Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper argues that a stellar halo's metallicity freezes once its most massive accreted satellite is fully destroyed, and that the freeze time can be recovered from observed stellar ages — dating the last major merger that built the halo.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Stellar halos in CIELO simulations reach the present-day mass–metallicity relation at a 'stability time' that tracks disruption of the dominant contributing satellite and can be estimated from observed t90 ages.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Genuinely new stability-time diagnostic for stellar halos, with simulation results that are internally consistent; the M31 merger-time headline is a plausible but insufficiently validated extrapolation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.07780 v2 pith:AATLGCON submitted 2025-12-08 astro-ph.GA

The heartbeat of stellar halos: Insights from the stellar halo mass-metallicity relation

Jenny Gonzalez-Jara , Patricia B. Tissera , Antonela Monachesi , Brian Tapia-Contreras , Susana Pedrosa , Catalina Casanueva-Villarreal , Rosa Dominguez-Tenreiro , Lucas Bignone This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies: abundancesgalaxies: formationgalaxies: halosstellar halo mass-metallicity relationgalaxy mergershalo assembly historycosmological simulationsstability time
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 when and how a galaxy's stellar halo locks in its chemical makeup. Using a suite of cosmological hydrodynamical zoom-in simulations of galaxies with stellar masses near 10^9–10^11 solar masses, it shows that the stellar-halo mass–metallicity relation already existed at z≈3.5 with nearly today's slope, and that halos enrich by only about 0.21 dex on the way to the present relation. The central new claim is a clock: halo metallicity becomes stable just when the most massive contributing satellite has been completely disrupted, a near one-to-one relation with 2.2 Gyr scatter. Because the stability time can be estimated from observable stellar ages (t90, the time before which 90% of halo stars formed), the paper turns the mass–metallicity relation into a dating tool for a galaxy's last major merger, yielding about 7.5 Gyr ago for the Milky Way and about 1.7 Gyr ago for Andromeda.

Core claim

The core discovery is that stellar halos are chemically 'set' before they finish assembling, and the settling epoch is set by their dominant progenitor. In the simulations, the median halo metallicity stops changing (within ±0.1 dex of its z=0 value) at a lookback time tstable that tracks the disruption time of the first stellar-halo main contributor almost one-to-one, with 2.2 Gyr scatter driven by the second and third contributing satellites. The mass–metallicity relation itself evolves little between z≈3.5 and z=0: its slope is already close to the local one, and enrichment at fixed halo mass is about 0.21 dex, so the paper describes a relation that is in place early and then freezes as t

What carries the argument

The central device is the halo cardiogram: a plot, for each simulated galaxy, of the median stellar-halo metallicity (and mass) relative to its z=0 value against lookback time, so a flat line signals chemical quiescence. From it the authors define the stability time tstable, the first lookback time at which median metallicity stays within ±0.1 dex of the final value. The argument that makes tstable useful is its near one-to-one correlation with the merger time of the first stellar-halo main contributor, the satellite providing the largest accreted mass; the cardiograms show dispersion dropping sharply after that satellite is fully disrupted. The observable bridge is t90, the formation time o

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the relation tstable = 0.89 t90 − 0.56, fitted to 27 simulated halos, transfers to real galaxies: the observed AGB/RGB-based t90 must measure the same star-formation time as the simulated t90, despite differences in morphology, star-formation history, and unresolved substructure — the Milky Way and Andromeda merger-time predictions collapse if this transfer fails.

