pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.02723 · v2 · submitted 2024-08-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Cosmological Simulations of Stellar Halos with Gaia Sausage-Enceladus Analogues: Two Sausages, One Bun?

Dylan Folsom , Mariangela Lisanti , Lina Necib , Danny Horta , Mark Vogelsberger , Lars Hernquist This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 21:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar haloGaia Sausage-Enceladusgalaxy mergerscosmological simulationsMilky Way analogueschemical abundancesstar formation historyaccretion events
0
0 comments X

The pith

Roughly one third of Gaia Sausage-Enceladus analogues in simulations arise from two separate mergers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines stellar halos in 98 Milky Way analogue galaxies drawn from the TNG50 simulation. GSE-like debris is found in 32 of them, and two-merger cases account for a third of those instances. Single-merger GSEs are accreted more recently on average than the galaxies that contribute to two-merger GSEs. The timing difference produces clearer distinctions in chemical abundances and star formation histories than in standard kinematic spaces. The authors conclude that modeling these abundance and age shifts is important for reconstructing the halo's assembly.

Core claim

Using the TNG50 simulation, the authors identify GSE-like stellar debris in 32 Milky Way analogue galaxies out of 98 examined. In one third of these cases the debris originates from two distinct merger events rather than a single accretion. The two-merger cases involve galaxies that fell in earlier, around 10.7 Gyr ago compared to 5.9 Gyr ago for single mergers, producing observable differences in abundances and ages.

What carries the argument

Classification of accretion events as single-merger or two-merger GSE analogues based on the number of progenitor galaxies contributing to the radially biased stellar debris in simulated halos.

If this is right

  • Kinematic spaces alone are insufficient to distinguish single-merger GSEs from two-merger GSEs.
  • Chemical abundances and star formation histories reveal more evident differences between the two scenarios.
  • Single-merger GSEs are typically accreted more recently than the galaxies in two-merger GSEs.
  • Systematic shifts in abundances and ages make modeling these aspects of the stellar halo important for understanding its assembly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the real Milky Way GSE matches the two-merger population, its formation would involve an earlier pair of accretions whose debris later overlapped.
  • Better age and abundance measurements of halo stars could test whether multiple mergers are common enough to explain a substantial fraction of radially biased debris.
  • The same identification approach could be applied to other simulation volumes to check whether the one-third fraction holds across different model assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The specific criteria used to tag GSE-like debris in the simulated galaxies produce populations whose properties map reliably onto the real Milky Way GSE.

