Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A simulated Milky Way analogue shows that stars born in the core of its last major merger end up more tightly bound and more metal-rich than stars from the outskirts, preserving a 'golden thread' between birth place and present-day orbit.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:08 UTC pith:4S4CSL7A

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful cosmological test of the Skúladóttir/Mori stripping scenario with honest caveats, but the headline gradient is never derived in the body and the highest-energy bin is contaminated — worth reviewing, not desk-rejectable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11284 v2 pith:4S4CSL7A submitted 2025-10-13 astro-ph.GA

The chemodynamical memory of a major merger in a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue -- I. A golden thread through time and space

Sven Buder , Tobias Buck , \'Asa Sk\'ulad\'ottir , Melissa Ness , Madeleine McKenzie , Stephanie Monty This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic archaeologygalaxy mergerschemodynamical memorystellar populationsorbital energybirth radiusMilky Way analoguecosmological zoom-in simulation
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.

Using a high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulation with traced star birth positions, the paper aims to show that a major galaxy merger does not erase the connection between where a star was born and how it moves and what it is made of today. The central result is that stars born in the infalling galaxy's core are now on more tightly bound orbits and are more chemically enriched, while stars from its outskirts are less bound and more metal-poor, with a measured gradient of about -0.05 dex in iron abundance per kiloparsec of birth radius. This chemodynamical memory also appears in elemental abundance planes, and it survives in the simulated analogue of the Milky Way's last major merger roughly 8-10 Gyr ago. A second claim is that standard selections of accreted stars by orbital energy and angular momentum capture only about 42% of the accreted population, systematically missing the metal-rich core; therefore current reconstructions are biased towards the metal-poor outskirts. If correct, present-day orbits and chemistry can be used to reconstruct the internal structure of disrupted satellite galaxies.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that chemodynamical memory survives a major merger. Sorting stars accreted in the simulated last major merger by their present-day specific orbital energy into four quartiles, the authors find a monotonic trend: the most bound (lowest-energy) stars were born in the innermost regions of the progenitor, now lie within a few kiloparsecs of the centre, and have the highest [Fe/H]; the least bound stars were born in the outskirts and are most metal-poor. They interpret this as a stripping-from-outside-in process: outer stars were lost first onto higher-energy orbits, while the core arrived late and sank to the centre. Quantitatively they measure d[Fe/H]/dR_birth' ~ -0

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three elements. First, birth-position tracing in 100 Myr time steps gives a clean, simulation-side classification of stars as in-situ, previously accreted, or currently accreting, without relying on orbital cuts. Second, the specific orbital energy E (per unit mass) and the radial action J_R, computed for every star particle, serve as the dynamical memory variables: the paper divides accreted stars into energy quartiles and shows that median chemistry, present-day radius, and birth radius all change with E. Third, the 'golden thread' - a spline-interpolated path through the progenitor's star-forming regions over time - visualises the accretion geometry and connects

Load-bearing premise

The classification of stars as 'previously accreted' depends on hand-tuned thresholds in the birth-position cut (birth radius greater than 50 kpc or |z_birth| greater than 5 kpc, combined with negative energy); if that cut misassigns stars born in the progenitor core during the final merger stages, the inferred energy-metallicity correlation could be partly an artifact of the selection.

What would settle it

A single calculation would settle it: repeat the birth-position tracing and energy sorting with different threshold choices, or on a different Milky Way analogue with no major merger, and check whether the energy-[Fe/H] gradient and the roughly 42% completeness number persist. If the gradient reverses or vanishes when the classification cut is varied, or if a galaxy without a major merger shows the same apparent gradient due to in-situ contamination, the central claim is falsified. Observationally, a targeted search for very metal-rich accreted stars ([Fe/H] above about -0.5) in the inner few

