Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Measuring and modelling the Splash with APOGEE/Gaia and ARTEMIS

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Splash-like populations in Milky Way-mass galaxies are ubiquitous and correlate with retrograde accreted mass, so a single massive merger is not required to produce the Milky Way's Splash.

desk verdict A solid abundance study with a provocative simulation-side claim that is currently undercut by an uncalibrated definitional bridge between observed and simulated Splash. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15944 v1 pith:HKDVS4CF submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.GA

Shobhit Kisku , Ricardo P. Schiavon , Andreea S. Font , Andrew Mason , Danny Horta , Dominic J. Taylor , Andrea Sante , José G. Fernández-Trincado
show 1 more author
Timothy C. Beers
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Splashpopulationgalacticarchaeologyhigh-alphadiscretrogrademergersGaia-Enceladus/SausageAPOGEEabundancesARTEMISsimulationsMilkyWayformation
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 sets out to test whether the Milky Way's Splash—a population of chemically old, kinematically hot disc stars on highly eccentric orbits—must be the unique signature of one massive merger, the Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage event. Using APOGEE and Gaia data for 14,258 high-$\alpha$ stars (626 with eccentricity $e>0.6$) and 16 abundance ratios, it finds the Splash is chemically distinct from the rest of the high-$\alpha$ disc but sits at the smooth, high-eccentricity end of trends in $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$, $[\mathrm{Al}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, $[\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, and $[\mathrm{Mn}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, suggesting one continuous disc population. Turning to ARTEMIS cosmological simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies, the paper then shows that Splash-like populations appear in galaxies with and without a Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage-scale merger. The Splash fraction correlates strongly (Pearson $r=0.92$) with the fraction of retrograde accreted stars, and a galaxy with only minor retrograde mergers can host a stronger Splash than a galaxy with a major prograde one. If correct, the result reframes the Splash as a general consequence of retrograde accretion history rather than a unique single-event fossil.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Splash itself: a population of old disc stars whose orbits were heated so strongly that they reach high eccentricity and often retrograde motion, defined in the observations as high-$\alpha$ stars with eccentricity $e>0.6$ and in the simulations as in-situ star particles with angular momentum $L_z<0$ at redshift zero. The load-bearing comparison is the correlation of the simulated Splash fraction with the fraction of accreted stars on retrograde orbits, computed within matched solar-neighbourhood annuli ($5<R<11$ kpc, $|Z|<3$ kpc) for four galaxies with a major early merger and three with only minor early accretion. That correlation, rather than any single visual feature, is what lets the paper argue that retrograde orbital orientation is the controlling factor. The observed chemical analysis is carried by two complementary statistics: a per-metallicity-bin comparison of medians with $\chi^2$ values and 1,000 bootstrap resamples, and a $\chi^2$ distribution method that compares Splash abundance trends to 1,000 random disc samples of the same size.

What would settle it

In the ARTEMIS galaxies, compute both eccentricity and angular momentum for every in-situ star particle at $z=0$; if stars with $e>0.6$ turn out to be frequently prograde, or if stars with $L_z<0$ frequently have $e<0.6$, then the observed selection and the simulated definition do not line up, and the $r=0.92$ correlation cannot be assumed to describe the Milky Way's Splash. A second, data-side check would be to measure the Splash fraction in APOGEE outside the solar neighbourhood ($R<5$ kpc) and see whether the simulated dependence of the Splash fraction on radius and height still holds there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Splash is both real and not a unique formation event. In the Milky Way, Splash stars selected by eccentricity $e>0.6$ within the high-$\alpha$ disc differ significantly from the rest of the high-$\alpha$ disc in 12 of 16 abundance ratios: they are richer in $\alpha$ elements, aluminium, and potassium and poorer in manganese, which the paper reads as an older, less chemically enriched population. Yet these differences are not a separate chemical track; they are the extreme end of smooth abundance gradients across eccentricity, meaning the Splash is the heated tail of the old disc. In the ARTEMIS simulations, the same kind of population—defined there as in-situ stars on retrograde orbits at $z=0$—is ubiquitous across Milky Way-mass hosts, whether or not they suffered a major early merger. The decisive variable is retrograde accreted mass: Splash fraction and accreted retrograde fraction correlate with Pearson $r=0.92$, and the minor-merger galaxy G44 out-performs two major-merger galaxies in Splash fraction. The paper concludes that lower-mass retrograde mergers can generate Splash-like populations, so the Milky Way's Splash does not by itself prove a single massive Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage collision.

