Survivors and Zombies: The Quenching and Disruption of Satellites around Milky Way Analogs

Alyson M. Brooks; Anna C. Wright; Charlotte R. Christensen; Courtney Carter; Debosmita Pathak; Ferah Munshi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Survivors and Zombies: The Quenching and Disruption of Satellites around Milky Way Analogs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most dwarf galaxies destroyed by a Milky Way-like host were still forming stars in their final snapshot; the paper traces this to disruption outrunning quenching for massive, early-infall satellites.

desk verdict Solid simulation paper: the qualitative quenching-vs-disruption picture holds, but the headline survival/star-forming fractions are definition-dependent and the authors say so. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22742 v2 pith:6FPDXLG4 submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Debosmita Pathak , Charlotte R. Christensen , Alyson M. Brooks , Ferah Munshi , Anna C. Wright , Courtney Carter This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords satellitegalaxiesdwarfgalaxyquenchingtidaldisruptionMilkyWayanalogsstellarhaloformationsimulationsstarhistories

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

This paper tries to establish that the fate of a dwarf galaxy falling into a Milky Way-like host is decided by its mass and time of infall, with orbital shape as a secondary factor. Using very high-resolution zoom-in simulations that track both surviving satellites and disrupted progenitors, the authors construct the full census of galaxies accreted over the past 12 Gyr and claim that surviving satellites are only the tail of that population. They report that no galaxy accreted more than 12 Gyr ago survives, that only 20% of accreted galaxies with $M_*>10^8\,M_\odot$ survive, and that 92% of disrupted dwarfs remain star-forming up until disruption. The reason, in their account, is that for massive satellites disruption outruns quenching, so the galaxy is torn apart before its star formation is shut off. If this is right, the stellar halo records dwarfs that died young rather than dwarfs that had already faded.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a race between two timescales: quenching time and disruption time. Quenching is defined by an observationally motivated specific star-formation-rate threshold of $2\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ measured over the last 300 Myr, and disruption is defined as the last snapshot in which the halo finder identifies the satellite as a separate bound object before its particles merge with the host. Comparing these two clocks across infall mass, infall time, and orbital circularity (measured by $|v_{\rm rad,in}/v_{\rm tot,in}|$) is what produces the paper's claims, because it is the relative speed of the two processes that decides whether a dwarf is observed quenched, star-forming, or gone entirely.