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

If this is right

  • Present-day orbital energy can serve as a proxy for birth radius inside the disrupted progenitor, so the internal structure of the accreted galaxy is partially recoverable from phase-space data.
  • Observational samples selected by integrals of motion are incomplete by about 58% in the simulation, meaning reported metallicities and inferred masses for the last major merger are biased toward metal-poor, low-mass values.
  • Metallicity preselection in the inner Galaxy, e.g. [Fe/H] below -0.5, can raise the accretion recovery fraction from about 2% to 10-30%, guiding future survey strategies.
  • The energy dependence of [Fe/H] implies the progenitor had a radial metallicity gradient, i.e. it formed stars from the inside out before disruption.
  • Mass estimates derived from the mass-metallicity relation shift by up to a factor of about 40 depending on which energy zone is sampled, which can explain part of the offset between surviving and disrupted dwarf galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same memory operates in real Milky Way mergers, the most metal-rich accreted stars ([Fe/H] above about -0.5) should be concentrated in the bulge or inner Galaxy, and targeted searches there would be a sharper test than Solar-neighbourhood samples.
  • The 42% completeness figure comes from one simulated merger; if it varies systematically with merger mass ratio or orbit, calibrating this bias across multiple simulations would let observers correct observed masses of the last major merger.
  • The highest-energy quartile's up-to-50% contamination from unrelated small accretion events suggests that single-event reconstructions in the outer halo will be noisy; chemical tagging may be needed to isolate the major-merger stars.
  • A direct extension would be to measure d[Fe/H]/dR_birth' in other simulated mergers to test whether the -0.05 dex/kpc slope is a universal feature or is set by the progenitor's own star-formation efficiency gradient.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses a high-resolution NIHAO-UHD cosmological zoom-in simulation of a Milky Way analogue to test whether stars accreted in the last major merger retain a chemodynamical memory of their birth location within the progenitor. Tracing stellar birth positions in 100 Myr steps and computing present-day orbital energies, the authors report that stars born in the progenitor's core are now more tightly bound and more metal-rich, while stars born in the outskirts are less bound and more metal-poor, in line with the scenario of Skúladóttir et al. (2025). They additionally quantify the incompleteness of standard integrals-of-motion selections (finding ~42% completeness) and argue that such selections miss the chemically enriched core, biasing progenitor reconstructions. The paper presents qualitative support in Figs. 6, 8, and 9, and discusses implications for mass-metallicity relations and future inner-Galaxy surveys.

