Context In the context of Galactic archaeology the outer halo remains relatively unexplored with respect to its metallicity distribution merger debris and the abundance of known veryextremely metalpoor FeHlt2.5 stars. Aim We utilize the Pristine surveys publicly available Pristine data release 1 PDR1 and PristineGaia synthetic PGS catalogues of photometric metallicities to select Red Giant Branch RGB stars in the outer halo. Methods The RGB selection pipeline selects giants based on the absence of a wellmeasured parallax in the brightness range where dwarfs have reasonable parallax estimate from Gaia DR3 data. The photometric distances are calculated using a BaSTIisochrone fitting code and the photometric metallicities. Results Photometric distances derived from PDR1 and PGSgiants show typical uncertainties of 12 and a scatter of up to 20 and 40 respectively when validated against invertedparallax and Starhorsecode distances. The PDR1giants catalogue provides a lowtono bias view of the metallicity structure versus distance compared to the PGSgiants catalogue with a distancemetallicity selection bias while the PGSgiants catalogue provides an allsky view of the outer halo especially in the VMP end. The PDR1giants catalogue is used to study the metallicity distribution function of the halo out to 100 kpc using Gaussian Mixture Model decomposition. Additionally we use the PDR1giants with radial velocities from spectroscopic surveys to map the metallicity view of the integralsofmotion space where accreted dwarf galaxy debris conserve their orbital parameters for a long time. Using the PGSgiants catalogue we associate 41 stars tentatively to the stellar counterpart of the Magellanic stream in the VMP end out to 70 kpc. Conclusions We publish two RGB catalogues between 4.0ltFeHlt0.1 with reliable photometric distances and metallicities.
['Astrophysics - Astrophysics of Galaxies']
The Pristine Survey  XXVII. Journey to the Galactic outskirts  Mapping the outer halo red giant stars down to the very metalpoor end
{'Mapping the outer halo red giant stars down to the very metal-poor end': "Akshara Viswanathan 1, ⋆ , Amanda Byström 2 , 1, ⋆ , Else Starkenburg 1 , Anne Foppen 1 , Jill Straat 1 , Martin Montelius 1 , Federico Sestito 3 , Kim A. Venn 3 , Camila Navarrete 4 , Tadafumi Matsuno 5 , Nicolas F. Martin 6 , 7 , Guillaume F. Thomas 8 , 9 , Anke Ardern-Arentsen 10 , Giuseppina Battaglia 8 , 9 , Morgan Fouesneau 5 , Julio Navarro 3 , and Sara Vitali 11  \n- 1 Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, Landleven 12, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands\n- 2 Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK\n- 3 Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3055, STN CSC, Victoria BC V8W 3P6, Canada\n- 4 Université Côte d'Azur, Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur, CNRS, Laboratoire Lagrange, Nice, France\n- 5 Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum für Astronomie der Universität Heidelberg, Mönchhofstraße 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\n- 6 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg, UMR 7550, F-67000 Strasbourg, France\n- 7 Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany\n- 8 Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Calle Vía Láctea s / n, 38206 La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain\n- 9 Universidad de La Laguna, Avda. Astrofísico Francisco Sánchez, 38205 La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain\n- 10 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK\n- 11 Núcleo de Astronomía, Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Universidad Diego Portales, Ejército 441, Santiago, Chile  \nReceived September 2, 2024; accepted xx", 'ABSTRACT': "Context. In the context of Galactic archaeology, the outer halo remains relatively unexplored with respect to its metallicity distribution, merger debris, and the abundance of known very / extremely metal-poor ([Fe / H] < -2.5) stars.  \nAims. We utilize the Pristine survey's publicly available data, Pristine data release 1 (PDR1) and PristineGaia synthetic (PGS) catalogues of photometric metallicities, to select Red Giant Branch (RGB) stars in the outer Galactic halo.  \nMethods. The RGB selection pipeline selects giants based on the absence of a well-measured parallax in the brightness range where dwarfs have a reasonable parallax estimation from Gaia DR3 data. We ensure a good balance between purity and completeness by testing the method on the Pristine survey's spectroscopic training sample. The photometric distances are calculated for the two samples of giants using a BaSTI-isochrone fitting code and the Pristine survey's stellar metallicity estimates.  \nResults. Photometric distances derived from PDR1- and PGS-giants show typical uncertainties of 12% and a scatter of upto 20% and 40% respectively, when validated against inverted-parallax and Starhorse-code distances, while going out to ∼ 100 and ∼ 70 kpc respectively. The PDR1-giants catalogue provides a low-to-no bias view of the metallicity structure versus distance compared to the PGS-giants catalogue (with a distance-metallicity selection bias), while the PGS-giants catalogue provides an all-sky view of the outer Galactic halo, especially in the VMP end. The PDR1-giants catalogue is used to study the metallicity distribution function (MDF) of the halo out to ∼ 100 kpc and down to [Fe / H] ∼ -4.0. We show the bias-corrected metallicity distribution of the halo in six Galactocentric bins out to 101 kpc and fit a 3-component Gaussian mixture model to the underlying MDF. We see that as distance increases, the fractional contribution from the most metal-poor component increases. In the outer Galactic halo (d > 50 kpc), 40-50% of the stars are very metal-poor (VMP, [Fe / H] < -2.0). Additionally, we use the PDR1-giants with radial velocities from spectroscopic surveys to map the metallicity view of the integrals-of-motion space where accreted dwarf galaxy debris conserve their orbital parameters for a long time. The PGS-giants catalogue is used to look for outer halo substructures such as the Pisces Plume overdensity where we associate 41 stars tentatively to the stellar counterpart of the Magellanic stream in the VMP end  \nConclusions. We publish two catalogues of RGB stars between -4.0 < [Fe / H] <+ 0.1 from Pristine data release 1 and PristineGaia synthetic photometric metallicities with reliable photometric distances inferred in this work. The PDR1-giants catalogue consists of 180,314 (111,305 with 6D phase-space data) giants out to ∼ 100 kpc, with 10,096 VMP candidate stars and 2,096 stars beyond 40 kpc, while the PGS-giants catalogue consists of 2,420,898 (1,706,006 with 6D phase-space data) giants out to ∼ 70 kpc, with 75,679 VMP candidate stars and 267 VMP candidate stars beyond 40 kpc.  \nKey words. Galaxy: stellar content - Galaxy: halo - Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics - Galaxy: structure - Galaxy: formation Methods: data analysis", '1. Introduction': 'The stellar halo provides a unique insight into the assembly history of our Galaxy. Due to the long dynamical timescales, the halo has not undergone complete phase mixing. Therefore, mea-  \nsuring the orbital and chemical properties of halo stars can help reconstruct significant events in the Galaxy\'s history. This is one of the main goals of the field of Galactic archaeology.  \nEarly theories about the formation of the stellar halo considered both "dissipative" (Eggen et al. 1962) and "dissipationless" (Searle & Zinn 1978) formation channels. These are now referred to as "in-situ" and "accretion" (or "ex-situ") channels. In the in-situ scenario, halo stars are born within the Galaxy and are later dynamically heated to halo-like orbits (Cooper et al. 2015; Bonaca et al. 2017; Koppelman et al. 2018). Conversely, the accretion scenario, supported by hierarchical assembly in a cold dark matter cosmology, suggests that the halo was partially formed by the tidal disruption of smaller dwarf galaxies (Helmi &White 1999; Bullock & Johnston 2005; Abadi et al. 2006).  \nIn theory, the combined orbital and chemical properties of stars should provide a powerful method for understanding the origin of the halo. Such data can help di ff erentiate between insitu and accreted stars based on distance, metallicity, and other factors. A key objective is to identify the number of significant events contributing to the accreted halo, estimate the progenitor masses and orbital properties, and ultimately reconstruct the stellar halo\'s formation. This research field has a rich history of using chemical and orbital properties to study the halo\'s origins (e.g., Ryan & Norris 1991; Chiba & Beers 2000; Venn et al. 2004; Carollo et al. 2007; Bonaca et al. 2017; Helmi et al. 2018; Belokurov et al. 2018; Koppelman et al. 2018; Malhan et al. 2018; Koppelman et al. 2019; Myeong et al. 2019; Iorio & Belokurov 2019; Naidu et al. 2020; Yuan et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2022; Ibata et al. 2023).  \nTo date, nearly all observational work on the stellar halo has used tracers biased by metallicity. These biases arise because halo stars are rare and generally more metal-poor than disc stars, combined with the need to e ffi ciently use spectroscopic resources (Starkenburg et al. 2009; An et al. 2013; Battaglia et al. 2017). Before Gaia , the most e ffi cient method to distinguish halo from disc stars was by selecting stars with low metallicities. This bias can occur at two stages: in selecting targets for spectroscopic follow-up, and in identifying halo stars from the final sample. For instance, the SDSS calibration stars used by Carollo et al. (2007, 2010) to study the stellar halo were selected based on their blue colours. The SDSS SEGUE sample of K giants, used to study the halo at great distances (Xue et al. 2015; Das &Binney 2016), was selected for spectroscopic follow-up using colour-cuts favoring low metallicities. Photometric metallicities of F / Gturno ff stars are another common method for studying the stellar halo, but such samples also favor lower metallicity stars due to their construction based on colour-cuts (Ivezi\'c et al. 2008; Sesar et al. 2011; Zuo et al. 2017). Additionally, rarer populations like RR Lyrae and blue horizontal branch stars have been extensively used due to their status as standard candles (Deason et al. 2011; Cohen et al. 2017; Hernitschek et al. 2017; Sesar et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2018; Starkenburg et al. 2019; Iorio & Belokurov 2019). However, these populations also preferentially trace metal-poor stars. The biases incurred by using these populations to study the halo are di ffi cult to overcome without near-perfect knowledge of the underlying population and what fractions of stars were included in the sample. These di ff erent observational methods have led to sometimes conflicting conclusions about the chemical-orbital structure of the stellar halo.  \nPreGaia , attempts to directly explore the distant halo have faced the challenge of targeting rare, far away stars without the advantage of Gaia parallaxes to exclude nearby contaminants due to which these colour-cuts or low metallicity cuts had to be implemented. The main problem with these methods is that the  \nselection and its consequences has not been explored fully well to understand the advantages and limitations. Fortunately, the observational landscape is rapidly improving on multiple fronts. Gaia has measured proper motions and parallaxes for over 1.8 billion stars down to G ∼ 22 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023b). While the majority of halo stars are too distant for precise parallax measurements and too faint for Gaia \'s radial velocity measurements, these new data are transforming our understanding of the stellar halo close to the Sun (e.g., Lövdal et al. 2022; RuizLara et al. 2022; Dodd et al. 2023).  \nAdditionally, very metal-poor stars (VMP, [Fe / H] < -2.0) preserve a record of the early universe\'s chemical composition. These metal-poor stars are widely regarded as "fossils" from the earliest generations of stars in the Universe and serve as key tracers of the assembly history of our Galaxy. The most metalpoor stars are likely among the oldest, potentially even true first / second-generation of stars (pop III stars, Beers & Christlieb 2005; Frebel & Norris 2015; Hansen et al. 2018; Starkenburg et al. 2018). Understanding the origins of various metal-poor populations in the Milky Way is essential for unraveling the formation timeline, locations, and evolution of di ff erent Galactic components. Consequently, studies of metal-poor stars have significantly advanced our understanding of the Milky Way\'s assembly history over the past fifty years.  \nExploring beyond the local halo, and reaching lower metallicities are essential to address the long-standing questions about the halo\'s origin and nature. Is the halo predominantly formed in situ or ex situ ? How far does the recently-discovered in situ (hot thick disc) component dominate the halo mass function? Thus, understanding the extent and relative proportion of the in situ halo can provide an independent constraint on the Galaxy\'s accretion history. Intertwined questions about the ex situ components also remain. Is it primarily composed of a few massive galaxies or numerous metal-poor ultra-faint galaxies (Deason et al. 2015, 2023)? How does the metallicity of the halo change with radius, scale height and Galactocentric distance? Does the halo transition into a metal-poor ([Fe / H] ∼ -2.2), spherical structure beyond 40 kpc (Dietz et al. 2020)? Are di ff erent accreted galaxies responsible for this shift, or could it result from a smooth component of dissolved ancient globular clusters? Can we find the apocentric pile-up of massive merger events from the distant past in the distant halo? (Balbinot & Helmi 2021) Is the traditional view of the distant halo as a metal-poor structure a selection artifact, stemming from colour cuts designed to avoid the disc and from metallicity-biased standard candles (Conroy et al. 2019b)? Studying the stellar halo allows us to look at accreted debris from galaxies with M ∗ = 10 6 -10 7 M ⊙ . This means we can examine high-redshift galaxies on a star-by-star basis, capturing their evolution at the time of infall in mass ranges that are currently beyond the reach of high-redshift studies.  \nTherefore, it is important to have a distant halo sample where we understand the e ff ect of each selection on the sample, its distances and metallicities, and corrected for these biases, to study the metallicity structure of the outer Galactic halo and the outer halo substructures down to very low metallicities. The tip of the red giant branch (RGB) stars are much more luminous and therefore, act as bright tracers with tangential velocity uncertainties of ∆ v ≤ 30 km / s at 80 kpc (due to better proper motion uncertainties for brighter stars), providing an order of magnitude improvement over RR Lyrae (RRL) stars and / or blue horizontal branch (BHB) stars (Chandra et al. 2023b). This allow us to probe further out into the halo with better quality proper motions using RGB stars over RRL or BHB stars for a magnitude limited sample. However, this advantage comes with a trade-o ff in distance  \naccuracy, as the isochrone-based distances for RGB stars are highly dependent on the assumed metallicity, which is why we start from input catalogues that have good photometric metallicity estimates from the Pristine survey narrow-band CaHK measurements (deeper, good signal-to-noise, but patchy on the sky) or all-sky Gaia XP-based CaHK narrow-band magnitudes combined with the Pristine survey models (shallower, lower signalto-noise with distance-metallicity selection e ff ects, but all-sky). In this work, we aim to select a sample of RGB stars, to study the distant halo using photometric metallicity catalogues for FGK stars produced by Martin, Starkenburg et al. (2023). The main advantage of our method is that we calculate the purity and completeness of our selection every step of the way to make sure that we account for the selection biases incurred when studying the metallicity structure of the outer Galactic halo (by weighing the metallicity bins according to the colour ranges and mass ranges probed by each bin using model isochrones). We additionally use the more biased (but all-sky) sample of giants to simply look for VMP substructures in the outer Galactic halo, such as the apocentric pile-up from massive merger events, the metal-poor end of the currently disrupting Sagittarius stream (Ibata et al. 1994), and the e ff ect of LMC and SMC\'s infall on the Galactic outer halo in the metal-poor end.  \nThis paper is divided into five more sections: Section 2 describes the input photometric metallicity catalogues, the spectroscopic training sample of the Pristine survey on which our RGB selection pipeline is tested, and the quality cuts used in the input photometric metallicity catalogues; Section 3 describes the full RGB selection pipeline solely based on photometry and parallax without the need for good distances, radial velocity or other astrometric parameters, along with the photometric distance calculation using an isochrone fitting code; Section 4 describes some of our main results, including the description of the two catalogues of giants, a bias-corrected view of the metallicity distribution functions out to large distances, a 6D subset using literature spectroscopic radial velocities and their orbital properties, associating them to several known accretion events, an all-sky view of the Milky Way outer Galactic halo in the VMP end and its implications; Section 5 summarises the final purity and completeness of our RGB selection pipeline, using spectroscopic surface gravity determined independently from the Gaia XP spectra as well as the future scope of these catalogues of giants that are made public with this work; Section 6 presents the main results, conclusions and outlook in a broad context.', '2. Data': "In this section, we describe the input photometric metallicity catalogues from the Pristine survey's first data release (PDR1) and the Gaia XP spectra ran on the Pristine survey model (PristineGaia synthetic) which were used to construct the two RGB catalogues that probe the outer Galactic halo. We also describe the quality cuts applied to these input catalogues before running them on our RGB selection pipeline. We also briefly describe the Pristine survey's training sample on which we run our selection pipeline to test the purity and completeness of our selection methods.", '2.1. Pristine Data Release 1 (PDR1) catalogue of photometric metallicities': "The Pristine survey observes the northern sky using the MegaCam wide-field imager located on the Canada France Hawaii  \nTelescope at Mauna Kea. This survey utilizes a narrow-band filter centered on the calcium (Ca) II H&K lines (CaHK) in the near UV at 3968.5 and 3933.7 Å, which are highly sensitive to metallicity. When combined with SDSS g, r, and i broad-band filters or Gaia 's BP-RP broad-bands, this narrow-band filter has been proven to provide reliable estimates of stellar metallicity (Starkenburg et al. 2017a; Martin, Starkenburg et al. 2023). This pre-selection method is particularly e ff ective at identifying very and extremely metal-poor stars (VMP, [Fe / H] < -2.0, and EMP, [Fe / H] < -3.0, Youakim et al. 2017; Aguado et al. 2019; Viswanathan et al. 2024b), and picks up ultra metal-poor stars (the remnants of first stars, Starkenburg et al. 2018).  \nThe Pristine photometry, in conjunction with SDSS broadband photometry, has paved the way for subsequent medium and high-resolution spectroscopic studies. These investigations specifically target stars with the lowest metallicity estimates derived from Pristine CaHK observations. The outcomes of these spectroscopic follow-up e ff orts have been successful, as evidenced by various works such as Ca ff au et al. (2017); Starkenburg et al. (2018); Bonifacio et al. (2019); Ca ff au et al. (2020); Venn et al. (2020); Kielty et al. (2021); Lardo et al. (2021); Lucchesi et al. (2022); Ca ff au et al. (2023); Lombardo et al. (2023). The combination of metallicity-sensitive medium / narrow-band photometry with broadband photometry has resulted in significant samples of VMP and extremely metal-poor (EMP) star candidates.  \nThe new version of the Pristine survey now uses Gaia broadbands instead of SDSS broad-bands to infer these photometric metallicities down to [Fe / H] ∼ -4.0. PDR1 was made public by Martin, Starkenburg et al. (2023, hereafter MS23) for every star in the Pristine survey that has a Gaia XP spectrum released by the newest Gaia data release 3 down to magnitudes of G ∼ 17.6 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023b; De Angeli et al. 2023a). The high accuracy of Gaia XP data allowed for the reprocessing and recalibration of the entire Pristine CaHK dataset, consisting of approximately 11,500 images taken since 2015. This update expanded the survey to cover over 6,500 square degrees. The enhanced photometric catalogue now achieves a precision of 13 millimagnitudes (mmag), a significant improvement from the initial precision of 40 mmag. In the updated methodology, the Pristine approach for determining the photometric metallicity of stars from CaHK and broadband magnitudes now relies exclusively on Gaia broadband data (G, G BP , G RP ) rather than SDSS data. An iterative method for extinction correction has been implemented, incorporating corrections on both Gaia broadband magnitudes and CaHK synthetic (or Pristine CaHK) narrowband magnitudes, considering the star's photometric temperature and metallicity. To mitigate the e ff ects of photometric variability, which can lead to inaccurate metallicities, a variability model based on the photometric uncertainties of the 1.8 billion Gaia sources was also included.  \nSpectroscopic analyses of red giant stars have confirmed that approximately 38% of the extremely metal-poor star candidates have [Fe / H] values below -3.0, considering quality flags during target selection, which makes these catalogues some of the most successful ones at finding extremely-metal-poor stars (Viswanathan et al. 2024b). However, it is crucial to consider potential variability in these stars and to implement rigorous photometric quality cuts to ensure accurate characterization of their metallicities (Lombardo et al. 2023). Thanks to Gaia DR3, several quality cuts have been improved and recent spectroscopic follow-ups have had a much larger success at finding very and extremely metal-poor stars (Viswanathan et al. 2024a,b). We will  \nuse here the first public data release from the Pristine survey (PDR1), to create our first sample of red giants in the outer halo.", '2.2. Pristine-Gaia synthetic (PGS) catalogue of photometric metallicities': "The detailed creation of the PGS catalogue is described in MS23, and we only provide a brief summary here. Using the latest Gaia data release (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2022, DR3), spectrophotometric XP information (De Angeli et al. 2023b) was used to construct an extensive catalogue of synthetic CaHK magnitudes, mimicking the narrow-band photometry used in the Pristine survey (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023a). Additionally, several recent studies have released metallicity estimate catalogues based on these Gaia XP spectra (Andrae et al. 2023; Zhang et al. 2023; Xylakis-Dornbusch et al. 2024).  \nUsing both Pristine CaHK magnitudes and XP-based synthetic CaHK magnitudes within the Pristine model, two catalogues of photometric metallicities for reliable stars were made public: the PGS catalogue and the PDR1 catalogue of photometric metallicities, which includes stars common to both Pristine and the XP catalogue from Gaia DR3. The latter, serving as the first data release of the Pristine survey, provides deeper data with better signal-to-noise (S / N) ratios for stars in common. These catalogues enable the construction of reliable samples of metalpoor stars, with a particular focus on very / extremely metal-poor (V / EMP) stars. The PGS catalogue o ff ers photometric metallicities over a large portion of the sky, while the PDR1 catalogue, limited to the Pristine survey's footprint, delivers high-quality metallicities and extends to significantly fainter stars. We will use this PGS catalogue, to create our second sample of red giants in the outer halo.", '2.3. Quality cuts on PDR1 and PGS catalogues': "To construct a pure and complete sample of RGB stars out to large distances, we use the PDR1 and PGS catalogues of photometric metallicities. It is important to note that we use the photometric metallicities inferred using the giants subsample of the training sample in the rest of this paper, i.e., the metallicities inferred for each star in Pristine if it were a giant. We use the following quality cuts on these input catalogues to end up with reliable photometric metallicities and to allow for an e ffi cient selection of giants based on photometry and astrometry, most of which follow the suggestions from MS23:  \n- -Photometric metallicity uncertainty less than 0.5 dex (0.5*( FeH\\_CaHKsyn\\_84th -FeH\\_CaHKsyn\\_16th ) < 0.5 dex, or (0.5* FeH\\_Pristine\\_84th -FeH\\_Pristine\\_16th ) < 0.5 dex)\n- -84th percentile value of the probability distribution function (PDF) of the photometric metallicity is greater than -3.999 ( FeH\\_CaHKsyn\\_84th > -3.999, or FeH\\_Pristine\\_84th > -3.999)\n- -Percentage of Monte Carlo iterations used to determine [Fe / H] uncertainties inside the grid are greater than 80% ( mcfrac\\_CaHKsyn > 0.8, or mcfrac\\_Pristine > 0.8)\n- -CASU photometric data reduction flag ( merged\\_CASU\\_flag = -1 (or -2), denoting very likely (or likely) point-sources - only for sources with PDR1 measurements)\n- -Extinction on B-V magnitude is less than 0.5 ( E(B-V) < 0.5)\n- -Photometric quality cut that is defined as | C ∗ |< 3 σ C ∗ . Cstar is the Gaia DR3corrected flux excess, C ∗ , as defined in equa-  \n- of Riello et al. 2021 and Cstar\\_1sigma is the normalized standard deviation of C ∗ for the G magnitude of this source, σ C ∗ , as defined in equation 18 of Riello et al. 2021 (abs( Cstar ) < 3*Cstar\\_1sigma )\n- -Probability of being a variable star being is than 30% Pvar < 0.3\n- -Astrometric quality cut ( Gaia 's Renormalised Unit Weight Error RUWE < 1.4)", '2.4. Spectroscopic training sample used by the Pristine survey model': "The Pristine survey's model to derive photometric metallicities from CaHK narrow-band magnitudes is limited to FGK stars because, for hotter stars, the CaHK absorption lines are too weak to serve as reliable metallicity indicators. On the cooler end of the spectrum, very cool M stars and cool K giant have prominent molecular bands that significantly lower the level of the pseudocontinuum in the relevant wavelength range, making it challenging to measure the CaHK absorption features. Therefore, MS23 restricts their analysis to stars with 0.5 < (G BP , 0 - G RP , 0) < 1.5, covering evolutionary stages from the upper main sequence and turn-o ff to the tip of the RGB for an old, VMP stellar population. This colour interval corresponds to a temperature range of approximately 3900 < Te ff < 7000 K. The colour cut is also necessary due to the lack of VMP stars in the training sample in the colour ranges beyond this.  \nFollowing the methodology described in Starkenburg et al. (2017a), MS23 use a training sample to map the de-reddened (CaHK, G, G BP , G RP ) colour space onto photometric metallicities. We use this training sample to test our RGB selection pipeline. A major component of this sample consists of SDSS / SEGUE stars (Yanny et al. 2009; Smee et al. 2013) within the Pristine footprint, with an average signal-to-noise ratio per pixel greater than 25 over the 400-800 nm wavelength range. Additionally, the SDSS pipeline must provide log g values, adopted Te ff < 7000 K, radial velocity uncertainty < 10 km / s, and adopted spectroscopic metallicity [Fe / H] with an uncertainty < 0.2 dex. For our outer halo studies, red giant stars are necessary, which are less numerous in the training sample. Therefore, MS23 complements the SDSS sample with APOGEE DR17 giants. To cover the rare very, extremely and ultra metal-poor stars (VMP [Fe / H] < -2, EMP [Fe / H] < -3, and UMP [Fe / H] < -4) as much as possible in the training sample and to provide reliable photometric metallicities in the VMP end, the training sample is supplemented by stars from the Pristine survey's spectroscopic follow-up programs (Youakim et al. 2017; Aguado et al. 2019; Venn et al. 2020; Kielty et al. 2021; Lardo et al. 2021; Lucchesi et al. 2022), VMP stars from the third data release of the LAMOST survey (Li et al. 2018) corrected for spurious stars in the low-temperature range as described by Sestito et al. (2020) using the latest LAMOST DR8 catalogue, the PASTEL sample (Soubiran et al. 2016) as used by Huang et al. (2022), and highresolution observations of the Boötes I dwarf galaxy (Gilmore et al. 2013; Frebel et al. 2016).  \nIn order to have a uniform sample of stars with homogeneously analysed atmospheric parameters to test our RGB selection pipeline, we use only the SEGUE subset of the training sample in the methods section 3.", '3. Methods': 'The pipeline for constructing the final catalogue was tested on the training sample described in section 2.4. Because this sam-  \nple contains spectroscopic log g values, we can reliably divide the stellar sample into dwarfs and giants by their log g measurements. We choose to define dwarfs as all stars with log g > 3.5 and giants as all stars with log g < 3.5. This division allows us to compute the purity and completeness of giants of every new cut we apply to the catalogue, and we can choose to apply the cuts that maximise both. We define purity as the number of stars with log g < 3.5 divided by the total number of stars after our selections and completeness as the number of giants after our selections divided by the total number of giants in the training sample (stars with log g < 3.5). We apply the colour cut 0.5 < G BP , 0 G RP , 0 < 1.5 to the training sample to match the colour range over which Pristine photometric metallicities are assigned (MS23). It is important to note that the spectroscopic training sample based on SEGUE is not fully representative of our input PDR1 / PGS catalogues of photometric metallicities. This is because of different on-sky coverage, magnitude range and target selection effects. Therefore, the purity and completeness derived from them do not necessarily trace the purity and completeness of our final catalogue of RGB stars. However, the training sample allows us to e ffi ciently test our method, which in turn allows us to better understand the consequences of our selection pipeline.  \nIn the subsections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 we introduce the motivation for the two cuts we apply to the catalogue. In subsection 3.5 we explain how distances to the stars are derived. The main advantage of our method is that we select RGB stars using only parallax 1 and photometry, without the need for good distances, radial velocities, or atmospheric parameters.', '3.1. Parallax-based colour-absolute magnitude diagram (CaMD) cut': 'For FGK stars, the main contamination in the selection of giants is dwarfs in the same colour range. An obvious di ff erence between giant and dwarf stars is where they are located in the colour-absolute magnitude diagram (CaMD), so if we can create an CaMD of the sample, we can use the location of stars in it to separate them. Because all of our stars have Gaia parallaxes, we can invert these parallaxes to get stellar distances, and use the apparent magnitudes to get absolute magnitudes using the distance modulus equation, to produce an CaMD. However, inverting parallaxes to get distances can only be done for good quality parallaxes, parallax\\_over\\_error>5 , as recommended by the Gaia consortium (Bailer-Jones et al. 2018). In practice this means that this cut, which we refer to as the parallax-based CaMD cut, is only applied to the subset of stars that have "good enough" parallaxes 2 . It is important to note that we do not use inverted parallax as distances, but simply as a means to remove nearby dwarfs with "good enough" parallax, and therefore, our quality cut on parallax errors can be less strict than what is recommended when using the parallax to obtain distances. For all stars with bad parallaxes, there is no equivalent way of applying these cuts. The following part of the method is thus only applied to the "good enough" parallax subset of the catalogue.  \nWe define good (or well-defined) parallax as being neither negative nor zero, as both imply a non-physical distance, as well as the fractional parallax uncertainty being less than some value f = ∆ π / π , with f ∈ (0 , 1). It is important to note that we do  \nnot use the inverted parallaxes to get distances for these stars, but simply use them to remove dwarfs that have "good enough" parallaxes (see subsection 3.5 for the description of photometric distance inference).  \nTo compute purity and completeness for di ff erent values of f , we need to first perform the parallax-based CaMD cut, and so we need to define a division between dwarfs and giants. We visually inspect the CaMD of the training sample for f ≤ 0 . 1, i.e. only look at stars with very good parallaxes (uncertainties less than 10%), and construct the following piece-wise division between dwarfs and giants:  \nMG = 0 . 9 & GBP , 0 -GRP , 0 < 0 . 8 , MG = 6 . 25( GBP , 0 -GRP , 0) -1 . 7 & 0 . 8 < GBP , 0 -GRP , 0 < 0 . 952 , MG = 4 . 25 & 0 . 952 < GBP , 0 -GRP , 0  \n(1)  \nso that all stars that fall below these lines are assumed to be dwarfs. We then test di ff erent values of f , using the above distinction between dwarfs and giants (see Figure 2).', '3.1.1. Comparing purity and completeness': 'To identify a value of the fractional parallax uncertainty f that maximises both purity and completeness of the parallax-based CaMD cut, we need to compute the purity and completeness for several di ff erent values of f . We require that f cannot be negative or larger than 100 %, meaning that we only consider values of f ∈ (0 , 1). The purity and completeness for this range in f is seen in Figure 1. This figure shows that as f increases, the purity monotonically increases (more dwarfs are correctly removed), and completeness monotonically decreases (more giants are incorrectly removed). It is important to note that the choice of f not only decides the giants that are selected and dwarfs that are removed based on the "good enough" parallax, but also the giants that are selected based on their "bad" parallax, i.e., f = 0.1 cut means that all the stars with a positive parallax with f < 0.1 and above the division line in equation 1, and all the stars with f > 0.1 including stars negative parallaxes are selected as our potential giant candidates. This is the reason why finding a good balance in the choice of f is important. From Figure 1, we see that as f increases, the purity increases. There is an inherent e ff ect on the distance probed and the quality of the parallax. Therefore, with increasing f , we are more likely to select stars at larger distances, i.e., brighter giants, on a fixed CaMD. With increasing f , we are also more likely to have a cleaner selection of giants based on their "bad" parallax. From Figure 1, we also see that as f increases, completeness decreases. This is because, with increasing f , we are more complete for the "good" parallax giants but less complete for the "bad" parallax giants and the two e ff ects together make the completeness go down at larger f .  \nFor our RGB selection, we choose to use f = 0 . 5, for several reasons: the value is in the middle of the considered f range, and it falls exactly where the plateau of purity and completeness is reached without having to compromise on the parallax uncertainty too much. The chosen 50% uncertainty on parallax is much higher than the Gaia -recommended 20%. However, we stress that we only use parallax as a proxy to remove dwarfs with "good enough" parallax and not assign distances based on the inverted parallax. We only need "good enough" parallaxes to have a reliable dwarf-giant division. If we use Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances instead of inverted parallax distances, the purity and completeness results remain un-  \nFig. 3. The training sample (CaMD cut on "good enough" parallax giants, and bad parallax giants selected after the magnitude cut), colourcoded by log g , and the colour-metallicity cut in equation (2) shown as a black line. Any stars that lie under this line are removed. The cut is designed to remove mainly subgiant stars probed unevenly at di ff erent metallicity ranges, and the colour-coding shows that most stars underneath this line has log g roughly greater than 3.5 (not a giant). The cut preserves the RGB (the blue region) and cuts away the SG / MSTO (the red region)  \n<!-- image -->  \nFig. 1. Purity (blue) and completeness (orange) for di ff erent parallaxbased CaMD cuts (along with bad parallax pool of giants) in the training sample. The choice of 50% ( f = 0.5) is justified by the plateau reached in purity and completeness, with a good balance between the two values. The discreteness of the plot is due to the small size of the training sample (N = 53666) used to test our cuts. All values are given in percentages.  \n<!-- image -->  \nFig. 2. The CaMD of the training sample, with absolute magnitudes computed using Gaia parallaxes π with the conditions that π > 0 \'\' and that the fractional parallax uncertainty f = 0 . 5.  \n<!-- image -->  \nchanged. After this cut is applied to the data, the purity is 50% and completeness is 79%.  \nFigure 2 shows the CaMD of the training sample (SEGUE), and the division between dwarfs and giants defined in equation 1; by visual inspection, we see that it works for our choice of f ≤ 0.5 (with the giant sequence being distinctly visible), and it is the definition we will use to construct the final RGB catalogues.', '3.2. Magnitude cut': 'The previous section describes a method to clean the catalogue of dwarfs when "good enough" parallaxes are available. After this method has been applied, the sample will consist of giants with "good enough" parallaxes, and dwarfs and giants with bad parallaxes. Gaia DR3 astrometry only probes a volume of 2  \nkpc for dwarfs with "good enough" parallax (Viswanathan et al. 2023). We expect that all dwarfs with G > 17 . 6 are too far away to have "good enough" parallaxes. We introduce a cut where all stars fainter than G = 17 . 6 are removed, to remove these bad parallax dwarfs. Although there are some giants at these magnitudes, meaning that this cut reduces completeness, dwarfs with bad parallax dominate the sample at these faint magnitudes (as dwarfs are 100 times more common than giants in stellar evolution) in our training sample, and we cannot distinguish both without the use of atmospheric parameters. The choice of the exact value of 17.6 in Gaia Gmagnitude (which is also the magnitude limit of the PGS catalogue because it is based on Gaia XP spectra that has a magnitude limit of about 17.6) is justified by looking at the histogram of Gaia G magnitudes for the dwarf stars with "good enough" parallax as described in detail in Appendix A. In combination with the CaMD cut, this cut increases purity to 65% and decreases completeness to 64%.', '3.3. Colour-metallicity cut': "The fraction of dwarfs to giants changes as a function of both colour and metallicity: as the metallicity decreases, the colour at which the subgiant branch turns into the giant branch becomes bluer (and the absolute magnitude decreases). We thus would like to introduce a cut that removes the subgiants based on their metallicities and colours. Using five MIST isochrones (Choi et al. 2016; Dotter 2016) with metallicities ranging from -0.25 dex to -2.25 dex in steps of 0.5 dex 3 , we interpolate a lin-  \nFig. 4. Flowchart of the steps involved in creating the two RGB stars catalogues using the parent samples from PDR1 and PristineGaia synthetic (PGS) catalogues. The number of stars removed at each selection step for the two input catalogues are shown in the red boxes, the method / cuts used to select RGB stars on every step is shown in orange boxes and the final sample with counts are shown in the green box.  \n<!-- image -->  \near function of Gaia BP-RP colour as a function of metallicity [Fe / H]:  \nG BP , 0 -G RP , 0 = 0 . 14 × [Fe / H] + 1 . 05 , (2)  \nwhere any stars with a colour bluer (smaller) than this are cut away. The training sample in metallicity versus colour view, colour-coded by the training sample's log g is shown in Figure 3. We can see that the subgiant stars with log g > 3.5 are removed (in red) using this colour-metallicity cut, retaining the RGB stars (in blue). If we change the model isochrone to PARSEC or BaSTI, the impact of the final colour-metallicity cut on the input catalogues is less than 1%. We also refrain from using the training sample to decide the colour-metallicity cut, as the training sample is not fully representative of our input catalogues, and is very small in size after the previous selections (N = 7882). Therefore, we only want to use the training sample to study the consequences of our selections. This cut, together with the CaMD cut and the magnitude cut, increases purity to 90% and decreases completeness to 58%.", '3.4. Final RGB catalogues': 'Our full RGB selection pipeline is shown as a flowchart in Figure 4. The log g distribution of the training sample before and  \nafter the RGB selection pipeline has been applied is shown in Figure 5, which shows the e ffi ciency of our RGB selection on the training sample.', '3.5. Photometric distance derivation': "To map the Galactic outer halo, we need reliable distances out to ∼ 100 kpc. This cannot be achieved using Gaia parallaxes as these reach only up to 5-10 kpc for giants. This means we need to use assumptions such as isochrone models to derive photometric distances to probe the Galactic outer halo. These isochrones are heavily dependent on the assumed metallicities, especially on the RGB. Given that our input catalogues are based on PDR1 and PGS catalogues with reliable photometric metallicities down to -3.5, we can use them as input metallicities to derive photometric distances. We tried our method on several di ff erent isochrone models such as MIST (Dotter 2016; Choi et al. 2016), PARSEC (Bressan et al. 2012; Pastorelli et al. 2020), and BaSTI isochrones (Hidalgo et al. 2018). We find the dispersion with inverted-parallax distances for the subsample that has good parallax 4 ( f ≤ 0.1) is minimum for BaSTI isochrones. Additionally, the di ff erence between BaSTI and PARSEC is much smaller than  \nFig. 5. The distribution of the training sample's surface gravities before and after the catalogue pipeline (described in Figure 4) is applied. The vertical line at log g = 3.5 shows the separation used to validate the giants sample selection.  \n<!-- image -->  \nthe di ff erence between BaSTI and MIST. This can be attributed to the fact that MIST isochrones do not have α -enhancement implemented whereas BaSTI and PARSEC do. In the remainder of this work, we use BaSTI isochrones because of its agreement with the shape and slope of the isochrone in the RGB using Gaia XP / Gaia BP-RP colours and the fact that it is available down to lower metallicities ([Fe / H] ∼ -3.2) compared to PARSEC ([Fe / H] ∼ -2.2). We use BaSTI isochrones at a fixed age of 10 Gyr, in the α -enhanced version (Pietrinferni et al. 2004), with a Reimers mass loss parameter of 0.3, assuming a Kroupa initial mass fraction (Kroupa 2001), a fraction of unresolved binaries of 30%, and a minimum mass ratio for binaries of 0.1, between metallicities of -3.2 and -0.08. We use an e ff ective temperature range of 3000 to 7000 K, Gaia BP - RP extinction corrected colour between 0.5 and 1.5, and a log g range (-0.5 to 4.2) just enough to infer photometric distances for RGB stars and remove outliers in the process. The log g in BaSTI model isochrones are calculated using the Stefan-Boltzman equation. We only select the RGB part of the stellar model isochrone and do not fit for any other stellar populations.  \nWe make a 4-dimensional interpolation grid for a fixed age of 10 Gyr, varying metallicities, e ff ective temperature, surface gravity and absolute Gaia Gmagnitude. We find that varying the age (for halo stars) even by a factor of two a ff ects the inferred distances by about 10%, so we stick to assuming a fixed age (the same conclusion was also reached by Bonaca et al. 2020). For e ff ective temperature and surface gravity, we crossmatch our final RGB samples from the PDR1 and PGS input catalogues with the Andrae et al. (2023, hereafter A23) teff\\_xgboost and logg\\_xgboost inferred using XGBoost algorithm (Chen & Guestrin 2016) on Gaia XP spectra for 175 million stars. This crossmatch results in 408,524 PDR1-giants and 6,098,246 PGSgiants as shown in the methods flowchart in Figure 4. We find that using e ff ective-temperature-based isochrone yields distance results in better agreement with the good parallax ( f ≤ 0.1) subset than using Gaia BP - RP colours. This is justified by the fact that the e ff ective temperature takes into account the entire XP spectra contribution whereas BP - RP reduces it to two parameters. We refrain from using the A23 metallicities ( mh\\_xgboost ) because they are less reliable at lower metallicities unless the  \nstar is bright and has a fair parallax estimation (25% uncertainty, f ≤ 0.04) as produced by the vetted RGB Table 2 sample from A23. The temperature and surface gravities from A23 are also affected when the star does not have a fair parallax estimate, but to a lower extent than metallicities. The e ff ect of taking temperature and surface gravity into account makes the inferred distances agree well with other distance estimates such as Starhorse (see the next subsection). We only use atmospheric parameters from A23 to calculate photometric distances and validate our RGB selection. We want to showcase the power of selecting RGB stars using only parallax and photometry (without the need for atmospheric parameters, distances, and / or radial velocities). Therefore, this method can be used on any photometric catalogues with Gaia parallaxes, to reliably select RGB stars. With this interpolation grid, for each value of a metallicity, an isochrone is made using the BaSTI isochrone model for an age of 10 Gyr, for a range of e ff ective temperatures, surface gravities and absolute Gaia G magnitudes, which is the output required to find the G-band distance moduli, and subsequently, the photometric distances. We use this pipeline, and create an interpolated isochrone for each star based on its photometric metallicities inferred by the Pristine survey model on Gaia XP spectra (PGS) or Pristine survey measured CaHK narrowband (PDR1). We place this star on the e ff ective temperature-surface gravity space and look for the closest point on the (spline-interpolated) isochrone by giving a weight factor of 2500 for log g near the turn o ff and 500 for log g near the tip of the RGB. For this closest point, we find the corresponding Gaia G absolute magnitude on the spline, from which we calculate the photometric distance using the standard distance modulus equation (also using the extinction-corrected Gaia G apparent magnitude). Extinction correction for all the Gaia magnitudes are taken from the input Pristine catalogues from MS23. The weight factor on log g is determined by minimizing the di ff erence between inverted-parallax distances and the inferred photometric distance and reduces any distance quality dependence on the input parameters (metallicity, temperature and surface gravity) on the good parallax ( f ≤ 0.1) subset. The inferred photometric distances are in good agreement with Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances (see Appendix B), as well as inverted parallax distances (by construc-  \nFig. 6. Photometric distance calculated in this work times parallaxcorrected for o ff set based on Lindegren et al. (2021) (supposed to be 1.0 in the ideal case) versus the input parameters to calculate these photometric distances such as photometric metallicities (top left) from PDR1 (top panels) and PGS catalogues (bottom panels), e ff ective temperature (top right), surface gravity (bottom left) from A23 XGBoost catalogue, all of which are colour-coded by log density and horizontal histogram of distance times parallax (bottom right). Note that the density distributions are in log-scale, so most of the stars are within ∼ 10% systematic uncertainties. The grey overdensities in the surface gravity plots are bad distance mismatches caused due to red clump stars and (colder) horizontal branch stars.  \n<!-- image -->  \n). The weight is higher for log g near the turn-o ff than the tip of the RGB because log g carries more information than temperature near the turn-o ff of the isochrone.  \nWe calculate systematic uncertainties on the inferred photometric distances instead of measurement uncertainties because we find that the measurement errors are negligible compared to the total dispersion inferred from the good parallax ( f ≤ 0.1) subset. This is because we do not have measurement uncertainties on e ff ective temperatures or surface gravities from A23 parameters that are inferred using machine learning. Available measurement uncertainties only depend on the measurement uncertainties on the photometric metallicities from the PDR1 and PGS input catalogues. These are, in turn, dependent on uncertainties on colour, and magnitudes that are relatively well-measured compared to other uncertainties. Therefore, we stick to estimating only systematic uncertainties on the inferred photometric distances. For this, we use the 100 nearest neighbours of each star in the good parallax ( f ≤ 0.1) subsample, based on its input e ff ective temperature, surface gravity and photometric metallicities (all of which are scaled between a range of 0 to 1, to make sure they have the same weights). We infer the dispersion  \nFig. 7. Validating our photometric metallicities and distances with GALAH DR3, APOGEE DR17 surveys and SAGA database of VMP stars' high-resolution spectroscopic metallicities (top) and Starhorse Gaia DR3 (Bayesian isochrone-fitting code) distances for di ff erent spectroscopic surveys such as APOGEE, GALAH, SDSS SEGUE, LAMOST MRS, and Gaia RVS surveys (bottom) for the PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) giants catalogue constructed in this work.  \n<!-- image -->  \nbetween inverted-parallax distances and our inferred photometric distances for these 100 nearest neighbours as the systematic uncertainties on our photometric distances. The mean distance uncertainties are as low as 12% for both the PDR1 and PGScatalogues of giants.  \nWe compare the photometric distances calculated in this work with the inverted-parallax distances against the input parameters used to calculate the photometric distances for both PDR1 and PGS-giants catalogue in Figure 6. We show distance times parallax (ideally 1.0) versus photometric metallicities from PDR1 / PGS catalogues from MS23, e ff ective temperature and surface gravity from A23. The final panel shows a histogram of distance times parallax and it peaks at 0.99 and 0.95, with a 1 σ dispersion of 0.09 and 0.1 for PDR1 and PGS-giants respectively. From the Figure 6 top panel, we can see that the photometric distances agree very well with the inverted-parallax distances with no visible trend with the photometric metallicities, that is the main parameter used in our science cases in the next section. We see the same with PGS-giants in the bottom panel of Figure 6, in terms of reliability of inferred photometric distances. However, the dispersion is higher for PGS-giants, mainly because of photometric metallicities that are based on lower S / N CaHK magnitudes inferred from Gaia XP spectra, and the fact that the distance calculation pipeline is very much dependent on the reliablity of accurate metallicities. In addition to removing turn-o ff interlopers by using a log g < 3.5 cut ( logg\\_xgboost < 3.5), we also use an additional quality cut to get the final catalogue of PDR1 and PGS-giants with reliable metallicities and distances used for the science cases in the results section. This is due to the red clump (RC) stars at the metal-rich end and (colder) blue horizontal branch (HB) stars at the metal-poor end that does not get a log g from A23 that agrees well with parallax-based inferences. This can be seen by the cloud of stars in the black box with underestimated distances shown in the bottom left panels for PDR1 and PGS-giants compared to parallax-based distances, shown in Figure 6. To remove  \nstars with underestimated distances in this region, we use a distance quality cut of 7% or below within the log g range of 2.3 and 3.0 (!(( phot\\_dist\\_errs > 0.07) & (( logg\\_xgboost > 2.3) & ( logg\\_xgboost < 3.0)))). With all these quality cuts, we end up with 180,314 PDR1 and 2,420,898 PGS-giants, that have reliable metallicities and distances. A small part of the Pristine survey sample ( ∼ 1%) can be selected as RGB stars using our method and are not part of the public data release 1 of the Pristine survey (PDR1), which we do not use in the rest of this paper.", '3.5.1. Validation of distances out to 100 kpc and metallicities down to the EMP end': 'We validate our photometric metallicities with GALAH DR3, APOGEE DR17, and SAGA database of VMP stars\' highresolution spectroscopic metallicities (Buder et al. 2021; Majewski et al. 2017; Suda et al. 2008) and our photometric distances with distances inferred by the Starhorse Bayesian-isochrone inferred distances (Queiroz et al. 2023) as shown in Figure 7. We choose GALAH DR3, APOGEE DR17, and SAGA (even though the crossmatch numbers are lower than when using lowresolution spectroscopic surveys and they have a bias towards brighter stars) because of its reliability across the metallicity scale used down to the EMP end. No particular trends within APOGEE, GALAH or SAGA are seen. To have a full understanding of the reliability of the photometric metallcities from PDR1 and PGS catalogues down to [Fe / H] ∼ -4.0, we refer the readers to MS23 and Viswanathan et al. (2024b). Based on these works, it is also important to keep in mind that in the VMP and EMP regime, the success rates of finding true VMP and EMP giants are 97% and 38% respectively, which makes these EMP giants good candidates and not always "true" EMPs. The validation of metallicities presented here is only to ensure that there are no o ff sets caused in the photometric metallicities due to the various selection made in the parent Pristine catalogues to select the RGB stars, and not to validate the metallicities themselves, as these are performed thoroughly in the data release paper (MS23). In the top panels of Figure 7, we see a comparison of metallicities from PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) giants with GALAH DR3 metallicities. We removed those stars with flag\\_sp == 0 or flag\\_fe\\_h == 0 from the GALAH DR3 sample, and place a quality cut of FE\\_H\\_FLAG == 0 on the APOGEE DR17 sample. For the SAGA database of VMP stars, we use a 5.0 arcsec crossmatch radius as opposed to the 1.0 arcsec crossmatch radius used in the rest of this work. We see good agreement within 0.25 dex and 0.5 dex for PDR1 and PGS-giants respectively. For the PGS-giants, if we only use stars with good S / N in the CaHK narrow-band ( error on CaHK magnitudes, d\\_CaHK < 0.02), the scatter is as low as 0.2 dex. This is because, the photometric [Fe / H] uncertainty is ∼ 0.1 in PDR1 catalogue versus ∼ 0.4 in PGS catalogue at fainter magnitudes (G ∼ 16). This is also the reason why we see higher dispersion for PGS distances compared to parallax in the bottom panels of Figure 6. Therefore, we recommend using this cut in PGS-giants for science cases where reliable distances and very reliable metallicities are a necessity.  \nIn the bottom panels of Figure 7, we show a comparison of our inferred distances with Starhorse distances (with < 10% uncertainties) using spectroscopic survey parameters from APOGEE DR17, GALAH DR3, SDSS SEGUE DR12, LAMOST DR8 MRS, and Gaia DR3 RVS. No particular trends with specific surveys are seen. We choose these five surveys, because they have higher resolution or probe the fainter end of our catalogue (in the case of SEGUE). We see that the distances are not o ff set with a ≲ 20% and ≲ 40% scatter out to 100 kpc for  \nFig. 8. Absolute G magnitude calculated using distances inferred from inverted parallax versus log g from A23 XGBoost catalogue. log g is used as an input to calculate the photometric distances whereas absolute magnitudes which trace surface gravity are inferred from parallax. We see clearly the 1:1 trend mismatched at log g that corresponds to red clump (metal-rich) and horizontal branch (metal-poor) stars.  \n<!-- image -->  \nPDR1 and PGS catalogues of giants respectively. The scatter between our distances and Starhorse distances is larger for PGSgiants than PDR1-giants (and slightly biased towards underestimation than overestimation), due to metallicity uncertainties.', '3.6. Caveats with the catalogues': 'In this subsection, we will discuss the two main caveats with the PDR1 and / or PGS-giants catalogue constructed in this work.', '3.6.1. Distances of red clump and horizontal branch stars': 'From the bottom left panels for PDR1 and PGS-giants in Figure 6, we can see that the distances have a clear trend towards underestimation for log g values between 2.3 and 3.0. This region of log g overlaps with where we find red clump (RC) stars in the metal rich end and colder horizontal branch (HB) stars in the metal-poor end. RC stars are abundant stars that were once similar to the Sun and have since evolved into red giants, now sustained by helium fusion in their cores. Regardless of their specific age or composition, all RC stars achieve roughly the same absolute magnitude luminosity. Red clump stars are core heliumburning giants, valuable as standard candles due to their consistent luminosity and well-defined position in the H-R diagram. The Pristine survey model assigns photometric metallicities for F, G, K stars between 0.5 and 1.5 in the Gaia BP-RP colour range. This region inevitably overlaps with a few HB stars. HB stars originate from low-mass stars that have finished their mainsequence lifetimes and experienced a helium flash at the conclusion of their red-giant phase. Consequently, HB stars are very old objects, making them useful markers in studies of the Galactic structure and formation history. However, our isochrone fitting code does not especially take into account the evolutionary phases of RC and HB stars. This is slightly taken into account when we use log g and e ff ective temperature to place the star on its closest point to the isochrone. However, the log g comes from  \nthe A23 catalogue using Gaia XP spectra that does not linearly scale with the absolute magnitudes calculated using parallaxes for the good parallax ( f ≤ 0.05) subset as illustrated in Figure 8 where we show the mismatch in RC, and HB stars with the black box. Therefore, we use a quality cut in distances within these surface gravities to ensure that we end up with distances that are fully reliable (as discussed in previous subsection).', '3.6.2. Distance-metallicity selection effect on Gaia XP': "In Figure 9, we show the photometric metallicities versus heliocentric distances for the PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) catalogues of giants, colour-coded by their mean uncertainty in the CaHK magnitudes used to calculate the photometric metallicities. The Pristine survey model assigns photometric metallicities for each star based on its CaHK narrow-band magnitudes in comparison with Gaia BP-RP broad-band magnitudes. For this purpose, the model requires the CaHK uncertainties to be less than 0.1, which is the upper limit of our colour-coding in Figure 9. The Gaia XP spectra are magnitude limited down to G ∼ 17 . 