pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16200 · v1 · pith:65LSEDN6new · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

No Stream Left Unscathed: The imprint of a host galaxy

Arpit Arora , Peter S. Ferguson , Jacob Nibauer , Nora Shipp , Videep Reddy , Eugene Vasiliev , Jack Kohm , Laurella C. Marin
show 6 more authors
Adrian M. Price-Whelan Denis Erkal Sarah Pearson Andrew Wetzel Jeremy Bailin Robert Feldmann
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 16:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar streamsglobular clustersMilky Waygalactic dynamicscosmological simulationsdark matter subhalos
0
0 comments X

The pith

The host galaxy's potential alone imprints spurs, kinks, and gaps on most stellar streams.

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

This paper evolves roughly 15,000 globular cluster streams inside four Milky Way-mass halos taken from the FIRE-2 cosmological simulations. The streams feel only the time-varying large-scale disk, halo, and surrounding structure through basis function expansion potentials that deliberately omit small-scale objects such as dark matter subhalos. Roughly three quarters of the streams still develop spurs, kinks, cocoon-like envelopes, and density variations at the same angular scales previously linked to subhalo encounters. Even the smoothest streams vary in width by 10-25 percent and show overdensities and gaps near 2 degrees. Pericentric distance emerges as the strongest predictor of how disturbed a stream appears.

Core claim

When globular cluster streams are integrated in basis function expansion potentials drawn from FIRE-2 halos that include the evolving disk and halo but exclude all small-scale perturbers, approximately three quarters develop complex morphology including spurs, kinks, and cocoon-like envelopes. Even the remaining smooth streams exhibit 10-25 percent width fluctuations along their tracks together with overdensities and gaps at scales of roughly 2 degrees. Only about 70 streams out of 15,000 remain free of detectable wiggles at any scale, and analogs to observed structures such as the GD-1 spur appear without any subhalo encounters.

What carries the argument

Basis function expansion potentials derived from FIRE-2 halos that evolve the disk, halo, and large-scale structure while excluding small-scale perturbers.

If this is right

  • Pericentric distance near 15 kpc marks the boundary between mostly smooth and mostly disturbed streams.
  • Circular orbits beyond roughly 20 kpc produce the streams least affected by the host potential.
  • Features such as the GD-1 spur and ATLAS-Aliqa Uma kink can form from the host galaxy alone.
  • Next-generation surveys must subtract this host-induced baseline before using stream morphology to constrain dark matter substructure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Streams on wide, circular orbits may offer cleaner probes of subhalo encounters because they suffer less host-induced complexity.
  • Some fraction of currently observed stream gaps could be reinterpreted as natural outcomes of the Milky Way's own potential rather than subhalo passages.
  • Refining the basis function expansion models against real Milky Way kinematics could tighten the distinction between host and subhalo effects.

Load-bearing premise

The basis function expansion potentials accurately represent the time-evolving disk, halo, and large-scale structure while correctly excluding all small-scale perturbers, and the sample of streams is representative of the observed Milky Way population.