Load-bearing premise

That the stars the paper identifies as Splash in the Milky Way—high-$\alpha$ stars with eccentricity above 0.6—are the same physical population as the simulated stars it counts as Splash, namely stars born in the host disc that now move on retrograde orbits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Splash-like population in a galaxy is no longer reliable evidence by itself for a Gaia-Enceladus/Sausage-scale single merger.
  • Retrograde accreted mass, not total accreted mass, becomes the predictor to measure when estimating how strongly a galaxy's disc has been heated.
  • The Milky Way's Splash could contain contributions from several relatively low-mass retrograde mergers, not just one event, and still show the observed high-alpha, high-Al/K, low-Mn chemistry.
  • The calibrated Splash fraction as a function of radius and height can be used to map retrograde accretion histories across the disc and to predict where undiscovered Splash stars might be found.
  • Simulations with a major prograde merger but low retrograde accretion predict a weak Splash, implying some Milky Way analogues with a massive early merger would show almost no Splash.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper uses $L_z<0$ in simulations and $e>0.6$ in observations without direct calibration, a natural next step is to tag ARTEMIS star particles with both quantities simultaneously; if the mapping between the two definitions is loose, the $r=0.92$ correlation would need to be re-derived for the Milky Way's adopted eccentricity cut.
  • The paper's simulated [$\mathrm{Mg}/\mathrm{Fe}$]–$L_z$ plane shows a discontinuity at $L_z\sim0$ that is absent in the Milky Way sample; one testable reading is that the Milky Way's Splash is more phase-mixed, or that the observed sample washes out the feature through selection, which could be checked by extending the APOGEE comparison to $R<5$ kpc.
  • If retrograde orientation is the controlling variable, then direct measurements of the orbital poles of surviving Milky Way satellites and streams, combined with their masses, could predict the Milky Way's Splash fraction before more stars are observed; the paper's correlation gives a quantitative target for that prediction.
  • The chemical pattern—high $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$, high $[\mathrm{Al},\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, low $[\mathrm{Mn}/\mathrm{Fe}]$—may serve as a diagnostic of retrograde-heated old disc in other galaxies for which only integrated light is available, though that would require a stellar-population synthesis step the paper does not carry out.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper combines APOGEE DR17/Gaia data with ARTEMIS simulations to characterize the Splash. The observational part selects high-[Mg/Fe] giants in the solar neighbourhood and divides them into high-alpha disc (e<0.6) and Splash (e>0.6) samples. Comparing 16 abundance ratios in four metallicity bins, the authors find statistically significant differences, with Splash stars more alpha-enhanced and lower in [Mn/Fe], but also show that these differences vary smoothly with eccentricity. The simulation part defines Splash-like populations in seven ARTEMIS galaxies as in-situ star particles on retrograde orbits (Lz<0), and finds that such populations exist in both GE/S-like and minor-accretion hosts, with a strong correlation (Pearson r=0.92) between the Splash fraction and the fraction of accreted retrograde stars. The authors conclude that retrograde minor mergers can generate Splash-like populations and that orbital orientation matters more than total merger mass.