What would settle it

Re-run the same galaxy sample with a halo finder that tracks tidally distorted subhalos kinematically and with snapshot spacing of order 50 Myr; if a substantial fraction of the dwarfs classified as star-forming until disruption turn out to be quenched before their final resolved orbit, the 92% claim falls. A complementary observational test is to search the chemically identified progenitors of Milky Way halo stars for evidence of quenching before their final star-formation episode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the quenching and disruption timescales of accreted dwarf galaxies compete, and for most systems that vanish, disruption wins. The authors compile the complete population of galaxies accreted by their simulated Milky Way analogs within the last 12 Gyr, including those that merged with the host, and show that infall stellar mass and infall lookback time are the primary predictors of survival. Disrupted satellites tend to be massive, early-infall, and on radial orbits, and 92% of disrupted dwarfs with $M_{*,\rm in}\gtrsim10^5\,M_\odot$ are still forming stars in the last snapshot in which the halo finder identifies them. Ultrafaint dwarfs form their stars early, quench before infall, and largely survive, with 94% of those accreted in the last 12 Gyr present at $z=0$ under the fiducial definition. The simulation also reproduces the observed chemical bimodality, with disrupted galaxies more $\alpha$-enhanced and iron-poor than survivors of similar stellar mass, consistent with earlier and faster star formation in the disrupted progenitors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that disruption times measured from 300 Myr apart snapshots with the chosen halo finder are physically meaningful, so the 'star forming up until disruption' classification can only be as precise as the last snapshot before a galaxy disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Milky Way's surviving satellite population is the small surviving tail of a much larger accreted population, so counts of surviving satellites alone underestimate the number of dwarfs the galaxy has consumed.
Because disruption outruns quenching for massive dwarfs, most of the stellar halo was built by galaxies that were actively forming stars when they died, explaining the $\alpha$-enhanced, iron-poor chemistry of halo stars without requiring a pre-quenched population.
Ultrafaint dwarfs are the opposite case: they quench before they fall in and almost all survive, so their present-day abundance patterns mostly record physics before accretion, such as reionization.
The quenched fraction of classical dwarfs around a host depends on its accretion history: hosts that accreted $10^7$-$10^8\,M_\odot$ satellites between 5 and 10 Gyr ago will show higher quenched fractions at $z=0$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the quenching-disruption race is as fast as the paper claims, then chemical tagging of halo stars may be reconstructing the last star-forming bursts of doomed dwarfs, not the integrated history of quiescent systems; the paper does not explicitly spell out this reading of the stellar halo.
The same census method could separate surviving from disrupted dwarfs around M31 or other Local Volume hosts; the paper notes group accretion and host-to-host variation, and its logic predicts that differences in the 5-10 Gyr accretion history, rather than feedback alone, drive the observed scatter in quenched fractions.
A concrete testable extension is to use the simulations to predict the resolved stellar populations, metallicities, and spatial distribution of the small number of 'zombie' dwarfs that are still star-forming but on their final orbit, and search for them in deep all-sky surveys.
The 94%-to-60% swing in UFD survival under alternative disruption definitions implies that the next generation of deep dwarf-galaxy catalogs should publish their completeness and disruption classification alongside survival fractions; otherwise comparisons between simulations and observations will be dominated by definitional differences.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a careful, well-written simulation paper, and the central qualitative result holds up. Mass and time of infall decide whether a satellite quenches, disrupts, or survives, and for massive satellites disruption usually wins before quenching. The paper is worth reading because it is the first full census of both surviving and disrupted satellites down to ultra-faint masses (M* ~ 100 Msun in the Mint runs) from the same simulation suite, so it directly connects the observed satellite population to the disrupted halo-building population.

The strongest section is the chemistry. The M*-[Fe/H]-[O/Fe] plane separates survivors from disrupted progenitors, the logistic regression is a clean descriptive classifier, and the external validation on 19 observed galaxies (17 correct) is a genuinely independent check. Their reproduction of observed trends is a real improvement over comparable simulations, particularly on iron abundances.

The soft spots are real but disclosed. 'Disrupted' means 'last snapshot AHF separately identified the halo.' With ~300 Myr snapshot spacing, 'star forming until disruption' really means 'star forming at the last snapshot before the finder lost the object,' which for the earliest-accreted systems (disruption times comparable to one cadence) could be up to ~300 Myr before actual coalescence. The 92% headline should be read as 'within 300 Myr of disruption.' More importantly, the UFD survival fraction is fragile: 94% under the fiducial 100-particle threshold drops to 60% if you require 1000 particles or treat >5% stellar mass loss as disruption. The authors flag both shifts explicitly, and the qualitative ordering—low-mass satellites quench first and mostly survive, high-mass satellites disrupt fast—is robust. Only four hosts, and the authors say that too.

No hidden circularity: the subgrid parameters came from prior work, the observed trends are external checks, and the logistic regression is not fitted to create the result.

