Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Vertical structure and kinematics of the LMC disc from SDSS/Gaia

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Vertical motions reveal the LMC disc is warped and its bar tilted.

desk verdict Genuinely useful dataset and a plausible non-flat LMC, but the specific tilted-bar/warp geometry is a kinematic re-parameterization rather than an independent measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04616 v1 pith:V5P7UBJD submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.GA

Ó. Jiménez-Arranz , D. Horta , R. P. van der Marel , D. Nidever , C. F. P. Laporte , E. Patel , H.-W. Rix This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LargeMagellanicClouddiscwarptiltedbarverticalkinematicsGaiaDR3SDSS-VstellarpopulationsLMC-SMCinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the Large Magellanic Cloud's stellar disc is not a flat, dynamically relaxed plane. By merging new SDSS-IV/V line-of-sight velocities with Gaia proper motions, it triples the number of LMC stars with full three-dimensional velocities and maps the vertical motions perpendicular to the disc out to about 5 kpc. The out-of-plane velocity maps show a dipole that cannot be removed by allowing the disc's symmetry axis to change with time, and only partly by re-fitting a single constant plane. Fitting the plane separately in rings and polar sectors reveals that the inclination rises from about 10 degrees in the centre to about 25 degrees in the outer disc and varies with azimuth in a quadrupolar pattern, so the authors conclude the central bar region is tilted relative to a warped outer disc. They also report the first kinematic detection of the supershell LMC 4: a patch of young stars falling with vertical velocities around −20 km/s. If correct, the result changes where the LMC's mid-plane lies and strengthens the case that a recent LMC-SMC interaction reshaped the galaxy.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the coordinate transformation between sky coordinates and the LMC's disc-plane coordinates, which expresses each star's vertical velocity v_z′ as a trigonometric function of the disc inclination i and line-of-nodes position angle Ω. For a trial (i,Ω), every star's v_z′ can be computed, and the paper minimises the chi-squared statistic χ² = Σ (v_z′,j)², i.e., the RMS vertical velocity, to find the plane that best cancels the observed dipole (Eq. 4). For the time-variability scenario the paper uses the identity v_z′ = −x′ (dΩ/dt) sin i + y′ (di/dt) to fit solid-body rotation of the disc's orientation. To go from spatially-varying viewing angles to a physical shape, the paper introduces an inversion method (Appendix A): the disc is divided into polar segments, each segment is assigned a plane from its fitted (i,Ω), and a continuous surface z′(x′,y′) is obtained by least-squares solving an over-determined linear system that enforces continuity across segment boundaries, with singular-value decomposition and bi-cubic interpolation. That machinery is what converts the kinematic dipole into a three-dimensional warp and bar-tilt.