What would settle it

An observational measurement of the median infall time or abundance patterns of the actual GSE stars that lies outside the reported ranges and distributions for both the single-merger and two-merger simulation populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.02723 by Danny Horta, Dylan Folsom, Lars Hernquist, Lina Necib, Mariangela Lisanti, Mark Vogelsberger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Left:) The composition of the ex situ stellar halo for a particular MW analogue (ID 543729) as a function of galactocentric distance 𝑟. The five largest galaxies contributing to the ex situ stellar population are shown as individual colored bands, sorted by the contribution within 40 kpc. The galaxy which contributes the most ex situ stellar mass is colored in blue, the second in purple, the third in mage… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left:) The number of mergers required to reach the threshold of 50% of ex situ stars within 40 kpc of the galactic center. Approximately 60% of the MW analogues have a single merger which contributes over half of the ex situ stars within 40 kpc, and an additional ∼ 30% reach this threshold with two mergers. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that an ex situ halo could be predominantly comprised of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The infall times 𝑡infall and masses 𝑀dyn of all merg￾ers across the TNG MW analogues. The RA mergers passing the selection criteria established in §3.2 are shown in red, while RA pairs are shown in purple (for the larger- 𝑓 merger) and pink (for the smaller- 𝑓 merger), with marker shapes indicating the MW analogue to which they belong. Other (non-RA) mergers are shown in black, with the opacity set by 𝑓 . … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of spherical velocities 𝑣𝑟 and 𝑣𝜙 for RA merger debris in four example MW analogues. The grayscale histogram shows the full distribution of RA merger debris. The top row shows these distributions for single RA mergers, with 68% of the stars enclosed within the red contour. The bottom row shows the distributions for RA pairs, with 68% of stars from the high- 𝑓 (low- 𝑓 ) merger enclosed with… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total energy shown against the 𝑧-component of angular momentum for the same MW analogues as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Star formation histories for the ex situ stars of four MW analogues with RA debris. In each panel, the black histogram shows the total ex situ star formation, while the colored lines show the contribution from individual mergers, with single RA mergers in red, large- 𝑓 components of RA pairs in purple, and small- 𝑓 components of RA pairs in pink. The vertical dashed line shows the infall time, 𝑡infall, of … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The quenching time 𝑡90 relative to the infall time 𝑡infall, shown against the distance of first pericenter for each galaxy con￾tributing to RA debris. All markers are consistent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tinsley–Wallerstein diagram showing [Mg/Fe] abundance relative to [Fe/H] abundance for the same RA debris shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of quantities relevant to star formation in each of the RA debris mergers. In each panel, the highlighted region runs from the 16th to the 84th percentile for the relevant quantity, with the scatter point at the 50th percentile (with markers consistent with previous figures). The Subfind ID of each MW analogue is also provided. (Left:) Formation time, 𝑡form, of stars from each merger relative to… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observations of the Milky Way's stellar halo find that it is predominantly comprised of a radially biased population of stars, dubbed the Gaia Sausage--Enceladus, or GSE. These stars are thought to be debris from dwarf galaxy accretion early in the Milky Way's history. Though typically considered to be from a single merger, it is possible that the GSE debris has multiple sources. To investigate this possibility, we use the TNG50 simulation to identify stellar accretion histories in 98 Milky Way analogues -- the largest sample for which such an identification has been performed -- and find GSE-like debris in 32, with two-merger GSEs accounting for a third of these cases. Distinguishing single-merger GSEs from two-merger GSEs is difficult in common kinematic spaces, but differences are more evident through chemical abundances and star formation histories. This is because single-merger GSEs are typically accreted more recently than the galaxies in two-merger GSEs: the median infall times (with 16th and 84th percentiles) are $5.9^{+3.3}_{-2.0}$ and $10.7^{+1.2}_{-3.7}$ Gyr ago for single- and two-merger scenarios, respectively. The systematic shifts in abundances and ages that occur as a result suggest that efforts in modeling these aspects of the stellar halo prove ever-important in understanding its assembly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses the TNG50 simulation to identify GSE-like stellar debris in 98 Milky Way analogue galaxies, the largest such sample to date. GSE-like debris is found in 32 analogues, with two-merger histories accounting for approximately one third of these cases. Single-merger and two-merger GSEs are difficult to distinguish using common kinematic spaces but differ in chemical abundances and star formation histories; the reported median infall times are 5.9^{+3.3}_{-2.0} Gyr ago for single-merger and 10.7^{+1.2}_{-3.7} Gyr ago for two-merger scenarios.

Significance. The use of the largest sample of 98 MW analogues constitutes a clear strength, enabling a statistical view of GSE-like accretion that goes beyond earlier smaller samples. If the GSE identification procedure is shown to be faithful to the observed Milky Way GSE, the result that two-merger cases are common (~1/3) and produce systematic shifts in abundances and ages would be significant for halo assembly models and for guiding observational efforts to distinguish merger histories.