What would settle it

For a sample of nearby galaxies with measured halo t90, obtain independent merger times from internal kinematics, such as the dynamical ages of disrupted streams or shell structures. If the t90-derived tstable disagrees with independently dated mergers by more than about 2 Gyr in several galaxies, the calibration fails. A sharper target: the paper predicts Andromeda's halo stabilized only about 1.7 Gyr ago, so an AGB/RGB-based t90 for M31 older than about 2.5 Gyr would directly contradict the claimed relation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For a galaxy whose stellar halo is dominated by a single accretion event, the observed age by which 90% of halo stars formed gives the epoch of the last major merger, with roughly 1.8 Gyr scatter from the calibration.
  • The Milky Way's main halo-building merger is dated to about 7.5 Gyr ago (RMS 2.2 Gyr), consistent with the 8–11 Gyr window inferred for its early major merger, and would be biased younger if the Sagittarius dwarf contributed a large share of halo mass.
  • Andromeda's stellar halo appears to have reached the mass–metallicity relation only recently, with an inferred merger time of about 1.7 Gyr ago, matching independent evidence of a recent burst of star formation.
  • A galaxy's position in the tstable–merger-time plane encodes the relative mass and timing of the second and third most important contributing satellites, not just the first.
  • More massive galaxies stabilize earlier than low-mass ones, giving a coarse merger clock from galaxy stellar mass alone, albeit with about 2.6 Gyr scatter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to apply the t90 calibration to a larger sample of nearby edge-on galaxies with resolved stellar halos and independent merger indicators such as streams, shells, or kinematic substructure; a systematic offset would show where the simulated calibration stops transferring to real galaxies.
  • If the calibration holds, the mass–metallicity relation becomes a temporary observable: galaxies caught during or shortly after a major merger should sit off the relation and relax onto it on roughly the stability timescale, an effect the paper anticipates for M81 during its ongoing interaction with M82.
  • The ±0.1 dex stability threshold is a modeling choice; changing it would shift tstable and therefore the derived merger times, so the reported Milky Way and Andromeda ages should be read as tied to that threshold.
  • Because t90 measures star-formation time while mergers are accretion events, the clock implicitly assumes the dominant satellite formed most of its stars early; a gas-rich or late-forming dominant contributor would break the relation between t90 and merger time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 28 CIELO zoom-in halos (16 at z≈3.5) to study the stellar halo mass–metallicity relation (MZhR) from z≈3.5 to z=0. It introduces 'halo cardiograms' and defines a stability time t_stable as the first lookback time at which the median halo metallicity stays within ±0.1 dex of its z=0 value. The paper reports that the MZhR is already in place at z≈3.5, that it enriches by ~0.21 dex at fixed stellar halo mass by z=0, and that t_stable correlates with the merger time of the first stellar halo main contributor (SHMC1), with scatter 2.2 Gyr. It calibrates two observational proxies for t_stable — t90 and tAMR — and applies the t90 relation to nearby galaxies, predicting a MW last major merger at ~7.5 Gyr and an M31 merger at ~1.7 Gyr ago.