What would settle it

A large survey catalog that measures the fraction of streams showing spurs or 10-25 percent width variation in the absence of known subhalos or giant molecular clouds; if that observed fraction is far below three quarters, the claim that host potential alone accounts for most features would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16200 by Adrian M. Price-Whelan, Andrew Wetzel, Arpit Arora, Denis Erkal, Eugene Vasiliev, Jack Kohm, Jacob Nibauer, Jeremy Bailin, Laurella C. Marin, Nora Shipp, Peter S. Ferguson, Robert Feldmann, Sarah Pearson, Videep Reddy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A random subset of 250 simulated GC streams (colored) shown in galactocentric Mollweide projection for the m12i halo at present day. The background shows a mock photometric map constructed from stellar populations in the host, with gri-band luminosities assigned per star particle using fsps (C. Conroy et al. 2009) and projected onto a HEALPix grid (𝑁side = 512). Each stream is represented by 10,000 test pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of progenitor minimum pericentric distance (left) and orbital eccentricity (right) for each halo (colored lines) and for the full sample (solid gray). Histograms are normalized to show the fraction of streams. Pericentric distance is taken as the minimum radius reached by the progenitor over the 5 Gyr integration. Eccentricity is computed from the maximum apocenter and minimum pericenter as 𝑒… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example stream (gray points) in stream coordinates. Selected member stars within the 90%-KDE mask are shown in blue. The progenitor is marked with a red star at (𝜙1, 𝜙2) = (0 ◦ , 0 ◦ ). The box indicates the straight segment length ℓ and the quantile based width 𝑊 derived from the 90%-KDE mask. In this example the stream length is 18.5 ◦ and the width is 0.30◦ . Note that x, y-axis aspects are unequal. 0 5… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distributions (CDFs) of stream length ℓ (left) and width 𝑊 (right) for each halo (colored lines) and for the full sample (solid gray). Curves are normalized to unity. m12f (blue) with its recent mergers produces, on average, shorter and thicker streams than the other halos. an example stream (gray points) with its 90%-KDE members marked in blue and the progenitor as a red star at (0 ◦ , 0 ◦ ). T… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative examples of local off-track structure for four GC streams in stream coordinates (four rows). Streams are divided in eight equal-length (ℓ/8) 𝜙1 bins after detrending 𝜙2 (𝜙1) by a cubic polynomial. The red violin curves display the local detrended 𝜙2 particle distribution in each region, the annotated number is the disturbance score 𝜉𝑖 for that bin (Appendix D). The progenitor is marked with … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 1D power-spectrum analysis for an example, visually smooth stream. i.) Top left: Power spectrum 𝑃(𝑘) of the fractional density residual 𝛿𝑛 (𝜙1) (blue) plotted against angular separation 𝜆 = 1/𝑘. The red curve show the median and±1𝜎 from 2,000 null realizations sampling a uniform along-track distribution with the same particle counts and window. ii.) Top right: Signal-to-noise SNR(𝑘) = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative streams arranged on a 2D grid with columns showing increasing peak disturbance (𝐷peak) (left to right: 1.0 to 4.75 in steps of 0.75) and rows showing increasing global disturbance (𝐷global) (top to bottom: 0.25 to 3.0 in steps of 0.5) at fixed 𝐷peak per row. The red star marks the progenitor at (0 ◦ , 0 ◦ ). Background shading indicates the three morphological classes: green for smooth (𝐷glo… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Median global disturbance (𝐷global) as a function of progenitor minimum pericenter for each halo (colored) and the combined sample (gray). Right: Fraction of smooth streams (𝐷global ≤ 1) in pericenter bins. The scatter at fixed pericenter is large (not shown).m12i (purple) reaches 𝐷global ≤ 1 by ∼15 kpc and shows ∼80% smooth streams beyond 20 kpc. Halo m12m reaches this threshold near ∼20 kpc. Halos … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: CDF of peak disturbance 𝐷peak for smooth streams (global disturbance 𝐷global ≤ 1) in each halo (colored) and the combined sample (gray). Right: Fraction of smooth streams with 𝐷peak ≤ 2 in pericenter bins. A peak disturbance value of 2 corresponds to a localized off-track departure twice as strong as expected from statistical noise alone (see Appendix D), above which off-track features are visually i… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average global disturbance 𝐷global (left) and peak disturbance 𝐷peak (middle) across all streams in pericenter–eccentricity space, color-coded by the average value in each bin (bluer indicates lower, smoother values and, redder indicates higher, messier values). Contours mark 𝐷global = 1, 2 (left) and 𝐷peak = 2, 4 (middle). Right: peak disturbance versus global disturbance for individual streams, color-co… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Violin PDFs of width variation 𝐶𝑤 in pericenter bins for Smooth (green) and Smooth + Feature (green, hatched) streams (top row), and Intermediate (yellow) and Messy (red, hatched) streams (bottom row), included for completeness. Black lines mark the me￾dian of each distribution. Smooth streams show a modest declining trend with pericenter (medians ∼26% to ∼20%). The remaining three categories show no tren… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: CDF of width variation 𝐶𝑤 for Smooth streams. All Smooth streams have 𝐶𝑤 ≥ 10%, meaning no Smooth stream is perfectly uniform in width. The median is ∼22% with ∼50% of streams below this value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: PDF of RMS𝛿 (left) and 𝑃excess (right) for Smooth streams (green), split into streams with a detected along-track feature (SNR ≥ 5 at some 𝜆; blue) and those with no detection (orange). Vertical dashed lines mark the median of each subsample. Detected streams have a median RMS = 0.17 and median 𝑃excess = 0.026, compared to 0.07 and 0.0035 for non-detected streams. The two populations are well separated, w… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: CDF of 𝜆min, the minimum detectable angular feature for Smooth streams with a detection. Roughly 2% of Smooth streams have no detected along-track feature at SNR ≥ 5. The median 𝜆min is ∼2 ◦ , with the distribution spanning 0.5 ◦–10◦ . Most Smooth streams host detectable along-track structure at degree-scale separations. able from subhalo-induced perturbations, motivating the use of additional observables… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Five randomly selected Smooth streams with no detected along-track feature (SNR < 5 at all 𝜆), sorted by increasing length (10◦–30◦ ). Stream widths span 0.3 ◦–0.5 ◦ with width variation 𝐶𝑤 ∼ 15–35%. 