What would settle it

A direct geometric measurement of the LMC's stellar distribution in 3D, e.g., distances to ~1,000 Cepheids or red clump stars across the disc with ~5% precision, would settle this: if the stars are found to lie on a single plane with constant inclination and line-of-nodes out to 5 kpc, the kinematic warp and bar tilt inferred from v_z′ minimisation would be artifacts rather than the true shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that the LMC disc is not a flat plane in equilibrium. Using the combined SDSS+Gaia sample and minimising the RMS vertical velocity across the disc, the paper recovers a single-plane orientation of inclination i ≈ 24° and line-of-nodes Ω ≈ 327° for the optimal sample (i ≈ 20°, Ω ≈ 330° for the complete sample), differing from the earlier Gaia-based values (i = 34°, Ω = 310°) by roughly 10–14° in inclination and 17–20° in Ω. When the same fit is performed in concentric rings, the inclination grows from about 10° at the centre to about 25° outside R′ ≈ 3.5 kpc; when performed in polar segments it shows a quadrupolar variation with azimuth, a hallmark of a warp. A model with locally-varying viewing angles removes about half of the structure in the vertical velocity maps, whereas a single re-fitted flat plane or time-varying viewing angles remove only about 20%. These spatially-resolved viewing angles are then converted into continuous three-dimensional surfaces for the disc, which show the central bar sitting in a different plane from the outer disc. The paper also identifies a clump of young stars with strongly negative vertical velocities at the position of the supershell LMC 4, the first time this structure has been seen in the resolved vertical kinematics of individual LMC stars.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the measured vertical velocities are dominated by the local orientation of the disc plane, so that minimising their RMS recovers the physical mid-plane; if bar-driven flows, expanding shells, or tidal streaming produce vertical motions unrelated to disc geometry, the inferred tilt and warp would not be the disc's true shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the disc is genuinely tilted inside a warped outer disc, kinematically-derived LMC plane parameters from flat-disc assumptions are biased; future analyses should adopt locally-varying orientation.
  • The warp pattern provides direct kinematic evidence for a recent LMC-SMC interaction, supporting the picture of a past close passage that also heated the disc.
  • The supershell LMC 4's coherent negative vertical velocity offers a new kinematic clock for recent star formation and possibly for the timing of the LMC-SMC encounter.
  • The continuous 3D disc surface will serve as a more realistic mid-plane when modelling the LMC's stellar distribution, rotation curve, and tidal interaction with the Milky Way.
  • With future data releases (e.g., Gaia DR4, full SDSS-V), the same procedure can map the disc's shape to larger radii and test whether the warp is static or evolving.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the warp is real and persists into the gas disc, HI and CO observations with comparable spatial resolution should show the same position-angle swing with radius; that is a testable prediction not made explicitly in the paper.
  • Beyond the paper: the inversion method could be applied to other nearby warped galaxies with 3D kinematics, such as M31 or M33, to separate geometric warps from non-circular streaming motions.
  • Beyond the paper: the large difference (17°) in line-of-nodes between this new plane and the earlier Gaia plane suggests that flat-disc fits to proper motions can be significantly biased by bar streaming; re-examining the earlier fits with the new plane may revise the LMC's rotation curve and dynamical mass.
  • Beyond the paper: the young-star clump at LMC 4 may be used to date the interaction if the vertical velocity perturbation decays predictably; a dedicated N-body model of the supershell could tie its launch time to the SMC's orbital history.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines SDSS-IV/V line-of-sight velocities with Gaia DR3 proper motions to build LMC samples with full 3D velocities, increasing the 5D phase-space sample by nearly a factor of three relative to earlier Gaia-only work. It maps the vertical velocity v_z' for different stellar populations, identifies a kinematic signature of the supershell LMC 4 in young stars, and tests three explanations for the observed vertical velocity structure: time-varying disc viewing angles, an incorrect flat disc plane, and a warped/twisted disc. Fitting a flat plane by minimizing the RMS v_z' gives i ~ 24 deg and Omega ~ 327 deg for the optimal sample. Fitting i and Omega in annular rings and polar segments yields a radial increase in inclination and a quadrupolar azimuthal variation in the outer disc, which the authors interpret as a tilted central bar relative to a warped outer disc. A new inversion method is presented to convert the spatially resolved viewing angles into continuous 3D disc surfaces.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper provides a substantially new picture of the LMC's 3D structure, with a different disc plane than Gaia Collaboration et al. (2021b) and direct kinematic evidence for an SMC-interaction-induced warp and tilted bar. The manuscript has clear strengths: the enlarged and better-covered sample, the deliberate use of both complete and optimal purity samples, the robustness test against the adopted LMC center, the careful separation of stellar populations, and a new 3D inversion method that is tested on analytical surfaces. However, the central claim that the spatial variations of i and Omega represent a physical warp/tilt is not yet established, because the inference method has not been validated against non-geometric vertical velocity fields, and the claimed preference for the warp model is based on RMS reduction without a penalty for the large number of free parameters. These are load-bearing issues that require additional analysis rather than simple editing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sects. 