Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Unveiling the formation channels of stellar halos through their chemical fingerprints

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Outer stellar halos are built mostly from the shredded remains of infalling satellite galaxies, and their chemical abundances record the assembly history of the host galaxy.

desk verdict A useful, honest extension of stellar halo scaling relations across a broad mass range; the endo-debris split is new and the paper deserves serious review despite unquantified classification systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13483 v1 pith:J4IYJ2NN submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.GA

Jenny Gonzalez-Jara , Patricia B. Tissera , Antonela Monachesi , Emanuel Sillero , Diego Pallero , Susana Pedrosa , Elisa A. Tau , Brian Tapia-Contreras
show 1 more author
Lucas Bignone
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galaxies:abundancesformationhalosstarstellarhaloassemblymass-metallicityrelationalphaenhancement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the outer stellar halos of galaxies are assembled almost entirely from material that fell in from smaller galaxies, and that the chemical composition of that material records how the assembly happened. Using 28 galaxies from the CIELO cosmological simulations, with stellar masses between $10^9$ and $10^{11}\,M_\odot$, the authors trace every halo star back to its birth site and sort it into three channels: stars born in the main galaxy, stars born from gas that belonged to a satellite already inside the host's halo, and stars born in a satellite before it fell in. They find that accreted stars of the last two types together make up more than 80 percent of the outer halo mass, that the mass fractions of the three channels do not depend on halo mass, and that the median metallicities of all three channels rise linearly with halo mass. The paper's central proposal is that the $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]$-$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ plane carries more information about the star formation histories of the contributing satellites than the mass-metallicity relation alone, making halo chemistry a practical archive of galaxy assembly.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on tracing each stellar particle back to the closest simulation snapshot after its birth and labeling it by formation site: in-situ stars were bound to the central galaxy, ex-situ stars were born in a subhalo outside the virial radius, and endo-debris stars formed from gas bound to a subhalo inside the virial radius and later stripped. These labels are assigned within halos identified by the AM-E method, which combines angular momentum and binding energy to separate bulge, disk, and halo. The chemical probe that carries the interpretation is the $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]$-$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ plane, where oxygen is produced mainly by short-lived type II supernovae and iron mostly by delayed type Ia supernovae, so a population's position encodes how long and how intensely its host satellite formed stars before being accreted.