𝑒 ≲ 0.25 in the inner regions) showing systematically larger 𝜆min and eccentric orbits concentrating power at smaller an￾gular scales. This is consistent with the cross-track picture in Section 4.1.3: more ec… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Two simulated GC streams (black) formed in time-evolving host potentials without any DM subhalo encounters, each shown at a viewing angle chosen to reveal a off-track features extending from the main track. Top row: a spur-like feature compared with observed GD-1 members (green) near the spur from N. Starkman et al. (2025), shifted along 𝜙1 to align the features. Bottom row: a kink-like feature compared w… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Key morphological metrics for 1,000 GC streams evolved in a static, axisymmetric MilkyWayPotential2022 (A. M. Price-Whelan 2017; E. Darragh-Ford et al. 2023) (black), compared to Smooth streams (𝐷global ≤ 1) from the FIRE-2 sample (green). The same orbital cuts and metric definitions are applied to both samples. Top left: 𝐷global versus minimum pericentric distance. Top right: CDF of width variation 𝐶𝑤. B… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Bootstrap shot-noise calibration of the BFE potentials, computed by refitting each snapshot 50 times with bootstrap-resampled particles. Left: median fractional force noise 𝜎𝐹/|⟨F⟩| as a function of galactocentric radius, with one curve per snapshot (colored). The amplitude is sub-percent across the orbital range and decreases outward. Right: Spatial correlation function 𝐶(Δ𝑟) of the noise vector field. T… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: Accelerations at 12 fixed galactocentric locations as a function of time, computed from a Barnes–Hut tree evaluation of the FIRE-2 particle distribution (solid) and from our basis function expansion (BFE) representation (dashed). Colors indicate galactocentric distance. The bottom panel shows the relative error | ®𝑎BFE − ®𝑎tree |/| ®𝑎tree |, which stays below ∼2% outside of ∼7 kpc. Right: Example pa… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Monte Carlo calibration of the 𝑊1 null distribution as a function of sample size 𝑁. Orange markers: 95% percentile 𝑊1 values from 2,000 trials of a standard normal sample of size 𝑁 each compared to a fixed reference normal with 𝑁ref = 20,000. The black dashed line is the best-fit curve 𝑇 (𝑁) = 𝑎𝑁𝑝 + 𝑏 (fit parameters annotated). The curve follows the expected ∼ 𝑁 −1/2 scaling. We quantify local departures… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A random selection of 16 streams per pericenter bin (columns, 𝑑peri = 10–30 kpc in intervals of 5 kpc, annotated), sorted by increasing global disturbance score (𝐷global) from top to bottom within each column. Inner-region streams show pronounced off-track features including localized spurs and broad cross-track heating and, outer-region streams are generally smoother, though localized features remain pre… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Distributions of progenitor minimum pericentric distance (left) and orbital eccentricity (right) for streams split by the four morphological tiers (colored-lines) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Random selection of smooth streams (green) arranged in bins of 𝐶𝑤 (columns, 0–75% in steps of 15%), sorted by increasing peak disturbance score (𝐷peak) from top to bottom within each column. Axes have unequal aspect to highlight along-track width variation. Streams with higher 𝐶𝑤 tend to show more pronounced localized features, reflected in their higher 𝐷peak values. Li, H., Gnedin, O. Y., Gnedin, N. Y., … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stellar streams from disrupted globular clusters are excellent probes of dark matter (DM) subhalos. Observed Milky Way streams display a remarkable diversity of features: spurs, gaps, kinks, cocoons, and density variations, many attributed to subhalo encounters. But how much of this diversity arises from the host itself? We simulate $\sim$15,000 globular cluster streams across four Milky Way-mass halos from the FIRE-2 cosmological simulations, evolved in basis function expansion potentials capturing the evolving disk, halo, and large-scale structure while excluding small-scale perturbers such as DM subhalos and giant molecular clouds. We find that roughly three quarters of streams develop complex features from the host potential, such as spurs, kinks, and cocoon-like envelopes. Even the smoothest streams exhibit 10--25\% width variation along their track and host overdensities and gaps at scales of ${\sim}2^\circ$, squarely in the $1^\circ$--$5^\circ$ range predicted for subhalo-induced gaps. Pericentric distance is the primary predictor of stream morphology, with ${\sim}15$ kpc separating smooth from disturbed streams and circular orbits beyond $\sim$20 kpc producing the smoothest streams. Only $\sim$70 out of $\sim$15,000 streams are free of detectable wiggles in the track at any scale. Analogs to observed features, such as the GD-1 spur and the ATLAS--Aliqa Uma kink, emerge even without the presence of subhalos. As next-generation surveys (LSST, Euclid, and Roman) resolve stream structure across hundreds of streams, the baseline established here, streams evolved without small-scale perturbers, becomes essential for extracting DM substructure constraints.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper simulates ~15,000 globular cluster streams in four FIRE-2 Milky Way-mass halos using basis-function expansion (BFE) potentials that evolve the disk, halo, and large-scale structure while excluding small-scale perturbers. It reports that roughly three-quarters of streams develop spurs, kinks, and cocoon-like envelopes from the host potential alone; even the smoothest streams show 10–25% width variations and ~2° gaps/overdensities. Pericentric distance (~15 kpc threshold) is the dominant predictor of morphology, with only ~70 streams entirely free of detectable wiggles. Analogs to observed features (GD-1 spur, ATLAS–Aliqa Uma kink) appear without subhalos, establishing a baseline for future DM-substructure inferences.