4.2 and 4.3, Eq. (4)] The inference of a physical warp and tilted bar rests on minimizing chi^2 = sum (v_z')^2 in each ring or polar segment to recover the local plane orientation. This is only valid if v_z' is dominated by the projection of a common disc plane; any intrinsic vertical velocity pattern enters the cost function with the same weight and can be partially absorbed by tilting the fitted plane. The paper itself documents a concrete non-geometric vertical flow: the LMC 4 supershell in Sect. 3.1 has |v_z'| ~ 15-20 km/s in young and BL stars, and Sect. 5.2 acknowledges that 'other effects associated to disequilibrium may play a role as well.' To establish the specific geometry 'central bar tilted relative to a warped outer disc,' the method must be tested on simulations or mocks with a known mid-plane and a known non-geometric vertical velocity field (e.g., an expanding shell or quadrupolar breathing mode). Without such a test, the recovered i(R,phi) and Omega(R,phi) maps in Figs. 11 and 12 remain degenerate with intrinsic vertical streaming.
  2. [Sect. 4.3, last paragraph] The claim that 'a warp in the LMC disc is the most likely cause' is based on the RMS of the binned v_z' maps dropping by ~50% for the warped-plane fit versus <=20% for the flat-plane and time-variation fits. But the warped model has up to 61 polar segments, each with free i and Omega (Nseg = 1 + (L-1)M = 61 for L=6, M=12), i.e., about 122 free parameters, versus two for the global plane. Adding parameters is expected to reduce the RMS even if the extra structure is noise. No statistical penalty (e.g., AIC, BIC, or cross-validation) is applied, no uncertainties on the RMS reductions are given, and the reductions are reported only as rough percentages. Please quantify the significance of the improvement, ideally by fitting low-order Fourier modes in azimuth instead of fully free segment-by-segment planes, and report whether the quadrupole in Fig. 12 is required by the data.
  3. [Sect. 4.4 and Fig. 14] The supportive comparison with KRATOS N-body snapshots is purely qualitative: the simulations were selected visually to resemble the edge-on views inferred from the data, and they were not processed through the same plane-fitting pipeline. This does not validate the inference, because the simulations already contain whatever vertical structure the visual match selected. Please either run the mock snapshots through the exact Eq. (4) fitting procedure and compare the recovered i(R,phi) and Omega(R,phi) maps with the true mid-plane, or reword this part as an illustrative suggestion rather than as supporting evidence.
  4. [Sect. 4.3 and Fig. 12] The polar-segment fits require at least 50 stars per bin, and the SDSS footprint is visibly patchy at the hexagonal-field scale (Fig. 1 and footnote 1). The assertion in Sect. 2.1 that the uneven footprint does not affect the results is not demonstrated. If the wedge sampling correlates with stellar population, distance, or velocity coverage, the inferred quadrupolar pattern could be a selection artifact. Please add a robustness test, such as repeating the wedge fits using only the Gaia RVS sample, which has more uniform coverage, or applying the same pipeline to mocks with the observed SDSS footprint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] In the Young row for the Combined complete sample, the Combined count (1,356) is smaller than the BOSS contribution (1,404) even though APOGEE adds 3 stars and Gaia adds 0; this appears to be a typographical or arithmetic error that should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix A] The text states 'Delta R' = 360 degrees / M' in the definition of the polar grid; this should presumably read 'Delta phi' = 360 degrees / M'.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The quantity minimized is called a chi-squared, but no measurement uncertainties appear in the expression; if all uncertainties are assumed equal, this should be stated explicitly, otherwise the statistic should be defined with the per-star error in the denominator.
  4. [Sect. 4.1] The enormous fitted values of dOmega/dt (up to 230 deg/Gyr) are reported before the caveat that they may be meaningless if other effects dominate; moving the caveat immediately before the numerical values would prevent a misleading first impression.
  5. [Fig. 8] The y-axis label appears as 'Azimuth, (degrees)' with the phi symbol missing; the label should read 'Azimuth, phi (degrees)' or include the appropriate symbol.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Minor circularity in presentation: the 3D disc model restates the fitted (i,Omega) map, and the KRATOS comparison is visually selected to match; the central warp/tilt conclusion still rests on direct fits.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Sect. 4.4 and Appendix A (3D inversion method)]
    "Abstract: 'We provide 3D representations of the implied LMC disc shape. These provide further evidence for perturbations caused by interaction with the SMC.' Appendix A: 'a continuous representation of the LMC disc that best matches the (i,Omega)_n ... determined on a polar grid as described in Sect. 4.3.'"

