Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

The chemodynamical memory of a major merger in a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue -- II. Were Splash stars heated or already born hot?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In a Milky Way analogue, stars with Splash-like chemistry were born on hot orbits, not dynamically heated by the last major merger.

desk verdict The born-hot vs heated question is not fully closed by the spatial-displacement proxy, but this is a careful, readable simulation study that deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.20233 v2 pith:EGD2YT7L submitted 2025-10-23 astro-ph.GA

Sven Buder , Tobias Buck , Ása Skúladóttir , Melissa Ness , Madeleine McKenzie , Stephanie Monty This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SplashstarsgalacticarchaeologybirthpositionsdischeatingmajormergerMilkyWayanalogueazimuthalvelocitydistributioncosmologicalzoom-insimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tests a leading explanation for the Milky Way's Splash population—stars whose chemistry looks like the old disc but whose orbits are halo-like. Using a high-resolution cosmological simulation of a Milky Way analogue that underwent a major merger about 8.6 billion years ago, the authors trace stellar birth positions and compare them with present-day orbits. They find that protodisc stars, including those that now move slowly in the azimuthal direction, were already born on dynamically hot orbits in a turbulent early disc: median radial and vertical displacements between birth and now are consistent with zero. A population selected by the same chemistry and age as the Splash has a broad, positively skewed azimuthal velocity distribution, which matches hot birth rather than a cold disc heated onto eccentric orbits. The paper concludes that the observed Splash may largely reflect the intrinsically hot early disc, later mixed with accreted stars and stars formed from merger-driven gas, rather than a distinct merger-heated population.

What carries the argument

Birth-position tracing, the record of where every star formed relative to the evolving centre of mass of the main galaxy in 0.1 Gyr steps. The argument hinges on comparing the birth and present-day cylindrical radius and height for the Splash-like sample and on fitting the azimuthal velocity distribution of chemically similar, coeval stars with a skew-normal model; the small ΔR and Δ|Z| and the positive skewness are what rule out large-scale dynamical heating in this simulation.

What would settle it

Trace the radial and vertical actions (or eccentricity) of each Splash-like star from birth to the present in this simulation; if present-day actions are systematically larger than birth actions even though median radius and height are unchanged, the 'born hot' conclusion would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that Splash-like stars in the simulated Milky Way analogue were already dynamically hot at birth, needing no major additional 'splashing'. Comparing birth and present-day positions gives ΔR_2D = 0.1^+1.2_-1.1 kpc and Δ|Z| = -0.03^+0.68_-0.70 kpc, indicating little net motion. Stars with similar chemistry and age have an azimuthal velocity distribution of V_phi = 73^+74_-59 km/s, positively skewed, and low- and high-azimuthal-velocity coeval stars are statistically indistinguishable. The Splash, then, reflects the already turbulent early disc, later mixed with accreted stars and merger-driven star formation, not a distinct heated population.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that these stars were not dynamically heated depends on using median birth versus present-day radius and height as a proxy for orbital heating; that metric could miss heating that changes eccentricity, inclination, or orbital actions without shifting the median position of the sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Splash stars were born hot, they are not a clean dynamical clock for dating the last major merger; they instead record the turbulent state of the early disc.
  • The observed Splash in the Milky Way may be a mixture of hot-born protodisc stars, accreted stars, and stars formed from gas brought in by the merger.
  • The transition to a rotation-supported disc happens only during or after the merger, so the merger may still be important for building disc angular momentum even if it did not heat these particular stars.
  • A chemically and age-matched selection yields a broad, positively skewed azimuthal velocity distribution, a signature that can be searched for in observational samples.
  • Because the simulated galaxy lacks a significant bar, the Splash-like population here cannot be attributed to bar resonances, strengthening the born-hot interpretation within this run.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: This is a single cosmological simulation without a no-merger control run, so the result demonstrates a plausible pathway rather than a measurement of the Milky Way's own history; the same analysis across multiple simulations would test whether hot birth is generic.
  • Editorial inference: If positive skewness in the azimuthal velocity distribution of old, metal-rich stars is confirmed in observational samples, it would favour born-hot over a heated-cold-disc origin, where negative skewness would be expected.
  • Editorial inference: The birth radii of Splash-like stars are concentrated in the inner galaxy (median about 4.6 kpc), implying significant outward radial migration to reach the solar neighbourhood; this migration, rather than vertical heating, may be the observable signature to look for in age-metallicity gradients.
  • Editorial inference: A direct action-space analysis (radial and vertical actions at birth versus today) would sharpen the test, since median radius and height can miss heating that only changes eccentricity or orbital inclination.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper (Paper II of a series) uses the NIHAO-UHD cosmological zoom-in simulation g8.26e11, a Milky Way analogue with a 1:5 stellar-mass major merger at ~8.6 Gyr ago, to ask whether Splash-like stars (disc-like chemistry, halo-like kinematics) were dynamically heated by the merger or were already born on dynamically hot orbits. The authors select in-situ Splash-like stars in a solar-neighbourhood-like volume (Sample D), compare them with coeval higher-V_phi stars, and trace stellar birth positions. They report small median displacements between birth and present-day positions (ΔR_2D = 0.1^{+1.2}_{-1.1} kpc, Δ|Z| = -0.03^{+0.68}_{-0.70} kpc), a broad positively skewed azimuthal-velocity distribution, and evidence that the early stellar distribution was already spheroidal. They conclude that in this analogue the Splash-like population was primarily born hot in a turbulent early disc, with no significant additional dynamical splashing, and that the observed Milky Way Splash may similarly reflect a hot-born population rather than a distinct merger-heated one.