Significance. If the BFE potentials faithfully reproduce time-dependent host effects without numerical artifacts, the result supplies a critical null model for stream morphology. This would imply that many features currently attributed to subhalos can arise from the smooth, evolving galactic potential, directly affecting how LSST/Euclid/Roman data are interpreted for dark-matter constraints. The large sample size and direct comparison to observed scales strengthen the potential impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (BFE construction and validation): The central claim that host-induced features dominate requires that the BFE expansion accurately captures non-axisymmetric disk and halo evolution while introducing no spurious wiggles. No quantitative comparison (e.g., orbit integration residuals or stream morphology metrics) between BFE-evolved streams and the original FIRE-2 particle data is presented for the pericenter <15 kpc population that drives the disturbed/smooth separation. This is load-bearing for the headline 3/4 fraction.
  2. [Results] Results (§3 or equivalent): The reported ~75% fraction of streams developing complex features and the 10–25% width variation statistic lack error bars, sensitivity tests to the feature-detection threshold, or robustness checks against BFE truncation order and time-interpolation scheme. Without these, it is unclear whether the quantitative conclusions are stable under reasonable variations in the potential representation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The abstract states 'roughly three quarters' while the text uses '~15,000'; a precise count or fraction with uncertainty should be given in the results section for reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the angular scale and detection method used to identify gaps/overdensities at ~2° so readers can assess overlap with subhalo predictions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each of the major comments below. We agree that additional validation and robustness checks will strengthen the manuscript and will incorporate these in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (BFE construction and validation): The central claim that host-induced features dominate requires that the BFE expansion accurately captures non-axisymmetric disk and halo evolution while introducing no spurious wiggles. No quantitative comparison (e.g., orbit integration residuals or stream morphology metrics) between BFE-evolved streams and the original FIRE-2 particle data is presented for the pericenter <15 kpc population that drives the disturbed/smooth separation. This is load-bearing for the headline 3/4 fraction.

