Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dancing Streams In Merging Halos: Stellar Streams in a MW--LMC-like merger

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A complete 1:5 mass-ratio merger—the scale of the Milky Way–LMC interaction—significantly alters stellar stream energy, angular momentum, orbit, and morphology, so present-day stream appearance cannot recover initial orbits without…

desk verdict A solid, well-controlled population study of streams in a 1:5 merger; the robust part is orbital and energetic disruption, but the 'splitting' morphology rests on streams that stop being fed, so treat that specific claim as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14792 v2 pith:PSLKCZH2 submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.GA

Sachi Weerasooriya , Tjitske Starkenburg , Emily C. Cunningham , Kathryn V Johnston This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stellarstreamsgalaxymergersLargeMagellanicCloudN-bodysimulationsglobularclusterorbitaldynamicstidaldisruptionMilkyWayhalo
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

Stellar streams are thin tidal debris used to weigh galaxies and reconstruct their past, but almost all previous modeling assumed the host galaxy sat still. This paper asks what happens to 1024 synthetic globular-cluster streams when the host undergoes a complete merger with a satellite one-fifth its mass, the scale of the Milky Way–Large Magellanic Cloud interaction. It finds that essentially every stream is affected in some way: orbital planes rotate by tens of degrees, stream widths grow, energies and angular momenta shift, and a few streams split into parts on different orbits that look like separate structures. Strong morphological changes are correlated with close passages between stream stars and the infalling satellite, while large energy shifts can happen with little visible disturbance. If this is right, interpreting present-day streams requires modeling the merger history, not just the current potential.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a controlled simulation comparison: 1024 mock globular-cluster streams, generated in a static spherical Hernquist halo potential with stream masses $10^4$ and $10^6\,M_\odot$, apocenter radii 30–100 kpc, circularities 0.5–1.0, and ages 0.5–6 Gyr, are evolved for 6 Gyr in a live dark-matter halo, once in isolation and once while a 1:5 mass-ratio perturber ($3.14\times10^{11}\,M_\odot$, LMC-like) spirals in on one of three orbits. The analysis tracks each stream's orbital pole (the direction of its median angular momentum, which defines the orbital plane), its width perpendicular to that plane, its median energy, and its median angular momentum, comparing every merger run to a matched isolated run. The strongest predictor tested is the minimum distance between any stream particle and the perturber center before the satellite merges, and the clearest distinction is between circular and eccentric initial orbits, which respond differently in energy–angular-momentum space.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 1024 initial streams in the same 1:5 merger but let each stream's progenitor keep shedding new particles throughout the 6 Gyr run; if the gaps, bifurcations, and splits largely disappear in streams whose energies and orbits still shift, then the fixed-particle assumption, not the merger, is the main source of the morphological features the paper attributes to the merger.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a complete 1:5 mass-ratio merger—an LMC-mass satellite spiraling into a Milky-Way-mass dark halo—is not a small perturbation to pre-existing stellar streams but a dominant reshaping agent. After 6 Gyr (4.5 Gyr after the satellite has merged), streams on low-energy inner orbits become heavily dispersed and many lose a clean stream morphology, while outer-halo streams keep their shape but rotate their orbital planes by up to tens of degrees and move to larger apocenters. Changes in median energy and angular momentum can be large in either direction: about half of the streams gain energy, the highest-energy streams gain the most, and streams on eccentric orbits that pass close to the perturber gain angular momentum and become more circular. Morphological disruption and orbital change are not the same thing: some streams look nearly pristine while their orbits have shifted dramatically, and vice versa. Close encounters between stream particles and the perturber center (within roughly 15 kpc) are the clearest predictor of width growth and plane rotation. The authors conclude that present-day stream appearance cannot be used to recover initial orbits or progenitor properties without accounting for the merger, and that seemingly disconnected streams may share a common origin.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that streams made of a fixed 1000 particles, with no new stars stripped during the merger, still represent how real globular-cluster streams behave; the resulting central underdensities could in principle create or exaggerate the gaps and splits that much of the analysis uses, even though the isolated controls show no such features.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stream width and length can no longer be read directly as progenitor mass and age for galaxies that have recently undergone a 1:5 merger; a merger can thicken young streams and lengthen old ones in ways that mimic different progenitors.
  • Streams that appear as separate, disconnected structures on the sky or in phase space may share a single common origin, split by close encounters with the infalling satellite.
  • A stream's orbital plane can rotate by tens of degrees with little visible morphological disturbance, so sky-position matching to a suspected progenitor orbit is unreliable in merging systems.
  • Orbits inferred from present-day streams without modeling the merger will be systematically wrong, particularly for inner-halo, lower-energy streams and for streams that passed within roughly 15 kpc of the perturber.
  • For the Milky Way, the early-stage LMC perturbation means some currently observed streams may already carry merger-induced orbit changes, and external galaxies with recent major mergers (M31 and Cen A) are the clearest places to look for these effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the correlation between close encounters and orbital-plane rotation holds at other mass ratios, the population of strongly tilted streams could be used as a statistical clock for when a merger happened, with older mergers imprinting a narrower range of tilt directions.
  • A testable observational extension: in galaxies with recent major mergers, the number of apparently disconnected stream pairs should be higher than in undisturbed galaxies, and upcoming deep imaging of M31 and Cen A could measure this.
  • Real streams with ongoing stripping may appear more filled-in than these fixed-particle models, so observed gaps may be a mixture of merger-induced orbit separation and true stripping gaps rather than dark-matter subhalo impacts alone.
  • One could build an inverse statistical model: given many observed streams in a post-merger galaxy, infer the perturber's mass and orbit from the joint distribution of pole-angle rotations and energy changes, instead of modeling each stream individually.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a controlled simulation suite in which 1024 mock stellar streams, generated in a static MW-like Hernquist halo with a systematic grid over stream mass, apocenter radius, circularity, and age, are evolved for 6 Gyr either in isolation or in a live N-body halo undergoing a 1:5 mass-ratio merger, with three perturber orbits. The authors quantify merger-induced changes in stream thickness, orbital pole orientation, median energy, and angular momentum; examine individual streams with extreme orbital and morphological evolution; and show that large morphological changes correlate with close stream-perturber encounters. The central conclusion is that a complete MW-LMC-like merger substantially alters stream properties, so that interpreting present-day streams without modeling the interaction is unreliable.