Who it's for: anyone interpreting the Milky Way's quenched fraction, satellite luminosity functions, or upcoming deep surveys of UFDs and streams. It deserves a serious referee. If I were handling it, I'd send it out and ask for the robustness numbers in table form; the paper already does most of this in Section 4.2.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses two Mint-resolution and four Near Mint-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations of Milky Way-mass hosts from the D.C. JUSTICE LEAGUE suite to construct a full census of satellite galaxies accreted within the past ~12 Gyr, dividing them into surviving (star-forming, quenched by host, quenched independently) and disrupted classes. The authors compare stellar mass-metallicity-[O/Fe] distributions, infall times and masses, orbital circularity, and mass-loss histories of the two populations. They report that disrupted progenitors are more metal-poor and alpha-enhanced than survivors, that survival and quenching depend strongly on infall mass and time, that highly radial orbits promote disruption, that 92% of disrupted galaxies were star-forming at their last detected snapshot, and that ~94% of ultra-faint dwarfs (UFDs) accreted within 12 Gyr survive to z=0. The observational comparisons use the Fillingham et al. (2019) and Naidu et al. (2022) samples and a logistic-regression separator.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, the paper provides a rare full-census view of the accreted satellite population down to UFD masses, linking the surviving satellite population to stellar-halo progenitors and giving concrete predictions for the timing of quenching versus disruption. The main strengths are the very high resolution (Mint runs resolve star particles of ~1000 M_sun), the explicit comparison of simulated chemical abundances to observed survivors and disrupted streams, and the careful attention to numerical artifacts such as temporary halo loss and resolution convergence. The paper also ships a transparent definition of satellite categories and discusses the sensitivity of survival fractions to the operational definition of disruption. However, the headline numbers in the abstract are not yet shown to be independent of the disruption definition, which is the central concern of this report.

major comments (3)