Significance. The paper's framework is potentially valuable: the cardiograms provide a new view of when a stellar halo's chemical content stabilizes, and the t_stable—t90 relation, if transferable, offers a way to date the last major merger that built a stellar halo from observable AGB/RGB ratios. The analysis reproduces the observed local MZhR and makes explicit, falsifiable predictions for the MW and M31. The main caveats are the small halo sample, hand-chosen thresholds with no demonstrated robustness, and the direct application of a simulation-calibrated relation to systems whose t90 values may lie outside the calibration range. The central simulation-side relations are physically plausible and internally consistent, but the observational extrapolation is the weakest link.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6, Eq. (1a), Table 1] The M31 and NGC 5128 predictions are likely extrapolations. The t90 distribution of the 27-halo calibration sample is never reported. With SHMC1 merger times spanning 0.5–11 Gyr and no information on the lower end of t90, the observed t90=2.5±0.5 Gyr for M31 and NGC 5128 is plausibly below the minimum training t90. This is load-bearing because the two estimators in Table 1 give 8.4 and 1.7 Gyr for M31, and the paper adopts the t90-based value to argue that M31 just reached the MZhR at z=0. Please report the calibration range, overlay the observed t90 values on Fig. 7, and either demonstrate that 2.5 Gyr is interpolated or downgrade the M31 conclusion.
  2. [§6, Eq. (1a)] The observed t90 is assumed to measure the same quantity as the simulated t90 computed as the time before which 90% of the stellar mass formed. The paper does not address systematic differences between a mass-weighted star-formation time and the observationally inferred AGB/RGB t90, including light-weighting, age–metallicity degeneracies, or contamination from the disk/inner halo. Since Table 1 and the MW/M31 merger-time claims depend directly on the zero-point of Eq. (1a), a systematic offset in the proxy would change the headline results. Please add at least a quantitative discussion of these systematics, or better, test Eq. (1a) against the independent tAMR estimator on a common sample.
  3. [§5, Fig. 6] The t_stable–tSHMC1_merger correlation is partly built into the definitions: t_stable is the approach to the z=0 metallicity, which is itself set by SHMC1 when it dominates. The paper's real contribution is the measured scatter (2.2 Gyr) and its dependence on Δfdom, but the hand-chosen thresholds (±0.1 dex stability, 20% dominance) and the claim in footnote 4 that 'slight variations do not affect our results' are not supported by any robustness test. Because these thresholds define t_stable and the calibration relations, I request a sensitivity analysis showing the stability of r, the scatter, and the coefficients of Eqs. (1a), (1b) under, e.g., ±0.05/0.15 dex and 10%/30% thresholds.
  4. [§4, Fig. 2] The z≈3.5 MZhR claim is based on only 16 halos after the 500-particle resolution cut, and the quoted 0.21 dex enrichment and 'slope similar to z=0' are not accompanied by uncertainties. This is a central claim of the paper. Please report bootstrap or jackknife errors on slopes and intercepts at each redshift, and discuss how the resolution cut could bias the inferred MZhR at high z.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption refers to 'a linear regression shown in eq. 1a', but Fig. 8 shows the t_stable–Mstar,gal relation, which is not Eq. (1a). The equation number is wrong.
  2. [§7] The text says M31's recent merger is 'consistent with the observational data shown in Fig. 3'. Fig. 3 shows simulated evolutionary tracks, not observational data; the intended reference is likely Fig. 1.
  3. [Throughout] Minor typos: 'redsfhit' in §2.1, 'populations populations' in the Fig. 1 caption, and 'a prompt to retain' in §4. Also, the scatter of 2.2 in Fig. 6 is quoted without units; specify Gyr and define the residual.