    Authors: We recognize the importance of validating the BFE potentials against the original FIRE-2 simulation data to ensure no spurious features are introduced. Although the BFE approach is intended to faithfully reproduce the time-dependent large-scale potential, we will add quantitative comparisons, including orbit integration residuals and stream morphology metrics, for a sample of streams with pericenters less than 15 kpc. These will be presented in the Methods section of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (§3 or equivalent): The reported ~75% fraction of streams developing complex features and the 10–25% width variation statistic lack error bars, sensitivity tests to the feature-detection threshold, or robustness checks against BFE truncation order and time-interpolation scheme. Without these, it is unclear whether the quantitative conclusions are stable under reasonable variations in the potential representation.

    Authors: We agree that providing uncertainties and performing sensitivity analyses is necessary for the robustness of our quantitative results. In the revision, we will include error bars on the reported fractions and statistics, and conduct tests varying the feature detection threshold, BFE truncation order, and time interpolation scheme. The outcomes of these tests will be reported to confirm the stability of our findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct simulation outputs establish host-induced stream features with no definitional or self-citation circularity

full rationale

The paper evolves ~15,000 streams in BFE potentials extracted from FIRE-2 snapshots and reports morphology statistics (spurs/kinks in ~3/4 of streams, 10-25% width variation, ~2° gaps) as direct numerical results. These quantities are not defined in terms of the outputs themselves, not obtained by fitting parameters to the target statistics, and not reduced to a self-citation chain. Comparisons to observed streams (GD-1 spur, ATLAS kink) are external validation rather than inputs. Methodological citations to BFE or FIRE-2 work supply context but do not carry the load of the central claim, which remains falsifiable against independent simulations or observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the FIRE-2 halos and the basis-function-expansion technique for capturing large-scale galactic evolution; no new free parameters, ad-hoc entities, or invented particles are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 cosmological simulations supply realistic Milky Way-mass halos whose disk, halo, and large-scale structure can be captured by basis function expansions.
    This assumption is invoked to justify evolving the streams in potentials that include time-dependent galactic structure while excluding small-scale perturbers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5909 in / 1302 out tokens · 50975 ms · 2026-05-20T16:14:25.040713+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

283 extracted references · 283 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    A new class of accurate, mesh-free hydrodynamic simulation methods , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    work page 2015

  2. [3]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    FIRE-2 simulations: physics versus numerics in galaxy formation , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  3. [4]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Reconciling dwarf galaxies with CDM cosmology: simulating a realistic population of satellites around a Milky Way--mass galaxy , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  4. [6]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Disc settling and dynamical heating: histories of Milky Way-mass stellar discs across cosmic time in the FIRE simulations , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  5. [7]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Bar formation and destruction in the FIRE-2 simulations , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  6. [8]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    Public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  7. [9]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    Starburst99: synthesis models for galaxies with active star formation , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    work page 1999