    The 3D surface is constructed by solving for z'(x',y') so that its normals reproduce the gridded (i,Omega) fits from Sect. 4.3 in a least-squares sense. The abstract then cites those 3D representations as 'further evidence' for the SMC-induced perturbations. But the features the models display--inner and outer regions in different planes, and an azimuth-dependent outer warp--are exactly the fitted viewing-angle variations rendered as a surface. The 'further evidence' therefore reduces, by construction, to the same fitted (i,Omega) map that was used to build the model.

  2. other [Sect. 4.4, bottom of Fig. 14 and its caption]
    "These were selected visually from Fig. 3 of Jiménez-Arranz et al. (2024b) for resembling the edge-on views determined here from the data. The similarities are striking, especially given that no attempt was made to quantitatively fit the simulations to these data."

    The KRATOS simulations are pre-selected by eye to resemble the very edge-on views the paper infers from the data, so the subsequent 'striking similarities' are forced by the selection criterion rather than providing independent confirmation. The preceding sentence uses this comparison to argue that the tilted-bar/warp features are 'real features and are not some observational or analysis artifact'; that support chain is circular because the resemblance is an input to, not an output of, the comparison. The cited simulation suite is also the authors' own prior work, so the corroboration is not external.

full rationale

The core derivation chain--measuring v_z' maps, fitting di/dt and dOmega/dt, minimizing Eq. (4) to find a global plane, and repeating the fit in rings and wedges to obtain (i,Omega) as functions of R' and phi--is not circular: the warp/tilt is the fitted quantity, not a quantity predicted from the fit, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the interpretation would be 'entirely meaningless' if non-geometric vertical motions dominate. The conclusion that the LMC disc is not flat is a direct reading of the fitted (i,Omega) variations, and the paper checks robustness to sample completeness/purity and center choice. The circularity identified here is confined to supporting presentations: the 3D model in Sect. 4.4 is a deterministic rendering of the fitted viewing angles, and the KRATOS comparison in Fig. 14 is visually selected to match the inferred morphology. Neither step establishes the warp independently, but neither forces the central claim, which rests on the fits themselves. Hence a moderate score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several numbers fitted to the same data: global disc viewing angles, per-ring/per-segment viewing angles, and systemic motions. There are no fundamentally new physical entities. The key modeling assumption is that the vertical velocity field is geometric in origin.

free parameters (5)
  • LMC disc inclination i (global flat fit) = 23.6 deg (optimal); 20.0 deg (complete)
    Fit by minimizing RMS vz' in Sect. 4.2; systematic difference ~3 deg between samples.
  • Line-of-nodes position angle Omega (global flat fit) = 326.9 deg (optimal); 330.0 deg (complete)
    Fit by minimizing RMS vz' in Sect. 4.2; systematic difference ~3-4 deg between samples.
  • Time derivatives di/dt and dOmega/dt = di/dt=0.76+/-0.03 km/s/kpc, dOmega/dt=2.83+/-0.07 km/s/kpc (optimal); 1.11+/-0.02 and 3.93+/-0.06 (complete)
    Fitted using Eq. 1 in Sect. 4.1; authors note these may be meaningless if other effects dominate.
  • Systemic proper motion and radial velocity = mu_alpha*=1.914 mas/yr, mu_delta=0.384 mas/yr, mu_z=-1.113 mas/yr (complete; adopted for both samples)
    Median velocity within 0.5 deg of the photometric center, Sect. 2.4 and Table 3.
  • Per-ring and per-segment i and Omega for warp model = i ranges ~10-25 deg, Omega ~320-350 deg depending on R' and azimuth
    Fitted in annular rings and polar segments in Sect. 4.3; this set has 61 segments for the full azimuthal fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All LMC stars lie in the z'=0 plane when deprojecting coordinates (infinitely thin disc approximation)
    Invoked in Sect. 2.4; needed because 3D positions of LMC stars are not available. Biases deprojected radii and vertical velocities if the disc has finite thickness or a warp.
  • ad hoc to paper The vertical velocity field is dominated by the geometric orientation of a locally flat disc plane
    Central to Sects. 4.2 and 4.3; if non-equilibrium streaming or other dynamics dominate, the inferred warp/tilt does not trace the true mid-plane.
  • ad hoc to paper The uneven SDSS footprint does not affect the results for these samples
    Stated in Sect. 2.1 without quantitative verification; the BOSS map in Fig. 1 shows strong hexagonal patchiness.
  • standard math Standard coordinate transformations, chi-square minimization, and SVD least-squares are valid
    Used in the deprojection (van der Marel 2001) and in the inversion method appendix; no formal proof is needed beyond the cited references.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vertical structure and kinematics of the LMC disc from SDSS/Gaia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5P7UBJD