  4. [Eq. (1a)] The linear fit t_stable = 0.89t90 − 0.56 gives negative t_stable for t90 < 0.63 Gyr. It would be useful to state the valid range of the fit and avoid interpreting it outside that range.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the tstable–tmerger correlation and t90 calibration are data-driven with independent definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. tstable is defined from the time evolution of median halo metallicity (the cardiogram) relative to the simulated halo's own z=0 value, while tSHMC1_merger is defined independently by when the top-ranked satellite ceases to be a separate SUBFIND structure in the merger tree. The tstable–tSHMC1_merger correlation is therefore measured rather than imposed: the paper quantifies its scatter (2.2 Gyr) and its dependence on Δfdom, and the relation is not a definitional identity. Equation 1a is a calibration between simulated tstable and simulated t90 fitted on CIELO halos; applying it to observed GHOSTS t90 values to estimate tstable is standard calibration/prediction, not a fitted parameter being renamed a prediction. tAMR uses the same ±0.1 dex threshold as tstable, so its correlation with tstable is partly a consistency check rather than an independent validation, but the paper does not use tAMR for the headline MW/M31 merger-time estimates. The M31 case (t90=2.5 Gyr) may lie outside the calibrated t90 range, and the two Table 1 estimators disagree by about 6.7 Gyr; these are legitimate external-validity and extrapolation risks, not circularity. Self-citations to CIELO and GJ25 provide the simulation sample, halo definitions, and merger-tree context; they are reproducible method inputs, not an unverified uniqueness theorem. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's new content is a set of diagnostics and calibrated relations built on top of the CIELO simulations; the free parameters are thresholds and regression coefficients fit to this 27–28-halo sample. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • metallicity stability threshold = ±0.1 dex
    Hand-chosen; defines t_stable. Authors state variations do not change results but give no robustness demonstration (§5).
  • SHMC1 dominance criterion = Δfdom ≥ 0.2 (20% higher mass fraction than SHMC2+SHMC3)
    Threshold separating 'SHMC1-dominated' halos; chosen from the sample and used to interpret the t_stable–t_merger plane (§5, Summary).
  • t_stable–t90 regression = slope=0.89, intercept=−0.56 Gyr
    Calibrated on 27 simulated halos; the paper's main observational link (Eq. 1a).
  • t_stable–tAMR regression = slope=0.80, intercept=−1.51 Gyr
    Calibrated proxy (Eq. 1b) sharing the 0.1 dex definition.
  • t_stable–Mstar,gal regression = slope=2.25, intercept=−16.33 Gyr
    Used for Table 1 estimates; based on r=0.39, p=0.05 (§6).
  • resolution cutoff = 500 stellar particles per halo
    Selects which halos enter each redshift bin; at z=3.5 only 16 of 28 halos qualify (§2.2).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption CIELO subgrid physics (multiphase ISM, SNe feedback) and Planck cosmology reproduce real stellar halo enrichment histories.
    The entire evolution of MZhR and t_stable is computed from these simulations; no direct calibration against observed high-z halo metallicities is made.
  • domain assumption The AM-E method classifies stellar particles into disk/bulge/halo correctly at every redshift from z=3.5 to 0.
    Stellar halo masses and [Fe/H] are defined by this decomposition (§2.2); if high-z decomposition is biased, the z=3.5 MZhR and stability times change.
  • domain assumption The SUBFIND/AMIGA merger tree's moment of satellite non-identification is a faithful measure of the physical disruption time t_merger.
    t_SHMC1_merger is the independent variable in the key correlation; the paper notes this is resolution/algorithm dependent (§7).
  • domain assumption Observed t90 (AGB/RGB ratios) measures the same quantity as simulated t90 computed from formation times of z=0 halo stars.
    Needed for Eq. 1a to convert observed ages to stability times for MW, M31, NGC 3031 etc. (§6, Table 1).