Significance. If the qualitative finding is robust, it provides an independent cosmological confirmation of a scenario previously inferred from idealized simulations and small stellar samples, and it carries practical implications for designing observational searches for GSE core stars. The paper's strengths include genuine 100 Myr birth-position tracing, a high-resolution fully cosmological setup, public analysis code and data, and explicit disclosure of several caveats. The selection-efficiency analysis (42%/28% completeness) is a useful, concrete contribution even if the quantitative gradient claim were removed. However, the quantitative headline gradient is not derived in the body, and the high-energy, metal-poor leg of the correlation is acknowledged to be contaminated by other accretion events, so the central quantitative claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 3.3] The abstract (as supplied) advertises d[Fe/H]/dR_birth' ≈ -0.05 dex/kpc as a headline quantitative result. No such fit appears anywhere in the body; R_birth' is not defined, and no uncertainties, fitting method, or sample are given. The full-text abstract omits this number. Because this is the only quantitative measure of the central 'memory' claim and is vulnerable to the contamination issue below, it must either be derived with a well-defined estimator or removed from the abstract.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.1, Fig. 6] Sec. 3.3.1 states that in the highest-energy zone, comparing the overall past-accretion selection with stars following the golden thread yields contamination of up to 50% from other accretion events. This zone is precisely the metal-poor, high-energy leg of the trend in Fig. 6. Since small disrupting dwarfs are themselves metal-poor and on high-energy orbits, the energy-metallicity gradient could be partly produced or steepened by contamination. The paper does not report a contamination-corrected or golden-thread-only gradient. Because the clean sample is already constructed via Table A1, the analysis should be repeated on that sample and the sensitivity quantified before the correlation is presented as a property of the last major merger.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (5)] The past-accretion selection in Eq. (5) uses R_birth,3D > 50 kpc or |z_birth| > 5 kpc together with E < 0. These thresholds are hand-tuned and are not restricted to the major merger; the paper's conclusions about 'the progenitor' assume that this sample is dominated by the GSE analogue. The authors validate broad purity (95% unbound for ongoing, 99% bound for past) but do not quantify contamination of the energy-quartile analysis by the other mergers visible in Fig. 1b. This matters because the energy quartiles are defined over this mixed sample. A quantitative decomposition by progenitor (golden-thread vs. others) should be provided, or the text should be reworded to refer to 'the accreted population' rather than 'the progenitor' where the mixed selection is used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Stray '/gtb' tokens appear in several figure captions and text passages (e.g. 'See/gtbfor individual figures', 'Table A1/gtb'). These proofing artifacts should be removed.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (4)] The units in Eq. (4) are inconsistent: energy thresholds are given in 'kpc km s−1' while Eq. (3) and Table 1 use 'km^2 s^-2' (e.g. −0.58×10^5 kpc km s−1 vs. −0.58×10^5 km^2 s^-2). Please make units consistent throughout.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] Typo: 'build-tin tools' should be 'built-in tools'.
  4. [References / Sec. 5] The references to Naidu et al. (2022a) and (2022b) are used inconsistently; the text should clearly distinguish the arXiv paper from the ApJ paper and use consistent citation labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the simulation-based correlations are not forced by the selection or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that accreted stars born in the progenitor's core are more tightly bound and more metal-rich, while those from the outskirts are less bound and more metal-poor—are empirical results from a cosmological zoom-in simulation with independent birth-position tracing. The 'past accretion' selection (Eq. 5) uses birth-radius thresholds (R_birth,3D > 50 kpc or |z_birth| > 5 kpc) to separate accreted from in-situ stars, but this binary classification does not by construction impose the continuous [Fe/H]-versus-energy trend seen in Fig. 6 or the energy-birth-radius correlation in Fig. 9. The 'golden thread' clean sample (Table A1) is selected by spatial and age boxes, not by metallicity or energy, so its use to illustrate the chemodynamical memory is not definitional. The scenario of Skúladóttir et al. (2025) is an external observational hypothesis being tested, not a fitted input; the self-citation is not load-bearing because the simulation results stand independently. The abstract's quantitative gradient d[Fe/H]/dR_birth' ≈ -0.05 dex/kpc is not derived in the body, but an omitted derivation is a support problem, not circularity. The acknowledged up-to-50% contamination in the highest-energy zone (Sec. 3.3.1) is a validity caveat about selection completeness, not a tautology: the contamination weakens but does not reduce the claim to its inputs. Overall, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the simulation's sub-grid chemical model, the birth-position tracing cadence, and the representativeness of one cosmological zoom-in. The paper inherits the simulation's yield and feedback choices rather than deriving them; the only hand-tuned inputs introduced here are the classification thresholds and energy bins.