Significance. If the central claim holds, it challenges the common interpretation of the Splash as a clean dynamical clock for the last major merger and instead supports a multi-pathway origin involving a turbulent early disc, with merger-driven angular-momentum redistribution playing a secondary role. The paper benefits from several strengths: it uses a high-resolution cosmological simulation with directly traced birth positions, it defines statistically matched samples, it reports percentiles and p-values, and it makes the analysis code and data publicly available. The authors also explicitly acknowledge the absolute metallicity offset between the simulation and observations and the lack of gas tracing. However, the key quantitative inference — that the Splash-like stars were not significantly heated — rests on a spatial-displacement proxy that, as argued below, is insufficient to distinguish orbital heating from birth on eccentric orbits. The single-simulation design further limits the generality of the conclusions. The paper is a valuable demonstration of one plausible pathway, but the no-splashing claim needs additional dynamical evidence before it can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Fig. 6] The central inference that Splash-like stars were 'born hot' rather than 'dynamically heated' is based on comparing median birth and present-day spatial positions (ΔR_2D = 0.1^{+1.2}_{-1.1} kpc, Δ|Z| = -0.03^{+0.68}_{-0.70} kpc). This metric is largely insensitive to the type of orbital heating expected from a merger. Radial heating increases the amplitude of epicyclic oscillations and the radial action J_R without changing the guiding-center radius; at any given snapshot roughly half of a heated population will be at R smaller than its birth radius and half at larger R, so the median ΔR_2D can remain near zero even for substantial heating. Vertical heating similarly phase-mixes around the midplane, so median |Z| displacement need not grow. The paper itself states that it compares spatial distributions 'in an effort to quantify the change of spatial distributions which would imply a chan
  2. [§4.3, Section 5] The analysis is based on a single cosmological zoom-in simulation with no no-merger control run and no explicit gas tracing, as acknowledged in Section 4.3. The conclusion in Section 5 that 'the interpretation of the Splash as a distinct, merger-heated population is overly restrictive' generalizes beyond what one analogue can demonstrate. The result is better framed as a proof-of-concept that a born-hot population can arise in a Milky Way-like galaxy, rather than as evidence against merger heating in the Milky Way. The authors should either temper the language throughout the abstract and conclusions (e.g., 'in this simulation') or, preferably, add a comparison to a control simulation without a major merger or to a small suite of analogous runs with varying merger parameters to establish the range of possible outcomes. This is a load-bearing point because the central claim is about the in
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 4] The skewness argument used to distinguish born-hot from heated origins is presented qualitatively. The text states that a positive skewness of V_phi indicates that 'the majority of stars in this population already occupy lower V_phi orbits, rather than being drawn from a dynamically cold distribution that was later heated,' because heating would produce negative skewness. This is a model-dependent assertion that is not quantitatively demonstrated with a synthetic heating model or an alternative simulation. A heated cold disc can produce a variety of V_phi skewness values depending on the heating mechanism, the initial velocity dispersion, and the selection function (here, the imposed V_phi < 75 km/s cut for Sample D). The MMD and KS tests in Section 3.4 show that the high- and low-V_phi samples are consistent in chemistry, but they do not discriminate between heating and born-hot hypothe
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure captions (Figs. 5, 6, 7)] Several figure captions contain the stray string '/gtb' (e.g., Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7). This appears to be a leftover placeholder and should be removed.
  2. [§3.2, §3.4] Sample D is introduced as stars with -0.4 < [Fe/H] < 0.1 and -100 < V_phi < 75 km/s, but in Section 3.4 the 'low azimuthal velocity (Splash) stars' are described with V_phi < 75 km/s without the lower bound. Please specify consistently whether the lower cut at -100 km/s is applied in the V_phi distribution shown in Fig. 4, as this affects the skewness fit.
  3. [Abstract vs. body] The abstract says 'no evidence for significant additional dynamical splashing' while the body (Section 3.5) concludes 'little orbital change' and 'no significant splashing.' The strength of the claim shifts slightly across the text; please align the wording.
  4. [§3.3] The sentence 'we note only a little overlap in the distribution of ages and chemistry of the most metal-poor in-situ stars with the Splash stars' mixes two separate properties. Consider reporting age and chemistry overlaps separately, as is later done for Sample C and D.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the born-hot inference is a direct simulation measurement, not a fitted or self-citation-forced result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that Splash-like protodisc stars were already born dynamically hot, with little additional merger-induced splashing — rests on direct measurements in the simulation: comparing each star's traced birth position with its present-day position (Section 3.5, Fig. 6: ΔR2D = 0.1^{+1.2}_{-1.1} kpc, Δ|Z| = -0.03^{+0.68}_{-0.70} kpc) and on the spatially spheroidal early star-forming distribution (Fig. 7). These are not fitted parameters later renamed as predictions; they are independent outputs of the simulation's birth-position tracing. The positive skewness of the azimuthal-velocity distribution of coeval, chemically selected stars (Section 3.4, Fig. 4) is a descriptive statistic, not an input selected by the same Vφ cut used to define the Splash subsample. The paper does rely on Paper I for the in-situ/accreted classification and birth-position methodology, but Paper I is a companion, code-reproducible method with stated assumptions rather than an unverified uniqueness theorem, and the central measurement does not reduce to accepting a self-cited conclusion. The acknowledged limitations — single simulation, no no-merger control, no explicit gas tracing, and the possibility that median radial/vertical displacement is insensitive to phase-mixed eccentricity/action heating — are validity and generalizability concerns, not circular reductions. No step in the derivation is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis leans on the simulation's birth-position tracking and the in-situ/accreted classification from Paper I; the free parameters are selection boundaries, not fitted physical constants. The most consequential domain assumption is that the simulation's chaotic early disc faithfully represents the real Milky Way's early disc, and that the spatial-displacement proxy captures dynamical heating.

