Paper detail

The Case for the Dual Halo of the Milky Way

Carollo et al. have recently resolved the stellar population of the Milky Way halo into at least two distinct components, an inner halo and an outer halo. This result has been criticized by Schoenrich et al., who claim that the retrograde signature associated with the outer halo is due to the adoption of faulty distances. We refute this claim, and demonstrate that the Schoenrich et al. photometric distances are themselves flawed because they adopted an incorrect main-sequence absolute magnitude relationship from the work of Ivezić et al. When compared to the recommended relation from Ivezić et al., which is tied to a Milky Way globular cluster distance scale and accounts for age and metallicity effects, the relation adopted by Schoenrich et al. yields up to 18% shorter distances for stars near the main-sequence turnoff (TO). Use of the correct relationship yields agreement between the distances assigned by Carollo et al. and Ivezić et al. for low-metallicity dwarfs to within 6-10%. Schoenrich et al. also point out that intermediate-gravity stars (3.5 <= log g <= 4.0) with colors redder than the TO region are likely misclassified, with which we concur. We implement a new procedure to reassign luminosity classifications for the TO stars that require it. New derivations of the rotational behavior demonstrate that the retrograde signature and high velocity dispersion of the outer-halo population remains. We summarize additional lines of evidence for a dual halo, including a test of the retrograde signature based on proper motions alone, and conclude that the preponderance of evidence strongly rejects the single-halo interpretation.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access14 authors1 topic

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.

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.