Significance. The paper's observational analysis is a careful, high-precision chemo-dynamical comparison that extends previous Splash studies to 16 elements. The simulation result, if validated, would be an important step beyond the single-merger narrative: it would imply that Splash-like features are generic to accretion histories and that orbital orientation is a key parameter. Strengths include strict quality cuts, explicit correction for APOGEE log-g abundance systematics, bootstrap-based null chi-squared distributions, and use of a cosmological zoom-in suite with in-situ/accreted labels. However, the central observational-to-simulation link rests on an uncalibrated equivalence between eccentricity and angular-momentum selections, and the simulation sample is small and selected to have high accreted fractions. These caveats are load-bearing for the Splash ubiquity and correlation claims as applied to the Milky Way.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, footnote 3; Sections 5.2-5.4] The manuscript equates the observed Splash definition (e>0.6, Section 2.1) with the simulated definition (in-situ stars with Lz<0, Section 5.2) on the assertion that "Lz correlates very well with eccentricity" (footnote 3). Quantitatively, the two criteria are not equivalent: a star on a highly eccentric prograde orbit has e>0.6 and Lz>0, while a nearly circular retrograde star has Lz<0 and e<0.6. Because every Milky Way comparison in Sections 5.2-5.4 (Fig. 16 correlation, Fig. 13 trend, Fig. 19 ages, and the Fig. 7 versus Fig. 17 confusion maps) uses the simulated Lz<0 definition, the applicability of the main conclusions to the observed Splash depends on this mapping. Please provide a quantitative calibration in ARTEMIS: for the same solar-neighbourhood volume, report the contamination and completeness of the Lz<0 selection relative to an e>0.6 selection (or apply the e>0.6 criterion directly to simulated star particles), and re-derive Fig. 16 and the confusion maps with the matched definition. Without this, the r=0.92 correlation remains an internal simulation result whose connection to the Milky Way Splash is unestablished.
  2. [Section 5.2, Fig. 16] The headline correlation (Pearson r=0.92) is computed from 42 measurements that are not independent: 6 azimuthal sectors per galaxy, with galaxies strongly clustered in the plane. The significance and confidence interval of r need to account for this clustering, for example by block-bootstrap resampling whole galaxies or using a mixed-effects model. In addition, the two plotted quantities share a common Lz<0 orientation definition at z=0, so a correlation is partly expected if a retrograde merger both deposits retrograde accreted stars and heats the in-situ disc in the same rotational sense. The paper does not control for this shared-orientation effect, for example by comparing with a null that randomizes the sign of Lz, or by partial correlation with the total accreted fraction. Please add such a control before claiming that retrograde orientation specifically drives Splash formation.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Section 5.4] The conclusion that Splash-like populations are "ubiquitous" (abstract and Section 5.4) is drawn from seven ARTEMIS galaxies, and the paper states that "all systems selected here have high total accreted fractions ... >40%" (Section 5). This selection enriches the sample in accretion-dominated systems and does not justify statements about Milky Way-mass galaxies in general. The ubiquity claim should either be restricted to the selected class of accretion-rich galaxies or supported by a test on a larger, unselected ARTEMIS sample (for example, the full 45-galaxy suite). As written, the claim overreaches the data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections 5.1 and 6] The text refers to "six simulated galaxies" in two places, but the paper defines and uses seven (G29, G30, G34, G42, G17, G19, G44). Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Fig. 7] The y-axis label reads "Splash fractoin"; this should be "Splash fraction".
  3. [Fig. 9] All p-values are printed as 0.0; please report them as <0.001 or with a precision consistent with the bootstrap method, since a literal zero probability is not a meaningful statement.
  4. [Section 5.2] The Splash fraction in simulations is defined as the ratio of in-situ retrograde to prograde stars, while the abstract calls it the "mass fraction of Splash stars". These are different quantities; please clarify which quantity is plotted in Fig. 16 and used in the text.
  5. [Fig. 13] The Milky Way panel uses -0.6<[Fe/H]<-0.4 while the simulated panels use -1.0<[Fe/H]<-0.8; the text compares the slopes without testing sensitivity to this metallicity choice. A brief check or caveat would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The simulated Splash is defined as any in-situ retrograde star, so the 'ubiquitous' claim is partly definitional; the main correlation and observational chemistry are otherwise independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, definition of Splash fractions; Abstract]
    "To compute the Splash fractions, we select all in situ star particles on retrograde orbits (Lz< 0) at redshift 0 and then compute the ratio between the in situ retrograde and prograde populations."