@misc{pith2026250104616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vertical structure and kinematics of the LMC disc from SDSS/Gaia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5P7UBJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04616}
}
read the original abstract

[Abbreviated] Context: Studies of the LMC's internal kinematics have provided a detailed view of its structure, largely by the exquisite proper motion data supplied by Gaia. However, LoS velocities are only available for a small subset of Gaia data, limiting studies of the kinematics perpendicular to the LMC disc plane. Aims: We synergise new SDSS-IV/V LoS velocity measurements with Gaia data, increasing the 5D phase-space sample by almost a factor of three. We interpret and model the vertical structure and kinematics of the LMC disc. Methods: Split our sample into different stellar types. Then examine maps of vertical velocity moments perpendicular to the LMC disc. We interpret our results within three possible scenarios: 1) time-variability in the orientation of the disc symmetry axis; 2) use of an incorrect LMC disc plane orientation; or 3) the presence of warps or twists in the LMC disc. We also present a new method to construct a continuous 3D representation of the disc from spatially-resolved measurements of its viewing angles. Results: Using young stellar populations, we identify a region in the LMC arm with highly negative v_z'; this overlaps spatially with the supershell LMC 4. Our results indicate that: 1) the LMC viewing angles may vary with time, but this cannot explain most of the structure in v_z' maps; 2) when re-deriving the LMC disc plane by minimising the RMS vertical velocity v_z' across the disc, the inclination and line-of-nodes position angle are i ~ 24 degr and \Omega ~ 327 degr, respectively; 3) we obtain different inclinations for the inner and outer disc regions, and a quadrupolar variation with azimuth in outer the disc. We provide 3D models of the LMC disc shape. Conclusions: The combination of SDSS-IV/V and Gaia data reveal that the LMC disc is not a flat plane in equilibrium, but that the central bar region is tilted relative to a warped outer disc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the density maps between the different LMC clean samples. Top: LMC complete sample. Bottom: LMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of the line-of-sight velocities of the LMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) of the LMC optimal sample (9 810 031 stars) with the areas of the different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the median vertical velocity maps between the different LMC clean samples. Top: LMC complete sample. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representation of the LMC using astrometric and pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the median vertical velocity maps between the different evolutionary phases (see Fig. 3) of the LMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as Fig. 6, but for the vertical velocity dispersion – given by the median absolute deviation (MAD). We only display [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the azimuthal vertical velocity profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the median vertical velocity maps between the different LMC Combined samples and the disc model with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the median vertical velocity maps for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Variation of the LMC disc plane fitting as function of the azimuth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of 3D models for the LMC disc mid-plane based on the inferred spatial variations in viewing angle. Left panels: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Edge-on view of LMC 3D models. First and second row left panels: Inversion method to best fit the inferred viewing angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

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. Vertical Structure and Dynamics of a Galactic Disk

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of a multi-component disk plus halo model, arguing that gas and dark matter vertically confine the stellar disk, producing steeper-than-sech^2 profiles and flaring.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2022, , 259, 35

    Abdurro'uf , Accetta , K., Aerts , C., et al. 2022, , 259, 35

    2022

  4. [4]

    A., Figueras , F., & Romero-G \'o mez , M

    Abedi , H., Mateu , C., Aguilar , L. A., Figueras , F., & Romero-G \'o mez , M. 2014, , 442, 3627

    2014

  5. [5]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44

    2023

  6. [6]

    Avner , E. S. & King , I. R. 1967, , 72, 650

    1967

  7. [7]

    J., Erkal , D., et al

    Belokurov , V., Deason , A. J., Erkal , D., et al. 2019, , 488, L47

    2019

  8. [8]

    2012, , 421, 2109

    Besla , G., Kallivayalil , N., Hernquist , L., et al. 2012, , 421, 2109

    2012

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    R., Bershady , M

    Blanton , M. R., Bershady , M. A., Abolfathi , B., et al. 2017, , 154, 28

    2017

  2. [10]