What would settle it

Re-running one CIELO galaxy with snapshots saved ten times more frequently, and comparing the birth-site label of every stellar particle, would settle the classification question: if more than a few percent of particles switch categories, the reported population fractions and their mass independence would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 28 simulated galaxies spanning $M_{\star,\rm gal}\in[10^9,10^{11}]\,M_\odot$, the outer stellar halo (the region between $1.5\,r_{\rm opt}$ and the virial radius) is predominantly accreted: ex-situ stars, born in satellites before infall, and endo-debris stars, born from satellite gas after infall, together provide more than 80 percent of the halo mass, with in-situ stars contributing a median of roughly 10 percent. The mass fractions of the three populations show no significant Spearman correlation with stellar halo mass, whereas the median $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ of each population follows a linear mass-metallicity relation with slopes of 0.23-0.29 dex per decade in halo mass. The paper finds that massive halos need more and more massive contributor satellites (a median of eight satellites to reach 90 percent of the accreted mass, versus 2.5 for low-mass halos), and that the $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]$-$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ plane separates the populations according to the star formation histories of their source satellites, including the presence or absence of the $\alpha$ knee. For the authors, this makes the $\alpha$ plane a more informative assembly-history diagnostic than the mass-metallicity relation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole classification depends on correctly deciding, at the moment each star is born, whether the gas it formed from belonged to the main galaxy, to a satellite already inside the host's halo, or to a galaxy outside; when satellites are close together or being torn apart, those decisions can be wrong, and the reported population fractions and chemical trends would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed outer stellar halos should be treated as predominantly accreted material at all masses probed here, so inferences about a galaxy's merger history can be drawn from halo abundances without assuming a dominant in-situ component.
  • A halo's median metallicity is predictable from its mass via the fitted relations, giving observers a quantitative target with slopes of roughly 0.23-0.29 dex per decade in halo mass for comparing halos.
  • The number and mass of dominant building blocks scale with halo mass: reaching 90 percent of the accreted mass takes a median of 8 satellites for the most massive halos versus 2.5 for the least massive, and the main contributor mass correlates with halo mass as $\log M_{\rm sat} = 1.10\log M_{\star,\rm halo} - 1.26$.
  • The $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]$-$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ plane can reveal the star formation history of the building blocks: halos whose satellites quenched before type Ia supernovae enriched them show no alpha knee, while halos built from massive starbursting satellites reach higher $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]$ at fixed $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass fractions are truly mass-independent, the scatter in the $[\mathrm{O/Fe}]$-$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ plane at fixed halo mass becomes a direct observational stand-in for the diversity of assembly histories, more informative than halo mass itself.
  • The same machinery could be applied to the inner halo, which the paper leaves for a forthcoming study; the prediction would be that the alpha plane there is shaped more by the host galaxy's own disk and bulge evolution than by satellite histories.
  • For nearby galaxies where individual halo stars can be resolved, the predicted slopes and zero points could be tested with deep imaging of red-giant populations across the mass range, connecting the simulation's chemical fingerprints to observations before large spectroscopic surveys arrive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper uses 28 zoom-in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations from the CIELO project to study the formation channels of outer stellar halos (defined as the region between 1.5 r_opt and r_vir) in galaxies with stellar masses 10^9–10^11 M_sun. Stellar particles in the halo are classified as in-situ, endo-debris, or ex-situ by tracing each particle to the closest snapshot after its birth and determining whether it is bound to the central galaxy or to a SUBFIND subhalo. The authors report that accreted material dominates the halos (~50% ex-situ, ~40% endo-debris, ~10% in-situ), that these fractions do not correlate with halo mass, and that the [Fe/H] of each population increases linearly with halo mass (Eq. 1). They further analyze satellite accretion histories, showing that more massive halos require more satellites to build 90% of their accreted mass, and they examine the [O/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane (Eq. 2), arguing that it is more sensitive to the star formation histories of contributing satellites than the mass-metallicity relation.