free parameters (4)
  • Sample D selection boundaries = -0.4<[Fe/H]<0.1, -100<V_phi<75 km/s
    Chosen by hand to match the observed Splash location in the [Fe/H]-V_phi plane, shifted to account for the simulation's chemical evolution offset. The choice affects which stars are labelled Splash-like.
  • Solar neighbourhood selection = R_2D = 8.2 ± 2 kpc
    Adopted to mimic the local volume; the result may depend on this choice, as the paper shows the sample is a mixture of birth radii.
  • In-situ classification cut = |Z_birth| > 5 kpc (Paper I Eqs. 4-5)
    Used to separate in-situ from accreted stars; this cut is carried over from Paper I and shapes the Splash sample composition.
  • Skew normal fit parameters = mean ~79±65 km/s, skewness ~0.35-0.51
    Descriptive fits to the V_phi distribution; not used to derive the central claim, but quoted as quantification of the positive skew.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2014 parameters
    The simulation adopts a standard cosmological framework; the result is conditional on this background.
  • domain assumption Gasoline2 SPH feedback and chemical enrichment model
    The simulation's star formation, feedback, and yields determine the chemical and kinematic properties; the authors note an absolute metallicity offset relative to the Milky Way, indicating model sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Birth positions can be traced from simulation snapshots at 0.1 Gyr steps relative to the evolving center of mass
    The entire analysis depends on accurate birth positions; systematic errors in this tracing (e.g., in the merger frame) could bias the 'no splashing' conclusion.
  • domain assumption The simulation g8.26e11 is a valid Milky Way analogue (stellar mass, disc morphology, merger timing and mass ratio)
    The paper argues the galaxy resembles the MW and has a GSE-like last major merger, but a single analogue cannot represent the full diversity of merger histories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The chemodynamical memory of a major merger in a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue -- II. Were Splash stars heated or already born hot?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGD2YT7L