    The simulated Splash fraction is defined entirely as the fraction of in-situ stars with Lz<0. Thus the abstract's claim that 'Splash-like populations are ubiquitous' is guaranteed by construction: any galaxy with a kinematically hot disc contains some retrograde in-situ stars, so a non-zero Splash fraction is inevitable. No additional Splash criterion (minimum fraction, eccentricity, chemical distinctness) is imposed. Also, both the simulated Splash and the predictor 'retrograde accreted fraction' are selected by the same sign of Lz, so part of the shared orientation dependence is built into the variables. The r=0.92 correlation is not mathematically forced (the in-situ and accreted sets are disjoint), but the qualitative ubiquity statement is a definitional artefact.

full rationale

The observational analysis (Sections 2-4) is self-contained: the Splash is selected by an eccentricity cut in the high-alpha disc, and the chemical comparisons use bootstrap chi-square tests against the high-alpha population without presupposing the conclusion. The simulation part is largely independent, with two caveats. First, the simulated Splash fraction is defined as the in-situ retrograde fraction, so the abstract's 'ubiquitous' statement is close to a tautology for any galaxy with a hot disc. Second, the observed e>0.6 and simulated Lz<0 criteria are asserted to be equivalent ('Lz correlates very well with eccentricity', with a footnote saying this was verified) but no quantitative calibration is shown; this is a validity threat to the Milky Way comparisons, though not a circular reduction. The key correlation (r=0.92) between in-situ retrograde fraction and accreted retrograde fraction is an empirical relation between disjoint particle sets, and the G44/G34 comparison and [Mg/Fe]-Lz trends provide independent content. Overall, one central qualitative claim is partly definitional, but the main quantitative results do not reduce to their inputs, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or physical entities. Its central claims rest on the free selection parameters used to define the observed and simulated Splash, on the reliability of the APOGEE/Gaia data and orbital calculations, and on the ARTEMIS subgrid physics. The most fragile assumption is that the simulation-side definition (in-situ retrograde) maps cleanly onto the observed high-eccentricity selection.

free parameters (4)
  • Splash eccentricity threshold e=0.6 = e>0.6
    Chosen at the turnover in the eccentricity distribution of the high-alpha sample (Section 2.1, Fig. 2); defines the Splash and directly shapes all subsequent chemical comparisons.
  • High-alpha selection boundary in [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] = red dashed line (not numerically specified)
    A line drawn by eye in Fig. 1 (Section 2.1) to separate the high-alpha sequence from the low-alpha disk; the resulting samples depend on its location.
  • Metallicity comparison window = -1.1 < [Fe/H] < -0.3
    Adopted in Section 3 to avoid accreted-halo contamination at low metallicity and the lack of metal-rich Splash stars; affects which stars enter the chi-squared tests.
  • Per-abundance log g correction polynomials = 2nd-order polynomial coefficients per element
    Fitted to the [X/H]-log g planes of solar-neighborhood high-alpha stars (Section 2.2.2); the recovered abundance differences depend on this calibration.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption APOGEE ASPCAP abundances are reliable after the log-g correction
    The paper trusts the survey pipeline and its systematics corrections (Section 2.2.2).
  • domain assumption Galactic orbits computed in the McMillan (2017) potential with the Stäckel fudge are accurate enough for eccentricity and Lz classification
    Used throughout Sections 2.1 and 5 for the observed and simulated stars.
  • domain assumption ARTEMIS simulations with WMAP cosmology and subgrid feedback reproduce realistic Milky Way-like galaxies and their merger histories
    The paper relies on Font et al. (2020) for the simulation setup and on Dillamore et al. (2022) for merger classifications (Section 5).
  • ad hoc to paper In-situ retrograde stars in simulations correspond to the observed Splash
    The simulation-side Splash definition in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 is assumed, not calibrated against the observed e>0.6 selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring and modelling the Splash with APOGEE/Gaia and ARTEMIS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKDVS4CF