6, with Gaia 's scanning law limitations imprinted (see Riello et al. 2021 for more details about Gaia 's scanning law e ff ect). With the selection of the PGS-giants catalogue (which is also magnitude limited at 17.6), we are pushing the limits of the S / N in the CaHK region that is required to calculate photometric metallicities reliably. This problem is almost negligible in the PDR1-giants catalogue, because the Pristine survey goes much fainter than Gaia XP spectra (down to G ∼ 21), with very high S / N in the CaHK narrow-band compared to Gaia XP spectra.  \nThe e ff ect of CaHK uncertainty is visible clearly in Figure 9 for the PGS-giants. We see that the CaHK uncertainty increases clearly at larger distances. It is important to note that the CaHK magnitudes are brighter for metal-poor stars than for the metalrich stars with respect to the broad-band magnitudes, which allows us to pick metal-poor stars more e ffi ciently amidst the more metal-rich populations of our Galaxy. Given the magnitude limits and CaHK uncertainty limits of the PGS-giants catalogue, at larger distances, we only see metal-poor stars that are relatively brighter than the metal-rich stars. Therefore, the filled blue region in the right panel of Figure 9 is empty due to this distancemetallicity selection e ff ect, and not due to physical conditions in the Galactic outer halo. This means that the PGS-giants cannot be used to study the metallicity variations at di ff erent distances in the Galactic halo. Given the low-to-no bias in distance versus metallicity in the PDR1-giants (apart from the small e ff ects due to the colour boundaries corrected by weighing the metallicity bins in section 4.2), we can use this catalogue to study the metallicity structure of the Galactic halo out to large distances and down to the lowest metallicities, thereby probing deep, and far into the Galactic halo's earliest evolutionary times. Due to the distance-metallicity selection e ff ects in the PGS-giants catalogue, we see almost no metal-rich stars in the outer halo, which means we can study the outer Galactic halo's oldest stars with a much cleaner sample of VMP stars than has been possible so far. Weinvestigate some of these science cases in the next section(s).", '4. Results': 'In this section, we summarise the metallicity and distance properties of the catalogues of giants, and discuss the construction of 6D phase-space samples of PDR1 / PGS-giants, Sagittarius (Sgr) stream members in the catalogues, calculation of phase-space information and integrals-of-motion (IOM) and how we can view the di ff erent accretion events in the metallicity view of the IOM  \nspace. We finally discuss the outer-halo substructures in our catalogues of giants.', '4.1. Description of the catalogues': "We present a red giants branch catalogue using the Pristine survey and / or the Gaia XP-based metallicities and photometric isochrone-fitted distances in this work. The PDR1-giants sample consists of 180,314 RGB stars and probes heliocentric distances up to 100.65 kpc (with mean uncertainties down to 12% with a maximum of 40% dependent on the quality of the input parameters, especially at the faint end). The PGS-giants sample consists of 2,420,898 RGB stars that probe heliocentric distances up to 68.03 kpc (with mean uncertainties down to 12% with a maximum of 57% dependent on the quality of the input parameters, especially in the faint end). The final purity and completeness based on the Pristine survey training sample is 90% and 58% respectively. Both the purity and completeness vary as a function of metallicities, surface gravities, and e ff ective temperature, due to the colour cuts used to select them. From the training sample, we see that the purity and completeness decreases as a function of metallicities (by ∼ 20%), decreases as a function of temperature (by ∼ 40% and ∼ 20%), and the completeness decreases as a function of surface gravity (by ∼ 20%), if we use log g < 3.5 as the pure sample of giants. However, it is important to note that the log g < 3.5 is not the purest and most complete selection of giants and also has a dependence on the metallicity. It is important to note that the training sample is not necessarily representative of our input catalogues, and it is quite incomplete and has much fewer stars in the VMP end. Some of these e ff ects are corrected for when we measure the metallicity distribution function using model isochrones in subsection 4.2.  \nThe mean metallicity uncertainties are 0.08 and 0.19 dex down to [Fe / H] ∼ -4 in metallicity for the PDR1 and PGS catalogues respectively. The mean metallicity uncertainties increases up to 0.11 dex and 0.28 dex for VMP stars in the PDR1 and PGS catalogues respectively. With such reliable metallicities and distances, we can study the metallicity distributions and (chemical and dynamical) substructures than make up the outer Galactic halo.  \nTo calculate the Cartesian positions for all the RGB stars, a distance of 8.2 kpc between the Sun and the Milky Way's center is assumed (GRAVITY Collaboration et al. 2018). In the top panels of Figure 10, we show metallicity versus absolute height above the Galactic plane for PDR1 and PGS-giants. We can see that the PGS-giants have a fairly smooth distribution with metalrich stars in the inner halo and metal-poor stars in the outer halo. However, this view is biased due to the quality cut on CaHK uncertainties used in the making of the PGS input metallicity catalogue, as discussed in subsection 3.6.2. As a consequence of this, we see only metal-poor stars in the outer halo of PGS-giants, and do not trace the reality of the metallicity distribution of the outer halo. However, this sample can be used to study metal-poor substructures in the outer halo due to the low-to-no contamination from metal-rich substructures (that are usually large in number). We refrain from using the PGS catalogue for anything that involves studying the metallicity distribution or metallicitydistribution-dependent science cases.  \nIn the top left panel of Figure 10, we show the metallicity versus distance space for the PDR1-giants, which is more representative of the Galactic halo out to ∼ 100 kpc. We can see a prominent overdensity of stars around the metallicity of ∼ -1.3 out to about 30 kpc which we associate with the last major merger event, Gaia -Enceladus-Sausage (GES, Belokurov et al.  \nFig. 9. Metallicities versus heliocentric distances for PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) catalogues of giants presented in this work colour-coded by CaHK narrow-band magnitudes' uncertainties. The distance-metallicity selection e ff ect caused by low S / N on the CaHK narrow-band from Gaia XP spectra is highlighted by the blue filled area on the right.  \n<!-- image -->  \nFig. 10. Density distribution of photometric metallicities versus absolute scale height (Z) (top), density distribution of giant stars in R versus Z frame (middle), and histogram of heliocentric (orange) and Galactocentric (blue) distances probed by the giants catalogue (bottom) for PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) input catalogues. Note that the x- and yaxis ranges are di ff erent for PDR1- and PGS-giants in the middle and bottom panels  \n<!-- image -->  \n2018; Helmi et al. 2018). This is reminiscent of the strongly radial orbits clustered at -1.0 to -1.6 in spectroscopic metallicities from the H3 survey out to large distances (Conroy et al. 2019a,b). For a small subset of our sample with radial velocities, wefindthese stars to have high eccentricities and probe the radial regions of energy, E and vertical angular momentum, L z (see Fig-  \nFig. 11. Metallicity structure of the halo as a function of height from the mid-plane (Z) for 8 metallicity bins between -4 and 0 for PDR1giants catalogue. The fractional contribution of each metallicity bin to the population at a certain distance has been calculated. Stars below a scale height of 2 kpc have been cut away to avoid disc contamination.  \nure 16 and subsection 4.3.3). The small subset of these stars that overlap with the APOGEE high-resolution spectroscopic survey, have lower [ α / Fe], reminiscent of a dwarf galaxy stellar population that merged with the Milky Way, similar to the GES event. These checks allow us to conclude that this prominent peak in [Fe / H] versus | Z | space most likely belongs to the GES merger. We also see other substructures and the distribution is not as smooth, indicating that the Galactic halo is made of stellar populations from several di ff erent merger events. In Figure 10 middle panels, we see the on-sky distribution of the stars in Galactocen-  \nric radius versus height above the plane for the PDR1 and PGSgiants. We can see the uneven footprint and northern coverage of the Pristine survey for the PDR1-giants on the left panel while the PGS-giants on the right panel are all-sky. The PDR1-giants probe further out to slightly larger distances ( ∼ 100 kpc) than the PGS-giants ( ∼ 60 kpc) due to the lower S / N of CaHK narrowband magnitudes for the Gaia XP-based PGS-giants. This is, in turn, due to the relative brightness limit of Gaia XPspectra of the PGS-giants sample. On the right panel, we see a strong selection function at lower scale height due to dust extinction cut in the disc plane. To see the metallicity distribution in a spatial view along Cartesian coordinates, we refer the reader to Appendix C. In the bottom panel of Figure 10, we see the 1D-histogram of Galactocentric and heliocentric distance probed by PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) giants. There is a steep decrease in the number of stars at larger distances, mostly due to the negative power law slope of about 4.0 in the halo (Hernitschek et al. 2018; Deason et al. 2018; Thomas et al. 2018; Starkenburg et al. 2019), but also due to selection functions in the underlying surveys and methods used to select the RGB stars. The small bump at about 20-40 kpc could be due to GES apocenter pile-ups (Perottoni et al. 2022) or the Sagittarius stream (Ibata et al. 2020).  \nWe know that substructures from small or large dwarf galaxies accreted onto the Milky Way have a distinct chemistry to the field halo stars ( in situ ). They will have similar metallicities with a relatively smaller metallicity dispersion and spread in chemical abundances as seen in merger events (Leaman 2012) such as GES ([Fe / H] = -1.18 ± 0.3), Helmi streams ([Fe / H] = -1.28 ± 0.19), Sequoia ([Fe / H] = -1.59 ± 0.25), Thamnos ([Fe / H] = -1.9 ± 0.41), LMS-1 / Wukong ([Fe / H] = -1.58 ± 0.23), Sagittarius ([Fe / H] = -1.0 ± 0.2), and Cetus ([Fe / H] = -2.17 ± 0.20, [Fe / H] = ∼ -2.0 in some other works Thomas & Battaglia 2022; Yuan et al. 2022) (see e.g., Malhan et al. 2022, for more details on these values). It is important to note that even though the reported metallicity dispersions of these accreted dwarf galaxies are approximated to be Gaussians, in reality these galaxies have a long tail towards the metal-poor end that is more di ffi cult to measure and constrain reliably (Leaman 2012). These dispersion measurements in chemical abundances works well for substructures with [Fe / H] > -2.5. For lower metallicities, its harder to separate accretion events from the general halo using chemical abundances (see for e.g., Sestito et al. 2024). However, in this study, for a large fraction of our stars are [Fe / H] > -2.5, making their separation in chemistry and dynamics is relatively easier, as shown in subsection 4.3.3.  \nThis means that di ff erent accretion events contributing to different regions of the Galactic halo, especially their unmixed debris, would show up as over or underdensities in the fractional contribution of stars from di ff erent metallicities at a small range of distance. Studying the relative contribution of di ff erent metallicity bins to di ff erent distances in the Galaxy also allow us to understand the metallicity structure of the halo. Figure 11 shows the relative fraction of stars in 8 di ff erent metallicity bins along the absolute height above the disc plane. We remove stars with | Z |< 2 kpc to avoid thin / thick disc contamination. Fractions are computed for 40 bins in distances, spaced evenly on a logarithmic scale between 2 and 90 kpc. From Figure 16, we can see the relatively metal rich stars ([Fe / H] > -1.0) coming from Sagittarius stream (Cunningham et al. 2024) at large Z. On the intermediate metallicities (-1.0 < [Fe / H] < -1.5), we see the apocenter pile-ups of GES merger, such as Hercules-Aquila Cloud (HAC), and Virgo Overdensity (VOD) at smaller Z ( < 30 kpc) and Outer Virgo Overdensity (OVO) and outer HAC at larger Z ( > 30 kpc) (see e.g., Belokurov et al. 2007; Newberg et al. 2007; Sesar et al.  \n2017). At scale heights larger than 40 kpc, the contribution from VMPstars increases very steeply. We associate about 40% of the total halo to VMP stars and 20% to EMP stars in the outermost halo (d > 65 kpc). These numbers demonstrate the power of our RGB catalogue in probing further out to 100 kpc, down to the most metal-poor stars in the Galaxy.", '4.2. The bias corrected metallicity structure of the halo': 'Because the PDR1 catalogue contains both reliable distances and metallicities without major selection e ff ects, we can present the metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) of the halo as a function of distance. Disc stars are removed to create a halo sample by using a cut of | Z | < 3 kpc 5 . We use six heliocentric distance bins: 3-4 kpc, 4-6 kpc, 6-10 kpc, 10-22 kpc, 22-45 kpc and 45-101 kpc. These ranges ensure that both the numbers of stars in each bin and the distance range spanned by one bin change smoothly.  \nWe have two sources of bias in our MDFs: the first one is introduced because of our colour cut, and the second one is introduced when binning the sample in distance due to our magnitude cut. We first consider the former source of bias. The colour range of 0 . 5 < G BP , 0 -G RP , 0 < 1 . 5 is the same for all stars, no matter their metallicity, but because the tip of the RGB becomes redder with increasing metallicity (see Figure 12 that shows the probed colour range for a set of PARSEC isochrones with varying metallicities) we probe a smaller fraction of the metal-rich stars than the metal-poor stars. This leads to an undersampling of metal-rich stars, which biases the shapes of our MDFs. Now let us consider the source of bias due to magnitude. This bias arises because our magnitude cut where we remove stars with G > 17 . 6 means that our MDFs are a ff ected by Malmquist bias. Again looking at Figure 12, the 0 . 5 < G BP , 0 -G RP , 0 < 1 . 5 cut means that the brighter the absolute magnitudes that are probed, the fewer metal-rich stars are included in the distant bin. This again leads to an undersampling of metal-rich stars, but an undersampling that increases with distance as can be seen in the increasing size of the red region with distance. The figure shows the three distance bins that are a ff ected by this Malmquist bias. We bias-correct both of these e ff ects by introducing weights to our MDFs for di ff erent metallicity ranges. On top of this, we also have the underlying Gaia\'s scanning pattern selection e ff ect on-sky (Riello et al. 2021), which is the S / N needed for a star to have Gaia XP information in DR3. This is a strong function of the location on the sky, but does not a ff ect the MDF as strongly.  \nThe weights are computed using PARSEC simulated stellar populations with Kroupa (2001, 2002) canonical two-part-power law initial mass function (IMF), corrected for unresolved binaries, as they contain labels for evolutionary stage, so that we can select only RGB stars. Using BaSTI requires a handmade selection to remove the subgiant branch, which we wish to avoid, and using MIST means we have to add an additional α -enhancement o ff set which is an extra assumption in our analysis, which we also wish to avoid. We use a method similar to the work by Youakim et al. (2020), who corrected the bias due to their colour cut in their metallicities for main sequence turn-o ff stars. We produce five PARSEC simulated populations that cover five equidistant metallicity bins, and a total mass of 100,000 M ⊙ . Absolute  \n1.0  \nFig. 12. Five PARSEC RGB isochrones with metallicities at -0.25, 0.75, -1.25, -1.75 and -2.25 dex (i.e. centered on the metallicity bins we use for our weights) going from red to purple. The colour range of 0 . 5 < G BP -G RP < 1 . 5 is in dashed grey lines and the area that is not probed because of this colour cut is shown in grey. As metallicity increases, the colour cut means that we probe a smaller portion of the RGB, leading to an undersampling of metal-rich stars. We show four panels corresponding to the four most distant bins, given in kpc, where Malmquist bias reduces the range in absolute magnitude probed by each distance bin (where the probed area is seen in white and the area lost due to Malmquist bias is seen in red, the upper limit of which is simply the absolute magnitude of the upper limit of each distance bin). Only the three most distant bins are a ff ected. Note how the most metal-rich isochrone in the 45-101 kpc bin does not enter into the white region at all. The combined e ff ect of the colour and magnitude cut is that the metal-poor stars reach the brightest absolute magnitudes. Therefore, the further into the halo we probe, the smaller the fraction of metal-rich stars.  \n<!-- image -->  \n1.0  \nweights would require knowledge of the total stellar mass of the stars in the catalogue\'s footprint if we want to correct for all stars in the observational cones, or of the total stellar mass of the halo if we want to extrapolate our MDFs to the entire halo. As we are interested in the shape of the MDFs and not their absolute values, the relative weights are su ffi cient. For this reason, we will also only present normalised histograms. To each of these simulated populations we apply the same cuts as we apply to the catalogue. We first select stars with 0 . 5 < G BP -G RP < 1 . 5 to mimic the Pristine colour cut. There are no distances and no apparent magnitudes for the simulated stars, so we mimic the parallax-based CaMD cut (subsection 3.1) and the magnitude cut (subsection 3.2) by setting the simulated populations\' RGB flag label == 3 . Because this removes the subgiant branch stars we do not apply the colour-metallicity cut either (subsection 3.3). Setting label == 3 implies that the entire distance catalogue consists of only RGB stars. Because the purity and completeness of our RGBcatalogues are quite high, we can assume that this is a good approximation of our catalogue.  \nThe colour bias weights are computed by taking the total mass in each metallicity bin after applying the label == 3 cut to it, and divide that by the total mass after the label == 3 and  \nTable 1. The weights calculated from PARSEC simulated stellar populations, to bias-correct the metallicity bias introduced by the 0 . 5 < G BP , 0 -G RP , 0 < 1 . 5 cut. The corresponding PARSEC isochrones are seen in Figure 12. The total mass in metallicity bin -1 . 5 < [Fe / H] < -1 . 