The Case for the Dual Halo of the Milky Way
Timothy C. Beers (1,2), Daniela Carollo (3,4), Zeljko Ivezic (5),, Deokkeun An (6), Masashi Chiba (7), John E. Norris (3), Ken C. Freeman (3),, Young Sun Lee (1), Jeffrey A. Munn (8), Paola Re Fiorentin (9), Thirupathi, Sivarani (10), Ronald Wilhelm (11), Brian Yanny (12)

TL;DR
Recent evidence supports the existence of a dual halo structure in the Milky Way, with distinct inner and outer components, despite criticisms based on flawed distance measurements and star classifications.
Contribution
This paper refutes previous criticisms by correcting distance estimates and star classifications, reinforcing the dual halo model with new rotational and kinematic analyses.
Findings
The retrograde signature of the outer halo remains robust.
Corrected distances align with previous models within 6-10%.
Multiple lines of evidence support the dual halo structure.
Abstract
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 Ivezi\'c et al. When compared to the recommended relation from Ivezi\'c 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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