[Abstract; Section 2.3] The abstract states that 'none of the galaxies accreted more than 12 Gyrs ago survived,' but Section 2.3 explicitly excludes all halos from the first 1 Gyr of the simulations and restricts the sample to satellites accreted over the past ~12 Gyr. Consequently, galaxies accreted more than 12 Gyr ago are absent from the sample by construction, making the sentence a selection artifact rather than a physical finding. This statement should be removed or replaced with the actual threshold reported in Section 3.2 (roughly 10 Gyr lookback for survival, with 'most' satellites accreted more than 11 Gyr ago disrupted).
[Section 3.2; Section 4.2] The headline claim that 92% of disrupted galaxies remain star-forming 'up until disruption' is based on star formation at the last AHF-identified snapshot before the halo disappears, not on a direct measurement at physical disruption. Section 4.2 notes that disruption times are only known to within ~300 Myr (the snapshot spacing) and that for early-accreted systems the disruption timescale is comparable to this spacing; a satellite could quench in the interval after the last snapshot and still be counted as star-forming-until-disruption. Moreover, the same section shows that the UFD survival fraction drops from 94% to 60% under a 5% stellar mass-loss definition (and from 94% to 60% when the AHF particle threshold is raised to n=1000). The authors should either recompute the 92% fraction under a mass-loss-based disruption definition or explicitly phrase the claim as 'star-forming at the last snapshot before AHF disappearance' in the abstract and conclusions, with the definition-dependence discussed there.
[Section 3.2] The UFD survival fraction of ~94% rests on only two disrupted UFDs in the Mint runs ('only two Mint UFDs accreted within the last 12 Gyr disrupt'). With such a small number of disruption events, the counting uncertainty is substantial (a Poisson event count of 2 has a ~40% fractional uncertainty at 68% confidence for the disruption count, translating to several percent in the survival fraction), yet the denominator and uncertainty are not reported. The authors should state the total number of UFDs in the sample and provide a Poisson or bootstrap uncertainty on the 94% figure.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1] The sentence 'Disrupted satellites show higher [Fe/H] compared to their disrupted counterparts at the same stellar mass, and lower [O/Fe] compared to their disrupted counterparts in the same metallicity range' appears to contain a typo: based on Figure 1 and the caption, it should read 'Surviving satellites show higher [Fe/H]...' or 'Disrupted satellites show lower [Fe/H]...'.
[Abstract; Section 3.2; Section 5] The survival thresholds are stated inconsistently across the paper: the abstract says 'more than 12 Gyrs,' Section 3.2 says 'more than 10 Gyr ago survive' with a rough threshold, and the summary says 'most satellites accreted more than 11 Gyr ago are disrupted.' These numbers should be harmonized or explicitly presented as a gradual transition.
[Table 1] The column header 'N_Q,Indep' is used without a table footnote; defining it explicitly as 'quenched independent of the host' directly in the table would improve readability.
[Section 2.3] The statement 'we reject 100% of AHF-identified halos during the first gigayear' is surprising as phrased; it would be clearer to say that the 500 Myr star-hosting requirement excludes all halos from that epoch by construction.
[Section 4.2] The UFD survival-rate sensitivity to the particle threshold (94% at n=100 decreasing to 60% at n=1000) and to the 5% stellar-mass-loss criterion is reported twice (once in Section 3.2 and again in Section 4.2); presenting it once with a cross-reference would reduce redundancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are predictions of an independently validated simulation suite, and the 92% 'star-forming until disruption' statistic is an operational definition explicitly stress-tested by the authors rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the quantities it claims to derive. The headline survival fractions (20% of M*>10^8 Msun accreted galaxies survive; 94% of UFDs survive; 92% of disrupted galaxies remain star-forming until disruption) are tabulated outcomes of the DC Justice League simulations, whose subgrid choices were tuned in earlier work (Applebaum et al. 2021; Munshi et al. 2021; Akins et al. 2021) and validated against independent observational benchmarks (luminosity functions, size-luminosity relation, stellar mass-metallicity relation, quenched fractions). The paper then checks its predictions against external data: the M*-[Fe/H]-[O/Fe] trends are compared to observed surviving satellites and disrupted streams (Fillingham et al. 2019; Naidu et al. 2022), and a logistic regression trained only on simulated galaxies correctly classifies 17 of 19 observed galaxies. That is an independent consistency test, not a circular reduction. The strongest candidate for a definitional concern is the 92% statistic, which is measured as the fraction of disrupted galaxies that were star-forming at the last AHF-identified snapshot before disappearance (Sections 2.3 and 3.2). This is a definitional operationalization of 'disruption' rather than a circular derivation: the paper explicitly exposes the sensitivity of the result to the halo-finder particle threshold and to the 300 Myr snapshot cadence in Section 4.2, reporting that the UFD survival fraction decreases from 94% at n=100 to 60% at n=1000 and from 94% to 60% if >5% stellar mass loss is treated as disruption. Acknowledging that a headline number depends on the operational definition is a robustness caveat, not evidence that the number was fitted or that the argument presupposes its own conclusion. Similarly, the paper's reliance on prior papers from the same group is normal and non-circular: the cited simulation-description and validation papers are external to this analysis, are themselves checked against observations, and the current claims are not justified by citing an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: the physics is in the simulation subgrid model, the census is produced by AHF plus explicit selection criteria, and the observational comparisons are genuine out-of-sample checks. Score 1 reflects the presence of multiple normal self-citations to the simulation suite without any load-bearing circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on the simulation suite's subgrid model, the halo finder's definition of disruption, and the small sample of hosts. Two of the headline numbers (92%, 94%) directly depend on the chosen particle threshold and snapshot cadence, which the authors test but do not fully resolve.

free parameters (3)

sSFR quenching threshold = 2e-11 yr^-1
Used to classify satellites as star-forming or quenched (Section 2.3); chosen from observational convention, not fitted here. Affects quenched fractions but not the disruption/survival dichotomy.
Minimum AHF particle threshold = 100 particles
Defines when a halo is 'disrupted' (Section 4.2); changing it from 100 to 1000 shifts UFD survival from 94% to 60%, directly affecting a headline result.
Metallicity floor = [Fe/H] = -4
Imposed on star particles for lack of Population III enrichment (Section 2.2); affects model metallicity distributions at the low-mass end but not the main timescale claims.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Planck 2016 cosmological parameters assumed in initial conditions
Simulations run from z=149 with Planck Collaboration (2016) parameters (Section 2.1).
domain assumption CHANGA SPH subgrid physics captures relevant gas stripping, star formation, and feedback
The quenching mechanism (ram pressure stripping) depends on the SPH and feedback implementation (Section 2.2).
domain assumption AHF halo finding and Tangos merger trees correctly track satellite orbits and disruption
Disruption times are defined by when AHF stops identifying the halo (Section 2.3, 4.2); the authors note AHF can misidentify tidally distorted systems.
domain assumption Six zoom-in hosts (four independent, two at Mint resolution) are representative of Milky Way-mass accretion histories
Hosts were chosen from a 50^3 Mpc^3 volume to span merger histories, but Section 4.3 acknowledges it is impossible to fully sample assembly histories with four halos.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survivors and Zombies: The Quenching and Disruption of Satellites around Milky Way Analogs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FPDXLG4