0 is used as the reference mass, as we are only interested in normalised MDFs and thus their shape only. These weights are multiplied to the MDFs to bias-correct them.  \nthe colour cut has been applied. The reference weight, which we divide all weights by, is taken as the -1 . 5 < [Fe / H] < -1 . 0 metallicity bin weight. The resulting weights are seen in Table 1. Multiplying these times the MDFs will undo the undersampling of metal-rich stars that occurs because of our colour cut.  \nWenowmoveto computing the magnitude cut weights. Only the three most distant bins are a ff ected by Malmquist bias introduced by our magnitude cut, see Figure 12, and only they get weights assigned for this. For each metallicity bin as in Table 1, we compute the magnitude cut weights. For this, we divide the total mass for that metallicity bin by the mass for the same bin, but where the absolute magnitudes are brighter than the limiting magnitude for each distance bin. Because we once again are only interested in the relative weights for a given distance bin, we normalise the weights within one distance bin by dividing all weights with the weight for the most metal-poor bin. As we can see in Figure 12, the most metal-rich stellar population does not enter into the white region in the most distant bin, meaning that theoretically, we are not measuring the MDF of halo with heliocentric distances larger than 45 kpc where [Fe / H] > -0 . 5. This part of the MDF will be greyed out in subsequent plots. The weights are presented in Table 2 and we bias-correct the MDFs by multiplying them with these values. These weights are slightly overcorrecting the MDFs as we assume the largest distance at each distance bin to correct for the Malmquist bias and not the distribution of the distances itself in each bin, which is out of the scope of this work. There can also be an excess of metal-poor stars due to the inherent methodology of using CaHK narrow-band as a proxy for stellar metallicity. This is because metal-poor stars are brighter than metal-rich stars in CaHK magnitudes and therefore have a higher signal-to-noise. To correct for this, we need extensive modelling of the survey\'s photometry. However, we note that we use the brighter subsample of the survey and thus, this e ff ect should be very small as seen in the left panel of Figure 9. The biases due to distance uncertainties and metallicity uncertainties in the faint end should also be small due to the large range of distances chosen in each bin, and the bin size chosen for the MDFs shown in Figure 13. Therefore, the simple bias-correcting technique presented in this work is a first step towards investigating the true view of the MDF of the outer halo.  \nAfter the weights in Tables 1 and 2 have been multiplied by the MDFs in each distance bin, we fit a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) decomposition to the MDFs. The number of components are chosen based on the lowest Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), that ends up choosing three components as the optimal ones for all the di ff erent distance bins. The MDFs and their corresponding GMMs, with each contributing component, are shown in Figure 13 together with the amount of stars in each  \nTable 2. The weights calculated from PARSEC simulated stellar populations, to bias-correct the metallicity bias introduced by binning the sample in distance. Because of our magnitude cut where we only keep stars with G < 17 . 6 mag, each distance bin probes a limited range in absolute magnitude, which because of the colour cut primarily a ff ects the metal-rich stars, see Fig. 12. Within each distance bin, the weights for each metallicity has been normalised to the weight in the [Fe / H] < -2 . 0 bin. These weights are multiplied to the MDFs to bias-correct them.  \ndistance bin. Figure 14 illustrates the kernel density estimate (KDE) altogether per distance bin. The GMM components and their means µ , standard deviations σ and component weights ω are shown in Table 3, both with and without the weights.  \nBoth figures show that the metal-poor peak (coming from low-mass accretion events and the tail of more massive accretion events) marked as 1 getting stronger with distance, but peaks in the 6-10 kpc bin. This is also seen in Table 3, where ω 1 has the largest value in that bin, meaning that it has the most contribution from the metal-poor peak. µ 1 is also the most negative for that bin. However, it has the largest dispersion σ 1 in the 45-101 kpc bin. The variation in the mean between the 6-10 kpc and other more distant bins is very small, compared with the measured metallicity uncertainties. Therefore, it is safe to assume that this bin stays roughly constant past 6-10 kpc. The medium metallicity peak (coming from more massive accretion events), peak 2, decreases in metallicity with distance ( µ 2), increases in strength with distance ( ω 2), but its dispersion ( σ 2) roughly stays constant. This peak has its contribution mostly from the last major merger, GES. The metal-rich peak (coming from "hot" thick disc stars, i.e. thick disc stars on halo-like orbits), peak 3, is most pronounced in the closest bin. Its metallicity ( µ 3) also decreases with distance, its dispersion ( σ 3) increases until the most distant bin, and its strength mostly decreases with distance ( ω 3). This shows that the hot thick disc stars populate mostly the inner Galactic halo (d < 10 kpc). In the outermost halo (d > 22 kpc), the metal-rich peak could also contain the disrupting Sagittarius dwarf galaxy stream (Ibata et al. 2020), even though we only have a small number of stars that we associate with the stream as seen in upcoming subsections. We do not attempt to remove the stream specifically to perform the MDF analysis as the number of members we find is very low (N < 400), and the lack of 6D phase space information at larger distances makes the stream member removal less reliable and creates more selection e ff ects. The e ff ect with distance on the unweighted values is more continuous, which shows the need for our bias-correcting method using weights. As we move further into the halo, the contribution to the stellar population from accreted dwarf galaxies increase  \n(Naidu et al. 2020), which explains the increase in metallicity dispersion with distance.  \nWedraw the conclusion that not only do the metal-poor components become stronger as distance increases, but each given component is also more metal-poor with distance. It is also clear from the MDFs that the halo contains a metal-rich component, peak 3, that persists even at large distances (however, this might be a mix of "hot" thick disc and Sagittarius stream at large distances in the last distance bin). The halo is known to contain a red and blue colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) population (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018). The blue sequence comes from the GES merger, where the mass ratio between the red and blue populations indicates that the GES was massive enough to perturb in-situ MW stars in the old thick disc to halo-like kinematics (Gallart et al. 2019). These kinematically heated stars can most clearly be seen at metallicities spanning the range -0.7 to -0.2 dex (Belokurov et al. 2020). The canonical thick (and thin) disc stars in our sample must be removed mostly by our | Z | < 3 kpc cut. This coincides with the range of µ 3 we measure at closer distances, and these splashed stars are likely the reason that we have such pronounced metal-rich peaks in our MDFs.  \nThe decrease of metallicity with distance in the halo has been seen previously in both simulations (Starkenburg et al. 2017b) and observations (Dietz et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2022). There are claims that this negative metallicity gradient with distance might be due to selection e ff ects as other authors have observed a lack of this gradient out to 100 kpc (Conroy et al. 2019b). The MDFs presented in this work have been bias-corrected and should provide a much cleaner representation of the underlying metallicity structure of the halo. We still clearly see a metallicity gradient with distance, but not as pronounced as it would be without the bias-correcting weights. This underscores the importance of our bias-correcting methods, while also highlighting the di ff erence in the metallicity distribution of the Galactic halo (that is still present after accounting for the selection biases) at di ff erent distances out to 100 kpc.', '4.3. Dynamical view of metallicity substructures': 'In this section, we will create the 6D positions and velocities subsample of our PDR1 and PGS-giants catalogue and will highlight the many di ff erent substructures seen in the outer halo down to lower metallicities using this 6D information.', '4.3.1. Radial velocities from spectroscopic surveys': 'To derive 6D phase-space information for a subset of our sample, we cross-matched our PDR1 / PGS-giants with catalogs from the SDSS DR12 Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration (SEGUE, York et al. 2000), the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST MRS, & LRS DR7, Zhao et al. 2006), the RAdial Velocity Experiment (RAVE DR6, Steinmetz et al. 2006), the Galactic Archaeology with HERMES spectroscopic survey (GALAH DR3, Buder et al. 2021), the APO Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE DR17, Majewski et al. 2017), Southern Stellar Stream Spectroscopic Survey (S5 DR1, Li et al. 2019), and Gaia Radial Velocity Spectrometer ( Gaia RVS DR3, Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023b). These surveys complement each other in probing lower to higher latitudes, brighter to fainter stars, and northern and southern hemispheres. Even though the combination of all of these surveys along with the Pristine survey and / or the Gaia XP sample gives raise to a complex selection function, we try to ex-  \nTable 3. The mean µ , standard deviation σ and component weights ω of the three GMM components, given in dex, for each of the MDFs seen in Fig. 13. The values in italics shows µ , σ and ω when no weights have been applied. \'1\' refers to the metal-poor GMM component, \'2\' to the middle component, and \'3\' to the metal-rich component. The total GMMs are shown in Fig. 14.  \ntract as much information as possible from the literature for our giants catalogue, and refrain from modeling the selection function, given the simple science cases shown in this work. The radial velocities are corrected for their zero point o ff sets with each other using Gaia RVS radial velocities as the zero point (similar to what has been done in Ruiz-Lara et al. 2022). In this work, we refer to stars with 6D information as "PDR1 / PGS 6D giants" and the full catalogues as "PDR1 / PGS-giants" implying 5D information without line-of-sight velocities. The PDR1 6D giants go out to ∼ 65 kpc and PGS 6D giants go out to ∼ 45 kpc in heliocentric distances.', '4.3.2. Sagittarius stream': 'In Figure 15, we show the inferred photometric distances versus right ascension (RA) for PDR1-giants (top two panels) and PGS-giants (bottom panel), with the Sagittarius stream track from Hernitschek et al. (2017) overlaid to guide the eye through the Sagittarius member stars in our sample. All the panels have π < 0.05 mas ( parallax < 0.05, distance > 20 kpc) to remove nearby field giants (same as removing stars d < 10 kpc using our inferred photometric distances). In the top panel, we show the metal-rich stars ([Fe / H] < -1.0) to pick out the structures we see in Figure 11. We can see the leading arm traced out to ∼ 60 kpc along with the spur feature 3 reported by Sesar et al. (2017). It is important to note that the spur feature seen in the top and bottom panels of Figure 15 is at the same distance probed by their RR Lyrae counterpart, showing the reliability of our distances. This spur feature close to the apocenter of the leading arm is selected with the Sagittarius stream coordinate absolute latitude cut within 20 · , but it remains up to 9 · , with few members going down to 5 · , consistent with what is seen in the literature with standard candle tracers. This confirms the association of the spur feature with the stream itself and the existence of such apocenter lumps is seen in most Sagittarius simulations for the disruption of a Sagittarius dwarf Spheroidal (dSph)-like galaxy (Sesar et al. 2017). However, the nearby distances are still quite noisy due to field star contamination. This does not change much with the parallax cut to remove nearby stars. In the middle panel, we show all stars within 20 · of the Sagittarius stream coordinate latitude (using the Vasiliev et al. 2021 coordinate conversion). From the bulk of stars from GES that are more metal-poor than Sagittarius, we do not see the Sagittarius signal clearly in this plot. However, we trace the trailing arm out to the apocenter more cleanly (with a small o ff set in distance that matches well within the distance  \nuncertainties) in this view. Adding a metallicity cut on top of the stream latitude cut improves the selection at nearby distances but we do not see the trailing arm at larger distances anymore. In the bottom panel, we show the same for PGS-giants and we clearly trace the leading arm and the spur feature 3 in this catalogue. We do not see Sagittarius as much in PGS-giants, mostly due to the distance-metallicity selection e ff ect due to which we do not see any metal-rich stars at higher distances and the Sagittarius stream is relatively metal-rich compared to the bulk of halo stars at large distances. A similar analysis using PDR1 / PGS 6D giants is discussed in detail in Appendix D. This results in a sparser, more nearby, but cleaner selection of Sagittarius stream members due to the availability of 6D information for a full kinematic selection. The cleanest selection of Sagittarius in both the catalogues of giants are using 6D phase space information where available and if not, using a metal-rich cut for PDR1-giants or a latitude cut on PGS-giants as can be seen in the top and bottom panels of Figure 15. However, we know that the Sagittarius streams has a clear metallicity gradient which will impact the MDF in lower metallicities as well (Cunningham et al. 2024).', '4.3.3. Metallicity view of integrals-of-motion space': 'Merger debris from di ff erent accretion events that made up the Milky Way halo in the distant past are clustered in the integralsof-motion (IOM) space (Helmi et al. 2000). Here, we use two typical quantities as integrals of motion: the angular momentum in the z-direction (L z ), and the total energy (E). L z is truly conserved in an axisymmetric potential, while varying slowly in a triaxial potential, maintaining a certain degree of clustering for stars on similar orbits from the same accretion event, though it is not fully conserved. The total energy E is computed as:  \nE = 1 2 v 2 + Φ ( r ) (3)  \nwhere Φ ( r ) is the Galactic gravitational potential at the star\'s location. For this analysis, we used the same potential as in Lövdal et al. (2022): a Miyamoto-Nagai disc, Hernquist bulge, and Navarro-Frenk-White halo with parameters (a d , b d ) = (6.5, 0.26) kpc, M d = 9.3 × 10 10 M ⊙ for the disc, c b = 0.7 kpc, M b = 3.0 × 10 10 M ⊙ for the bulge, and r s = 21.5 kpc, c h = 12 kpc, and M halo = 10 12 M ⊙ for the halo. We use a low renormalized unit weight error ( ruwe < 1.4) to use stars with good quality astrometry and remove potential binaries. We assume V LSR = 232 km / s,  \nFig. 13. The MDFs from PDR1-giants in six Galactocentric distance bins and their corresponding GMMs (solid lines) and the three individual GMM components (dashed lines). The GMMs are shown next to each other in Fig. 14. All distance bins are given in kpc. The individual GMM components are labelled as 1, 2 and 3 with decreasing metallicity in the top panel. The region [Fe / H] > -0 . 5 dex is greyed out for the most distant bin as we are not properly probing this region of the MDF, see Fig. 12.  \n<!-- image -->  \na distance of 8.2 kpc between the Sun and the Galactic center (McMillan 2017), and (U ⊙ , V ⊙ , W ⊙ ) = (11.1, 12.24, 7.25) km / s for the peculiar motion of the Sun (Schönrich et al. 2010).  \nWe show the IOM space (energy versus angular momentum in z-direction) colour-coded by the mean metallicities for  \nFig. 14. The best-fit GMMs to the MDFs seen in Fig. 13. The region [Fe / H] > -0 . 5 dex is greyed out for the most distant bin as we are not properly probing this region of the MDF, see Fig. 12. All distance bins are given in kpc. The means, standard deviations and weights of the di ff erent peaks can be seen in Table 3.  \n<!-- image -->  \nthe PDR1 6D giants on the top panel of Figure 16. We choose PDR1 over PGS 6D giants due to the larger distances probed, the fact that we are looking for phase-mixed structures (not coherent ones) which reduces the impact of the Pristine survey footprint, the higher quality of the photometric metallicities, and the lowto-no metallicity biases. In the bottom panels of Figure 16, we show the IOM space in 10 di ff erent bins of metallicities indicating the di ff erent structures / accretion events identified in the literature (Koppelman et al. 2019; Myeong et al. 2019; Yuan et al. 2020; Naidu et al. 2020; Lövdal et al. 2022; Ruiz-Lara et al. 2022; Malhan et al. 2022; Thomas & Battaglia 2022; Yuan et al. 2022; Horta et al. 2023; Dodd et al. 2023). The bins are chosen wide enough to see most of one dwarf accretion event in one bin, given their metallicity dispersion scales. All these panels and subpanels are plotted for an absolute scale height greater than 3 kpc cut to remove disc stars ( | Z |> 3 kpc). This inevitably also removes foreground and / or background stars from a spherical halo distribution, but the e ff ects of this should be minimal given that the halo completeness matters less than the purity for studying phase mixed halo substructures.  \nIn the first panel, for [Fe / H] > -0.5, we can clearly see prograde thick disc stars still left over in our sample. In the next bin (-0.75 < [Fe / H] < -0.5), we see the hot thick disc / Splash stars that are thick disc stars kicked up to halo-like orbits, likely resulting from the heating of the primordial highα thick disc due to early mergers. We also find the \'Aleph\' structure in this bin, a highly circular structure that is significantly enriched ([Fe / H] = -0.5, [ α / Fe] = 0.2), and may be associated with the enigmatic globular cluster Palomar 1. Its origin, whether in situ or ex situ , is still ambiguous. From the next panels, we start seeing accretion events that made up the Milky Way halo. Between metallicities of -1.0 and -0.75, we see the now-disrupting Sagittarius stream. We are probing the lower energies of Sagittarius in this work, mostly due to the fact that the trailing arm (at higher energy) is not covered as well as the leading arm (at lower energy) in our PDR1 6D giants. Parts of the Sagittarius stream are also visible at lower metallicities, but fewer in number. It has a clear and distinct negative L y , which we use to select 6D  \nFig. 15. Photometric distance versus RA in the PDR1-giants catalogue at higher metallicities ([Fe / H] > -1.0, top), close to the Sagittarius stream plane ( | B |< 20 · , middle), and the latter for the PGS-giants catalogue (bottom). All panels have Sagittarius stream tracks adapted from Hernitschek et al. (2017). Note the spur feature (associated with feature 3 from Sesar et al. (2017)). Leading and trailing arms are labelled \'L\' and \'T\' respectively. The stream members go further out and are more prominent with PDR1-giants than PGS-giants mostly due to the distance-metallicity selection e ff ect in the latter catalogue.  \n<!