@misc{pith2026251020233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The chemodynamical memory of a major merger in a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue -- II. Were Splash stars heated or already born hot?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGD2YT7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.20233}
}
abstract

One of the most debated consequences of the Milky Way's last major merger is the so-called $Splash$: stars with disc-like chemistry but halo-like kinematics, often interpreted as evidence for the violent heating of an early protodisc. Using the same high-resolution NIHAO-UHD cosmological simulation analysed in Paper I, we test whether, and if so how, a $Splash$-like population arises in the Milky Way analogue. By tracing stellar birth positions, ages, and present-day orbits, we find that protodisc stars were already born on dynamically hot orbits, with only limited additional dynamical $splashing$ of these particular in-situ stars despite a 1:5 stellar mass merger. A subset of stars, particularly those that end up in the Solar neighbourhood, shows evidence for merger-driven angular-momentum redistribution, but the overall kinematic distribution of stars with $Splash$-like chemistry remains largely unchanged. The observed $Splash$ may therefore primarily reflect the already turbulent early disc, subsequently intermixed with accreted stars and those formed from merger-driven gas inflows, rather than a distinct merger-heated population. When selecting stars with similar chemistry and age as the $Splash$-like ones, we find their azimuthal velocity distribution to be broad and positively skewed, with $V_\varphi = 73_{-59}^{+74}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. The transition to a rotation-supported disc with large azimuthal velocities occurs only during or after the merger. Our results suggest an alternative to the proposed $splashing$ scenario and highlight the need to disentangle the relative contributions of merger-induced heating and intrinsically hot disc formation to clarify the nature of $Splash$-like stars and their role in shaping the early Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Iron abundance [Fe/H] vs. azimuthal velocity 𝑉𝜑 for stars within 𝑅3D < 50 kpc (left panels) and the Solar-like locus (right panels). Panels a) and b) show the density distribution, when normalising the density across each row, as done by Belokurov et al. (2020, see their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Age distribution of different samples of stars in the Solar neighbour￾hood as selected in the [Fe/H] vs. 𝑉𝜑 plane of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Abundance distribution in [Al/Fe] vs. [Mg/Mn] of different samples of stars in the Solar neighbourhood as selected in the [Fe/H] vs. 𝑉𝜑 plane of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density distribution of birth positions in galactocentric cylindrical coordinates 𝑅birth,2D and 𝑍birth for star particles of samples A-F (corresponding to panels a-f) that are currently in the Solar neighbourhood (black circles) of 2 kpc around 𝑅2D = 8.2 kpc. In panels…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial and vertical distribution of Splash stars. Panel a) shows birth radii 𝑅birth,2D and birth heights 𝑍birth, whereas panel b) shows current radii 𝑅2D and heights 𝑍. Text insets show the median and 16th to 84th percentiles of each distribution ‡. apply the Maximum M…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of iron abundances [Fe/H] for the face-on (𝑋birth vs. 𝑌birth, odd rows) and edge-on (𝑋birth vs. 𝑍birth, even rows) views in ten selected birth epochs within 0.5 Gyr, starting from 12.5 − 13.0 Gyr in the top-left panel to 0.0 − 0.5 Gyr in the bottom-right …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agertz O., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5826A 503, 5826