    Boisvert , J. H. & Rhee , G. 2016, , 152, 15

    2016

  3. [11]

    G., Chu , Y.-H., & Gruendl , R

    Book , L. G., Chu , Y.-H., & Gruendl , R. A. 2008, , 175, 165

    2008

  4. [12]

    Bowen , I. S. & Vaughan , A. H., J. 1973, , 12, 1430

    1973

  5. [13]

    2011, , 414, 1560

    Boylan-Kolchin , M., Besla , G., & Hernquist , L. 2011, , 414, 1560

    2011

  6. [14]

    O., Wechsler , R

    Buch , D., Nadler , E. O., Wechsler , R. H., & Mao , Y.-Y. 2024, , 971, 79

    2024

  7. [15]

    L., Olsen , K., et al

    Choi , Y., Nidever , D. L., Olsen , K., et al. 2018, , 866, 90

    2018

  8. [16]

    Choi , Y., Olsen , K. A. G., Besla , G., et al. 2022, , 927, 153

    2022

  9. [17]

    Cioni , M. R. L., Clementini , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2011, , 527, A116

    2011

  10. [18]

    2010, , 511, A89

    Corbelli , E., Lorenzoni , S., Walterbos , R., Braun , R., & Thilker , D. 2010, , 511, A89

    2010

  11. [19]

    2018, , 616, A5

    Cropper , M., Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., et al. 2018, , 616, A5

    2018

  12. [20]

    R., Mackey , A

    Cullinane , L. R., Mackey , A. D., Da Costa , G. S., et al. 2022 a , , 510, 445

    2022

  13. [21]

    R., Mackey , A

    Cullinane , L. R., Mackey , A. D., Da Costa , G. S., et al. 2022 b , , 512, 4798

    2022

  14. [22]

    I., Clementini , G., et al

    Cusano , F., Moretti , M. I., Clementini , G., et al. 2021, , 504, 1

    2021

  15. [23]

    R., McClure-Griffiths , N

    Dawson , J. R., McClure-Griffiths , N. M., Wong , T., et al. 2013 a , , 763, 56

    2013

  16. [24]

    S., Schlegel , D

    Dawson , K. S., Schlegel , D. J., Ahn , C. P., et al. 2013 b , , 145, 10

    2013

  17. [25]

    2023, , 674, A2

    De Angeli , F., Weiler , M., Montegriffo , P., et al. 2023, , 674, A2

    2023

  18. [26]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  19. [27]

    & Freeman , K

    de Vaucouleurs , G. & Freeman , K. C. 1972, Vistas in Astronomy, 14, 163

    1972

  20. [28]

    A., Mathewson , D

    Dopita , M. A., Mathewson , D. S., & Ford , V. L. 1985, , 297, 599

    1985

  21. [29]

    J., Weinberg , D

    Eisenstein , D. J., Weinberg , D. H., Agol , E., et al. 2011, , 142, 72

    2011

  22. [30]

    Elmegreen , D. M. & Elmegreen , B. G. 1980, , 85, 1325

    1980

  23. [31]

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

    2019

  24. [32]

    2014, , 796, 123

    Fujii , K., Minamidani , T., Mizuno , N., et al. 2014, , 796, 123

    2014

  25. [33]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018 a , , 616, A1

    2018

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021 a , , 649, A1

    2021

  27. [35]

    2023, , 674, A37

    Gaia Collaboration , Drimmel , R., Romero-G \'o mez , M., et al. 2023, , 674, A37

    2023

  28. [36]

    2018 b , , 616, A12

    Gaia Collaboration , Helmi , A., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018 b , , 616, A12

    2018

  29. [37]

    2021 b , , 649, A7

    Gaia Collaboration , Luri , X., Chemin , L., et al. 2021 b , , 649, A7

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  31. [39]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    & Hunter , D

    Gallagher , John S., I. & Hunter , D. A. 1984, , 22, 37

    1984

  33. [41]

    E., Siegmund , W

    Gunn , J. E., Siegmund , W. A., Mannery , E. J., et al. 2006, , 131, 2332

    2006

  34. [42]