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The heartbeat of stellar halos: Insights from the stellar halo mass-metallicity relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AATLGCON

@misc{pith2026251207780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The heartbeat of stellar halos: Insights from the stellar halo mass-metallicity relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AATLGCON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.07780}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This work investigates the presence and evolution of the MZhR from redshift z=3.5 to z=0, and identifies when galaxies settle on the present-day MZhR. We used central galaxies with log10(Mgal/Msun)=[9,11] from CIELO simulations. We identified stellar halos, from z=3.5 to z=0, using the AM-E method, focusing on the region between the 1.5 optical radius and the virial radius. We presented halo cardiograms, a novel approach to studying the assembly history of stellar halos. Using them, we defined a stability time (tst) as the first time that the median halo metallicity does not change more than \pm 0.1 dex with respect to its value at z=0. CIELO stellar halos reproduce the present-day observed MZhR. At z=3.5, stellar halos already define an MZhR whose slope is similar to the slope at z=0. For a fixed stellar halo mass, the metallicity increases ~0.21 dex from z=3.5 to z=0, reflecting the progressive chemical enrichment provided by the accretion of satellites with diverse masses and different levels of enrichment. When the first stellar halo main contributor (SHMC1) provides a mass fraction at least 20% higher than the remaining contributors, the stellar halo metallicity is set once SHMC1 is fully disrupted (tmerger). This yields a clear correlation between tst and tmerger, with a scatter of 2.2 Gyr driven by the relative importance of the second and third main contributing satellites. We provide two observational tracers for tst: t90 and a stability time from the age-metallicity relation. Our results suggest that estimating tst could serve as a proxy for dating the moment at which the stellar halo reaches the present-day MZhR, as well as for dating the last major merger that builds them. Combined with an estimation of the merger time of the main contributing satellite, it can provide insights into the relative importance of the second and third contributing satellites. (abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.07780 by Antonela Monachesi, Brian Tapia-Contreras, Catalina Casanueva-Villarreal, Jenny Gonzalez-Jara, Lucas Bignone, Patricia B. Tissera, Rosa Dominguez-Tenreiro, Susana Pedrosa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The mass-metallicity relationship for stellar halos at z = 0. Ob￾servational data from GHOSTS HST survey (Harmsen et al. 2017; Goz￾man et al. 2023) are represented by stars. Estimates for the accreted stellar halo mass and metallicity measured at 30 kpc are displayed for the Auriga galaxies (gray triangles from Monachesi et al. 2019), the semi-analytic L-Galaxies (pink hexbin from Murphy et al. 2022) and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panels: Stellar halo mass and metallicity at different redshifts (indicated in each panel). The black line and gray region show the MZhR at z = 0 and its 1σ dispersion. The solid colored lines represent a fit with fixed slope from z = 0, minimizing the y-intercept at that redshift. The dashed colored line is a linear fit at each time. Bottom panels: Difference in metallicity with respect to z = 0, ∆[Fe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stellar halo mass and metallicity of four representative galaxies, color-coded by lookback time. The CIELO MZhR at z = 0 and 1σ dispersion are shown as a black and shaded gray region, respectively. CIELO galaxy ID and stellar halo mass are displayed in the upper-right corner of each panel. 5. The heartbeat of stellar halos In this section, we adopt an analogy inspired by the medical field, drawing a parall… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variations in metallicity (left column) and stellar halo mass (right column) relative to their values at z = 0 as a function of lookback time. The arrows indicate the main stellar contributors: SHMC1 (red) and SHMC2 (light blue) at infall (solid) and merger (dotted) times. The pink shaded region marks differences within ±0.1 dex from z = 0 of the stellar mass or metallicity. The pink square represent the s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variations in stellar halo mass (upper panel) and metallicity (lower panel) as a function of lookback time, offset by the merger time of their SHMC1. The purple shaded region represents ±1 standard de￾viation (16th and 84th percentiles) of the total sample. The pink shaded region indicates a ±0.1 dex variation in mass (upper panel) or metallic￾ity (lower panel) relative to z = 0. 2017; D’Souza & Bell 2018b… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The stability time, tstable, as function of the time: t90 (purple) defined as the time at which 90 percent of the stars formed and tAMR (pink) defined as an observed stability time from the age-metallicity at z = 0. Colored lines are linear fits and shaded regions denote the standard deviation of the data. Spearman and p-value coefficient are display at the top center. tstable = 0.89 t90 − 0.56 (1a) tstabl… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stability time, tstable, as a function of stellar galaxy mass, M⋆,gal. The black line corresponds to a linear regression shown in eq. 1a, and the gray shaded region denotes the standard deviation of tstable. The Milky Way is included as a reference, adopting M⋆,gal = 6.08 ± 1.14 × 1010 M⊙ from (Sick et al. 2015) (pink star). which will influence how the material is distributed in the halo and galaxy. Furth… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Disentangling chemical evolution histories with phylogenetic trees

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Phylogenetic trees built from flexCE model abundances separate primarily by the outflow mass-loading parameter η, with branches connecting at the most metal-rich tips.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Amorisco, N. C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Let- ters, 469, L48–L52

    2017

  2. [2]

    F., Monachesi, A., Harmsen, B., et al

    Bell, E. F., Monachesi, A., Harmsen, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, L8

    2017

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

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

    2018

  4. [4]

    Bullock, J. S. & Johnston, K. V . 2005, ApJ, 635, 931 Cañas, R., Lagos, C. d. P., Elahi, P. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4314

    2005

  5. [5]

    B., Padilla, N., et al

    Casanueva-Villarreal, C., Tissera, P. B., Padilla, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    E., Tissera, P

    Cataldi, P., Pedrosa, S. E., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1919

    2023

  7. [7]

    P., Frenk, C

    Cooper, A. P., Frenk, C. S., Hellwing, W. A., & Bose, S. 2025, Simulations of the accreted stellar halos of low-mass field galaxies

    2025

  8. [8]

    P., Parry, O

    Cooper, A. P., Parry, O. H., Lowing, B., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3185 Davé, R., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., Thompson, R. J., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MN- RAS, 467, 115

    2015

  9. [9]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371 De Rossi, M. E., Theuns, T., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 486

    1985

  10. [10]

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

    Deason, A. J., Mao, Y .-Y ., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 5 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 632, A4

    2016

  11. [11]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 497–514 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Pérez, I., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 497–514 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Pérez, I., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 680, A111 D’Souza, R. & Bell, E. F. 2018a, Nature Astronomy, 2, 737 D’Souza, R. & Bell, E. F. 2018b, MNRAS, 474, 5300