Significance. If taken at face value, this is a useful systematic demonstration that merger-induced perturbations are not limited to local gap formation: they can shift orbital planes, energies, angular momenta, and in some cases produce apparent split or bifurcated morphologies. The main strengths are the clean isolated-versus-merger control, the large and systematically varied stream grid, the use of live N-body halos, and Appendix A's quantification of numerical heating in isolation. The main risk is that the strongest morphological claims rest on streams that are initialized once with 1000 particles and never replenished, which is acknowledged in Section 2.2 but not fully controlled. The energetic and orbital-plane results are more robust to that limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §5, Figs. 4 and 11-12] The claim that streams 'split apart ... appearing disconnected in position and kinematics' (abstract, Section 6.1) rests on streams that are initialized once with 1000 particles and never replenished. The authors explicitly note that this creates central underdensities (Section 2.2) and defend the splits by pointing to the different orbits of the components and to the absence of gaps in the isolated run (Section 5). That defense is incomplete: a pre-existing density deficit can be amplified by a tidal encounter into a clean separation even if a continuously fed stream would remain connected by a low-density bridge. Because the isolated control has no tidal encounter, it does not test the interaction between the underdensity and the perturbation. I recommend targeted tests with higher particle numbers (e.g., 10^4 particles) or with continuous stripping from a progenitor for a subset of the splitting streams, or explicit qualification of the disconnected-appearance claims.
  2. [§3.3, Figs. 5-8, Appendix B] The population-level statistics mix streams from the fiducial and radial orbits, which merge by about 3 Gyr, with streams from the more circular orbit, which the authors state does not fully merge within 6 Gyr (Section 2.2.2). The abstract and Section 6 frame the conclusions as applying 'after the perturber has completely merged,' but that is not actually true for part of the combined sample. Please either restrict the headline statistical summaries to the completed mergers, integrate the circular run long enough for it to merge, or clearly separate the non-merged case in all figures and conclusions.
  3. [§3.2-3.3 and §4.2] The classification of streams into 'splitting,' 'bifurcating,' or 'feathered' is qualitative, and no quantitative criterion or count is provided. As a result, the statement that 'a few streams split apart' cannot be assessed or reproduced from the paper alone. Please define operational thresholds (e.g., multi-modality in phi2 or in energy along the stream, separation of components in phase space) and report how many of the 1024 streams exhibit each morphological class in the merger run versus the isolated run.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 5] The right-hand panels of Figure 5 define prograde as Lz/|L| > 0.5, retrograde as Lz/|L| < -0.5, and polar as -0.3 < Lz/|L| < 0.3, which leaves the intervals 0.3-0.5 and -0.5 to -0.3 unassigned; please state how streams in those intervals are treated or use exhaustive cuts.
  2. [§5, §6.2, Appendix B] There are several typographical errors: 'Saggitarius' should be 'Sagittarius,' 'perturber' is misspelled as 'pertuber' in Section 2.2.2, 'discribed' appears in Section 6.2, and 'diferent' appears in the caption of Figure 15.
  3. [Table 2] The high-mass stream header entries for sigma_phi2 and Delta L_med appear to have formatting or unit errors (e.g., '( km s )2' and '( kpc km s )'); please check the units and column alignment.
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption contains 'between the the beginning and end' with a duplicated 'the'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's conclusions follow from direct N-body simulations compared against an isolated control, with no fitted parameters or self-citation load-bearing steps.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical simulation result: 1024 streams are generated in a static Hernquist potential using the Fardal et al. (2015) mock-stream distribution function, then evolved in live N-body halos, either isolated or undergoing a 1:5 mass-ratio merger. The initial stream properties (mass, apocenter, circularity, age) are systematically varied grid inputs, not fitted constants, and the measured outcomes (energy, angular momentum, orbital pole, morphology) are compared directly between the merger and isolated runs. No step in the paper reduces a prediction to its inputs by construction: the 'close encounter' correlation is a posteriori measurement of a pre-defined geometric quantity, not a parameter fitted to produce the reported trends. The acknowledged fixed-particle limitation (Section 2.2, Section 5) is a modeling caveat addressed by the isolated control, and even if the defense is incomplete, that is a correctness concern, not circularity. Self-citations to Johnston and collaborators appear as contextual literature and stream-generation methodology, but no load-bearing argument rests on an unverified self-citation or on an imported uniqueness theorem. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the paper's claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claims are simulation products, so the ledger contains the modeling choices the results inherit, not fitted constants. The key inherited assumptions are the Fardal mock-stream generator, the AGAMA-sampled halo, dark-matter-only physics, and the single 1:5 mass ratio. No new physical entities are introduced and no parameter is fit to the headline results.