Significance. If confirmed, the paper's main results would be useful for interpreting stellar halo observations in the era of large spectroscopic surveys. The CIELO sample spans a decade and a half in galaxy mass, and the analysis resolves the stellar halo into ex-situ, endo-debris, and in-situ components with distinct ages, metallicities, and alpha abundances. The claim that the [O/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane is more sensitive to the SFH of contributing satellites than the stellar halo mass-metallicity relation is a falsifiable prediction that can be tested with future data. The paper is transparent about the MZhR being inherited from the galaxy MZR, and it provides detailed tables and a clear account of the definitions used. Its principal limitations at this stage are the unquantified sensitivity of the population decomposition to snapshot cadence and SUBFIND completeness, the small number of high-mass halos, and the lack of uncertainties on the fitting relations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2 and 3.2] The central population classification is not robustly established. Section 3.2 assigns each stellar particle to a formation channel using the closest snapshot after birth (median cadence 1.4e8 yr, Sec. 3.1) and SUBFIND membership, yet Section 2 documents that SUBFIND misses substructures that are 'too fluffy' or close to the central galaxy. A star formed in a satellite just before infall can therefore be classified as endo-debris rather than ex-situ, and stars born from recently stripped gas can be classified as in-situ rather than endo-debris. The reported median fractions (~50% ex-situ, ~40% endo-debris, ~10% in-situ; Sec. 3.2, Fig. 5) and the age and [O/Fe] ordering of populations (Figs. 6 and 11) are exactly the quantities this misassignment would bias. The paper acknowledges the difficulty qualitatively, but it does not quantify it. Please add a sensitivity test: for example, re-run the classification using the previous snapshot instead of the closest one, or restrict to stars whose birth gas is unambiguously bound to a subhalo in both adjacent snapshots, and report the resulting range of population fractions and chemical offsets. Also test the sensitivity to the adopted 100-stellar-particle satellite cut (Sec. 4.2) by varying it by a factor of a few and quoting the change in the median chemical trends.
  2. [Table 1 and Fig. 5] The high stellar halo mass bin (M_halo > 10^9.5 M_sun) contains only three galaxies in Table 1: LG1-4337, P7-2389, and P7-7805. The statements in Sec. 4.2 that massive halos need a median of five additional satellites to build 90% of their accreted mass, and in Sec. 5.2 that high-mass halos have higher [O/Fe], rest on medians over these three systems. The paper already notes caution for the [O/Fe] trend, but the quoted numbers in Table 2 and the text are still presented without uncertainty. Provide bootstrap or jackknife confidence intervals for the high-mass medians, and either restrict the mass-dependence claims to the range adequately sampled (M_halo < 10^9.5 M_sun) or clearly flag the high-mass results as tentative.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (1)] The four linear regressions in Eq. (1) are quoted to two decimal places without slope/intercept uncertainties, scatter, or a statement of the fitting method. The slopes (0.23–0.29) are mutually consistent within plausible errors, so the claim that each stellar population defines a distinct MZhR is not yet supported. Report the best-fit parameters with uncertainties and test whether the slopes differ significantly across populations. The same applies to the regressions in Eq. (2) and to the SHMC mass fit in Sec. 4.2 (log10 M_sat = 1.10 log10 M_halo − 1.26).
  4. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (2) and Fig. 14] Eq. (2) writes [O/Fe]_pop = a [Fe/H]_halo + b for each population, using the halo median [Fe/H] as the independent variable, while Fig. 14 is described as showing the medians of [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H] per galaxy for the whole stellar halo and each population. If the x-axis in Fig. 14 is the population's own [Fe/H], then Eq. (2) is mislabeled and the fitted slopes do not correspond to the plotted relation; if the x-axis is the halo's [Fe/H], then the slopes do not measure population-specific [O/Fe]-[Fe/H] trends and the claim that the endo-debris relation is steeper than the ex-situ one (Sec. 5.2) is unsupported. Please correct this inconsistency and provide uncertainties for the fits.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 1] The text contains a typo: 'suchs as' should be 'such as' in the sentence introducing LAMOST and the other surveys.
  2. [Section 3.1] The disk definition includes the condition 'r ≤ 2rropt'; this should read 'r ≤ 2 ropt' since r_opt is defined just above.
  3. [Section 4.2] The cross-reference 'In Table 4.2, we summarize...' points to a table that is actually labeled 'Table 2.' Please correct the numbering.
  4. [Section 5.2] The acronym 'SMHCs' is used in the sentence about the stellar mass fraction with [O/Fe] < 0.1 dex; the paper earlier defines the acronym as 'SHMC' (stellar halo main contributor), so the spelling should be made consistent.
  5. [Figure 11] The caption states that SHMC1 and SHMC2 are shown as black and gray contours, while the text mentions 'dashed-black line' and 'dashed-dot gray line'; please make the line styles consistent between the caption and the text.
  6. [Section 3.2.1] The percentile superscript/subscript notation in phrases such as 'median age of 12 12.44 11.77 Gyr' is typeset incorrectly in the arXiv version; please format these as median with 25th–75th percentiles in a clear way.
  7. [Sec. 5.1 and Abstract] Because the galaxy MZR is part of the model that CIELO was built to reproduce (Sec. 2), the stellar halo MZhR should be framed explicitly as an expected consistency check rather than an independent prediction; the last paragraph of Sec. 5.1 makes this point, but the abstract and conclusions should not present the MZhR as an unqualified new result.
  8. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 5] The statement that the mass fractions of in-situ, endo-debris, and ex-situ stars are 'independent of stellar halo mass' is stronger than the evidence supports; with N=28, non-significant Spearman p-values only show that no correlation is detected, so the wording should be softened to something like 'no significant trend is found within this sample.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported trends are measured simulation outputs or explicitly inherited physical consequences, not re-statements of the inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not present the stellar-halo mass-metallicity relation as an independent first-principles prediction; it explicitly states in Section 5.1 that its existence stems from the galaxy mass-metallicity relation and the accreted origin of halo stars, so the claim is a transparent, physically inherited consequence rather than a hidden re-statement of an input. The linear regressions in Eqs. (1)-(2) are explicitly described as fits to the simulation data, and the paper does not re-brand these fits as predictions. The in-situ/endo-debris/ex-situ classification is an operational definition, and the differences in stellar age and [O/Fe] between populations are measured outputs of the simulation, not properties encoded in the definitions. The main new claims—mass-independent population fractions, satellite-number trends, and the greater sensitivity of the [O/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane to contributing satellite star-formation histories—are computed from the simulations and compared with external Auriga and observational results, so they retain independent content. Reliance on the companion CIELO paper for simulation validation is a normal self-citation to the simulation suite, not a circular justification of the halo results. The acknowledged SUBFIND and snapshot-cadence limitations affect classification accuracy but are methodological uncertainties, not circular reasoning. No load-bearing step reduces, by construction, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on the CIELO simulation suite (described in a submitted companion paper), the AM-E decomposition, and a chemical evolution model; none of these are independently verified in this manuscript. The fitted linear relations in Eqs. 1 and 2 are outputs, but the hand-chosen halo boundary, disk circularity threshold, and satellite mass cutoff shape the results.