@misc{pith2026250715944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring and modelling the Splash with APOGEE/Gaia and ARTEMIS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKDVS4CF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15944}
}
read the original abstract

Using combined data from SDSS-IV/APOGEE and Gaia, we study the chemo-dynamical properties of the Splash population in comparison with those of the high-alpha disc. We investigate a wide range of abundance ratios, finding that the Splash differs from the high-alpha disc overall. However, these differences result from a smooth variation of chemical compositions as a function of orbital properties. The Splash occupies the high-alpha, high-[Al,K/Fe], and low-[Mn/Fe] end of the high-alpha disk population. In agreement with previous studies, we find that Splash stars are distributed over large heights from the Galactic mid-plane. To further elucidate the relation between the Splash and the high-alpha disk, we turn to simulations. Using a sample of Milky Way-like galaxies with and without major accretion events from the ARTEMIS simulations, we find that Splash-like populations are ubiquitous, though not always resulting from major mergers. Lower mass progenitors can also generate Splash-like features, as long as they are on retrograde orbits. Moreover, we find a strong correlation between the mass fraction of Splash stars and the fraction of retrograde accreted stars in the disk. Some galaxies with minor (retrograde) mergers contain more pronounced Splash populations than others with major, but prograde, mergers. For stars in the high-alpha disks, we also find a decrease in the [alpha/Fe] with increasing orbital angular momentum. This trend is found in hosts with both major or minor mergers. Our results suggest that a number of relatively low-mass mergers on retrograde orbits could result in populations that are qualitatively similar to the Splash.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [Mg/Fe]—[Fe/H] (top) and 𝑣𝜙 – [Fe/H] (bottom) distributions of the star samples. The clean APOGEE data are shown in greyscale as 2D histograms. Over-plotted are the high-α disc, shown as blue histograms, and the Splash, as orange dots, both limited to the solar neighbourhood. A cut is made in the [Mg/Fe]—[Fe/H] plane to select the high-α disc stars, as indicated by the red dashed line in the top panel. Our selection… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The eccentricity distribution for the high-α population. We select the Splash to be in the upper tail end of this distribution where there is a significant change in the gradient, i.e., at 𝑒 > 0.6. • high [Mg/Fe] (above the red dashed line in the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example visualisation of the correction for abundance systematics on the [X/H] - log𝑔 plane. The left and right panels show the uncorrected and corrected abundances, respectively. Grey points show the high-α disc stars at the solar radius, while the red full and blue dashed lines show the medians of the distributions and the 2 nd order polynomials, respectively. for each abundance individually adopting the following… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: Energy-angular momentum of stars in the APOGEE cata￾logue, shown as a 2D histogram, using the selection criteria described in Section 2.1. Positive Lz represents prograde motion. The tuning fork feature is visible with a gap at ∼ (0, −2.0 × 105 ). Bottom: Same as …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bottom/top panels show the 2D / 1D velocity distributions of the Splash (orange dots/orange histograms), high-α disc (2D / blue histograms), and the full clean APOGEE sample (black dots / filled grey histograms), respectively. The 1D histograms share the same x-axis as…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the Splash (orange dots) and high-α disc (2D histograms) in the [Mg/Fe]–[Fe/H] plane as a function of Galactocentric radii (𝑅/kpc) and absolute vertical height (|𝑍|/kpc). We also show the ratio of Splash to high-α disc in the metallicity range −1.1 <[Fe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confusion map showing the Splash fraction computed from each panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [X/Fe]–[Fe/H] planes for all abundance ratios analysed here. The first 16 panels show the full metallicity range covered by APOGEE. The grey 2D histograms show the fully cleaned APOGEE sample, with the high-α disc stars shown as blue 2D histograms and the Splash stars …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The chemical comparison plot between the Splash and the disc, the results for which are laid out in Section 4.1. The points show the median values, orange for Splash and black for high-α disc, with the medians of the high-α subtracted from both, hence the black points …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of 𝜒 2 between the Splash and high-α disc (red lines) compared to the distribution of 𝜒 2 obtained from a random sample of the high-α disc (grey histograms), with the medians of distributions shown as black lines. These are computed in the range −1.1 < [Fe/…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Chemical abundance comparison for high-α disc similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of our selection of the high-α disc in the [Mg/Fe]– [Fe/H] plane for a simulated MW-GES galaxy (G34, left panel) and a MW￾MA galaxy (G44, right panel). Data points above and to the left of the red line are referred to as high-α. The selection is made only for…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: [Mg/Fe]–Lz distribution for the MW’s high-α disc in the range of −0.6 <[Fe/H]< −0.4. Bottom panels: The two simulated galaxies shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: 𝑣𝜙− [Fe/H] distributions in the G34 and G44 solar neighbourhoods (main panels, on the left and right, respectively). Side sub-panels show the normalized distributions of the Splash (orange), high-α disc (blue) and all disc stars (green). The Splash components are more…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Normalised [Mg/Fe] distributions for the Splash, high-α disc and all disc stars in the solar neighborhoods of G34 and G44 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: shows the results for the four MW-GES and three MW￾MA galaxies, each with six measurements. This shows a strong linear correlation (Pearson coefficient of 0.92) between the Splash fractions and the fractions of accreted retrograde stars. This re￾sult should be contras…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Confusion maps for the four of the MW-GES galaxies (G29, G30, G34 and G42) for three MW-MA ones (G17, G19 and G44). Splash fractions are computed in the solar neighbourhood regions, in a similar way as it was done for the MW (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Evolution versus lookback time (and redshift) of the rotational velocity (𝑣𝜙) of the Splash (orange) and other disc stars (grey) in the solar neighborhood today. The top subpanels indicate the accretion history of each galaxy, with black circles corresponding to lookb…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The distribution of ages in the Splash (orange), high-α disc (blue) and the retrograde accreted fraction (black histograms) in the simulated solar neighbourhoods. As before, MW-GES are shown on the left, and MW-MA on the right. In most cases, a clear association can b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    H., Weinberg D