free parameters (3)
  • Stream particle count = 1000
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.1 so every generated stream contains 1000 star particles; no convergence test is shown, and no new particles are added during the merger.
  • Merger mass ratio = 1:5
    Chosen in Section 2.2.2 as an LMC-like perturber; one mass ratio only, so quantitative conclusions are tied to this choice.
  • Perturber orbit circularities = 0.27, 0.39, 0.0
    Three initial velocities chosen by hand in Section 2.2.2 to bracket infall geometries; these are inputs, not fitted to the measured stream responses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mock streams generated with the Fardal et al. (2015) distribution-function model, as implemented in Gala, are representative of real globular-cluster streams over the full grid of orbits, masses, and ages.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; the entire study inherits the realism of this generator.
  • domain assumption The live N-body halos drawn from AGAMA are faithful to the static Hernquist halo, and residual differences plus numerical heating do not alter stream evolution.
    Assumed in Section 2.2.3 and checked only through Appendix A, which finds small heating for low-mass streams.
  • domain assumption A dark-matter-only host and perturber, without a disk, baryons, or additional satellites, captures the dominant merger effects relevant to stellar streams.
    Stated as a limitation in Section 5.1; the disk-tilting and satellite effects cited from Nibauer et al. and Arora et al. are not modeled.
  • domain assumption A 1:5 mass-ratio merger with a 3 Gyr merger timescale represents the MW-LMC-like interaction.
    Section 2.2.2 chooses this ratio and notes the circular orbit does not fully merge within 6 Gyr; external validity of the conclusions depends on this analogy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dancing Streams In Merging Halos: Stellar Streams in a MW--LMC-like merger." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSLKCZH2