    K., & Duffau , S

    Haschke , R., Grebel , E. K., & Duffau , S. 2012, , 144, 106

    2012

  35. [43]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  36. [44]

    2024 a , , 683, A102

    Jim \'e nez-Arranz , \'O ., Chemin , L., Romero-G \'o mez , M., et al. 2024 a , , 683, A102

    2024

  37. [45]

    2024 b , , 688, A51

    Jim \'e nez-Arranz , \'O ., Roca-F \`a brega , S., Romero-G \'o mez , M., et al. 2024 b , , 688, A51

    2024

  38. [46]

    2023 a , , 672, A65

    Jim \'e nez-Arranz , \'O ., Romero-G \'o mez , M., Luri , X., & Masana , E. 2023 a , , 672, A65

    2023

  39. [47]

    2023 b , , 669, A91

    Jim \'e nez-Arranz , \'O ., Romero-G \'o mez , M., Luri , X., et al. 2023 b , , 669, A91

    2023

  40. [48]

    C., Carilli , C

    Jones , G. C., Carilli , C. L., Shao , Y., et al. 2017, , 850, 180

    2017

  41. [49]

    L., et al

    Kacharov , N., Tahmasebzadeh , B., Cioni , M.-R. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05374

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2004, , 354, 1223

    Katz , D., Munari , U., Cropper , M., et al. 2004, , 354, 1223

    2004

  43. [51]

    2023, , 674, A5

    Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., Guerrier , A., et al. 2023, , 674, A5

    2023

  44. [52]

    A., et al

    Kim , S., Staveley-Smith , L., Dopita , M. A., et al. 1998, , 503, 674

    1998

  45. [53]

    F., Blanc , G

    Kollmeier , J., Anderson , S. F., Blanc , G. A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 274

    2019

  46. [54]

    A., Zasowski , G., Rix , H.-W., et al

    Kollmeier , J. A., Zasowski , G., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al

    Lindegren , L., Klioner , S. A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2021, , 649, A2

    2021

  48. [56]

    & Rohlfs , K

    Luks , T. & Rohlfs , K. 1992, , 263, 41

    1992

  49. [57]

    Maia , F. F. S., Dias , B., Santos , J. F. C., et al. 2019, , 484, 5702

    2019

  50. [58]

    R., Schiavon , R

    Majewski , S. R., Schiavon , R. P., Frinchaboy , P. M., et al. 2017, , 154, 94

    2017

  51. [59]

    Nelder, J. A. & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308

    1965

  52. [60]

    2021, dnidever/doppler: Cannon and Payne models

    Nidever , D. 2021, dnidever/doppler: Cannon and Payne models

    2021

  53. [61]

    L., Hasselquist , S., Hayes , C

    Nidever , D. L., Hasselquist , S., Hayes , C. R., et al. 2020, , 895, 88

    2020

  54. [62]

    L., Holtzman , J

    Nidever , D. L., Holtzman , J. A., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2015, , 150, 173

    2015

  55. [63]

    L., Olsen , K., Walker , A

    Nidever , D. L., Olsen , K., Walker , A. R., et al. 2017, , 154, 199

    2017

  56. [64]

    J., Keller , S

    Nikolaev , S., Drake , A. J., Keller , S. C., et al. 2004, , 601, 260

    2004

  57. [65]

    Olsen , K. A. G. & Massey , P. 2007, , 656, L61

    2007

  58. [66]

    Olsen , K. A. G. & Salyk , C. 2002, , 124, 2045

    2002

  59. [67]

    Olsen , K. A. G., Zaritsky , D., Blum , R. D., Boyer , M. L., & Gordon , K. D. 2011, , 737, 29

    2011

  60. [68]

    2024, , 168, 33

    Ou , P.-S., Chao , R.-C., Chu , Y.-H., Hsu , C.-Y., & Li , C.-J. 2024, , 168, 33

    2024

  61. [69]

    A., D'Onghia , E., & Fox , A

    Pardy , S. A., D'Onghia , E., & Fox , A. J. 2018, , 857, 101

    2018

  62. [70]

    A., Besla , G., Erkal , D., & Ma , Y.-Z

    Pe \ n arrubia , J., G \'o mez , F. A., Besla , G., Erkal , D., & Ma , Y.-Z. 2016, , 456, L54

