Paper detail

On the alleged duality of the Galactic halo

We examine the kinematics of the Galactic halo based on SDSS/SEGUE data by Carollo et al. (2007, 2010). We find that their claims of a counter-rotating halo are the result of substantial biases in distance estimates (of order 50%): the claimed retrograde component, which makes up only a tiny fraction of the entire sample, prone to contaminations, is identified as the tail of distance overestimates. The strong overestimates also result in a lift in the vertical velocity component, which explains the large altitudes those objects were claimed to reach. Errors are worst for the lowest metallicity stars, which explains the metal-poor nature of the artificial component. We also argue that measurement errors were not properly accounted for and that the use of Gaussian fitting on intrinsically non-Gaussian Galactic components invokes the identification of components that are distorted or even artificial. Our evaluation of the data leads to a revision of the estimated velocity ellipsoids and does not yield any reliable evidence for a counterrotating halo component. If a distinct counterrotating halo component exists it must be far weaker than claimed by Carollo et al. Finally we note that their revised analysis presented in Beers et al. (2011) does not alleviate our main concerns.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.