    Andrews B. H., Weinberg D. H., Sch \"o nrich R., Johnson J. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..224A 835, 224

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224 2017

  5. [5]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..302B 162, 302

    Beaton R. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..302B 162, 302

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c 2021

  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]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642L.137B 642, L137

    doi:10.1086/504797 2006

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    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

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Bennett M., Bovy J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1417B 482, 1417

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Binney J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21757.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1324B 426, 1324

    2012

  4. [12]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B 154, 28

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

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

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...29B 216, 29

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Vaughan A

    Bowen I. S., Vaughan A. H. J., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.12.001430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApOpt..12.1430B 12, 1430

    1973 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Ciuc a I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmpL..32C

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Parry O

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

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Cui X.-Q., et al., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1197C 12, 1197

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Das P., Hawkins K., Jofr \'e P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.5195D 493, 5195

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    M., Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., Font A

    Dillamore A. M., Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., Font A. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.7070D 527, 7070

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Rix H.-W., Ness M

    Eilers A.-C., Hogg D. W., Rix H.-W., Ness M. K., Price-Whelan A. M., M \'e sz \'a ros S., Nitschelm C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...23E 928, 23

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Fernandes L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3611F 519, 3611

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    S., McCarthy I

    Font A. S., McCarthy I. G., Belokurov V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505..783F 505, 783

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    S., McCarthy I

    Font A. S., McCarthy I. G., Belokurov V., Brown S. T., Stafford S. G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.1544F 511, 1544

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625L..10G 625, L10

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151..144G 151, 144

    Garc \' a P \'e rez A. E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151..144G 151, 144

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1726G 481, 1726

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1603G 497, 1603

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Graur O., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...28G 783, 28

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    Gunn J. E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    Hasselquist S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..172H 923, 172

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Hawkins K., Jofr \'e P., Masseron T., Gilmore G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453..758H 453, 758