major comments (2)
  1. [GSE identification method] Section on GSE identification method: the criteria used to tag GSE-like debris are not demonstrated to reproduce the full observed GSE phase-space density, metallicity distribution function, and age spread. Without this validation, the central quantitative claim (32/98 analogues, two-merger fraction ~1/3) risks contamination by unrelated accretion events, rendering the reported infall-time offset a possible selection artifact.
  2. [Results on infall times] Results on infall times and fractions: the median values (5.9^{+3.3}_{-2.0} and 10.7^{+1.2}_{-3.7} Gyr) and the one-third two-merger fraction are presented without quantitative tests of robustness to variations in the tagging thresholds, simulation resolution, or baryonic physics choices.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be improved by a one-sentence summary of the precise kinematic/chemical cuts used to define GSE-like debris.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of our GSE identification and robustness analysis. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section on GSE identification method: the criteria used to tag GSE-like debris are not demonstrated to reproduce the full observed GSE phase-space density, metallicity distribution function, and age spread. Without this validation, the central quantitative claim (32/98 analogues, two-merger fraction ~1/3) risks contamination by unrelated accretion events, rendering the reported infall-time offset a possible selection artifact.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not include a direct, quantitative comparison of the tagged GSE-like debris to the full observed GSE phase-space density, MDF, and age spread. Our identification criteria (radial anisotropy β > 0.5 combined with a metallicity window motivated by Gaia observations) were chosen to select analogues rather than exact replicas. To address the concern, we will add a dedicated validation subsection that overlays the simulated debris distributions against published observational constraints from Gaia DR3 and spectroscopic surveys. This addition will quantify the degree of fidelity and explicitly discuss any residual risk of contamination from unrelated events. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results on infall times and fractions: the median values (5.9^{+3.3}_{-2.0} and 10.7^{+1.2}_{-3.7} Gyr) and the one-third two-merger fraction are presented without quantitative tests of robustness to variations in the tagging thresholds, simulation resolution, or baryonic physics choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit robustness tests were absent from the submitted version. We will add a new analysis varying the anisotropy and metallicity thresholds by ±20 % and report the resulting changes to the two-merger fraction and median infall times; these results will be presented in a revised methods/results section. However, tests involving different simulation resolutions or alternative baryonic physics implementations are not possible within the current study, as they would require entirely separate simulation suites beyond TNG50. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative robustness tests to variations in simulation resolution and baryonic physics choices cannot be performed, as they require access to or computation of simulation data outside the TNG50 suite.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results extracted directly from TNG50 simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper reports counts and statistics (32/98 analogues with GSE-like debris, ~1/3 two-merger cases, median infall times 5.9 vs 10.7 Gyr) obtained by applying an identification procedure to the external TNG50 simulation volume. No equations, fitted functional forms, or ansatzes are invoked that reduce the reported fractions or time offsets to the inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain; the simulation data and tagging criteria are independent of the present authors' prior results. This is the expected non-circular outcome for a direct simulation analysis paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unstated definition of 'GSE-like' debris and on the assumption that TNG50's subgrid physics produces realistic stellar debris kinematics and chemistry; no free parameters are explicitly named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption TNG50 baryonic physics and resolution are adequate to produce realistic GSE analogues
    Invoked implicitly by using the simulation to identify GSE-like debris without further validation against observations in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5809 in / 1403 out tokens · 38527 ms · 2026-05-23T21:55:47.316777+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Galactic Amnesia: The Information Washout of the Milky Way Merger History

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Mutual information analysis of TNG50 simulations shows gravitational potential and total energy retain merger mass and infall time information longest, while radial velocity loses it within ~5 Gyr, with washout depend...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Abdurro'uf , Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    B., Christensen, C

    Akins, H. B., Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab 2021

  3. [3]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Beraldo e Silva , L., Debattista, V. P., & Smith, M. C. 2020, ApJ, 891, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4 2020

  4. [4]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V. P., Beraldo e Silva , L., Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  5. [5]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  6. [6]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  7. [7]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880, 10.1093/mnras/staa876

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Belokurov, V., Vasiliev, E., Deason, A. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6200, 10.1093/mnras/stac3436

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3436 2023

  9. [9]

    W., et al

    Benisty, D., Vasiliev, E., Evans, N. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c42

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c42 2022

  10. [10]

    A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, ApJ, 883, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e0e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e0e 2019

  11. [11]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn , J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  12. [12]

