pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24965 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Galaxy mergers and disk angular momentum evolution: stellar halos as a critical test

Eric F. Bell , Richard D'Souza , Monica Valluri , Katya Gozman
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy mergersangular momentumstellar halosMilky Way-mass galaxiesgalaxy reorientationTNG-50 simulationhalo kinematicsmerger history
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dominant mergers reorient the angular momentum of most Milky Way-mass galaxies, with their stellar halos preserving a detectable record of the alignment.

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

The paper uses a large sample of simulated Milky Way-mass galaxies to show that the orbital angular momentum brought in by the single most massive merger usually sets the final spin direction of the galaxy. This reorientation changes the galaxy's specific angular momentum by about 50 percent in many cases and happens because the merger tilts the system into better alignment. The stars stripped from that same merger end up in a stellar halo that rotates in the same direction as the galaxy's disk in 81 percent of cases. Because the halo stars keep this kinematic memory for several billion years, their rotation direction offers a direct observational test of how much recent mergers shaped the galaxy. The Milky Way stands out as an exception in the simulation because its dominant merger was early, radial, and low in angular momentum, leaving the present disk orientation more influenced by other processes.

Core claim

In 471 Milky Way-mass galaxies from the TNG-50 simulation, 80±2% exhibit alignment between the galaxy's present-day angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum of its most massive merger progenitor. This alignment produces typical changes of around 50% in specific angular momentum, with the largest effects in initially misaligned systems. The accreted stellar halo co-rotates with the galaxy in 81±2% of cases, encoding the reorientation history from mergers within the last ~7 Gyr. For older or more radial mergers the kinematic memory is largely erased, so the Milky Way's disk orientation may instead reflect accumulated gas accretion or dark matter torques.

What carries the argument

The alignment between a galaxy's angular momentum vector and the orbital angular momentum of its dominant merger progenitor, which drives reorientation and imprints prograde rotation on the accreted stellar halo.

If this is right

  • Galaxy orientation at z=0 is frequently reset by the last major merger rather than fixed by early tidal torques.
  • Stellar halo major-axis kinematics directly constrain the specific angular momentum of mergers that occurred within the last 7 Gyr.
  • Older or radial mergers leave little imprint on final disk orientation, so early assembly history is harder to recover from halo rotation.
  • The Milky Way's disk spin may be shaped more by gas accretion and dark matter torques than by its dominant merger.
  • 30-meter-class telescopes can measure halo rotation in external galaxies to test the merger-reorientation picture.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If halo kinematics routinely trace merger orbital angular momentum, large surveys could statistically reconstruct the recent merger angular-momentum budget for thousands of galaxies.
  • The result implies that tidal torques from the large-scale environment play a secondary role to mergers in setting final spins for galaxies of this mass.
  • Diversity in observed galaxy orientations could arise mainly from variation in the angular momentum of the single largest merger rather than from differences in initial conditions.
  • For the Milky Way, the finding directs attention to non-merger sources of angular momentum such as cold gas streams or misaligned dark matter halos.

Load-bearing premise

The TNG-50 simulation accurately captures the angular-momentum transfer and halo kinematics produced by mergers in Milky Way-mass galaxies at the present day.