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab322 2021

  2. [2]

    Amarante J. A. S., Beraldo e Silva L., Debattista V. P., Smith M. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L..30A 891, L30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4 2020

  3. [3]

    Amarante J. A. S., Debattista V. P., Beraldo e Silva L., Laporte C. F. P., Deg N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937...12A 937, 12

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..689B 514, 689

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1267 2022

  7. [7]

    W., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Erkal D., Evans N. W., Koposov S. E., Deason A. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..611B 478, 611

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  8. [8]

    L., Fattahi A., Smith M

    Belokurov V., Sanders J. L., Fattahi A., Smith M. C., Deason A. J., Evans N. W., Grand R. J. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3880B 494, 3880

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2502.01895

    Bland-Hawthorn J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250201895B p. arXiv:2502.01895

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Kere s D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d0c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..101B 845, 101

    Bonaca A., Conroy C., Wetzel A., Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d0c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..101B 845, 101

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Bonaca A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897L..18B 897, L18

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Brooks R. A. N., Sanders J. L., Dillamore A. M., Garavito-Camargo N., Price-Whelan A. M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250710667B p. arXiv:2507.10667

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    Brown A. G. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112320-035628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59...59B 59, 59

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Buck T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5435B 491, 5435

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    V., Dutton A

    Buck T., Macci \`o A. V., Dutton A. A., Obreja A., Frings J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1314B 483, 1314

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Minchev I., Dutton A

    Buck T., Obreja A., Macci \`o A. V., Minchev I., Dutton A. A., Ostriker J. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3461B 491, 3461

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Pfrommer C., Steinmetz M., Ness M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3365B 508, 3365

    Buck T., Rybizki J., Buder S., Obreja A., Macci \`o A. V., Pfrommer C., Steinmetz M., Ness M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3365B 508, 3365

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1565B 523, 1565

    Buck T., Obreja A., Ratcliffe B., Lu Y., Minchev I., Macci \`o A. V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1565B 523, 1565

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Buder S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2407B 510, 2407

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Buder S., Mijnarends L., Buck T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1010B 532, 1010

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Buder S., Buck T., Chen Q.-H., Grasha K., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.33232/001c.137295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..47B 8, 47

    doi

  14. [22]

    Buder S., Buck T., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir \'A ., Ness M., McKenzie M., Monty S., 2025b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251011284B arXiv:2510.11284, Paper I

    doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., Fattahi A., Grand R

    Carrillo A., Deason A. J., Fattahi A., Grand R. J. J., Fragkoudi F., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.24705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250924705C p. arXiv:2509.24705

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Chandra V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..112C 972, 112

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Parry O

    Cooper A. P., Parry O. H., Lowing B., Cole S., Frenk C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2057 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3185C 454, 3185

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Katz D., Khoperskov S., Snaith O

    Di Matteo P., Haywood M., Lehnert M. D., Katz D., Khoperskov S., Snaith O. N., G \'o mez A., Robichon N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A...4D 632, A4

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Di Matteo P., Spite M., Haywood M., Bonifacio P., G \'o mez A., Spite F., Caffau E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A.115D 636, A115

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Sanders J

    Dillamore A. M., Sanders J. L., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.542.1331D 542, 1331

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Belokurov V., Font A

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Font A. S., McCarthy I. G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1867D 513, 1867

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Belokurov V., Evans N

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Davies E. Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3596D 524, 3596

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.1765F 498, 1765

    Font A. S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.1765F 498, 1765

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...96F 865, 96

    Frankel N., Rix H.-W., Ting Y.-S., Ness M., Hogg D. W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...96F 865, 96

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Frankel N., Sanders J., Ting Y.-S., Rix H.-W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896...15F 896, 15

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Brook C

    Gallart C., Bernard E. J., Brook C. B., Ruiz-Lara T., Cassisi S., Hill V., Monelli M., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..932G 3, 932

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Rasch M

    Gretton A., Borgwardt K. M., Rasch M. J., Sch \"o lkopf B., Smola A., 2012, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13, 723