    A., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa 2020

  13. [13]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Frenk, C

    Bose, S., Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Frenk, C. S. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 743, 10.1093/mnras/staa1199

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1199 2020

  14. [14]

    Boylan-Kolchin , M., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., & Jenkins, A. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 896, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16774.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16774.x 2010

  15. [15]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Buch, D., Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., & Mao, Y.-Y. 2024, preprint, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08043

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.08043 2024

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1242 2021

  17. [17]

    S., & Johnston, K

    Bullock, J. S., & Johnston, K. V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931, 10.1086/497422

    work page doi:10.1086/497422 2005

  18. [18]

    T., Wechsler, R

    Busha, M. T., Wechsler, R. H., Behroozi, P. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 117, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/117

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/117 2011

  19. [19]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Ben \'i tez-Llambay , A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020

  20. [20]

    J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al

    Chaplin, W. J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 1, 2020022814070166

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    2013, Python and HDF5

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 . http://www.h5py.org/

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8

    Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 2019

  23. [23]

    P., Koposov, S

    Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0 2023

  24. [24]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year = 2012, month = sep, volume =

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  25. [25]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, 10.1086/163168

    work page doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  26. [26]

    J., & Belokurov, V

    Deason, A. J., & Belokurov, V. 2024, preprint, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12443

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.12443 2024

  27. [27]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., & Lancaster, L. 2018, ApJ, 862, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad0ee

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad0ee 2018

  28. [28]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Weisz, D

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Weisz, D. R. 2015, MNRAS, 448, L77, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv001 2015

  29. [29]

    J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R

    Deason, A. J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 5, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/5

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/5 2016

  30. [30]

    Di Cintio, A., Mostoghiu, R., Knebe, A., & Navarro, J. F. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 531, 10.1093/mnras/stab1682

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1682 2021

  31. [31]

    M., Belokurov, V., Font, A

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stac1038

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1038 2022

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15034.x 2009

  33. [33]

    J., Sanderson, R., et al

    Donlon, T., Newberg, H. J., Sanderson, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1422, 10.1093/mnras/stae1264

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1264 2024

  34. [34]

    J., Kim, B., & L \'e pine, S

    Donlon, II, T., Newberg, H. J., Kim, B., & L \'e pine, S. 2022, ApJ, 932, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7531

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7531 2022

  35. [35]

    J., Sanderson, R., & Widrow, L

    Donlon, II, T., Newberg, H. J., Sanderson, R., & Widrow, L. M. 2020, ApJ, 902, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f6 2020

  36. [36]

    D'Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5300, 10.1093/mnras/stx3081

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3081 2018

  37. [37]

    Dancing in the dark: galactic properties trace spin swings along the cosmic web

    Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453, 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1227 2014

  38. [38]

    M., Sales, L

    Elias, L. M., Sales, L. V., Helmi, A., & Hernquist, L. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 29, 10.1093/mnras/staa1090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1090 2020

  39. [39]

    D., et al

    Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Joshi, G. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5946, 10.1093/mnras/stad1357

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1357 2023

  40. [40]

    2024, preprint

    Ernandes, H., Feuillet, D., Feltzing, S., & Sk \'u lad \'o ttir, \'A . 2024, preprint

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    A., Fattahi, A., Deason, A

    Evans, T. A., Fattahi, A., Deason, A. J., & Frenk, C. S. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4311, 10.1093/mnras/staa2202

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2202 2020

  42. [42]

    J., et al

    Fattahi, A., Belokurov, V., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4471, 10.1093/mnras/stz159

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz159 2019

  43. [43]

    J., Frenk, C

    Fattahi, A., Deason, A. J., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4459, 10.1093/mnras/staa2221

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2221 2020

  44. [44]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  45. [45]

    Selecting accreted populations: metallicity, elemental abundances, and ages of the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus and Sequoia populations , year =

    Feuillet, D. K., Sahlholdt, C. L., Feltzing, S., & Casagrande, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489, 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2614 2021