@misc{pith2026250522742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survivors and Zombies: The Quenching and Disruption of Satellites around Milky Way Analogs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FPDXLG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22742}
}

abstract

It is necessary to understand the full accretion history of the Milky Way in order to contextualize the properties of observed Milky Way satellite galaxies and the stellar halo. This paper compares the dynamical properties and star-formation histories of surviving and disrupted satellites around Milky Way-like galaxies using the DC Justice League suite of very high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations of Milky Way analogs and their halo environments. We analyze the full census of galaxies accreted within the past 12 Gyrs, which including both surviving satellites at $z=0$, and dwarf galaxies that disrupted and merged with the host prior to $z=0$. Our simulations successfully reproduce the trends in $M_*$-[Fe/H]-[$\alpha$/Fe] observed in surviving Milky Way satellites and disrupted stellar streams, indicating earlier star-formation for disrupted progenitors. We find the likelihood and timescales for quenching and disruption are strongly correlated with the mass and time of infall. In particular, none of the galaxies accreted more than 12 Gyrs ago survived, and only 20% of all accreted galaxies with $M_*>10^8M_\odot$ survive. Additionally, satellites with highly radial trajectories are more likely to quench and disrupt. Disruption proceeds quickly for $\geq10^6M_\odot$ satellites accreted $10{-}12$ Gyr ago, often on timescales similar to the $\sim300$ Myr snapshot spacing. For high-mass satellites, the disruption timescale is faster than the quenching timescale. As a result, 92% of disrupted galaxies remain star-forming up until disruption. In contrast, Ultra Faint Dwarfs (UFDs) tend to quench prior to accretion, and 94% of UFDs accreted up to 12 Gyr ago survive at $z=0$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Cosmological simulations of the same spiral galaxy: satellite properties, the role of baryonic physics and star formation history in shaping dark matter cores/cusps
astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Satellites that form most of their stars early keep dark matter cusps, while late or continuous star formers develop oscillating cores, so the dwarf diversity problem may be explained by feedback history and tides wit...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

I., et al

Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656

2020
[2]

H., Brooks, A

Ahmed, S. H., Brooks, A. M., & Christensen, C. R. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3119

2017
[3]

B., Christensen, C

Akins, H. B., Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 139

2021
[4]

Amorisco, N. C. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882

2017
[5]

W., Diaferio, A., & Kroupa, P

Angus, G. W., Diaferio, A., & Kroupa, P. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1401

2011
[6]

M., Christensen, C

Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96

2021
[7]

2024, ApJ, 970, 40 Bahé, Y

Azartash-Namin, B., Engelhardt, A., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 40 Bahé, Y. M., Schaye, J., Barnes, D. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2287

2024
[8]

2011, ApJ, 742, 13

Bellovary, J., Volonteri, M., Governato, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 13

2011

Show all 129 references

[9]

M., Cleary, C

Bellovary, J. M., Cleary, C. E., Munshi, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 482, 2913

2018
[10]

W., Koposov, S

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

2018
[11]

J., Lacey, C

Benson, A. J., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 156

2002
[12]

Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, NewAR, 100, 10001713

2025
[13]

M., & Zolotov, A

Brooks, A. M., & Zolotov, A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 87

