & Bastian, N

    Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1609

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1609 2019

  49. [50]

    B., Ferguson, A

    Kuzma, P. B., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1127–1137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2280

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2280 2021

  50. [51]

    A., Hernández, J., & et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., & et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

  51. [52]

    2012, A&A, 543, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218847

    Lyubenova, M., Kuntschner, H., Rejkuba, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218847

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218847 2012

  52. [53]

    D., & Gilmore, G

    Mackey, A. D., & Gilmore, G. F. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 338, 85, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06021.x —. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 355, 504, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08343.x

    arXiv 2003

  53. [54]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad757

    Makarov, D., Khoperskov, S., Makarov, D., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad757

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad757 2023

  54. [55]

    F., Przybilla, N., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Przybilla, N., Milone, A. P., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad3cd Martínez-García, A. M., del Pino, A., Aparicio, A., van der

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad3cd 2018

  55. [56]

    P., & Watkins, L

    Marel, R. P., & Watkins, L. L. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1568

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1568 2021

  56. [57]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936135 2019

  57. [58]

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

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

  58. [59]

    E., & van der Marel, R

    McLaughlin, D. E., & van der Marel, R. P. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 161, 304, doi: 10.1086/497429

    doi:10.1086/497429 2005

  59. [60]

    P., Cordoni, G., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Cordoni, G., Marino, A. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244798

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244798 2023

  60. [61]

    1975, PASJ, 27, 533

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

    1975

  61. [62]

    R., Origlia, L., & Pecci, F

    Mucciarelli, A., Ferraro, F. R., Origlia, L., & Pecci, F. F. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 133, 2053, doi: 10.1086/513076

    work page doi:10.1086/513076 2007

  62. [63]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1247, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01493-y

    Mucciarelli, A., Massari, D., Minelli, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1247, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01493-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01493-y 2021

  63. [64]

    2018, ApJL, 863, 28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7f7

    Koposov, S. 2018, ApJL, 863, 28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7f7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad7f7 2018

  64. [65]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243378

    Narloch, W., Pietrzyń ski, G., Gieren, W., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243378

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243378 2022

  65. [66]

    Olsen, K. A. G., Hodge, P. W., Mateo, M., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 665, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01860.x

    arXiv 1998

  66. [67]

    Olsen, K. A. G., & Massey, P. 2007, ApJL, 656, L61, doi: 10.1086/512484

    work page doi:10.1086/512484 2007

  67. [68]

    Gordon, K. D. 2011, ApJ, 737, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/29

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/29 2011

  68. [69]

    Harris, H. C. 1991, AJ, 101, 515, doi: 10.1086/115701 20

    doi:10.1086/115701 1991

  69. [70]

    W., Suntzeff, N

    Olszewski, E. W., Suntzeff, N. B., & Mateo, M. 1996, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 34, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.511

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.511 1996

  70. [71]

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

    Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b 2022

  71. [72]

    D., Khoperskov, S., et al

    Pagnini, G., Matteo, P. D., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245128

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245128 2023

  72. [73]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    Patel, E., Kallivayalil, N., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b75 2020

  73. [74]

    Peacock, J. A. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.3.615

    doi:10.1093/mnras/202.3.615 1983

  74. [75]

    G., Barmby, P., et al

    Perina, S., Cohen, J. G., Barmby, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913459

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913459 2010

  75. [76]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3407

    Pfeffer, J., Lardo, C., Bastian, N., Saracino, S., & Kamann, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3407

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3407 2021

  76. [77]

    Piatti, A. E. 2014, ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2014, 398182, doi: 10.1155/2014/398182

    work page doi:10.1155/2014/398182 2014

  77. [78]

    Piatti, A. E. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 511, L72, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac010

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac010 2022

  78. [79]

    E., Keller, S

    Piatti, A. E., Keller, S. C., Mackey, A. D., & Costa, G. S. D. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1535

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1535 2014

  79. [80]

    E., & Mackey, A

    Piatti, A. E., & Mackey, A. D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 2164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1048 Pietrzyński, G., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 76, doi: 10.1038/nature11878

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1048 2018

  80. [81]

    2019, A&A, 621, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833355

    Posti, L., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 621, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833355

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833355 2019

Showing first 80 references.