free parameters (4)
  • Inner halo boundary (1.5 ropt) = 1.5 ropt
    The stellar halo is defined as the region from 1.5 ropt to rvir; the fraction of in-situ stars and the MZhR depend on this hand-chosen boundary.
  • Disk circularity threshold (|epsilon| >= 0.5) = 0.5
    AM-E decomposition assigns particles with |epsilon| >= 0.5 to the disk; halo population fractions are sensitive to this threshold.
  • Satellite resolution cutoff (100 stellar particles at infall) = 100 particles, corresponding to ~1e6-1e7 Msun depending on resolution
    Satellites below this limit are excluded from the accretion history analysis; the authors argue their contribution is small, but this is not demonstrated.
  • Linear regression coefficients for MZhR and [O/Fe]-[Fe/H] (Eqs. 1 and 2) = e.g., [Fe/H]_halo = 0.23 log10(M_halo) - 3.46
    These are fitted to the simulated data; the paper presents them as the relations but does not provide uncertainties on the slopes or intercepts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2014 parameters (Omega_m=0.317, Omega_L=0.682, h=0.671, sigma8=0.834)
    Section 2: the simulations are run within this cosmological model, so all results are conditional on it.
  • domain assumption GADGET-3 multiphase ISM, metal-dependent cooling, stochastic star formation, and SN feedback accurately model galaxy chemical evolution
    Section 2: the [O/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane and MZhR are outputs of this model; no direct validation against observed dwarf galaxy abundances is presented in this paper.
  • domain assumption AM-E method separates bulge, disk, and halo components correctly
    Section 3.1: halo membership and the in-situ/endo/ex-situ classifications depend on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption Subfind substructure identification and AMIGA merger trees correctly trace satellite infall and disruption
    Section 2 and 3.2: ex-situ/endo-debris classification and satellite counts rely on these tools; the authors note difficulties in the last merger stages.
  • ad hoc to paper The 100-particle satellite mass limit does not bias the chemical trends
    Section 4.2: low-mass satellites below ~1e6-1e7 Msun are excluded; the paper asserts their contribution is negligible but does not quantify the effect on [O/Fe].
  • ad hoc to paper Non-significant Spearman correlations in 28 halos establish mass-independence of population fractions
    Section 4/Fig. 5: p-values of 0.28-0.91 are used to claim no dependence; with N=28, the test has limited power, especially for the small high-mass subsample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the formation channels of stellar halos through their chemical fingerprints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4IYJ2NN