free parameters (3)
  • Birth-radius and height thresholds in past-accretion selection (Eq. 5) = R_birth,3D > 50 kpc; |z_birth| > 5 kpc
    Chosen by hand and 'optimised' against the age-metallicity plane (Sec. 3.1); these cuts define the accreted sample whose properties are then interpreted as merger memory.
  • Ongoing-accretion criteria (Eq. 4) = R3D>50 kpc or E>0 or (age<10 Gyr and [Fe/H]<-1)
    Ad hoc selection to include younger stars of infalling dwarfs; affects denominator and contamination estimates.
  • Energy quartile boundaries = -0.37, -0.58, -0.77 10^5 km^2 s^-2
    Four zones chosen to have ~25% of accreted stars each; the magnitude of reported trends depends on these bins.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption NIHAO-UHD sub-grid physics (star formation, feedback, turbulent diffusion) and Chempy enrichment with adopted yields reproduce the relevant chemodynamical trends.
    Used throughout; paper notes absolute abundances and dispersions are smaller than observed and should not be over-interpreted (Sec. 3.3.2), so this assumption is partially load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Birth positions traced at 100 Myr cadence capture each star's formation site.
    Sec. 2.2; authors note potential inaccuracies around the time of the major merger (footnote 1).
  • domain assumption Simulation g8.26e11 is a representative analogue for the Milky Way's last major merger.
    Sec. 2.1; only one galaxy is analysed, no ensemble variance.
  • domain assumption Stäckel fudge action finder (agama) provides adequate integrals of motion.
    Sec. 2.3; approximate but standard method for orbit classification.
  • domain assumption The 50 kpc boundary separates the main galaxy from infalling satellites.
    Used in Eqs. 4-6 and throughout; arbitrary but conventional.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25353 in / 12020 out tokens · 95646 ms · 2026-08-04T10:08:34.396505+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Understanding how past major mergers shaped the Milky Way's present-day structure is a key goal of Galactic archaeology. The Galaxy's chemical and dynamical structure retains the imprint of such events, including a major accretion episode around 8-10 Gyr ago. Recent findings suggest that present-day orbital energy correlates with stellar chemistry and birth location within the merging progenitor galaxy. Using a high-resolution NIHAO-UHD cosmological zoom-in simulation of a Milky Way analogue, we trace the birth positions, ages, and present-day orbits of stars accreted in its last major merger. We show that stars born in the progenitor's core are more tightly bound to the Milky Way and more chemically enriched, while those from the outskirts are less bound and more metal-poor. This supports the Sk\'ulad\'ottir et al. (2025) scenario that accreted progenitor stars of different chemistry were deposited onto different orbital energies as the galaxy was stripped from the outside in, now in a cosmological context. Quantitatively, we measure a metallicity gradient with progenitor birth radius of $\mathrm{d[Fe/H]}/\mathrm{d}R_\mathrm{birth}^\prime \approx -0.05\,\mathrm{dex\,kpc^{-1}}$, demonstrating that abundance patterns retain measurable memory of formation location within the disrupted satellite. This chemodynamical memory is also evident in elemental planes such as [Al/Fe] vs. [Mg/Mn], consistent with gradients in progenitor star formation efficiency. We further show that common integrals-of-motion selections systematically miss stars from the chemically enriched core, biasing reconstructions toward the metal-poor outskirts. Together, our results demonstrate that chemodynamical memory survives the merger and can reconstruct the accreted galaxy's internal structure, while highlighting biases in current selections of accreted stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11284 by \'Asa Sk\'ulad\'ottir, Madeleine McKenzie, Melissa Ness, Stephanie Monty, Sven Buder, Tobias Buck.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Tracing in-situ stars (blue) alongside past (red) and ongoing (purple) accretion components, shown in their present-day positions (panel a) and birth (panel b) positions (in 100 Myr intervals). The red overdensities in panel b primarily reflect the same accreted galaxy observed at different epochs ‡. 2 SIMULATED DATA In this study we examine the high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulation g8.26e11, a M… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Age–metallicity distributions of in-situ (blue), previously accreted (red), and currently accreting (purple) stars, also shown as marginal 2D histograms with age (top) and [Fe/H] (right). A vertical dashed line indicates the time of the major merger around 8.6 Gyr ago ‡. Amiga Halo Finder (Knollmann & Knebe 2009), using the build-tin tools of the pynbody package (Pontzen et al. 2013). To orient the system,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Birth positions in different Galactocentric planes of all star particles that are now within 50 kpc (grey density scale), where those born in-situ are in blue and those of the last major merger in red. Birth positions are estimated in 100 Myr steps and thus allow us to follow the changing position of star formation of the now accreted galaxy with respect to the Milky Way analogue. A dark golden line then i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orbit properties of in-situ formed stars (blue, left panels), past accretion (red, middle panels), and ongoing accretion (purple, right panels). Both the specific energy 𝐸 (upper panels) and the radial action 𝐽𝑅 (lower panels) are shown with the angular momentum 𝐽𝜑 ≡ 𝐿𝑍 . Stars undergoing accretion, currently located in the Solar-analogue neighbourhood of a 2 kpc torus around 𝑅2D = 8.2 kpc, are indicated w… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Angular momentum 𝐽𝜑 ≡ 𝐿𝑍 vs. Specific energy 𝐸 (top panel) and radial action 𝐽𝑅 for stars (bottom panel) for stars within 𝑅3D < 50 kpc at redshift 𝑧 = 0. Bins are coloured by the fraction of previously accreted stars (defined as Figs. 4b/(a+b) and 4d/(d+e), respectively). We have added the selection proposed by Feuillet et al. (2020) for the real Milky Way as dashed black box. Fig. A1 also includes ongoing… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of [Fe/H] distributions of the whole galaxy (grey), and its previously accreted stars with different orbit energies as given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Abundance distributions of (past) accreted stars in blue, while the whole simulation is shown in the background (black). Yellow, orange, light and dark red dashed lines show the median abundances for 5-percent-bins if the x-axis of accreted stars for the different energy quantiles (same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Present-day spatial distribution of accreted stars in the Galactocentric 𝑋-𝑌 plane. Panels a-d) show the density distribution of accreted stars with highest to lowest orbit energy quartiles, where the dashed circle shows a solar-analogue 𝑅2D = 8.2 kpc. Panel legends list the 50th and 16th-84th percentiles of galactocentric cylindrical radii 𝑅2D. Panel e) shows the 𝑅2D distributions, with an inset visualisi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Birth positions (determined in batches of 100 Myr) coloured by present-day orbit energy, both before the major merger (top, for star formation between 11.65 and 10.25 Gyr ago) and just before and during the merger (bottom, for star formation between 10.15 and 8.55 Gyr ago), with the main galaxy’s birth positions visible in greyscale ‡. finding for strategies needed to find informative surviving members of … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histograms of [Fe/H] distribution for accreted stars with different present-day galactocentric radii 𝑅2D with median [Fe/H] indicated in the legend for a each region ‡. stars in the Solar neighbourhood by Nissen & Schuster (2010), but mainly those with 𝐸 > −0.57 × 105 kpc km s−1 , consistent with the sample studied by Skúladóttir et al. (2025). The same holds true for Milky Way halo studies (Naidu et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Metallicity distribution functions (relative to total number of stars in the galaxy). Top panel shows the distribution of the inner 𝑅3D < 3.6 kpc and how in-situ (blue) and accreted populations (golden) contribute to it. Panel b) is showing the same golden distribution of accreted stars as panel a), but zooming vertically in to see more details. Panel c) traces the relative fraction of accreted stars to a… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mass-metallicity relations (dashed lines) for different galaxies and selections. We list both reported measurements of disrupted (black star symbols), surviving (grey squares), and irregular dwarf galaxies (grey circles) by Kirby et al. (2013) and Naidu et al. (2022a). For the major merger of the NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue we show both the median [Fe/H] and total mass for the whole merger (blue dot), an… 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. The chemodynamical memory of a major merger in a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue -- II. Were Splash stars heated or already born hot?