2014
[14]

S., & Johnston, K

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

2005
[15]

G., Greene, J

Carlsten, S. G., Greene, J. E., Beaton, R. L., Danieli, S., & Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47

2022
[16]

1943, ApJ, 97, 255

Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, ApJ, 97, 255

1943
[17]

2012, MNRAS, 425, 3058

Christensen, C., Quinn, T., Governato, F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3058

2012
[18]

R., Brooks, A

Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 236

2024
[19]

R., Davé, R., Governato, F., et al

Christensen, C. R., Davé, R., Governato, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 57

2016
[20]

P., Cole, S., Frenk, C

Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 744

2010
[21]

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

Deason, A. J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 5 Di Cintio, A., Mostoghiu, R., Knebe, A., & Navarro, J. F. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 531

2016
[22]

2018, ApJS, 239, 35

Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35

2018
[23]

2024, MNRAS, 533, 3811

Diemer, B., Behroozi, P., & Mansfield, P. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3811

2024
[24]

Dierickx, M. I. P., & Loeb, A. 2017, ApJ, 836, 92 D’Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2018, NatAs, 2, 737 D’Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5270

2017
[25]

1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P

Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P

1992
[26]

D., et al

Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Joshi, G. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5946

2023
[27]

F., Peñarrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R

Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Peñarrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 384

2023
[28]

Errani, R., Peñarrubia, J., Laporte, C. F. P., & Gómez, F. A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L59

2017
[29]

N., et al

Escala, I., Wetzel, A., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2194

2018
[30]

J., Frenk, C

Fattahi, A., Deason, A. J., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4459

2020
[31]

C., Horta, D., et al

Fernandes, L., Mason, A. C., Horta, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3611

2023
[32]

E., Mao, Y.-Y., Newman, J

Fielder, C. E., Mao, Y.-Y., Newman, J. A., Zentner, A. R., & Licquia, T. C. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4545

2019
[33]

P., Cooper, M

Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Kelley, T., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.04180

2019 arXiv
[34]

P., Cooper, M

Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Pace, A. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1916

2016
[35]

P., Cooper, M

Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Wheeler, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2039

2015
[36]

S., Johnston, K

Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., & Robertson, B. E. 2006, ApJ, 638, 585

2006
[37]

S., McCarthy, I

Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Belokurov, V., Brown, S. T., & Stafford, S. G. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1544

2022
[38]

2002, ARA&A, 40, 487

Freeman, K., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487

2002
[39]

W., Weisz, D

Fu, S. W., Weisz, D. R., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 167 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2

2023
[40]

J., Brook, C

Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, NatAs, 3, 932

2019
[41]

Gao, L., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., Stoehr, F., & Springel, V. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 819

2004
[42]

S., & Lee, K

Garrison-Kimmel, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Lee, K. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2578

2014
[43]

S., et al

Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1709

2017
[44]

2013, MNRAS, 429, 633

Geen, S., Slyz, A., & Devriendt, J. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 633

2013
[45]

H., et al

Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118

2024
[46]

H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 4

2017
[47]

M., Wojno, J., Kirby, E

Gilbert, K. M., Wojno, J., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 41

2020
[48]

Grand, R. J. J., Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4953

2021
[49]

E., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S., et al

Greene, J. E., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 94

2023
[50]

E., Font, A

Grimozzi, S. E., Font, A. S., & De Rossi, M. E. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 95

2024
[51]

2011, MNRAS, 413, 101

Guo, Q., White, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 101

2011
[52]

2012, ApJ, 746, 125

Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125

2012
[53]

A., et al

Hammer, F., Li, H., Mamon, G. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5059

2023
[54]

B., Wang, J

Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., Wang, J. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2754

2018
[55]

F., D’Souza, R., et al

Harmsen, B., Bell, E. F., D’Souza, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4497

2023
[56]

R., Lian, J., et al

Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., Lian, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 172

2021
[57]

D., et al

Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113

2018
[58]