What would settle it

Deep integral-field spectroscopy of stellar halos around many Milky Way-mass galaxies that finds retrograde halo rotation in significantly more than 19% of systems would falsify the claim that dominant mergers set the alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24965 by Eric F. Bell, Katya Gozman, Monica Valluri, Richard D'Souza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — A schematic illustration of the reorientation of a galaxy’s AM by merging with its dominant merger partner. At the time of infall, the dominant merger partner is infalling with velocity vdom,infall (which is redshifted into the page, as signified by the color of the infalling satellite) with position rdom,infall and specific angular momentum jdom,infall = rdom,infall × vdom,infall. As this merger proceed… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Left: The distribution of the component of the galaxy specific angular momentum in the direction of the angular momentum of the infall of the dominant progenitor; the y-axis is the fraction of galaxies in a single bin of specific AM. There is little alignment between the galaxy’s angular momentum and the infalling satellite at infall time (gray). In contrast, the present-day galaxy AM shows more alignmen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — The change in the main galaxy’s specific angular momentum as a function of several parameters: a) the amplitude of the final specific angular momentum, b) the stellar mass of the dominant merger, c) the angular momentum of the dominant merger, d) the inclination of the orbit compared to the infall orbit plane (parameterized as cos i), which is the color code in all panels, e) the eccentricity of the sate… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Left: The distribution of cos ∆θdom−component, the cosine of the angle between the dominant merger orbital AM and various components: the in situ stars (black solid line, same as red in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The running median (line) and interquartile ranges (shaded regions; from nearest 51 neighbors) of the magnitude of the specific AM for accreted stellar halo particles (red solid line) and in situ stars (dotted blue line), as a function of the magnitude of the specific orbital AM of the dominant merger. A schematic line showing the trend expected if the stellar halo specific AM is ∼ 1/6 of the dominant me… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — The relationship between stellar halo kinematics v35,acc and the component of the dominant merger specific AM in the direction of the in situ star AM, split by dominant merger time (purple — recent, tmerger ≤ 7.2 Gyr; orange — early, tmerger > 7.2 Gyr). Running medians of the nearest 25 points in v35,acc for each subset are shown as solid lines. We include a marginal his￾togram of the v35,acc distributio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the role of hierarchical assembly in the angular momentum (AM) evolution of galaxies using a sample of 471 Milky Way-mass galaxies from the TNG-50 simulation. While galaxy orientation is often attributed to tidal torques and the cooling of gas within halos, we demonstrate that galaxy reorientation (tilting) is a common consequence of satellite accretion. Specifically, 80+/-2% of galaxies show alignment between their present-day AM and the orbital AM of their most massive (dominant) merger progenitor. This reorientation typically results in changes of around 50% in the galaxies' specific AM, with the most significant shifts occurring in galaxies that were initially highly misaligned. We find only a weak influence from the second most massive merger, and negligible impacts from surviving satellites. We show that accreted stellar halos encode the history of this reorientation. Driven by the same accretion event, the main bodies of galaxies and their stellar halos tend to co-align, with 81+/-2% of TNG-50 stellar halos showing prograde rotation relative to the galaxy. This signature will be detectable through major-axis kinematics with 30-meter class telescopes for Milky Way mass galaxies, offering a valuable observational test of this picture. While halo rotation directly constrains the specific AM of mergers within the last ~7 Gyr, this kinematic `memory' is largely erased for older and more radial events. Consequently, the Milky Way itself appears to be a notable exception to the general merger-driven trend: TNG-50 analogs with early, radial, and low angular momentum dominant mergers affect present-day disk orientation minimally. The current MW disk orientation may instead reflect the accumulated influences of gas accretion or dark matter torques.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes angular momentum evolution in 471 Milky Way-mass galaxies from the TNG-50 simulation. It reports that 80±2% of galaxies exhibit alignment between their z=0 specific angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum of the most massive (dominant) merger progenitor, with typical reorientation-induced changes of ~50%. Stellar halos are found to be prograde relative to the galaxy in 81±2% of cases, encoding the same accretion event. The kinematic memory in halos persists for mergers within the last ~7 Gyr but is erased for older, radial events; the Milky Way is identified as an outlier consistent with an early, low-AM dominant merger, with present-day orientation possibly set by gas accretion or dark-matter torques instead.

Significance. If the reported fractions hold, the work establishes a direct, quantifiable link between hierarchical mergers and disk reorientation that goes beyond standard tidal-torque expectations. The large, well-defined sample yields falsifiable predictions for stellar-halo kinematics observable with 30-m-class telescopes, and the ~7 Gyr cutoff provides a concrete temporal window for testing. Strengths include parameter-free statistical measurements of alignment and prograde fractions drawn directly from simulation outputs, plus explicit identification of the Milky Way as a counter-example within the same framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (results on dominant-merger alignment): the 80±2% fraction is central, yet the precise definition of 'alignment' (e.g., cosine threshold or angle cut) and the epoch at which the progenitor's orbital AM is evaluated (infall vs. coalescence) are not stated explicitly; different choices would shift the reported percentage and must be documented with a sensitivity test.
  2. [§4] §4 (stellar-halo kinematics and MW exception): the claim that early radial mergers erase the halo memory and explain the Milky Way's orientation is load-bearing for the 'notable exception' conclusion, but the paper provides no quantitative distribution of AM-change magnitudes for the early-merger subsample versus the full 471-galaxy set, leaving the exception status qualitative.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (or equivalent halo-kinematics panel): the caption should explicitly state the radial range and velocity-moment definition used to classify prograde rotation, as this directly affects the 81±2% fraction.
  2. [§4] The ~7 Gyr cutoff is presented as an empirical finding; a supplementary plot showing alignment fraction versus lookback time of the dominant merger would make the memory-loss statement quantitative rather than descriptive.
  3. [Methods] Minor notation inconsistency: specific angular momentum is sometimes denoted j and sometimes J; standardize throughout and define in the methods section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper to incorporate the requested clarifications and quantitative analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (results on dominant-merger alignment): the 80±2% fraction is central, yet the precise definition of 'alignment' (e.g., cosine threshold or angle cut) and the epoch at which the progenitor's orbital AM is evaluated (infall vs. coalescence) are not stated explicitly; different choices would shift the reported percentage and must be documented with a sensitivity test.