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a NIHAO-UHD Milky Way analogue, Splash-like stars were already born on dynamically hot orbits; the last major merger did not significantly heat them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abdbb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908L...8A 908, L8

    Aguado D. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abdbb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908L...8A 908, L8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdbb8 2021

  3. [3]

    Arentsen A., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491L..11A 491, L11

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz156

  4. [4]

    Arentsen A., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4964A 496, 4964

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1661

  5. [5]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    Barbuy B., Chiappini C., Gerhard O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..223B 56, 223

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826 2018

  9. [9]

    Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..689B 514, 689

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1267 2022

  10. [10]

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

    doi:10.1086/504797 2006

  11. [11]

    W., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Erkal D., Evans N. W., Koposov S. E., Deason A. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..611B 478, 611

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  12. [12]

    L., Fattahi A., Smith M

    Belokurov V., Sanders J. L., Fattahi A., Smith M. C., Deason A. J., Evans N. W., Grand R. J. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3880B 494, 3880

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  13. [13]

    S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Bensby T., Feltzing S., Oey M. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  14. [14]

    Bensby T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730560 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730560 2017

  15. [15]

    Bensby T., et al., 2019, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Msngr.175...35B 175, 35

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5123 2019

  16. [16]

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

    arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D

    Bird J. C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D. H., Guedes J., Callegari S., Mayer L., Madau P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/43 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...43B 773, 43