    2009

  12. [12]

    R., Sarajedini, A., & Chandar, R

    Durrell, P. R., Sarajedini, A., & Chandar, R. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 1118–1127

    2010

  13. [13]

    M., Sales, L

    Elias, L. M., Sales, L. V ., Creasey, P., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4004–4016

    2018

  14. [14]

    M., Kirby, E

    Escala, I., Gilbert, K. M., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 177

    2020

  15. [15]

    Fall, S. M. & Romanowsky, A. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 133

    2018

  16. [16]

    J., Frenk, C

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

    2020

  17. [17]

    S., Johnston, K

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

    2006

  18. [18]

    S., McCarthy, I

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Poole-Mckenzie, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1765

    2020

  19. [19]

    2025, Bar formation and evolution in the cosmological context: Inputs from the Auriga simulations

    Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, Bar formation and evolution in the cosmological context: Inputs from the Auriga simulations

    2025

  20. [20]

    & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Freeman, K. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 40, 487

    2002

  21. [21]

    Fye, W. B. 1994, Am. J. Cardiol., 73, 937

    1994

  22. [22]

    J., Brook, C

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

    2019

  23. [23]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 41–58

    2005

  24. [24]

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

    Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 4

    2017

  25. [25]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 175–200

    Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 175–200

    2014

  26. [26]

    Giribaldi, R. E. & Smiljanic, R. 2023, A&A, 673, A18 Gómez, F. A. & Helmi, A. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2285

    2023

  27. [27]

    2025, A&A, 693, A282

    Gonzalez-Jara, J., Tissera, Patricia B., Monachesi, Antonela, et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A282

    2025

  28. [28]

    F., Smercina, A., et al

    Gozman, K., Bell, E. F., Smercina, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 21

    2023

  29. [29]

    E., Font, A

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

    2024

  30. [30]

    B., Wang, J

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

    2018

  31. [31]

    F., D’Souza, R., et al

    Harmsen, B., Bell, E. F., D’Souza, R., et al. 2023, Constraining the assembly time of the stellar haloes of nearby Milky Way-mass galaxies through AGB populations

    2023

  32. [32]

    F., et al

    Harmsen, B., Monachesi, A., Bell, E. F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1491

    2017

  33. [33]

    H., et al

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

    2018

  34. [34]

    2023, A&A, 677, A91

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Libeskind, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A91

    2023

  35. [35]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102 Article number, page 10 of 13 Jenny Gonzalez-Jara et al.: The heartbeat of stellar halos: Insights from the stellar halo mass-metallicity relation

    2013

  36. [36]

    Knollmann, S. R. & Knebe, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 182, 608–624

    2009

  37. [37]

    Krikler, D. M. 1987, Cardiology Clinics, 5, 349, 12-Lead Electrocardiography

    1987

  38. [38]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 39

    Langeroodi, D., Hjorth, J., Chen, W., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 39

    2023

  39. [39]

    D., Cannon, J

    Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 970

    2006

  40. [40]

    F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S

    Lequeux, J., Peimbert, M., Rayo, J. F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, A&A, 80, 155

    1979

  41. [41]

    Licquia, T. C. & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96

    2015

  42. [42]

    F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 2140–2156

    2015

  43. [43]

    & Mannucci, F

    Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 27

    2019

  44. [44]

    2008, A&A, 488, 463

    Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 463

    2008

  45. [45]

    2012, Chemical evolution of galaxies (Springer Science & Busi- ness Media)

    Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical evolution of galaxies (Springer Science & Busi- ness Media)

    2012

  46. [46]

    P., Tissera, P

    Miranda, V . P., Tissera, P. B., Sillero, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19630

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    A., Grand, R

    Monachesi, A., Gómez, F. A., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2589

    2019

  48. [48]

    B., Tissera, P

    Mosconi, M. B., Tissera, P. B., Lambas, D. G., & Cora, S. A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 34

    2001

  49. [49]