2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

2020
[59]

H., et al

Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Natur, 563, 85

2018
[60]

C., Sanderson, R

Horta, D., Cunningham, E. C., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 158

2023
[61]

2017, ApJ, 848, 85

Jeon, M., Besla, G., & Bromm, V. 2017, ApJ, 848, 85

2017
[62]

2021, MNRAS, 502, 621

Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 621

2021
[63]

W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

Johnson, J. W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5084

2023
[64]

V., Bullock, J

Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., Sharma, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 936

2008
[65]

V., Spergel, D

Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1995, ApJ, 451, 598

1995
[66]

D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al

Joshi, G. D., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1652

2021
[67]

Katz, N., & White, S. D. M. 1993, ApJ, 412, 455

1993
[68]

N., Cohen, J

Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102

2013
[69]

N., Gilbert, K

Kirby, E. N., Gilbert, K. M., Escala, I., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 46

2020
[70]

R., & Knebe, A

Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608

2009
[71]

2018, ApJL, 860, L11

Koppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, ApJL, 860, L11

2018
[72]

Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472

2020
[73]

I., & Lake, G

Lux, H., Read, J. I., & Lake, G. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2312

2010
[74]

F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al

Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2140

2016
[75]

F., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al

Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1694 Macciò, A. V., Frings, J., Buck, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2356

2018
[76]

R., Schiavon, R

Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

2017
[77]

A., Sharma, S., et al

Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107

2022
[78]

H., et al

Mao, Y.-Y., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 85

2021
[79]

H., et al

Mao, Y.-Y., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 117

2024
[80]

2006, MNRAS, 369, 1021

Mayer, L., Mastropietro, C., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., & Moore, B. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1021

2006
[81]

McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4

2012
[82]

2015, ComAC, 2, 1

Menon, H., Wesolowski, L., Zheng, G., et al. 2015, ComAC, 2, 1

2015
[83]

2020, MNRAS, 495, 4570

Merritt, A., Pillepich, A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4570

2020
[84]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868 Muñoz, R

Chaves-Montero, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868 Muñoz, R. R., Côté, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66

2024
[85]

M., Applebaum, E., et al

Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35

2021
[86]

J., Crnojević, D., et al

Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojević, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 88

2021
[87]

C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N

Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235

2019
[88]

P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48

2020
[89]

P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2204.09057

2022 arXiv
[90]

S., Jenkins, A., & Theuns, T

Okamoto, T., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., & Theuns, T. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 208 Oñorbe, J., Hennawi, J. F., & Lukić, Z. 2017, ApJ, 837, 106

2010
[91]

E., Wetzel, A., et al

Panithanpaisal, N., Sanderson, R. E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 10 17 The Astrophysical Journal, 989:178 (18pp), 2025 August 20 Pathak et al. Peñarrubia, J., Benson, A. J., Walker, M. G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1290

2021
[92]

S., Werk, J

Peeples, M. S., Werk, J. K., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 54 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, 13

2014
[93]

2013, pynbody: N-Body/ SPH Analysis for Python

Pontzen, A., Roškar, R., Stinson, G., & Woods, R. 2013, pynbody: N-Body/ SPH Analysis for Python

2013
[94]

2018, ApJS, 237, 23

Pontzen, A., & Tremmel, M. 2018, ApJS, 237, 23

2018
[95]

2000, Sci, 288, 1617

Quilis, V. 2000, Sci, 288, 1617

2000
[96]

2018, A&A, 616, A96

Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2018, A&A, 616, A96

2018
[97]

S., Font, A

Robertson, B., Bullock, J. S., Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 872

2005
[98]

Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., & Bullock, J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 231

2012
[99]

V., Navarro, J

Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., & Steinmetz, M. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1464

2007
[100]

2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849

Samuel, J., Pardasani, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849

2023
[101]

2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276

Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Santistevan, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276

2022
[102]

2023, A&A, 669, A94

Sanati, M., Jeanquartier, F., Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2023, A&A, 669, A94