    Authors: We agree that these details should have been stated explicitly in the original submission. In the revised manuscript, we now define alignment as the angle between the galaxy's z=0 specific angular momentum vector and the orbital angular momentum vector of the dominant progenitor (evaluated at infall) being less than 45 degrees. We have added a dedicated paragraph in §3 together with a new supplementary figure that tests sensitivity to the cosine threshold (0.5–0.9) and to the choice of infall versus coalescence epoch. The reported fraction remains between 78% and 83% across these choices, confirming that our central result is robust. These additions are incorporated in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (stellar-halo kinematics and MW exception): the claim that early radial mergers erase the halo memory and explain the Milky Way's orientation is load-bearing for the 'notable exception' conclusion, but the paper provides no quantitative distribution of AM-change magnitudes for the early-merger subsample versus the full 471-galaxy set, leaving the exception status qualitative.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a direct quantitative comparison strengthens the interpretation of the Milky Way as an outlier. In the revised manuscript we have added a new panel to Figure 6 (and associated text in §4) that shows the full distribution of specific angular momentum reorientation magnitudes for the subsample of galaxies whose dominant merger occurred early (>7 Gyr ago) and was radial (eccentricity >0.7). The early-radial subsample exhibits a median reorientation of 22% (with 75% of cases below 35%), compared with a median of 51% for the full sample. This quantitative evidence supports our statement that such mergers leave the present-day disk orientation largely unaffected, consistent with the Milky Way being a notable exception within the TNG-50 population. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: central results are direct counts from TNG-50 outputs

full rationale

The paper selects 471 Milky Way-mass galaxies from the public TNG-50 simulation and directly measures the alignment fraction between present-day galaxy angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum of the dominant merger progenitor, along with the prograde fraction of stellar halos. These percentages (80±2% and 81±2%) are obtained by counting galaxies that satisfy explicit kinematic criteria applied to the simulation data; no parameter is fitted to a subset and then relabeled as a prediction, no equation defines a quantity in terms of itself, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation whose content is the target result. The TNG-50 run itself is an external public dataset whose subgrid physics is independent of the present analysis. The claimed observational test (detectability with 30-m telescopes) follows from the measured fractions without circular closure. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper draws its conclusions from direct analysis of TNG-50 outputs. No new free parameters are introduced; the simulation itself supplies the physics. Standard cosmological assumptions (LCDM, baryonic physics subgrid model) are inherited from the simulation suite.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption TNG-50 subgrid prescriptions for star formation, feedback, and black-hole growth produce realistic angular-momentum exchange during mergers.
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting the measured alignment fractions as physical rather than numerical artifacts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5626 in / 1463 out tokens · 54335 ms · 2026-05-08T02:09:16.207709+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Acquaviva, V. 2023, Machine Learning for Physics and Astronomy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2023

  2. [2]

    R., Prada, F., & Klypin, A

    Azzaro, M., Zentner, A. R., Prada, F., & Klypin, A. A. 2006, ApJ, 645, 228, doi:10.1086/499262

    work page doi:10.1086/499262 2006

  3. [3]

    K., et al

    Bailin, J., Kawata, D., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, L17, doi:10.1086/432157

    work page doi:10.1086/432157 2005

  4. [4]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115, doi:10.1086/177957

    work page doi:10.1086/177957 1996

  5. [5]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3569, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2405

    Barsanti, S., Colless, M., Welker, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3569, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2405

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2405 2022

  6. [6]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  7. [7]

    2024, A&A, 690, A115, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450626

    Beltrand, C., Monachesi, A., D’Souza, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A115, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450626

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450626 2024

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 6010, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1378

    Bhattacharya, S., Arnaboldi, M., Hammer, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6010, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1378 2023