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/43 2013

  18. [18]

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  19. [19]

    B., Kawata D., Gibson B

    Brook C. B., Kawata D., Gibson B. K., Freeman K. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612..894B 612, 894

    doi:10.1086/422709 2004

  20. [20]

    Brown A. G. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112320-035628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59...59B 59, 59

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112320-035628 2021

  21. [21]

    Buck T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5435B 491, 5435

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3289 2020

  22. [22]

    V., Dutton A

    Buck T., Macci \`o A. V., Dutton A. A., Obreja A., Frings J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1314B 483, 1314

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2913 2019

  23. [23]

    V., Minchev I., Dutton A

    Buck T., Obreja A., Macci \`o A. V., Minchev I., Dutton A. A., Ostriker J. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3461B 491, 3461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3241 2020

  24. [24]

    V., Pfrommer C., Steinmetz M., Ness M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3365B 508, 3365

    Buck T., Rybizki J., Buder S., Obreja A., Macci \`o A. V., Pfrommer C., Steinmetz M., Ness M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3365B 508, 3365

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2736 2021

  25. [25]

    V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1565B 523, 1565

    Buck T., Obreja A., Ratcliffe B., Lu Y., Minchev I., Macci \`o A. V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1565B 523, 1565

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1503 2023

  26. [26]

    H., Buder S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250302456B p

    Buck T., G \"u nes B., Viterbo G., Oliver W. H., Buder S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02456 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250302456B p. arXiv:2503.02456

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.02456 2025

  27. [27]

    Buder S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2407B 510, 2407

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3504 2022

  28. [28]

    Buder S., Mijnarends L., Buck T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1010B 532, 1010

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1552 2024

  29. [29]

    Buder S., Buck T., Chen Q.-H., Grasha K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.33232/001c.137295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..47B 8, 47

    doi:10.33232/001c.137295 2025

  30. [30]

    J., Katz H., Rey M

    Cameron A. J., Katz H., Rey M. P., Saxena A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3516C 523, 3516

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1579 2023

  31. [31]

    J., Fattahi A., Callingham T

    Carrillo A., Deason A. J., Fattahi A., Callingham T. M., Grand R. J. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2165C 527, 2165

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3274 2024

  32. [32]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..763C 115, 763

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  33. [33]

    Chiappini C., Matteucci F., Gratton R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303726 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477..765C 477, 765

    doi:10.1086/303726 1997

  34. [34]

    Chiappini C., et al., 2019, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Msngr.175...30C 175, 30

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5122 2019

  35. [35]

    Chieffi A., Limongi M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/392523 , 608, 405

    doi:10.1086/392523 2004

  36. [36]

    P., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Cargile P., Johnson B

    Conroy C., Naidu R. P., Zaritsky D., Bonaca A., Cargile P., Johnson B. D., Caldwell N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..237C 887, 237

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5710 2019

  37. [37]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5900D 489, 5900

    Da Costa G. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5900D 489, 5900

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2550 2019

  38. [38]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3537 2020

  39. [39]

    Bar-driven dispersal of Galactic substructure

    Dillamore A. M., Sanders J. L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.09117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250609117D p. arXiv:2506.09117

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09117 2025

  40. [40]

    M., Helmi A., Matsuno T., Ruiz-Lara T., Balbinot E., L \"o vdal S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L...2D 670, L2

    Dodd E., Callingham T. M., Helmi A., Matsuno T., Ruiz-Lara T., Balbinot E., L \"o vdal S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L...2D 670, L2

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244546 2023

  41. [41]

    arXiv:2509.06773

    Ernandes H., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir \'A ., Feltzing S., Feuillet D., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250906773E p. arXiv:2509.06773

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    K., Frankel N., Lind K., Frinchaboy P

    Feuillet D. K., Frankel N., Lind K., Frinchaboy P. M., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Lane R. R., Nitschelm C., Roman-Lopes A. r., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1742F 489, 1742

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2221 2019

  43. [43]

    K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C

    Feuillet D. K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C. L., Casagrande L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..109F 497, 109