    G., Yates, R

    Murphy, G. G., Yates, R. M., & Mohamed, S. S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1945 Muñoz-Escobar, I., Tissera, P. B., Gonzalez-Jara, J., et al. 2025, The mass- metallicity relation of bulges

    2022

  50. [50]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457

    2013

  52. [52]

    F., & Charlot, S

    Panter, B., Jimenez, R., Heavens, A. F., & Charlot, S. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1117–1126 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16

    2008

  53. [53]

    L., Ludlow, A

    Proctor, K. L., Ludlow, A. D., Lagos, C. d. P., & Robotham, A. S. G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.11444

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    P., Grand, R

    Pu, S.-Y ., Cooper, A. P., Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., & Monachesi, A. 2025, Progenitor diversity in the accreted stellar halos of Milky Way-like galaxies

    2025

  55. [55]

    2020, Astronomy &amp; Astro- physics, 641, A60

    Pulsoni, C., Gerhard, O., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy &amp; Astro- physics, 641, A60

    2020

  56. [56]

    W., Bullock, J

    Purcell, C. W., Bullock, J. S., & Kazantzidis, S. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1711

    2010

  57. [57]

    Rey, M. P. & Starkenburg, T. K. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 510, 4208–4224

    2021

  58. [58]

    S., Font, A

    Robertson, B., Bullock, J. S., Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 872 Rodríguez, S., Garcia Lambas, D., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 6157

    2005

  59. [59]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Jones, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 19

    2021

  60. [60]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 552

    Scannapieco, C., Tissera, P., White, S., & Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 552

    2005

  61. [61]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 1125

    Scannapieco, C., Tissera, P., White, S., & Springel, V . 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1125

    2006

  62. [62]

    B., White, S

    Scannapieco, C., Tissera, P. B., White, S. D. M., & Springel, V . 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1137

    2008

  63. [63]

    2015, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Sick, J., Courteau, S., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2015, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 311, Galaxy Masses as Constraints of Formation Models, ed. M. Cappellari & S. Courteau, 82–85

    2015

  64. [64]

    Slater, C. T. & Bell, E. F. 2014, ApJ, 792, 141

    2014

  65. [65]

    F., Price, P

    Smercina, A., Bell, E. F., Price, P. A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 60

    2020

  66. [66]

    F., Samuel, J., & D’Souza, R

    Smercina, A., Bell, E. F., Samuel, J., & D’Souza, R. 2022, ApJ, 930, 69

    2022

  67. [67]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  68. [68]

    & Hernquist, L

    Springel, V . & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 312

    2003

  69. [69]

    Springel, V ., Yoshida, N., & White, S. D. M. 2001, New A, 6, 79

    2001

  70. [70]

    B., Sillero, E., et al

    Tapia, B., Tissera, P. B., Sillero, E., et al. 2022, Boletin de la Asociacion Ar- gentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 63, 256

    2022

  71. [71]

    B., Sillero, E., et al

    Tapia-Contreras, B., Tissera, P. B., Sillero, E., et al. 2025, Insight into the physi- cal processes that shape the metallicity profiles in galaxies

    2025

  72. [72]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1979, ApJ, 229, 1046

    1979

  73. [73]

    2025, The CIELO Project: The Chemo-dynamical properties of gaLaxies and the cosmic web

    Tissera, P., Bignone, L., Gonzalez-Jara, J., et al. 2025, The CIELO Project: The Chemo-dynamical properties of gaLaxies and the cosmic web

    2025

  74. [74]

    B., Beers, T

    Tissera, P. B., Beers, T. C., Carollo, D., & Scannapieco, C. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3128

    2014

  75. [75]

    B., Scannapieco, C., Beers, T

    Tissera, P. B., Scannapieco, C., Beers, T. C., & Carollo, D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3391

    2013

  76. [76]

    B., White, S

    Tissera, P. B., White, S. D., & Scannapieco, C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 255

    2012

  77. [77]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2019

  78. [78]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  79. [79]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5406–5434

    Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5406–5434

    2019

  80. [80]

    2025, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 699, A56 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al

    Tsakonas, C., Arnaboldi, M., Bhattacharya, S., et al. 2025, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 699, A56 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 3031–3067

    2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.