-- image -->  \nmembers of the Sagittarius stream in Appendix D (see Chandra et al. 2023b, who also use the same criteria to select Sagittarius stream). From [Fe / H] < -1.0, we already start seeing the last major merger, GES, and metal-poor end of Sgr stream, down to metallicities of -2.0. However, the density of GES stars at L z ∼ 0 peaks in the metallicity bin -1.5 < Fe / H] < -1.25. We probe large distances and higher energies of this last major merger event, down to lower metallicities, for the first time. The lower energies of GES contour does not necessarily have to belong to GES, but could belong to the old protogalaxy or the metalpoor tail of the "hot" thick disc. However, we need more chemical abundances to distinguish them. This is the same metallicity bin where we see the highly retrograde high energy Sequoia event and the Helmi streams, which is one of the first halo structures discovered through integrals of motion (Helmi et al. 1999). In the more metal-poor bin (-1.75 < [Fe / H] < -1.5), we see two more metal-poor structures namely, Thamnos, a low-mass ( ∼ 2 × 10 6 M ⊙ ), retrograde structure deep in the potential well of the Galaxy, and LMS-1 / Wukong that is still disrupting and is reported to be VMP in some studies (Malhan et al. 2021). How-  \ne find a strong density peak around this metallicity bin, which is about 0.5 dex more metal-rich than some literature studies (Malhan et al. 2021), but similar in metallicities to the some other (Naidu et al. 2020). The next two metallicity bins look cleaner with no indication of any significant substructures. We do see a group of highly retrograde (L z > -0.5 kpc km / s) and high energy (E ∼ -0.5 km 2 / s 2 ) VMP stars ([Fe / H] < -2) in the metallicity bin -2.25 < [Fe / H] < -2 separate from the rest of the distribution, the origin of which needs a bigger sample of homogenously analysed 6D giants to be characterised out to large distances. In the future, with the upcoming WEAVE, 4MOST and DESI surveys (Jin et al. 2024; de Jong et al. 2019; Cooper et al. 2023) and our own high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up, we will have this 6D information and chemistry to understand the accretion history of our Milky Way at the VMP end. In the VMP bin -2.5 < [Fe / H] < -2.25, we see the very prograde, still-disrupting Cetus stellar stream which is one the lowest metallicity structures from a dwarf galaxy accreted onto to the Milky Way. The final and most metal-poor bin still consists of 345 PDR1 6D giants, which is one of the largest collation of giants out to large distances and down to very low metallicities. This bin is almost free of substructures, but is slightly prograde and centrally concentrated, reminiscent of the proto-galaxy / poor-oldheart / Aurora population that are thought to be of in situ origin tracing the infant Milky Way stage (Belokurov & Kravtsov 2022; Rix et al. 2022; Belokurov & Kravtsov 2023; Ardern-Arentsen et al. 2024). Among these many accretion events, we do not recover some of them namely, Shiva, Shakti and Pontus (Malhan 2022; Malhan & Rix 2024). This could be due to selection effects in the many di ff erent spectroscopic surveys and the Pristine survey itself. On the other hand, this could also be explained by the selection e ff ect in the Gaia RVS radial velocities (Lane et al. 2022; Dillamore et al. 2023) and ridges caused by bar resonances (Dillamore et al. 2024) for Shiva and Shakti events and Pontus being captured as the low energy part of the last major merger, GES (Amarante et al. 2022). The same plots are made but colour-coded by Galactocentric distances, to understand the region of the Galaxy probed by these accretion events (wherein the stars with lower energies have lower distances and higher energies have higher distances, as would be expected) and summarised in Appendix E. In the top panel of Figure 16, we can already associate the many di ff erent substructures described above with their places in the IOM by eye as they are colour-coded by the mean metallicities. However, we refrain from adding labels to this plot to avoid crowding. With a significant number of stars in each metallicity bin going further out into the halo, this is the first time we are able to associate all these substructures with their metallicity view of the IOM space.', '4.4. Outer halo metal-poor substructures': "The outer halo is intriguing because it holds clues about the formation and evolution of the Milky Way, including the remnants of past mergers and accretion events and their turning points. Fully characterizing the global extent of structures found in local samples also requires looking further into the outer halo. In Figure 17, we show the on-sky distribution of the outer halo (d > 40 kpc) colour-coded by the density of stars. We have ∼ 2000 PDR1giants and ∼ 200 PGS-giants in the outer halo (that are all VMP due to the distance metallicity selection e ff ect in PGS-giants), at distances greater than 40 kpc and Galactic latitudes higher than 20 · to avoid extinction a ff ecting our distance and metallicity estimates in the outer halo. We have almost no radial velocity members in this subsample. This is the largest collection of VMP  \n<!-- image -->  \n<!-- image -->  \n<!-- image -->  \n<!-- image -->  \n<!-- image -->  \n<!-- image -->  \n<!-- image -->  \nFig. 16. Metallicity view of the intergrals-of-motion space for the PDR1-giants catalogue. Energy versus angular momentum in the z-direction colour-coded by PDR1 metallicities with Sun's E-L z shown as a red star (top center). Energy versus z-angular momentum at di ff erent slices in metallicities colour-coded by their density distributions with di ff erent substructures highlighted for PDR1 6D giants (bottom panels). The following acronyms are used in this figure: HTD - hot thick disc, Sgr - Sagittarius, GES - Gaia-Enceladus-Sausage, LMS-1 - Low mass stream-1, MW Milky Way.  \n<!-- image -->  \nstars out to such large distances, allowing us to study some of the earliest times of our galaxy's evolution.  \nIn the top panel of Figure 17, we clearly see the Pristine survey footprint preventing us from looking at the all-sky distribution of outer halo substructures. However, the outer halo is full of many substructures, both dynamical and chemical. We clearly see overdensities near the Sagittarius stream tracks shown as black dashed lines. We see the highest density of stars around part of the region that overlaps significantly with the outer Virgo overdensity (outer-VOD) (Sesar et al. 2017). This has been associated to the apocentric pileup of debris from the GES accretion event using a very complementary sample of outer halo giants by Chandra et al. (2023b). The peak of the metallicity distribution for these stars is also close to the mean metallicity of GES. However, a larger number of 6D members would be needed to confirm this association. Linking overdensities such as HAC and VOD to larger accretion events has also been explored by Balbinot & Helmi (2021). We also see an overdensity of stars in the southern hemisphere around the same region as the Pisces Plume with the Magellanic wake overdensities but at higher longitudes. Weguide the eye using the following track on the sky: ℓ 2 = -60 + 0.2b + 0.01b 2 shifted by ± 10 · (modified slightly from what was reported in Chandra et al. 2023b for the Pisces Plume). However, this could also simply be explained by more stars being present  \nin this region as it is getting closer to lower latitudes, where the stellar density is higher along with the Gaia 's scanning law effect in the same region (see Figure 10 in MS23). A larger on-sky stretch of stars in this region would allow for a disentangling of these e ff ects.  \nIn the bottom panel of Figure 17, we see an all-sky view of the metal-poor Milky Way outer halo. Due to the distancemetallicity selection e ff ect (see subsection 3.6.2), we are free of metal-rich stars in the outer halo, which allows us to study the outer halo's earliest evolution more easily. This is also why we do not see the Sagittarius stream which is one of the most prominent outer-halo metal-rich substructures. We see a clear overdensity of stars at the same region as HAC in the north (Belokurov et al. 2007). However, these stars are at very large distances compared to the distances probed by HAC North and South (d < 20 kpc) and these are all VMP. The origin of this overdensity is unclear and due to the unavailability of radial velocities, it is impossible to derive 6D-phase space information and orbital parameters. Therefore, we cannot associate it to GES or any other accretion events yet. We indicate this with a blue box and an outer-HAC label on Figure 17 bottom panel.  \nIn this bottom panel of Figure 17 in the south, we see a clear overdensity that we associate with the Pisces Plume (Belokurov et al. 2019) which could be a mix of the dynamical wake due  \n<!-- image -->  \nFig. 17. The Milky Way's outer halo as viewed by PDR1-giants (top, Pristine footprint) and PGS-giants (bottom, Gaia 's all-sky view) at heliocentric distances greater than 40 kpc. The colourmap is a density distribution in Galactic coordinates at absolute latitudes greater than 20 · . We highlight the significant overdensities that dominate the outer halo and identify their most-likely progenitors. In the top panel, we also show the footprint of the entire Pristine survey in grey. Some of the pixels in the outer halo part of PDR1-giants are larger than the Pristine footprint due to the chosen healpix level.  \n<!-- image -->  \nto LMC's infall and stellar counterpart of the Magellanic stream (MSS). We show the LMC and SMC (infalling satellites of the Milky Way) as large and small orange circles in the same figure. This overdensity is almost fully co-incident with the infalling orbits of the Magellanic Clouds. The overdensity close just above the Pisces plume and closer to inner Galaxy maybe caused due to Gaia's scanning law and metal-poor end of the Sagittarius dwarf, but we need 6D members to confirm this. We discuss the Pisces Plume substructure more in detail in the next subsection.", '4.4.1. The Magellanic stellar stream and the Pisces Plume down to the very metal-poor end': "Using Gaia DR2, Belokurov et al. (2019) used all-sky RR Lyrae stars to uncover a plume-like elongation near the Pisces Overdensity (we only map the plume and not the overdensity, mostly due to Gaia 's scanning law pattern that creates northern and southern caps of underdensities in these regions) extending to larger distances. This elongation, aligned with the direction of the gaseous MS, suggests a connection to the Clouds. Based on the kinematics and metallicities of a small subsample of Blue horizontal branch (BHB) stars in the Pisces Plume of this 'Pisces Plume', they argued that it predominantly represents the dynam-  \nFig. 18. Our VMP Magellanic stellar stream (MSS) member candidates are projected along the Magellanic stream coordinates (panel 1), proper motions along and transverse to the stream (panels 2 and 3), heliocentric distance (panel 4), along projected stream coordinates with their transverse motion highlighted using velocity vectors (panel 5), line-ofsight radial velocity (where available, from PGS 6D giants, panel 6). All the parameters are plotted against the Magellanic stream longitude. The projection includes particles from both tidal debris models in Besla et al. (2012), LMC, SMC parameters adapted from Kallivayalil et al. (2006a,b), and the Magellanic stellar stream debris discovered by Chandra et al. (2023a).  \n<!-- image -->  \nical friction wake imprinted on the Milky Way's halo by the infall of the LMC, rather than being composed of stripped stars from the Clouds. Conroy et al. (2021) used all-sky RGB stars to suggest that the southern overdensity and a northern counterpart correspond to the dynamical friction wake and the 'collective response' of the LMC's infall, matching predictions from simulations (Garavito-Camargo et al. 2019, 2021). However, they found that the southern overdensity is twice as strong in the data as predicted by simulations, possibly indicating multiple populations within the Pisces Plume.  \nThe origin of this Pisces Plume is uncertain; it is still unclear whether it contains debris stripped from the Magellanic Clouds, ram-pressure stripping (the Magellanic stream, Putman et al. 2003), or if it primarily represents the dynamical friction wake of the Large Magellanic Cloud (Garavito-Camargo et al. 2019; Conroy et al. 2021). It is important to note that almost all of our member stars in this region are VMP ([Fe / H] < -2.0, most of them are below -2.5). The Magellanic Stream is an extensive gaseous structure gracefully encircling the Milky Way and spanning over 140 degrees of the southern sky. Despite decades of  \ndedicated observations and simulation e ff orts, the precise origin of the Magellanic Stream remains elusive. Two major formation processes, tidal disruption and ram-pressure stripping, are competing explanations for its existence. To complicate matters further, its trailing arm is also the region on-sky that experiences the Large Magellanic Cloud's dynamical friction wake. The theorized stellar counterpart to the gaseous Magellanic Stream is the Magellanic Stellar Stream (MSS) which was recently traced in the relatively metal-rich end by Chandra et al. (2023a) using a Gaia XP spectra giants catalogue that is complementary to ours. The stellar stream provides strong constraints on the distance and kinematics of the gaseous Magellanic Stream, helping us understand the past orientation and interaction history between the Clouds and the Milky Way. By accurately characterizing the MSS's detailed chemical abundances, we can study the chemical evolution in the outskirts of the Clouds and the interaction of their haloes with the outer Galactic halo.  \nWe select all our MSS member candidates between the orange polynomial lines shifted by ± 20 · as shown in the bottom panel of Figure 17 at distances larger than 25 kpc. We choose this value because at large distances, our method tends to underestimate distances more than it overestimates them (see Figure 7 for the comparison with Starhorse distances). In Figure 18, we show various kinematic properties of our VMP MSS member candidates in star symbols along the Magellanic stream longitude L MS (coordinate conversion based on the Nidever et al. (2008) stream axis definition). We overlay the two Magellanic stream models from Besla et al. (2012, 2013) that was modelled to trace the gas for comparison. Model 1 (M1) was designed to best match the velocity of the Magellanic stream (MS) and model 2 (M2) to match the kinematics of the Clouds themselves. The LMC and SMC are also shown as big and small orange stars in all the panels. Their positions and velocities are taken from Kallivayalil et al. (2006a,b) and the LMC and SMC have a median metallicity of -0.5 and -1.0 respectively. We also overlap Chandra et al. (2023a) members as circles. These members and our member candidates are colour-coded by spectroscopic metalliccities where available and, if not, PGS photometric metallicities. We find 41 member candidates by association to the MSS's trailing arm in the south in proper motion and positions, 47 are VMP([Fe / H] < -2), 32 are [Fe / H] < -2.5 and 9 are EMP ([Fe / H] < -3) stars out to 70 kpc. Chandra et al. (2023a) confirmed 7 relatively metal-rich members but also serendipitously discovered 6 members that are relatively metal-poor ([Fe / H] < -1.5). Their metal-rich population is described as extended and stream-like, while the metal-poor population is more di ff use and clumpy. In summary, we find the metal-poor population to also exhibit a stream-like elongated orientation. In Figure 18 panel 1, we see the members in stream coordinates and our members lie in the same region occupied by the 6 metal-poor members from Chandra et al. (2023a), but more elongated. These are slightly o ff set from the models which are closely tracing the gas. This could be because the gas is tracing stars that are tidally disrupted from the disc regions rather than the outskirts of the Clouds. These VMP stars must be some of the oldest stars associated with the Clouds that got kicked away into a stream-like structure from the outskirts of the SMC (also maybe the LMC, even though it is relatively metal-rich) from the LMC-SMC interaction (see Navarrete et al. 2019, who trace stream-like SMC stars accreted onto the LMC halo at L MS > 0). Panel 2 and 3 show the stream longitude versus proper motions in L MS and B MS , respectively. The VMPMSScandidates match well with the broad direction of the model's proper motions, but have a larger range and dispersion than the Chandra et al. (2023a) members, especially in the B MS  \ndirection. Panel 4 shows the heliocentric distances that are much closer than the Chandra et al. (2023a) members, reminiscent of the cloud-associated debris from Zaritsky et al. (2020). These distances are closer in range to the metal-poor members from Chandra et al. (2023a), which could mean that the metal-poor members are closer than the metal-rich members. On the other hand, we caution that our distances tend to be biased towards closer distances. Thus, we need more reliable spectrophotometric distances to confirm this. Panel 5 shows the same as panel 1, but with transverse velocity vectors, most of which point in the same direction as the Clouds themselves. However, the members at smaller L MS have a bit more random motion than the members close to the Clouds. Therefore, these members are less likely to be members of the MSS. Panel 6 shows the line-of-sight velocities for three members in our selection that are in common with the PGS 6D giants subset. Two of these members are from the S5 (DR1) survey and one member is from LAMOST (DR7 MRS) survey. All of these members are VMP and one of the S5 members has a spectroscopic metallicity [Fe / H] = -2.55 ± 0.07, which is already the most metal-poor member of the MSS discovered yet. All these 6D stars are remarkably consistent with the models in panel 6 with respect to the line-of-sight velocities that are expected to trace the gaseous MS.  \nIn this work, we find 41 stars at the metal-poor end, in the outer halo that we tentatively associate with the Pisces Plume overdensity / the Magellanic stellar stream. Even with the kinematic parameters roughly aligning with the gaseous MS, its models and MSS members presented in Chandra et al. (2023a), there is a possibility that part of these stars could be associated with the dynamical wake due to the LMC's infall. In the work of Chandra et al. (2023a), from their Pisces plume members, they find that at least 7 out of 45 stars (or ≥ 15%) in their Pisces Plume overdensity appear to be confidently identified as debris from the Clouds. In our work, from our member candidates of Pisces plume, to clearly understand the percentage contribution from the Clouds themselves and the halo response at the VMP end, we need full 6D phase space information for all these stars and detailed chemical abundances. We have an ongoing spectroscopic follow-up program with the Gemini GHOST instrument (McConnachie et al. 2024) for > 10 stars in this region covering the full extent of the plume at the bright end as a pilot program. From a full chemodynamical analysis of the stars in this region through follow-up spectroscopy, we can uncover the origin story of these VMP stars around the Pisces Plume, assess the contribution from the Clouds' tidal debris versus the field halo's response to the LMC's infall, while also understanding the true origin of the metal-poor stars in the MSS.", '5. Discussion': 'In this section, we discuss the e ffi ciency of our RGB selection using the A23 parameters and summarise the future scope of the RGB catalogues presented in this work.', '5.1. RGB selection validated using A23 parameters': 'As a final check on the purity and completeness of our catalogues of giants, we use log g values from the A23 catalogue that is based on the Gaia XP spectra and parallax. In Figure 19, we show the log g distribution from the A23 catalogue before and after our RGB selection pipeline (see the Figure 4 flowchart for a summary of the pipeline) has been applied to the PDR1 (top) and PGS (bottom) input catalogues. This figure shows the e ffi ciency of our selection given the small number of stars that fall below  \nlog g = 3.5, given the very low signal from RGB stars before the pipeline was applied (this is because dwarfs are 100 times more numerous than giants). The final purity and completeness calculated based on the A23 log g is 78% and 76% respectively for the PDR1-giants and 92% and 82% respectively for the PGSgiants. These numbers are much higher than what we inferred based on the training sample. From these numbers, we can conclude that our RGB selection works very well and to maximise purity and completeness at the same time. From a small subset of good parallax ( f = 0.05) stars that are misclassified with logg\\_xgboost > 3.5 in our RGB catalogues or unselected with logg\\_xgboost < 3.5 and not in our RGB catalogues, we see that most (90%) of these stars are near the sub-giant branch and / or main sequence part of the CMD.  \nWe only use the atmospheric parameters from A23 for calculating photometric distances and validating our RGB star selection. Our goal is to demonstrate the e ff ectiveness of selecting RGB stars using only parallax and photometry, without depending on atmospheric parameters, distances, or radial velocities. This approach is more widely applicable as it allows for the reliable identification of RGB stars across any photometric catalogue that includes Gaia parallaxes. The validation using log g from A23 showcase the power of our RGB selection.', '5.2. Future scope': 'The PDR1 and PGS-catalogues of giants with reliable photometric distances and metallicities going out to ∼ 100 kpc and down to [Fe / H] = -3.5 is made available publicly with this paper. The format of the table that will be released electronically is shown in Table 4. The PDR1-giants, despite having a patchy distribution on-sky, provide a bias-corrected view of the metallicity versus distance for the entire Galactic halo, especially the outer Galactic halo. This allows us to the study the metallicity distribution function at di ff erent distances. Using these RGB samples, we can study the metallicity gradient in the outermost halo of our Galaxy and explore the complex assembly history of the Galactic halo, among many other science cases. With such a giants catalogue, we can also constrain the mass spectrum of some of the oldest and smallest destroyed dwarf galaxies based on the metallicity distribution functions of the inner and outer halo (Deason et al. 2023). The PGS-giants, despite having a distancemetallicity selection e ff ect, constitute the first all-sky catalogue of the outer halo with the lowest metallicity stars ([Fe / H] < -2.5). There is a huge discovery space for streams and substructures in the outer Galactic halo, especially in the VMP end. Such a giants catalogue with full chemodynamics (with the WEAVE (Jin et al. 2024), 4MOST (de Jong et al. 2019), and DESI Milky Way (Cooper et al. 2023) spectroscopic surveys and our own highresolution spectroscopic follow-up programs) will allow us to find evidence of disrupted, low-mass, VMP streams and accretion events that formed our Galaxy in the distant past.', '6. Conclusions and outlook': 'In this work, we have selected RGB stars using the publicly available Pristine data release 1 (PDR1, based on CaHK narrowband measurements in the northern hemisphere using CFHT) and PristineGaia synthetic (PGS, based on the Gaia XPspectra) catalogues of photometric metallicities. The highlights of this paper are as follows (empty versus filled squares are technical versus scientific highlights):  \nFig. 19. The distribution of the A23 surface gravities before and after the catalogue pipeline (described in Figure 4) is applied on the PDR1 (top) and PGS (bottom) input catalogue. The vertical line at log g = 3.5 shows the separation used to validate the giants sample selection. In all the panels, the overdensity of stars at log g ∼ 2.5 from RC stars are clearly visible.  \n<!-- image -->  \n- ❏ The RGB selection pipeline involves three main steps: (i) CaMD cut: selection of giants and removal of dwarfs using absolute colour-magnitude diagram based on "good enough" parallax (one that is not zero or negative and has a maximum uncertainty of 50% to maximize purity and completeness simultaneously, see subsection 3.1 and Figures 1 and 2), (ii) Bad parallax giants: magnitude cut of G < 17.6 to remove dwarfs that do not have "good enough" parallaxes while retaining bad parallax giants that have bright enough magnitudes (giants that are selected based on the absence of a well-measured parallax given the brightness range). At magnitudes G > 17.6, both dwarfs and giants have bad parallax which makes it impossible to distinguish between them without spectroscopy (see subsection 3.2 and Figure A.1), (iii) Colour-metallicity cut: a linear relation between colour and metallicity defined using MIST isochrones removes unevenly covered sub-giant branch stars given the FGK colour range of the Pristine survey (see subsection 3.3 and Figure 3). The full RGB selection pipeline is summarised in Figure 4 as a flowchart.\n- ❏ After applying the RGB selection pipeline on the PDR1 and the PGS input catalogues, the photometric distances are derived for both catalogues using isochrone interpolation based on each star\'s metallicity from PDR1 / PGS, temperature and surface gravity from A23, also based on the Gaia XPspectra. The uncertainties on the photometric distances are calculated using the systematic o ff set of 100-nearest neighbours in the good parallax ( f ≤ 0.1) subset for each star with respect to its metallicity, temperature and surface gravity. These photometric distances have a typical uncertainty of 12% in both the PDR1 and PGS-catalogues of giants. The validation using other independent distance inferences such as inverted parallaxes (no dependence on the scatter with respect to metallicities) and Starhorse-code distances (scatter within 20% and 40% for PDR1 and PGS-giants respectively) yield promising results on the quality of our inferred distances out to ∼ 100 kpc (see subsection 3.5 and Figures 6 and 7). The photometric metallicities are reliable down to -3.5 and we validate them using the GALAH DR3 spectroscopic metallicities with a 0.2 dex scatter between the photometric and spectro-  \nTable 4. Description of the columns of the PDR1 / PGS-catalogues of giants made available publicly in this work. All these data will be released electronically after acceptance and before upon reasonable request.  \nresults (see Figure 7). The quality of the photometric metallicities from PDR1 are of much higher quality than the PGS ones due to higher S / N in the CaHK narrowband magnitudes in the former as it goes much deeper than the latter ([Fe / H] uncertainty of 0.1 in PDR1 versus 0.4 in PGS at G ∼ 16). As a consequence, the photometric distances are more reliable for PDR1-giants than the PGS-giants, as can be seen in Figure 7.  \n- ❏ The caveats with the RGB catalogues are as follows: (i) we slightly underestimate the distances for red clump (RC) stars at the metal-rich end and colder horizontal branch (HB) stars at the metal-poor end because we do not specifically fit these stellar populations using our isochrone-fitting method that does not account for the systematics in these stars between the parallax-based inferences and atmospheric parameters from A23 (see subsection 3.6.1 and Figure 8), (ii) we find that the PGS-giants have a prominent distance-metallicity selection e ff ect due to the hard cut on the allowed CaHK uncertainty for which reliable photometric metallicities can be computed by the Pristine survey model. As a result of this, as we go to higher distances, only metal-poor stars are picked up while we have no metal-rich stars at larger distances because metal-poor stars are brighter than metal-rich stars in CaHK magnitudes and therefore have a higher quality of CaHK uncertainty which that increases to very high values at the faint end (see subsection 3.6.2 and Figure 9).\n- ❏ After applying all the quality cuts recommended by MS23 on the input catalogues and the quality cuts to use reliable photometric distances (removing underestimated RC and HB stars and sub-giants / turn-o ff stars with log g > 3.5 in A23), we end up with 180,314 PDR1-giants and 2,420,898 PGSgiants with reliable photometric metallicities down to -3.5 and reliable photometric distances reaching ∼ 100 kpc and ∼ 70 kpc respectively.\n- ■ In a metallicity versus distance view, we see that the PDR1giants have low-to-no bias and we are able to see the many di ff erent substructures that dominate our Galactic halo, such as the GES merger at [Fe / H] ∼ -1.4, reaching distances of about 50 kpc. The PGS-giants give us an all-sky view of halo stars out to about 70 kpc but only select metal-poor stars. Looking at the fractional contribution of metallicity  \nbins of size 0.25 dex at di ff erent height above the plane shows us coherent on-sky overdensities in the outer halo such as the Sagittarius stream, HAC, VOD and the outer halo counterparts. The contribution from the VMP halo increases steeply after about 40 kpc and constitutes about 40-50% of the Galactic outer halo (see subsection 4.1 and Figures 10 and 11).  \n- ■ We create six Galactocentric distance bins and bias-correct each MDF by taking the colour cut and the magnitude limit in combination with the distance binning into account, using PARSEC simulated stellar populations. We then fit a three-component GMM to the corresponding MDF in each distance bin. From this, we see that as distance increases, the halo becomes more metal-poor: each GMM component peak is shifted to a lower metallicity and the contribution from the most metal-poor component increases in strength. The metallicity dispersion also increases with distance for all GMMcomponents.\n- ■ We create a 6D subset of our giants samples using literature spectroscopic survey radial velocities and calculate 6D phase-space information using the Galactic potential implemented in Lövdal et al. (2022). We have 111,305 PDR1 6D giants and 1,706,006 PGS-giants probing mostly the brighter stars (out to ∼ 70 kpc and ∼ 50 kpc in PDR1 and PGS-giants respectively).\n- ■ Using 5D giants and 6D giants, we look for the Sagittarius stream member stars, which dominate the outer Galactic halo. We find that the best way to select the Sagittarius stream stars without 6D in our giants sample is to use a metal-rich ([Fe / H] > -1) cut on PDR1-giants and a Sagittarius stream latitude cut ( | B |< 20 · ) on PGS-giants. We probe the leading arm much more clearly than the more distant trailing arm. Due to the distance-metallicity selection e ff ect on PGS-giants, we do not see many Sagittarius stream members among the PGS-giants other than the nearby leading arm with mostly metal-poor members. We also trace the spur feature 3 from Sesar et al. (2017) in our 5D selections. However, the cleanest way to select Sagittarius is using 6D giants where available (L y < -0.25 × 10 4 kpc km / s cut, see subsection 4.3.2 and Figures 15, D.1 and D.2)  \n- ■ Using the PDR1 6D giants in the integrals-of-motion (IOM) space, we slice in small metallicity bins and map most of the known substructures down to the VMP stars and the outer halo regime: thick disc, hot thick disc, Sagittarius stream, GES, Sequoia, Helmi streams, Thamnos, LMS-1 / Wukong, Cetus stream and a retrograde high-energy (outer halo) VMP structure that requires more investigation (see subsection 4.3.3 and Figures 16 and E.1).\n- ■ We use the PDR1-giants in the outer halo (d > 40 kpc, ∼ 2000 giants) to look for outer halo overdensities and map the Sagittarius stream and the outer Virgo overdensity (outerVOD) that likely belongs to the distant apocenter pile-up of the GES merger event. We use PGS-giants in the outer halo (d > 40 kpc, ∼ 200 VMP giants) for an all-sky view of the VMP outer Galactic halo. We find overdensities in the same region as HAC but at larger distances (outer-HAC). We need spectroscopic observations to study this overdensity in detail. We also find a very prominent overdensity along the Pisces Plume overdensity that is likely associated with the Magellanic Clouds (see subsection 4.4 and Figure 17).\n- ■ We associate 41 stars with the very metal-poor Magellanic stellar stream member candidates from PGS-giants. The origin of these stars, as due to the dynamical wake of the halo with the LMC\'s infall or the stellar counterpart to the Cloud\'s interaction history (Magellanic stream), requires a detailed chemodynamical investigation. We will investigate this in an upcoming work using our ongoing Gemini GHOST spectroscopic follow-up. We have three candidates with 6D information in this region that trace the gaseous MS line-ofsight velocities remarkably well. One of these members have a spectroscopic metallicity [Fe / H] = -2.55 ± 0.07 (the most metal-poor star associate with the MSS) while all of them are VMP (mostly due to our selection e ff ect). This is a proof of concept that we can use such a giants catalogue to look at the oldest very metal-poor outer Galactic halo without any metal-rich contaminants which are usually large in number (see subsection 4.4.1 and Figure 18).\n- ■ The PDR1-giants catalogue is 78% pure and 76% complete while the PGS-giants catalogue is 92% pure and 82% complete based on the A23 surface gravities (see subsection 5.1 and Figure 19).\n- ■ We make both our catalogues of giants available publicly in the format shown in Table 4.  \nTo summarise, the catalogues of giants made available in this work are one of the largest RGB catalogues going down to the lowest metallicities and the largest distances. The PDR1giants are targeted towards science case that require an biascorrected view of metallicities at di ff erent distances in the outer Galactic halo while the PGS-giants provide an all-sky view of the very metal-poor outer Galactic halo. With the advent of upcoming large multi-object spectrographs such as WEAVE (Jin et al. 2024) and 4MOST (de Jong et al. 2019) and our own highresolution spectroscopic follow-up, we can use a full chemodynamical analysis to uncover the formation history of the outer Galactic halo, which has the most exciting discovery space that has not been probed by most Galactic studies yet.  \nAcknowledgements. AV thanks Ewoud Wempe, and Vedant Chandra for their helpful discussion on this work. AV also thanks Tomas Ruiz-Lara and Eduardo Balbinot for making the Gaia DR3 catalogues and relevant survey cross-matches available to the \'Galactica\' group members immediately after the Gaia Data Release 3. AV and CN thank Gurtina Besla, and Himansh Rathore for sharing their simulations of tidal Magellanic stream debris from Besla et al. (2012, 2013). AB acknowledges the European Union\'s Erasmus + Traineeship program, and the Edinburgh Doctoral College Scholarship (ECDS) that funded her contribution to this work. ES, and MM acknowledge funding through VIDI grant "Push-  \ning Galactic Archaeology to its limits" (with project number VI.Vidi.193.093) which is funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). TM was supported by a Gliese Fellowship at the Zentrum für Astronomie, University of Heidelberg, Germany. NFM gratefully acknowledge support from the French National Research Agency (ANR) funded project "Pristine" (ANR-18-CE31-0017) along with funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 834148). AAA acknowledges support from the Herchel Smith Fellowship at the University of Cambridge and a Fitzwilliam College research fellowship supported by the Isaac Newton Trust. GB acknowledges support from the Agencia Estatal de Investigación del Ministerio de Ciencia en Innovación (AEIMICIN) and the European Social Fund (ESF + ) under grant PRE2021-100638. GB acknowledges support from the Agencia Estatal de Investigación del Ministerio de Ciencia en Innovación (AEI-MICIN) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under grant number AYA2017-89076-P, the AEI under grant number CEX2019-000920-S and the AEI-MICIN under grant number PID2020-118778GBI00 / 10.13039 / 501100011033. Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime / MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA / DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l\'Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission Gaia (https: // www.cosmos.esa.int / gaia), processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, https: // www.cosmos.esa.int / web / gaia / dpac / consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia Multilateral Agreement. This research was supported by the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Bern, through ISSI International Team project 540 (The Early Milky Way). This research has been partially funded from a Spinoza award by NWO (SPI 78-411). AV also thanks the availability of the following packages and tools that made this work possible: vaex (Breddels & Veljanoski 2018), pandas (Reback et al. 2022), astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2022), NumPy (Oliphant 2006; Van Der Walt et al. 2011), SciPy (Jones et al. 2001), matplotlib (Hunter 2007), seaborn (Waskom et al. 2016), agama (Vasiliev 2019), gala (Price-Whelan 2017), galpy (Kluyver et al. 2016), healpy (Zonca et al. 2019), gaiadr3-zeropoint (Lindegren et al. 2021), jax (Schoenholz & Cubuk 2019), scikit-learn (Pedregosa et al. 2011), JupyterLab (Kluyver et al. 2016), and topcat (Taylor 2018).', 'References': "Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 747  \n- Aguado, D. S., Youakim, K., González Hernández, J. I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2241\n- Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V. P., Beraldo e Silva, L., Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12\n- An, D., Beers, T. C., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 65\n- Andrae, R., Rix, H.-W., & Chandra, V. 2023, ApJS, 267, 8\n- Ardern-Arentsen, A., Monari, G., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391\n- Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167\n- Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147\n- Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58\n- Balbinot, E. & Helmi, A. 2021, A&A, 654, A15\n- Battaglia, G., North, P., Jablonka, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A145\n- Beers, T. C. & Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 531\n- Belokurov, V., Deason, A. J., Erkal, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L47\n- Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611\n- Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Bell, E. F., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, L89\n- Belokurov, V. & Kravtsov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689\n- Belokurov, V. & Kravtsov, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4456\n- Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880\n- Besla, G., Hernquist, L., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2342\n- Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2109\n- Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, L18\n- Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., & Kereš, D. 2017, ApJ, 845, 101\n- Bonifacio, P., Ca ff au, E., Sestito, F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 3797  \nBreddels, M. A. & Veljanoski, J. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A13 Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127 Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150 Bullock, J. S. & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931 Ca ff au, E., Bonifacio, P., Sbordone, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4677  \n- Ca ff au, E., Bonifacio, P., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 686  \n- Ca ff au, E., Lombardo, L., Mashonkina, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3796\n- Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 692\n- Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2007, Nature, 450, 1020\n- Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 956, 110\n- Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 951, 26\n- Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.02754\n- Chiba, M. & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 119, 2843\n- Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102\n- Cohen, J. G., Sesar, B., Bahnolzer, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 150\n- Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 107\n- Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 534\n- Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 887, 237\n- Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 37\n- Cooper, A. P., Parry, O. H., Lowing, B., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3185\n- Cunningham, E. C., Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 95\n- Das, P. & Binney, J. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1725\n- De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegri ff o, P., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A2\n- De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegri ff o, P., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A2\n- de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3\n- Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2903\n- Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, ApJ, 852, 118\n- Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Weisz, D. R. 2015, MNRAS, 448, L77\n- Deason, A. J., Koposov, S. E., Fattahi, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6091\n- Dietz, S. E., Yoon, J., Beers, T. C., & Placco, V. M. 2020, ApJ, 894, 34 Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4389 Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Davies, E. Y. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3596\n- Dodd, E., Callingham, T. M., Helmi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L2 Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8\n- Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748 El-Badry, K., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 652 Frebel, A. & Norris, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631\n- Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2016, ApJ, 826, 110 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10 Gaia Collaboration, Montegri ff o, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A33 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A1 Gaia Collaboration et al. 2022, A&A\n- Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932 Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 51 Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 109 Gilmore, G., Norris, J. E., Monaco, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 61\n- GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15 Hansen, T. T., Holmbeck, E. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 92 Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85 Helmi, A. & White, S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 495\n- Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53 Helmi, A. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657  \nHernitschek, N., Cohen, J. G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 31  \nHernitschek, N., Sesar, B., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 96  \nHidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125  \nHorta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671  \nHuang, Y., Beers, T. C., Wolf, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 164  \n- Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90\n- Ibata, R., Bellazzini, M., Thomas, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, L19\n- Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17202  \nIbata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194  \n- Iorio, G. & Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3868\n- Ivezi'c, Ž., Sesar, B., Juri'c, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 287  \nJin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688  \n- Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python\n- Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., & Alcock, C. 2006a, ApJ, 652, 1213  \nKallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Alcock, C., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 638, 772  \nKielty, C. L., Venn, K. A., Sestito, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1438  \nKluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, Jupyter Notebooks-a pub-  \nlishing format for reproducible computational workflows. (IOS Press)  \nKoppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, ApJ, 860, L11  \n- Koppelman, H. H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Starkenburg, T. K. 2019, A&A, 631, L9  \nKroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231  \nKroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82  \n- Lane, J. M. M., Bovy, J., & Mackereth, J. T. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5119 Lardo, C., Mashonkina, L., Jablonka, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3068 Leaman, R. 2012, AJ, 144, 183\n- Li, H., Tan, K., & Zhao, G. 2018, ApJS, 238, 16\n- Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3508 Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4 Liu, G., Huang, Y., Bird, S. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2787  \n- Lombardo, L., Bonifacio, P., Ca ff au, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4815 Lövdal, S. S., Ruiz-Lara, T., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A57 Lucchesi, R., Lardo, C., Jablonka, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1004\n- Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94 Malhan, K. 2022, ApJ, 930, L9\n- Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., & Martin, N. F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3442  \nMalhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107  \n- Malhan, K. & Rix, H.-W. 2024, ApJ, 964, 104\n- Malhan, K., Yuan, Z., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 51\n- Martin, Starkenburg, Yuan, Z., Fouesneau, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01344\n- McConnachie, A. W., Hayes, C. R., Robertson, J. G., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 035001\n- McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76\n- Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235\n- Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48  \nNavarrete, C., Belokurov, V., Catelan, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4160  \n- Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Cole, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 221 Nidever, D. L., Majewski, S. R., & Butler Burton, W. 2008, ApJ, 679, 432\n- Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing USA) Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283\n- Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825\n- Perottoni, H. D., Limberg, G., Amarante, J. A. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L2 Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168 Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 388  \nPutman, M. E., Staveley-Smith, L., Freeman, K. C., Gibson, B. K., & Barnes,  \nD. G. 2003, ApJ, 586, 170  \n- Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155 Reback, J., Jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2022, pandas-dev / pandas: Pandas 1.4.0rc0  \nRiello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3  \nRix, H.-W., Chandra, V., Andrae, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 45  \n- Ruiz-Lara, T., Matsuno, T., Lövdal, S. S., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A58 Ryan, S. G. & Norris, J. E. 1991, AJ, 101, 1865\n- Schoenholz, S. S. & Cubuk, E. D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.04232 Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829 Searle, L. & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357\n- Sesar, B., Hernitschek, N., Dierickx, M. I. P., Fardal, M. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 844, L4\n- Sesar, B., Juri'c, M., & Ivezi'c, Ž. 2011, ApJ, 731, 4 Sestito, F., Ardern-Arentsen, A., Vitali, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18636  \nSestito, F., Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L7  \nSmee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32  \nSoubiran, C., Le Campion, J.-F., Brouillet, N., & Chemin, L. 2016, A&A, 591,  \nA118  \n- Starkenburg, E., Aguado, D. S., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3838\n- Starkenburg, E., Helmi, A., Morrison, H. L., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 567\n- Starkenburg, E., Martin, N., Youakim, K., et al. 2017a, MNRAS, 471, 2587 Starkenburg, E., Oman, K. A., Navarro, J. F., et al. 2017b, MNRAS, 465, 2212\n- Starkenburg, E., Youakim, K., Martin, N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5757  \nSteinmetz, M., Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645  \n- Suda, T., Katsuta, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1159\n- Taylor, M. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.09480\n- Thomas, G. F. & Battaglia, G. 2022, A&A, 660, A29\n- Thomas, G. F., McConnachie, A. W., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5223\n- Tumlinson, J. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1398\n- Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in science &engineering, 13, 22\n- Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525\n- Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279\n- Venn, K. A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1177\n- Venn, K. A., Kielty, C. L., Sestito, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3241\n- Viswanathan, A., Starkenburg, E., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2087\n- Viswanathan, A., Starkenburg, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024a, A&A, 683, L11 Viswanathan, A., Yuan, Z., Ardern-Arentsen, A., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13124\n- Wang, F., Zhang, H. W., Xue, X. X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1958 Waskom, M., Botvinnik, O., drewokane, et al. 2016, Seaborn: V0.7.0 (January 2016)\n- Xue, X.-X., Rix, H.-W., Ma, Z., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 144\n- Xylakis-Dornbusch, T., Christlieb, N., Hansen, T. T., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A177\n- Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4377  \nYork, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579  \nYouakim, K., Starkenburg, E., Aguado, D. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2963  \nYouakim, K., Starkenburg, E., Martin, N. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4986  \n- Yuan, Z., Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1664  \nYuan, Z., Myeong, G. C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 39  \nZaritsky, D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, L3  \n- Zhang, H., Ardern-Arentsen, A., & Belokurov, V. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.09294\n- Zhao, G., Chen, Y.-Q., Shi, J.-R., et al. 2006, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 6, 265\n- Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298\n- Zuo, W., Du, C., Jing, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 59", 'Appendix A: Gaia G for dwarfs with good parallax': 'Fig. A.1. Gaia Gmagnitude distribution of dwarfs with good parallax ( f ≤ 0.2) removed using CaMD cuts shown in Figure 2 before applying the magnitude cut. We can see that our magnitude cut falls just before the distribution falls o ff due to incompleteness in magnitudes where dwarfs do not have good parallaxes ( f ≤ 0.2) (in orange). Selected stars\' distribution used for the CaMD cut is shown in blue.  \n<!-- image -->  \nIn Figure A.1, we show the Gaia G apparent magnitude distribution for dwarfs that are discarded using the CaMD cut described in subsection 3.1 and Figure 2. From the distribution in Figure A.1, we can see that at magnitude of about 17.3, the number of dwarfs with "good enough" parallax drops steeply, indicating that dwarfs with good parallax ( f ≤ 0.2) are not complete beyond this limit, i.e., not all dwarfs beyond this magnitude have "good enough" parallax that allow us to remove dwarfs and keep giants based on their "bad parallax". We empirically choose the magnitude limit to select giants based on their bad parallax at G > 17.6. This is very close to the G < 17.3 cut suggested by Figure A.1, but slightly di ff erent as this is also approximately the limiting magnitude of the Gaia XP spectra and in turn, the limiting magnitude of publicly available PDR1 catalogue, allowing us to select giants in these publicly available catalogues.', 'Appendix B: Comparison of inferred distances with Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances': "Fig. B.1. Comparison of our photometric distances with Gaia DR3 Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances for PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) giants catalogue constructed in this work.  \n<!-- image -->  \nIn Figure B.1, we show a comparison of our inferred photometric distances against Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) good qual-  \nity photogeometric distances ( < 5% uncertainties). The photogeometric distances utilize the G magnitude and BP-RP colour from Gaia DR3. These distance estimates incorporate directiondependent priors based on a detailed model of the Galaxy's 3D structure, taking into account the distribution, colours, and magnitudes of stars as observed by Gaia. This model also factors in interstellar extinction and the Gaia selection function. Tests with mock data, alongside validation against independent measurements and open clusters, indicate that these estimates remain reliable up to several kpc. However, for faint or distant stars, the prior often plays a significant role in the estimation, which is one of the main reasons we scale our inferred distances to be constrained well with the inverted-parallax measurements which is fully observational with no assumptions on the Galaxy, making it more reliable for VMP stars, as the priors on the Galaxy distribution do not always apply the same way for the most metalpoor stars. From Figure B.1, we can see that both the PDR1 and PGS-giants are in good agreement with the photogeometric distances, with the PDR1 distances with much lower spread ( < 20%) compared to PGS-giants ( ≤ 40%) due to the quality of photometric metallicities being way higher for PDR1-giants compared to PGS-giants (see MS23).", 'Appendix C: Metallicity structure with spatial distributions': 'Fig. C.1. Spatial distribution of Galactocentric cartesian Z versus X (top), Z versus Y (middle), and Y versus X (bottom), colour coded by mean metallicity for PDR1 (left) and PGS (right) giants.  \n<!-- image -->  \nIn Figure C.1, we show the spatial distribution (in X-Z, YZ, and X-Y planes) of our PDR1 (left) and PGS-giants (right) colour-coded by their mean metallicities. The consequence of having the Pristine survey footprint is seen on left panels with PDR1-giants whereas the right panels based on PGS-giants cover the entire sky. On the right panels, we can see how the mean metallicities drop to lower metallicities at larger distances  \nshowing the power of the catalogue to look for metal-poor substructures in the outskirts of our Galxy, despite the distancemetallicity selection e ff ect. On the left panels, we see a less biased view of mean metallicities across the spatial cartesian coordinates. We can also clearly see the large distances probed by both these catalogues of giants.', 'Appendix D: Sagittarius in 6D giants': "Fig. D.1. Angular momentum in y-direction versus z-direction (top) and energy versus angular momentum in z-direction for PDR1 6D giants. Sagittarius stream is seen as a clear overdensity in negative y-direction angular momentum and is separated using a simple L y cut. These Sagittarius stream stars are shown in orange in both the panels. The same cut is used in PGS 6D giants to isolate Sagittarius stream members but the number of member stars are significantly lower.  \n<!-- image -->  \nIn this subsection, we show how we select 6D Sagittarius stream members. Figure D.1 shows the angular momentum in y-direction versus the z-direction in the top panel and energy E versus z-component angular momentum in the bottom panel for PDR1-giants which has more Sagittarius members than the PGSgiants. We select Sagittarius based on the hallmark negative L y values (less than -0.5 × 10 4 kpc km / s) and show them in orange in both the panels. These orange stars fall nicely in the region of Sagittarius stream in the IOM space (also seen in Figure 16) with few highly prograde and retrograde contaminants.  \nIn Figure D.2, we show the distance versus RA view of the 6D stream members in PDR1 (top) and PGS (bottom) giants with the Hernitschek et al. (2017) track for the Sagittarius stream overlaid in blue. We can see that the stream members are selected much more e ffi ciently and with cleaner and clearer overdensities along the stream tracks (see Figure 15 for a comparison with 5D selection) using this 6D giants selection. We end up with 374 and 409 confident 6D stream members in PDR1 and PGS-giants sample.  \nFig. D.2. PDR1 (top) and PGS (bottom) 6D Sagittarius stream members in distance versus RA plane with Sagittarius stream tracks adapted from Hernitschek et al. (2017). Leading and trailing arms are indicated with a 'L' and 'T' respectively.  \n<!-- image -->", 'Appendix E: IOM with distances': 'In Figure E.1, we show the IOM space sliced in bins of photometric metallicities colour-coded by their mean Galactocentric distances for PDR1 6D giants. From this figure, we can associate the di ff erent substructures and phase-mixed streams to the inner / outer halo. We see the Sagittarius stream clearly dominating the metal-rich end of the outer Galactic halo, and Cetus stream dominates the outer Galactic halo in the metal-poor end. We can see the range of distances probed by the GES merger event (up to about 40 kpc). We find LMS-1 / Wukong substructure in the intermediate metallicities at intermediates distances as well. We also find other nearby halo substructures such as Thamnos and Helmi streams. We also see the retrograde intermediate metallicities at higher distances than just the solar neighbourhood, however the Sequoia merger is still in the nearby halo mostly. In the VMP bin, -2.5 < [Fe / H] < -2.0, we see distant stars in highly retrograde and higher energy orbits (shown with dashed circle in Figure 16). This substructure, if real, needs a more thorough chemodynamical investigation. In the most metal-poor bin, we see the stars being more centrally concentrated reminiscent of a proto-Galaxy state of the Milky Way, with oldest stars in the inner galaxy (Tumlinson 2010; Starkenburg et al. 2018; El-Badry et al. 2018; Belokurov & Kravtsov 2022; Rix et al. 2022), but also find V / EMP stars ([Fe / H] < -2.5) out to 50 kpc. This can be already seen from [Fe / H] < -1.5, wherein the more rotating stars are more centrally concentrated than in [FeH] > -1.5. The general trend when colour-coded by mean distances is that the stars close to the inner galaxy have lower energies as they have sunken into the deep potential well of the Galaxy while the stars with large distances occupy the more higher energy orbits, as expected.', 'Akshara Viswanathan et al.: Journey to the Galactic outskirts': 'Fig. E.1. Energy versus z-angular momentum at di ff erent slices in metallicities colour-coded by their Galactocentric distances for PDR1 6D giants.  \n<!-- image -->'}