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..132H 808, 132

    Hayden M. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..132H 808, 132

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

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

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    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 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563...85H 563, 85

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..148H 150, 148

    Holtzman J. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..148H 150, 148

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..125H 156, 125

    Holtzman J. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..125H 156, 125

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Horta D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.1385H 500, 1385

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Horta D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5671H 520, 5671

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Ness M

    Horta D., Lu Y. L., Ness M. K., Lisanti M., Price-Whelan A. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..170H 971, 170

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..125..439I 125, 439

    Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..125..439I 125, 439

    1999 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Cole S., Frenk C

    Jiang L., Helly J. C., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2115J 440, 2115

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    J \"o nsson H., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..120J 160, 120

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    Lane J. M. M., Bovy J., Mackereth J. T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.5119L 510, 5119

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    S., Kim Y

    Lee A., Lee Y. S., Kim Y. K., Beers T. C., An D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb6f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945...56L 945, 56

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    W., Bovy J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.2079L 489, 2079

    Leung H. W., Bovy J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.2079L 489, 2079

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    T., Bovy J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aadcdd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130k4501M 130, 114501

    Mackereth J. T., Bovy J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aadcdd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130k4501M 130, 114501

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3426M 482, 3426

    Mackereth J. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3426M 482, 3426

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    Martig M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3655M 456, 3655

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Crain R

    Mason A. C., Crain R. A., Schiavon R. P., Weinberg D. H., Pfeffer J., Schaye J., Schaller M., Theuns T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533..184M 533, 184

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    G., Font A

    McCarthy I. G., Font A. S., Crain R. A., Deason A. J., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20189.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.2245M 420, 2245

    2012

  54. [63]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...76M 465, 76

    McMillan P. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...76M 465, 76

    2017 doi

  55. [64]

    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

  56. [65]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..173N 150, 173

    Nidever D. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..173N 150, 173

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    Ortigoza-Urdaneta M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.140O 676, A140

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    Portinari L., Chiosi C., Bressan A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...334..505P 334, 505

    1998 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    Ratcliffe B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2208R 525, 2208

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    J., Brunthaler A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...39R 892, 39

    Reid M. J., Brunthaler A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...39R 892, 39

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    Renzini A., Voli M., 1981, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A....94..175R 94, 175

    1981

  62. [71]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2cbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..303S 162, 303

    Santana F. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2cbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..303S 162, 303

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..501S 465, 501

    Schiavon R. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..501S 465, 501

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1393S 528, 1393

    Schiavon R. P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1393S 528, 1393

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    Sch \"o nrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1829S 403, 1829

    2010

  66. [75]

    R., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5882S 507, 5882

    Sharma S., Hayden M. R., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5882S 507, 5882

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    Siess L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..10S 512, A10

    2010 doi

  68. [77]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364.1105S 364, 1105

    2005

  69. [78]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328..726S 328, 726

    2001

  70. [79]

    Srisawat C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436..150S 436, 150

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.3429T 513, 3429

    Taylor D. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.3429T 513, 3429

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    Tolstoy E., Hill V., Tosi M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..371T 47, 371

    2009 doi

  73. [82]

    H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260...32W 260, 32

    Weinberg D. H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260...32W 260, 32

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Theuns T., Dalla Vecchia C., Tornatore L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..574W 399, 574

    2009

  75. [84]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131e5001W 131, 055001

    Wilson J. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131e5001W 131, 055001

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    Xiang M., Rix H.-W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.603..599X 603, 599

    2022 doi

  77. [86]

    Zasowski G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..198Z 154, 198

    2017 doi

  78. [87]

    M., Governato F., Brook C

    Zolotov A., Willman B., Brooks A. M., Governato F., Brook C. B., Hogg D. W., Quinn T., Stinson G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702.1058Z 702, 1058

    2009 doi

  79. [88]

    de los Reyes M. A. C., Kirby E. N., Ji A. P., Nu \ n ez E. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...66D 925, 66

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.