@misc{pith2026241213483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the formation channels of stellar halos through their chemical fingerprints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4IYJ2NN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13483}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar halos around galaxies contain key information about their formation and assembly history. Using simulations, we can trace the origins of different stellar populations in these halos, contributing to our understanding of galaxy evolution. We aim to investigate the assembly of stellar halos and their chemical abundances in 28 galaxies from CIELO project with logMgal[9 and 11]Msun. Stellar halos were identified using the AM E method, focusing on the outer regions between the 1.5 optical radius and the virial radius. We divided the stellar populations based on their formation channel: exsitu, endodebris, and insitu, and analyzed their chemical abundances, ages, and spatial distributions. Additionally, we explored correlations between halo mass, metallicity, and alpha element enrichment. CIELO simulations reveal that stellar halos are predominantly composed of accreted material (exsitu and endodebris stars), in agreement with previous works. The mass fraction of these populations is independent of stellar halo mass, though their metallicities scale linearly with it. Exsitu stars tend to dominate the outskirts and be more alpha rich and older, while endodebris stars are more prevalent at lower radii and tend to be less alpha rich and slightly younger. Massive stellar halos require a median of five additional satellites to build 90 percent of their mass, compared to lower mass halos, which typically need fewer (median of 2.5) and lower-mass satellites and are assembled earlier. The diversity of accreted satellite histories results in well defined stellar halo mass metallicity and [alpha/Fe] [Fe/H] relations, offering a detailed view of the chemical evolution and assembly history of stellar halos. We find that the [alpha/Fe] [Fe/H] is more sensitive to the characteristics and star formation history of the contributing satellites than the stellar halo mass metallicity relationship

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Face-on view of the projected stellar component at z = 0 for the 28 galaxies analyzed in our sample. Each panel is centered at the center of mass of the corresponding central galaxy and shows all the stellar particles in a cubic volume of 120 kpc size. The panels are ordered by decreasing stellar mass. The CIELO galaxy ID is displayed in the lower-left corner of each panel. analogue and the "P" for the Pehuen halos1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face-on (upper panel) and edge-on (lower-panel) view of the stellar halo density maps for a single CIELO galaxy. Three redshifts are depicted from left to right: 0.0, 1.0, and 2.1. Each panel shows all the stellar particles identified as part of the stellar halo of galaxy P7-7805 (see sec3.1 for details on identifying the galactic components). 10 9 10 10 10 11 M , gal[M ] 10 20 30 40 50 M , h alo / M T , h alo [%] S… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fraction of the stellar halo mass, M⋆,halo, defined within the range [1.5ropt, rvir], with respect to the total stellar halo mass, MT ⋆,halo, as a func￾tion of the stellar galaxy mass, M⋆,gal. Squares are color-coded by the mass fraction of in-situ stars in the stellar halo. In order to identify the origin of each stellar population that built the simulated halos at z = 0, we followed them back in time to the closes… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar mass fraction, fmass, of each population in the stellar halo: in-situ (blue area), endo-debris (light green area), and ex-situ (orange area) stars as a function of the galactocentric radius in units of its corresponding virial radius, rvir. Stellar halos are so…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: displays the mass fraction contributed by the dif￾ferent stellar populations identified in this work as a function of the stellar halo mass (upper panel) and the stellar galaxy mass (lower panel). Our analysis reveals that the mass fraction of each stellar population, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative stellar mass fraction as a function of the stellar ages of the three defined stellar populations: in-situ (right panel), endo-debris (middle panel), and ex-situ (left panel). For each stellar halo mass, the legend indicates the median age50%, representing th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative accreted stellar mass per number of satellites order according to the relevance of their contribution. Each panel represents a stellar halo mass interval (according to the corresponding titles). The vertical lines denote the median number of satellites requi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper panel: Stellar mass of the two main satellite contributors. Lower panel: All the accreted satellites with Msat ⋆,infall > 107M⊙. Both panels are color-coded by the satellite gas fraction at infall time. The dashed line represents the 1:1 line, while the solid lin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar mass (Msat ⋆,infall) of the two main contributor satellites (SHMCs) to the stellar halo as a function of the stellar halo mass. The upper panel is color-coded by the percentage mass contributed by the SHMC to the accreted stellar halo (Macc), the middle panel i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Stellar halo MZR (black pentagons). We also display the cor￾responding relations for ex-situ stars (orange circles), endo-debris stars (light green triangles), and in-situ disk-heated stars (blue squares). We fit linear regressions to the data for each population (sol…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Star formation history of the ex-situ (upper panel) and endo-debris (lower panel) stars in the stellar halos (orange and light green his￾tograms, respectively, and solid black lines) and the corresponding distributions for stars contributed by the SHMC1 (red histogram…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Median chemical abundances of [O/Fe] for the stellar halo and its stellar populations as a function of the stellar halo mass (see color and symbols code in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Median [O/Fe] and [Fe/H] for the stellar halo and each of its stellar populations: in-situ, endo-debris, and ex-situ, color-coded by the stellar halo mass (see color and symbols code in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From metallicity distributions to mutual information: A new perspective on stellar halo assembly