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1888 2020

  44. [44]

    K., Sahlholdt C

    Feuillet D. K., Sahlholdt C. L., Feltzing S., Casagrande L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.1489F 508, 1489

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2614 2021

  45. [45]

    Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA

    arXiv 2002

  46. [46]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 2016

  47. [47]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 2018

  48. [48]

    Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., Tremonti C. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09321.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362...41G 362, 41

    arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Gilmore G., Reid N., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.202.1025G 202, 1025

    doi:10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025 1983

  50. [50]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3025 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3629G 474, 3629

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3025 2018

  51. [51]

    arXiv:2507.05060

    Gunes B., Buder S., Buck T., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250705060G p. arXiv:2507.05060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.05060 2025

  52. [52]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1586 2015

  53. [53]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/132 2015

  54. [54]

    Helmi A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..205H 58, 205

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  55. [55]

    H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A

    Helmi A., Babusiaux C., Koppelman H. H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A. G. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563...85H 563, 85

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

  56. [56]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2987 2021

  57. [57]

    D., 2007, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Comput Sci Eng] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  58. [58]

    arXiv:2505.12505

    Ji X., Belokurov V., Maiolino R., Monty S., Isobe Y., Kravtsov A., McClymont W., \"U bler H., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250512505J p. arXiv:2505.12505

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.12505 2025

  59. [59]

    I., Lugaro M., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/26 , 825, 26

    Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/26 , 825, 26

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/26 2016

  60. [60]

    Katz D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...5K 674, A5

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244220 2023

  61. [61]

    N., Cohen J

    Kirby E. N., Cohen J. G., Guhathakurta P., Cheng L., Bullock J. S., Gallazzi A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..102K 779, 102

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/102 2013

  62. [62]

    R., Knebe A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..608K 182, 608

    Knollmann S. R., Knebe A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..608K 182, 608

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 2009

  63. [63]

    H., Helmi A., Massari D., Price-Whelan A

    Koppelman H. H., Helmi A., Massari D., Price-Whelan A. M., Starkenburg T. K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631L...9K 631, L9

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936738 2019

  64. [64]

    Kunder A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/adefdd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....170..173K 170, 173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adefdd 2025

  65. [65]

    Lucey M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2283L 488, 2283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1847 2019

  66. [66]

    Lucey M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509..122L 509, 122

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2878 2022

  67. [67]

    F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.115M 692, A115

    Martin N. F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.115M 692, A115

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347633 2024

  68. [68]

    Matsuno T., Hirai Y., Tarumi Y., Hotokezaka K., Tanaka M., Helmi A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.110M 650, A110

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040227 2021

  69. [69]

    Minchev I., Chiappini C., Martig M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A...9M 558, A9

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220189 2013

  70. [70]

    Monty S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.2420M 533, 2420

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1895 2024

  71. [71]

    Mori A., Di Matteo P., Salvadori S., Khoperskov S., Pagnini G., Haywood M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.136M 690, A136

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449291 2024

  72. [72]

    C., Evans N

    Myeong G. C., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., Amorisco N. C., Koposov S. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.1537M 475, 1537

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3262 2018

  73. [73]

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

    Myeong G. C., Vasiliev E., Iorio G., Evans N. W., Belokurov V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1235M 488, 1235

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1770 2019

  74. [74]

    P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Naidu R. P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., Ting Y.-S., Caldwell N., Zaritsky D., Cargile P. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...48N 901, 48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 2020

  75. [75]

    P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...92N 923, 92

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...92N 923, 92

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d 2021

  76. [76]

    P., et al., 2022a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220409057N p

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2022a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220409057N p. arXiv:2204.09057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  77. [77]

    P., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926L..36N 926, L36

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926L..36N 926, L36

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589 2041

  78. [78]

    Ness M., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts629 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..836N 430, 836

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts629

  79. [79]

    Ness M., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt533 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.2092N 432, 2092

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt533 2092

  80. [80]

    E., Schuster W

    Nissen P. E., Schuster W. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913877 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913877 2010

Showing first 80 references.