    2012

  28. [36]

    D., Snaith O., Khoperskov S., G \'o mez A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..113H 863, 113

    Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M. D., Snaith O., Khoperskov S., G \'o mez A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..113H 863, 113

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Helmi A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..205H 58, 205

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A

    Helmi A., Babusiaux C., Koppelman H. H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A. G. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563...85H 563, 85

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    L., 1958, @doi [Arkiv for Matematik] 10.1007/BF02589501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ArM.....3..469H 3, 469

    Hodges J. L., 1958, @doi [Arkiv for Matematik] 10.1007/BF02589501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ArM.....3..469H 3, 469

    1958 doi

  32. [40]

    D., 2007, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    Jofr \'e P., Heiter U., Soubiran C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..571J 57, 571

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    arXiv:2310.05287

    Khoperskov S., Minchev I., Steinmetz M., Marabotto J., Kordopatis G., Delgado Gomez J., Libeskind N., 2023a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.05287 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231005287K p. arXiv:2310.05287

    doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Khoperskov S., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..89K 677, A89

    doi

  36. [44]

    Kisku S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.542...76K 542, 76

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Lagos C. d. P., Theuns T., Stevens A. R. H., Cortese L., Padilla N. D., Davis T. A., Contreras S., Croton D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3850L 464, 3850

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Lagos C. d. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4956L 473, 4956

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Minchev I., Chiappini C., Martig M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220189 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Mori A., Di Matteo P., Salvadori S., Khoperskov S., Pagnini G., Haywood M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.136M 690, A136

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Naidu R. P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., Ting Y.-S., Caldwell N., Zaritsky D., Cargile P. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...48N 901, 48

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...92N 923, 92

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...92N 923, 92

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Mehta R., Shen C., Vogelstein J

    Panda S., Palaniappan S., Xiong J., Bridgeford E. W., Mehta R., Shen C., Vogelstein J. T., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1907.02088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190702088P p. arXiv:1907.02088

    2019 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    E., 2007, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    P\'erez F., Granger B. E., 2007, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3196P 490, 3196

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..16P 571, A16

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    W., Bullock J

    Purcell C. W., Bullock J. S., Kazantzidis S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16429.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1711P 404, 1711

    2010

  48. [56]

    J., Hernquist L., Fullagar D

    Quinn P. J., Hernquist L., Fullagar D. P., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172184 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...403...74Q 403, 74

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    P., Read J

    Renaud F., Agertz O., Andersson E. P., Read J. I., Ryde N., Bensby T., Rey M. P., Feuillet D. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5868R 503, 5868

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Sotillo-Ramos D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.5404S 516, 5404

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Stinson G., Seth A., Katz N., Wadsley J., Governato F., Quinn T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1074S 373, 1074

    2006

  52. [60]

    S., Brook C., Macci \`o A

    Stinson G. S., Brook C., Macci \`o A. V., Wadsley J., Quinn T. R., Couchman H. M. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428..129S 428, 129

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    B., 2005, ASPC, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..347...29T 347, 29

    Taylor M. B., 2005, ASPC, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ASPC..347...29T 347, 29

    2005

  54. [62]

    Tepper-Garc \' a T., Bland-Hawthorn J., Vasiliev E., Agertz O., Teyssier R., Federrath C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535..187T 535, 187

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Vasiliev E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1525V 482, 1525

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    Villalobos \'A ., Helmi A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13979.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1806V 391, 1806

    2008

  57. [65]

    Villalobos \'A ., Helmi A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15085.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..166V 399, 166

    2009

  58. [66]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    W., Keller B

    Wadsley J. W., Keller B. W., Quinn T. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2357W 471, 2357

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    Walt S. v. d., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Stinson G

    Wang L., Dutton A. A., Stinson G. S., Macci \`o A. V., Penzo C., Kang X., Keller B. W., Wadsley J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1937 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454...83W 454, 83

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    Yu J., Khanna S., Themessl N., Hekker S., Dr \'e au G., Gizon L., Bi S., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acabc8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..264...41Y 264, 41

    doi

  63. [71]

    Yu S., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6220Y 523, 6220

    doi

  64. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.