  9. [9]

    1991, ApJ, 372, 54, doi:10.1086/169954

    Braun, R. 1991, ApJ, 372, 54, doi:10.1086/169954

    work page doi:10.1086/169954 1991

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Brodie, J. P., Romanowsky, A. J., Strader, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 52, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/52

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/1/52 2014

  11. [11]

    S., & Johnston, K

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

    work page doi:10.1086/497422 2005

  12. [12]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 33, doi:10.1086/318681

    work page doi:10.1086/318681 2001

  13. [13]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 26, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf13 2023

  14. [14]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Coccato, L., Gerhard, O., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1249, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14417.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14417.x 2009

  15. [15]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Codis, S., Pichon, C., Devriendt, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3320, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21636.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21636.x 2012

  16. [16]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 744, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16740.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16740.x 2010

  17. [17]

    2010, A&A, 511, A89, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913297

    Corbelli, E., Lorenzoni, S., Walterbos, R., Braun, R., & Thilker, D. 2010, A&A, 511, A89, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913297

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913297 2010

  18. [18]

    M., McDonald, M., et al

    Courteau, S., Widrow, L. M., McDonald, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 20, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/20

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/20 2011

  19. [19]

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

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

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

  20. [20]

    P., van den Bosch, F

    Debattista, V. P., van den Bosch, F. C., Roˇ skar, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4094, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1563

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1563 2015

  21. [21]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 327, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3bd3

    Deng, M., Du, C., Zhang, J., Liu, H., & Li, Z. 2026, ApJ, 998, 327, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3bd3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3bd3 2026

  22. [22]

    R., Koposov, S

    Dey, A., Najita, J. R., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 1, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca5f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca5f8 2023

  23. [23]

    M., Belokurov V., Font A

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1038 2022

  24. [24]

    C., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., & Cohen, T

    Dodge, B. C., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., & Cohen, T. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2870, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3249

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3249 2023

  25. [25]

    A., Couch, W

    Dolfi, A., Forbes, D. A., Couch, W. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4923, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1023 D’Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2018a, MNRAS, 474, 5300, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3081 —. 2018b, Nature Astronomy, 2, 737, doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0533-x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1023 2021

  26. [26]

    Earp, S. W. F., Debattista, V. P., Macci` o, A. V., & Cole, D. R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4095, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1143 12

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1143 2017

  27. [27]

    Earp, S. W. F., Debattista, V. P., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5728, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2109

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2109 2019

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 120, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 2019

  29. [29]

    L., Patton , D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135, 1877, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 2008

  30. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 7, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac088b

    Emami, R., Hernquist, L., Alcock, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 7, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac088b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac088b 2021

  31. [31]

    Escala, I., Quirk, A. C. N., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 75, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca9cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca9cd 2023

  32. [32]

    M., Efstathiou G., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/193.2.189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980MNRAS.193..189F 193, 189

    Fall, S. M., & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189, doi:10.1093/mnras/193.2.189

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/193.2.189 1980

  33. [33]

    M., & Romanowsky, A

    Fall, S. M., & Romanowsky, A. J. 2018, ApJ, 868, 133, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb27

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb27 2018

  34. [34]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Fardal, M. A., Guhathakurta, P., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3134, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21094.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21094.x 2012

  35. [35]

    Tanvir, N. R. 2002, AJ, 124, 1452, doi:10.1086/342019

    work page doi:10.1086/342019 2002

  36. [36]

    A., Alabi, A., Brodie, J

    Forbes, D. A., Alabi, A., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 114, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/114

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/114 2017

  37. [37]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 Ganeshaiah Veena, P., Cautun, M., Tempel, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Frenk, C. S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1607, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1343

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

  38. [38]

    M., Tollerud, E., Beaton, R

    Gilbert, K. M., Tollerud, E., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 128, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f26 G´ omez, F. A., Grand, R. J. J., Monachesi, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3722, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2149

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f26 2018

  39. [39]

    B., Wang, J

    Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., Wang, J. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2754, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3343

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3343 2018

  40. [40]

    J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 249, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac97e9 2022

  41. [41]

    F., D’Souza, R., et al

    Harmsen, B., Bell, E. F., D’Souza, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4497, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2480

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2480 2023

  42. [42]

    F., et al

    Harmsen, B., Monachesi, A., Bell, E. F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1491, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2992

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2992 2017

  43. [43]