    astro-ph.GA 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mutual information between angular position and binary metallicity increases with radius in all five Aquarius stellar halos, and after satellite removal the residual signal is confined to the inner ~30-50 kpc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C., Carollo, D., Ivezic, Ž., et al

    Beers, T. C., Carollo, D., Ivezic, Ž., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 34

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

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

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

    2017

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

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

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V ., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880

    2020

  5. [5]

    A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, ApJ, 883, L5

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 154

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sutherland, R., & Webster, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 154

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B

    Brook, C. B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B. K., Gallart, C., & Vicente, A. 2020, MN- RAS, 495, 2645

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    K., et al

    Buder, S., Lind, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2407

    2022

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    C., Chiba, M., et al

    Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 692

    2010

  2. [10]

    B., & Sillero, E

    Carollo, D., Christlieb, N., Tissera, P. B., & Sillero, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 99

    2023

  3. [11]

    B., Padilla, N., et al

    Casanueva-Villarreal, C., Tissera, P. B., Padilla, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A183

    2024

  4. [12]

    E., Tissera, P

    Cataldi, P., Pedrosa, S. E., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1919 Ciuc˘a, I., Kawata, D., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 528, L122 Article number, page 15 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2023

  5. [13]

    H., Naidu, R

    Conroy, C., Weinberg, D. H., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.02989

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    P., Cole, S., Frenk, C

    Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 744

    2010

  7. [15]

    P., Koposov, S

    Cooper, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Prieto, C. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 37

    2023

  8. [16]

    P., Parry, O

    Cooper, A. P., Parry, O. H., Lowing, B., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3185

    2015

  9. [17]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371

    1985

  10. [18]

    Deason, A. J. & Belokurov, V . 2024, New Astronomy Reviews, 99, 101706

    2024

  11. [19]

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

    Deason, A. J., Mao, Y .-Y ., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 5

    2016

  12. [20]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 497–514 D’Souza, R

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497–514 D’Souza, R. & Bell, E. F. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5300

    2009

  13. [21]

    J., Frenk, C

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

    2020

  14. [22]

    S., McCarthy, I

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2802

    2011

  15. [23]

    S., McCarthy, I

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Poole-Mckenzie, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1765 François, P., Matteucci, F., Cayrel, R., et al. 2004, A&A, 421, 613

    2020

  16. [24]

    & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Freeman, K. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 40, 487 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016b, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A....