  8. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06608 , year=

    Second public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06608 , year=

    work page arXiv

  9. [11]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    Synthetic gaia surveys from the fire cosmological simulations of milky way-mass galaxies , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  10. [12]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The origin of the diverse morphologies and kinematics of Milky Way-mass galaxies in the FIRE-2 simulations , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  11. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics , volume=

    The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms , author=. IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics , volume=

    work page

  12. [14]

    1951 , series=

    An invariance principle for certain probability limit theorems , author=. 1951 , series=

    work page 1951

  13. [15]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Orbital phase-driven biases in galactic mass constraints from stellar streams , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  14. [16]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The number and size of subhalo-induced gaps in stellar streams , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  15. [17]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The dynamics of satellite disruption in cold dark matter haloes , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    work page 2009

  16. [18]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Using multichannel singular spectrum analysis to study galaxy dynamics , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  17. [19]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    New dipole instabilities in spherical stellar systems , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  18. [20]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Substructure depletion in the Milky Way halo by the disk , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    work page 2010

  19. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Lessons from the Auriga discs: the hunt for the Milky Way's ex situ disc is not yet over , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    work page 2017

  20. [22]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Vertical density waves in the Milky Way disc induced by the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    work page 2013

  21. [23]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Tilted dark halos are common and long-lived, and can warp galactic disks , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  22. [24]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Warps and waves in the stellar discs of the Auriga cosmological simulations , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  23. [25]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    A family of potential--density pairs for spherical galaxies and bulges , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 1993 , publisher=

    work page 1993

  24. [26]

    A numerical convergence study , author=

    The inner structure of CDM haloes—I. A numerical convergence study , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    work page 2003

  25. [27]

    Star cluster formation in cosmological simulations. I. Properties of young clusters , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    work page 2017

  26. [29]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Catalogue of model star clusters in the Milky Way and M31 galaxies , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  27. [32]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The E-MOSAICS project: simulating the formation and co-evolution of galaxies and their star cluster populations , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  28. [34]

    Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    The structure of cold dark matter halos , author=. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 378, Sept. 10, 1991, p. 496-503. Research supported by Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and NSERC. , volume=

    work page 1991

  29. [35]

    nature , volume=

    Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars , author=. nature , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    work page 2005

  30. [36]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    What's up in the Milky Way? The orientation of the disc relative to the triaxial halo , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    work page 2013

  31. [37]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    The shape of the inner milky way halo from observations of the Pal 5 and GD--1 Stellar Streams , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  32. [38]

    Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    work page

  33. [39]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=

    Improved particle spray algorithm for modeling globular cluster streams , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  34. [40]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The effect of the deforming dark matter haloes of the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud on the Orphan--Chenab stream , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  35. [41]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Tidal streams as probes of the Galactic potential , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    work page 1999

  36. [42]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The total mass of the Large Magellanic Cloud from its perturbation on the Orphan stream , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  37. [43]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Constraining the Milky Way halo potential with the GD-1 stellar stream , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  38. [44]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Hunting for the dark matter wake induced by the large magellanic cloud , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  39. [45]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Shaping the Milky Way: The interplay of mergers and cosmic filaments , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  40. [46]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    Basis function expansions for galactic dynamics: Spherical versus cylindrical coordinates , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  41. [48]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Measuring the Mass of the Large Magellanic Cloud with Stellar Streams Observed by S 5 , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  42. [49]

    Charting the galactic acceleration field. II. A Global Mass Model of the Milky Way from the STREAMFINDER Atlas of Stellar Streams detected in Gaia DR3 , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  43. [50]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    S 5: Probing the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds potentials with the 6D map of the Orphan--Chenab stream , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  44. [51]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    LMC-driven anisotropic boosts in stream--subhalo interactions , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  45. [52]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    On the stability of tidal streams in action space , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  46. [53]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    On the Corotation of Milky Way Satellites: LMC-mass Satellites Induce Apparent Motions in Outer Halo Tracers , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  47. [54]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Efficient and accurate force replay in cosmological-baryonic simulations , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  48. [55]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Dear Magellanic Clouds, welcome back! , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  49. [56]