    2016

  63. [71]

    2019, , 567, 200

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gallenne , A., et al. 2019, , 567, 200

    2019

  64. [72]

    T., Nidever , D

    Povick , J. T., Nidever , D. L., Massana , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.14299

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    T., Nidever , D

    Povick , J. T., Nidever , D. L., Massana , P., et al. 2024, , 533, 3685

    2024

  66. [74]

    H., Teukolsky , S

    Press , W. H., Teukolsky , S. A., Vetterling , W. T., & Flannery , B. P. 1992, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing

    1992

  67. [75]

    Rathore , H., Choi , Y., Olsen , K. A. G., & Besla , G. 2025, , 978, 55

    2025

  68. [76]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  69. [77]

    2022, , 512, 563

    Ripepi , V., Chemin , L., Molinaro , R., et al. 2022, , 512, 563

    2022

  70. [78]

    H., Lockhart , I

    Rogstad , D. H., Lockhart , I. A., & Wright , M. C. H. 1974, , 193, 309

    1974

  71. [79]

    V., Navarro , J

    Sales , L. V., Navarro , J. F., Cooper , A. P., et al. 2011, , 418, 648

    2011

  72. [80]

    Santos-Santos , I. M. E., Fattahi , A., Sales , L. V., & Navarro , J. F. 2021, , 504, 4551

    2021

  73. [81]

    & Subramanian , S

    Saroon , S. & Subramanian , S. 2022, , 666, A103

    2022

  74. [82]

    2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol

    Schlegel , D., White , M., & Eisenstein , D. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol. 2010, 314

    2009

  75. [83]

    A., Gunn , J

    Smee , S. A., Gunn , J. E., Uomoto , A., et al. 2013, , 146, 32

    2013

  76. [84]

    Sparke , L. S. & Gallagher , John S., I. 2000, Galaxies in the universe : an introduction

    2000

  77. [85]

    & Bodenheimer , P

    Tenorio-Tagle , G. & Bodenheimer , P. 1988, , 26, 145

    1988

  78. [86]

    2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Vallenari , A., Moretti , A., Held , E., Rizzi , L., & Bettoni , D. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 296, New Horizons in Globular Cluster Astronomy, ed. G. Piotto , G. Meylan , S. G. Djorgovski , & M. Riello , 507

    2003

  79. [87]

    van der Marel , R. P. 2001, , 122, 1827

    2001

  80. [88]

    P., Alves , D

    van der Marel , R. P., Alves , D. R., Hardy , E., & Suntzeff , N. B. 2002, , 124, 2639

    2002

  81. [89]

    van der Marel , R. P. & Cioni , M.-R. L. 2001, , 122, 1807

    2001

  82. [90]

    van der Marel , R. P. & Kallivayalil , N. 2014, , 781, 121

    2014

  83. [91]

    P., Kallivayalil , N., & Besla , G

    van der Marel , R. P., Kallivayalil , N., & Besla , G. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 256, The Magellanic System: Stars, Gas, and Galaxies, ed. J. T. Van Loon & J. M. Oliveira , 81--92

    2009

  84. [92]

    van der Marel , R. P. & Sahlmann , J. 2016, , 832, L23

    2016

  85. [93]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  86. [94]

    F., Mackey , D., & Ibata , R

    Wan , Z., Guglielmo , M., Lewis , G. F., Mackey , D., & Ibata , R. A. 2020, , 492, 782

    2020

  87. [95]

    Weinberg , M. D. 2000, , 532, 922

    2000

  88. [96]

    C., Hearty , F

    Wilson , J. C., Hearty , F. R., Skrutskie , M. F., et al. 2019, , 131, 055001

    2019

  89. [97]

    A., Luvaul , L

    Wolf , C., Onken , C. A., Luvaul , L. C., et al. 2018, , 35, e010

    2018

  90. [98]

    & Bekki , K

    Yozin , C. & Bekki , K. 2014, , 439, 1948

    2014

  91. [99]

    2004, , 614, L37

    Zaritsky , D. 2004, , 614, L37

    2004

  92. [100]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  93. [101]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  94. [102]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.