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., & Jahrei , H. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x 2006

  47. [47]

    S., Johnston, K

    Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., & Robertson, B. E. 2006, ApJ, 646, 886, 10.1086/505131

    work page doi:10.1086/505131 2006

  48. [48]

    arXiv:1104.3868 [astro-ph.CO] 284 Roedig C, Sesana A, Dotti M, Cuadra J, Amaro-Seoane P, Haardt F (2012) Evolution of binary black holes in self gravitating discs

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2802, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19227.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19227.x 2011

  49. [49]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, Gaia Data Release 3: Summary of the Content and Survey Properties, 10.48550/arXiv.2208.00211

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.00211 2022

  50. [50]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 2019

  51. [51]

    Garavito-Camargo , N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 2021

  52. [52]

    B., Grand, R

    Garc \'i a-Bethencourt , G., Brook, C. B., Grand, R. J. J., & Kawata, D. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1190, 10.1093/mnras/stad2832

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2832 2023

  53. [53]

    , keywords =

    G \'o mez, F. A., & Helmi, A. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2285, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15841.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15841.x 2010

  54. [54]

    2016, Pydata/Bottleneck, Python for Data

    Goodman, K. 2016, Pydata/Bottleneck, Python for Data. https://github.com/pydata/bottleneck

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Grand, R. J. J., Kawata, D., Belokurov, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1603, 10.1093/mnras/staa2057

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2057 2020

  56. [56]

    K., Zinn, J

    Grunblatt, S. K., Zinn, J. C., Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0532

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0532 2021

  57. [57]

    J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. 2023 a , Nature Astronomy, 7, 1481, 10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9 2023

  58. [58]

    J., Semenov, V., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Han, J. J., Semenov, V., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. 2023 b , ApJ, 957, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0641

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0641 2023

  59. [59]

    J., Naidu, R

    Han, J. J., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac795f 2022

  60. [60]

    Harris, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  61. [61]

    , keywords =

    Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., Lian, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f9 2021

  62. [62]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 2018

  63. [63]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  64. [64]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  65. [65]

    2019, The Messenger, 175, 23, 10.18727/0722-6691/5120

    Helmi, A., Irwin, M., Deason, A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 23, 10.18727/0722-6691/5120

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5120 2019

  66. [66]

    2024, preprint, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.09777

    Horta, D., Yuxi , Lu , et al. 2024, preprint, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.09777

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.09777 2024

  67. [67]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1385, 10.1093/mnras/staa2987

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2987 2021

  68. [68]

    P., Mackereth, J

    ---. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671, 10.1093/mnras/stac3179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3179 2023

  69. [69]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  70. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d 2024

  71. [71]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686, 10.1093/mnras/stab005

    Iorio, G., & Belokurov, V. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686, 10.1093/mnras/stab005

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab005 2021

  72. [72]

    LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products , journal =

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  73. [73]

    2017, A&A, 604, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629691

    Jean-Baptiste , I., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629691

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629691 2017

  74. [74]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688, 10.1093/mnras/stad557

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad557 2024

  75. [75]

    W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Johnson, J. W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5084, 10.1093/mnras/stad2985

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2985 2023

  76. [76]

    Johnston, K. V. 1998, ApJ, 495, 297, 10.1086/305273

    work page doi:10.1086/305273 1998

  77. [77]

    V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M

    Johnston, K. V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M. 1996, ApJ, 465, 278, 10.1086/177418

    work page doi:10.1086/177418 1996

  78. [78]

    R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G

    Kafle, P. R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G. F., Robotham, A. S. G., & Driver, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4043, 10.1093/mnras/sty082

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty082 2018

  79. [79]

    Karachentsev, I. D. 2005, AJ, 129, 178, 10.1086/426368

    work page doi:10.1086/426368 2005

  80. [80]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players , Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley , B., P \'e rez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players , Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (IOS Press), 87--90. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ppap.book...87K

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.