    Nature Astronomy , volume=

    Detection of the Milky Way reflex motion due to the Large Magellanic Cloud infall , author=. Nature Astronomy , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  50. [57]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The influence of Sagittarius and the Large Magellanic Cloud on the stellar disc of the Milky Way Galaxy , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  51. [58]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    A new code for orbit analysis and Schwarzschild modelling of triaxial stellar systems , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    work page 2013

  52. [59]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The total stellar halo mass of the Milky Way , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  53. [60]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Galactic stellar haloes in the CDM model , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    work page 2010

  54. [61]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling. I. The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the initial mass function to the derived physical properties of galaxies , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    work page 2009

  55. [62]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Stream members only: Data-driven characterization of stellar streams with mixture density networks , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  56. [63]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Dark matter sub-halo counts via star stream crossings , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  57. [64]

    The Disruption of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.

    The disruption of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. , author=. arXiv preprint astro-ph/9502005 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [65]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Are the Magellanic Clouds on their first passage about the Milky Way? , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    work page 2007

  59. [66]

    Nature , volume=

    All-sky dynamical response of the Galactic halo to the Large Magellanic Cloud , author=. Nature , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  60. [67]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Tango for three: Sagittarius, LMC, and the Milky Way , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  61. [68]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Models of distorted and evolving dark matter haloes , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  62. [69]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    A halo expansion technique for approximating simulated dark matter haloes , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    work page 2011

  63. [70]

    Galaxies , keywords =

    The Effect of the LMC on the Milky Way System. Galaxies , keywords =. doi:10.3390/galaxies11020059 , archivePrefix =. 2304.09136 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11020059

  64. [71]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Exploring the Sgr--Milky Way--disk Interaction Using High-resolution N-body Simulations , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  65. [72]

    Tracing galaxy formation with stellar halos. II. Relating substructure in phase and abundance space to accretion histories , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    work page 2008

  66. [73]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Symfind: Addressing the fragility of subhalo finders and revealing the durability of subhalos , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  67. [74]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Haunted haloes: tracking the ghosts of subhaloes lost by halo finders , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  68. [75]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Milky Way-est: Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations with Large Magellanic Cloud and Gaia--Sausage--Enceladus Analogs , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  69. [76]

    New Astronomy Reviews , pages=

    Milky Way dynamics in light of Gaia , author=. New Astronomy Reviews , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  70. [77]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    The Distant Milky Way Halo from the Southern Hemisphere: Characterization of the LMC-induced Dynamical Friction Wake , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  71. [78]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Simulations of the Magellanic stream in a first infall scenario , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    work page 2010

  72. [79]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Orientations of Dark Matter Halos in FIRE-2 Milky Way--mass Galaxies , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  73. [80]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    The Milky Way’s Rowdy Neighbors: The Effects of the Large Magellanic Cloud and Sagittarius Dwarf on the Milky Way Disk , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  74. [81]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Resolving local and global kinematic signatures of satellite mergers with billion particle simulations , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  75. [82]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    AGAMA: action-based galaxy modelling architecture , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  76. [83]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Some like it triaxial: the universality of dark matter halo shapes and their evolution along the cosmic time , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    work page 2014

  77. [84]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    More on the structure of tidal tails , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  78. [86]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Breaking Down the CosmoGEMS: Toward Modeling and Understanding Globular Cluster Stellar Streams in a Fully Cosmological Context , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    work page 2026

  79. [87]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Separatrix divergence of stellar streams in galactic potentials , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  80. [88]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Stream Fanning and Bifurcations: Observable Signatures of Resonances in Stellar Stream Morphology , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.