    2002

  17. [25]

    J., Brook, C

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

    2019

  18. [26]

    M., Kirby, E

    Gilbert, K. M., Kirby, E. N., Escala, I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 128

    2019

  19. [27]

    F., et al

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

    2017

  20. [28]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 758

    Hawkins, K., Jofre, P., Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 758

    2015

  21. [29]

    D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A. 2013, As- tronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 560, A109

    2013

  22. [30]

    2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145

    Helmi, A. 2008, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 145

    2008

  23. [31]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    2020

  24. [32]

    H., et al

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

    2018

  25. [33]

    & Tim de Zeeuw, P

    Helmi, A. & Tim de Zeeuw, P. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657

    2000

  26. [34]

    C., Sanderson, R

    Horta, D., Cunningham, E. C., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 158

    2023

  27. [35]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2022, MN- RAS[arXiv:2204.04233]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S., de Jong, R

    Jang, I. S., de Jong, R. S., Holwerda, B. W., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A8

    2020

  29. [37]

    W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Johnson, J. W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5084

    2023

  30. [38]

    A., Weiner, B

    Kassin, S. A., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 106

    2012

  31. [39]

    2023, A&A, 677, A89

    Khoperskov, Sergey, Minchev, Ivan, Libeskind, Noam, et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A89

    2023

  32. [40]

    Knollmann, S. R. & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608–624

    2009

  33. [41]

    D., Cannon, J

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

    2006

  34. [42]

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

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

    1979

  35. [43]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  36. [44]

    C., Crain, R

    Mason, A. C., Crain, R. A., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00041

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

    Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

    2021

  38. [46]

    & Brocato, E

    Matteucci, F. & Brocato, E. 1990, ApJ, 365, 539

    1990

  39. [47]

    & Greggio, L

    Matteucci, F. & Greggio, L. 1986, A&A, 154, 279

    1986

  40. [48]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 62

    Merritt, A., van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., & Zhang, J. 2016, ApJ, 830, 62

    2016

  41. [49]

    F., Radburn-Smith, D

    Monachesi, A., Bell, E. F., Radburn-Smith, D. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1419

    2016

  42. [50]

    A., Grand, R

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

    2019

  43. [51]

    2024, A&A, 690, A136

    Mori, A., Di Matteo, P., Salvadori, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A136

    2024

  44. [52]

    B., Tissera, P

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

    2001

  45. [53]

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

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48

    2020

  46. [54]

    Norris, J. E. 1994, ApJ, 431, 645

    1994

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00668

    Ogami, I., Tanaka, M., Komiyama, Y ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00668

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 237 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., V ogelsberger, M., Deason, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 237 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16

    2014

  49. [57]

    W., Bullock, J

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

    2010

  50. [58]

    J., de Jong, R

    Radburn-Smith, D. J., de Jong, R. S., Seth, A. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 18 Rodríguez, S., Garcia Lambas, D., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 6157

    2011

  51. [59]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 552

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

    2005

  52. [60]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 1125

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

    2006

  53. [61]

    B., White, S

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

    2008

  54. [62]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3750

    Sestito, F., Buck, T., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3750

    2021

  55. [63]

    R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Sharma, S., Hayden, M. R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5882–5901

    2021

  56. [64]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.06449

    Spitoni, E., Vincenzo, F., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.06449

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  58. [66]

    & Hernquist, L

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

    2003

  59. [67]

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

    2001

  60. [68]

    B., Sillero, E., et al

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

    2022

  61. [69]

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

    1979

  62. [70]

    B., Beers, T

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

    2014

  63. [71]

    B., Bignone, L., Gonzalez-Jara, J., et al

    Tissera, P. B., Bignone, L., Gonzalez-Jara, J., et al. 2024 submitted, A&A

    2024

  64. [72]

    B., Scannapieco, C., Beers, T

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

    2013

  65. [73]

    B., White, S

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

    2012

  66. [74]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V ., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    2009

  67. [75]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898 van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., & Merritt, A. 2014, ApJ, 782, L24

    2004

  68. [76]

    A., Monachesi, A., et al

    Vera-Casanova, A., Gomez, F. A., Monachesi, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4898

    2022

  69. [77]

    White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

    1978

  70. [78]

    2006, A&A, 457, L1

    Zoccali, M., Lecureur, A., Barbuy, B., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, L1

    2006

  71. [79]

    M., et al

    Zolotov, A., Willman, B., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1058 Article number, page 16 of 16

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.