AG-2026.06-622·astro-ph.GA
Rogue Ones: Orbital census of Galactic Cepheids and their Anomalies
Authors
- Shourya Khanna
- Ronald Drimmel
- Eloisa Poggio
- Dorota M. Skowron
- Jie Yu
Abstract
Classical Cepheids (DCEPs) are excellent standard candles expected to trace the spatial and kinematic distribution of the Galaxy's young and dynamically cold stellar disc. Using the most precise mid-infrared DCEP distances to date combined with Gaia-DR3 astrometry & line-of-sight velocities, we perform a comprehensive 6D dynamical census of the Milky Way's DCEP population. While the vast majority exhibit the expected disc-like kinematics, we identify 18 kinematically anomalous Cepheids. These `rogue' stars reside on highly inclined orbits, including two in retrograde motion and one with a total velocity of ~480 km/s. Despite their extreme trajectories, their optical light curves are consistent with DCEP classifications. We explore whether these anomalies originate from classification systematics or physical processes. Re-deriving distances under the assumption that these are misclassified older Type II Cepheids (T2C) fails to reconcile their extreme kinematics, placing them at the tail of the T2C angular momentum distribution. Dynamical comparison with Galactic Globular Clusters (GC) suggests that at least one anomaly (OGLE-GD-CEP-0507) was possibly scattered into its current orbit via an interaction with the GC E3. Assuming a runaway scenario we derive dynamical ages for the kinematic anomalies, which we find highly consistent with their Cepheid ages. Spectroscopic follow-up would be insightful as one source in particular is exceptionally metal poor ([Fe/H] ~-1.6 dex), which is highly atypical for a DCEP. Integrating photometric classification with 6D kinematics will help fully characterise the Galaxy's variable star populations.
Submitted
9 June 20262 days ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.10623
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.