2023
[103]

B., Wetzel, A., El-Badry, K., et al

Santistevan, I. B., Wetzel, A., El-Badry, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 747

2020
[104]

2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581

Shen, S., Wadsley, J., & Stinson, G. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581

2010
[105]

2023, ApJ, 949, 44

Shipp, N., Panithanpaisal, N., Necib, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 44

2023
[106]

Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375

2019
[107]

C., Peeples, M

Simons, R. C., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 167

2020
[108]

M., Grand, R

Simpson, C. M., Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 548

2018
[109]

Stadel, J. G. 2001, PhD Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle

2001
[110]

2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074

Stinson, G., Seth, A., Katz, N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074

2006
[111]

K., Nomoto, K., & Yokoi, K

Thielemann, F. K., Nomoto, K., & Yokoi, K. 1986, A&A, 158, 17

1986
[112]

2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121

Tremmel, M., Karcher, M., Governato, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121

2017
[113]

K., Oman, K

Upadhyay, A. K., Oman, K. A., & Trager, S. C. 2021, A&A, 652, A16 van den Bosch, F. C., Jiang, F., Campbell, D., & Behroozi, P. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 158 van den Bosch, F. C., & Ogiya, G. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4066 van den Bosch, F. C., Ogiya, G., Hahn, O., & Burkert, A. 2018, MNRAS, ...

2021
[114]

A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M

Venn, K. A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1177

2004
[115]

2019, MNRAS, 487, L47

Vincenzo, F., Spitoni, E., Calura, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, L47

2019
[116]

W., Keller, B

Wadsley, J. W., Keller, B. W., & Quinn, T. R. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2357

2017
[117]

W., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T

Wadsley, J. W., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2004, NewA, 9, 137

2004
[118]

1987, A&A, 188, 74

Weidemann, V. 1987, A&A, 188, 74

1987
[119]

H., Griffith, E

Weinberg, D. H., Griffith, E. J., Johnson, J. W., & Thompson, T. A. 2024, ApJ, 973, 122

2024
[120]

R., Dolphin, A

Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 147

2014
[121]

R., Dolphin, A

Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 136

2015
[122]

R., Tollerud, E

Wetzel, A. R., Tollerud, E. J., & Weisz, D. R. 2015, ApJL, 808, L27

2015
[123]

F., Pace, A

Wheeler, C., Hopkins, P. F., Pace, A. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4447

2019
[124]

L., Gilbert, K

Wojno, J. L., Gilbert, K. M., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 12

2023
[125]

E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, RvMP, 74, 1015

2002
[126]

Wechsler, R. H. 2005, ApJ, 624, 505

2005
[127]

R., & Bullock, J

Zentner, A. R., & Bullock, J. S. 2003, ApJ, 598, 49

2003
[128]

M., Willman, B., et al

Zolotov, A., Brooks, A. M., Willman, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 71

2012
[129]

M., et al

Zolotov, A., Willman, B., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 738 18 The Astrophysical Journal, 989:178 (18pp), 2025 August 20 Pathak et al

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

I., et al

Agertz, O., Pontzen, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1656

2020

[2] [2]

H., Brooks, A

Ahmed, S. H., Brooks, A. M., & Christensen, C. R. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3119

2017

[3] [3]

B., Christensen, C

Akins, H. B., Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 139

2021

[4] [4]

Amorisco, N. C. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2882

2017

[5] [5]

W., Diaferio, A., & Kroupa, P

Angus, G. W., Diaferio, A., & Kroupa, P. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1401

2011

[6] [6]

M., Christensen, C

Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96

2021

[7] [7]

2024, ApJ, 970, 40 Bahé, Y

Azartash-Namin, B., Engelhardt, A., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 40 Bahé, Y. M., Schaye, J., Barnes, D. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2287

2024

[8] [8]

2011, ApJ, 742, 13

Bellovary, J., Volonteri, M., Governato, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 13

2011