    H., et al

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

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

  44. [44]

    Herbert-Fort, S., Zaritsky, D., Jin Kim, Y., Bailin, J., & Taylor, J. E. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 803, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12756.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12756.x 2008

  45. [45]

    Huang, S., & Carlberg, R. G. 1997, ApJ, 480, 503, doi:10.1086/303977

    work page doi:10.1086/303977 1997

  46. [46]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  47. [47]

    S., & Park, C

    Hwang, H. S., & Park, C. 2010, ApJ, 720, 522, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/522

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/522 2010

  48. [48]

    Ibata, R., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 287, doi:10.1086/491727

    work page doi:10.1086/491727 2005

  49. [49]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17599, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.17599

    Johri, S., Ash, N., & Valluri, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17599, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.17599

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17599 2026

  50. [50]

    Debattista, V. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1896, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1896

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1896 2009

  51. [51]

    2014, ApJ, 790, L33, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L33

    Lang, M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Sinha, M. 2014, ApJ, 790, L33, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/l33 2014

  52. [52]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    Garavito-Camargo, N., & Besla, G. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1574 2018

  53. [53]

    J., Lewis, G

    Li, Y., Brewer, B. J., Lewis, G. F., & Mackey, D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.05380, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.05380

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.05380 2026

  54. [54]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 71, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/71

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/71 2016

  55. [55]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641, doi:10.1086/177353

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/177353 1996

  56. [56]

    M., Sillanpaa, A., & Takalo, L

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01227.x 1998

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Monachesi, A., G´ omez, F. A., Grand , R. J. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2589, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz538

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz538 2019

  58. [58]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 34, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda3b

    Moon, J.-S., An, S.-H., & Yoon, S.-J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 34, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda3b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda3b 2021

  59. [59]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1919

    Naab, T., Oser, L., Emsellem, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1919 2014

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Nibauer, J., & Bonaca, A. 2025, ApJ, 985, L22, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add0a9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add0a9 2025

  61. [61]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 55, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4299

    Nibauer, J., Bonaca, A., Lisanti, M., Erkal, D., & Hastings, Z. 2024, ApJ, 969, 55, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4299

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4299 2024

  62. [62]

    V., Moster, B., et al

    Obreja, A., Macci` o, A. V., Moster, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4915, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1022

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1022 2018

  63. [63]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing USA)

    2006

  64. [64]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  65. [65]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165

    Pillepich, A., Sotillo-Ramos, D., Ramesh, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1721, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2165

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2165 2024

  66. [66]

    2019, A&A, 629, A59, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935982

    Posti, L., Marasco, A., Fraternali, F., & Famaey, B. 2019, A&A, 629, A59, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935982

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935982 2019

  67. [67]

    M., et al

    Pulsoni, C., Gerhard, O., Fall, S. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A96, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346234

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346234 2023

  68. [68]

    2018, A&A, 618, A94, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732473

    Pulsoni, C., Gerhard, O., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A94, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732473

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732473 2018

  69. [69]

    P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T

    Rey, M. P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 995, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad513

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad513 2023

  70. [70]

    The merger rate of galaxies in the Illustris Simulation: a comparison with observations and semi-empirical models

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv264

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stv264 2015

  71. [71]

    V., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Pillepich, A., Sales, L. V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2371, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw456

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw456 2016

  72. [72]

    V., Genel, S., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Sales, L. V., Genel, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3083, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx305 2017

  73. [73]

    J., Douglas N

    Romanowsky, A. J., Douglas, N. G., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2003, Science, 301, 1696, doi:10.1126/science.1087441

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1087441 2003

  74. [74]

    J., & Fall, S

    Romanowsky, A. J., & Fall, S. M. 2012, ApJS, 203, 17, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/17 Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 783, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17178.x

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/17 2012

  75. [75]

    MNRAS , author =

    Samuroff, S., Mandelbaum, R., Blazek, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2195, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2013

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2013 2023

  76. [76]

    B., Wetzel, A., Sanderson, R

    Santistevan, I. B., Wetzel, A., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 921, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1345 2021

  77. [77]

    A., & Debattista, V

    Sellwood, J. A., & Debattista, V. P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1375, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3433 2022

  78. [78]

    F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1886, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2078

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2078 2015

  79. [79]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 2015

  80. [80]

    Tempel, E., Guo, Q., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2727, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv919 2015

Showing first 80 references.