@misc{pith2026250514792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dancing Streams In Merging Halos: Stellar Streams in a MW--LMC-like merger},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSLKCZH2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14792}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar streams -- formed from tidally stripped globular clusters or dwarf galaxies -- are sensitive tracers of a galaxy's accretion history and gravitational potential. While numerous streams are known in the Milky Way (MW), the formation and evolution of stellar streams have been primarily studied in isolated settings. The impact of subsequent galaxy interactions on stellar streams remains largely unexplored. Understanding merger-induced effects is however, crucial given the accretion of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) onto the MW, and the fact that for example M31 and Cen A have experienced recent mergers. We analyze the detailed evolution of 1024 stellar streams during a complete MW--LMC-like merger, systematically varying initial stream properties and considering various orbits for the infalling perturber. We find that an MW--LMC mass-ratio merger significantly alters stellar stream properties, including energy, angular momentum, orbit, and morphology. Some streams exhibit dramatic morphological changes or develop complex substructures, while others see substantial shifts in energy and/or angular momentum, or re-orient their orbital plane. Interestingly, strong morphological alterations do not necessarily correlate with large changes in energy or orbit. A few streams split apart with parts moving to different orbits, appearing disconnected in position and kinematics despite their common origin. Strong effects correlate with close encounters between stream particles and the infalling perturber at various times during the merger. Our findings highlight the considerable impact of significant accretion events on the properties of stellar streams, and the challenge to recover the initial orbits of streams from their appearance at the present-day. Visualizations of the detailed evolution of all 1024 stellar streams are available at https://dancingstreamsinmerginghalos.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. —: Positions for star particles from 27 of our full set of stellar streams evolved for 6 Gyr in a MW-like halo, in isolation (left) and during our 1:5 fiducial merger (right). The potential of the halos is shown in grey contours, and streams are color-coded by their stream ID. A complete movie of this figure is available at https: //dancingstreamsinmerginghalos.github.io. laboration et al. 2009; Ivezi´c et al. 2019;… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. —: Initial and final positions for star particles from all stellar streams (512 low–mass (104 M⊙) and 512 high– mass (106 M⊙)) evolved for 6 Gyr in a MW–like halo, in isolation and during a 1:5 merger. Top panels (first and third row) show star particles in the inner halo (r ≤ 50, kpc) and bottom panels (second and fourth row) contain star particles in the outer halo (r > 50, kpc). The perturber halo’s orbit is show… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. —: A subset of 18 stellar streams in an Aitoff projection at 0 Gyrs (left), evolved in isolation after 6 Gyrs (middle), and in our 1:5 fiducial merger after 6 Gyrs (right). The first groups contains older (5–6 Gyr) streams on outer (90–100 kpc), less circular orbits (η = 0.7–0.8) and is shown in shades of blue, and the second group exists of younger (0.5–3 Gyr) streams on inner (30–50 kpc), close-to-circular orbits … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: —: The same streams as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: —: The change in dispersion of ϕ2 for each stream between 0 and 6 Gyrs (1st column) and the change in pole between 0 and 6 Gyrs (second column) with respect to their initial median energy with top rows showing low–mass streams bottom panels high–mass streams. Each stre…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: —: Total energy vs. total angular momentum of stream particles, initially, colored by their initial apocenters (left panels), streams evolved in isolation at 6 Gyrs (middle panels), and streams evolved in our fiducial merger at 6 Gyrs (right panels). Both middle and ri…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: —: Distance of closest approach of any star particle in each stream against increased dispersion perpendicular to the stream track (top left), rotation of the stream orbital plane (bottom left), relative change in median stream energy (top right), and relative change i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: —: The relative changes in stream median energy and angular momentum, color-coded by initial orbital circularity, for all streams (left) and for streams that have no close encounter with the perturber (i.e. the distance between stars belonging to the stream and the cen…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: —: Evolution of 5 streams with extreme orbital evolution at (left-to-right) 0, 1.25, 3.2, and 6 Gyrs, evolved in isolation (top) and in our fiducial 1:5 merger (bottom). The background contains a contour map showing the combined potential of the host and perturber dark…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: —: Examining streams with dramatic changes to their orbits. Positions and velocities for star particles in 5 example stellar streams in the great circle coordinate frame corresponding to the median orbit of the streams’ stars (left column) and in Cartesian coordinates…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: —: Evolution of 5 streams with striking morphological behavior at (left-to-right) 0, 1.25, 3.2, and 6 Gyrs, evolved in isolation (top) and the streams in 1:5 merger (bottom). The background is a contour map showing the combined potential of the host and perturber dark…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: —: Final positions and velocities for star particles in the 5 example stellar streams for which the evolution is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: —: The distribution of changes in the total energy of star particles in stellar streams. Left panel: the relative distribution of the change in median energy per stellar stream compared to the initial values. Right panel: the distribution of the change in the interqua…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: —: Left panel: distribution of change in orbital pole for stellar streams evolved in isolation. Mid panel: Distribution of change in dispersion of the orbital pole. Right panel: distribution of relative change in thickness (ϕ2) in GC coordinates for streams evolved in…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: —: The orbital evolution of the (identical) perturber on three diferent orbits in a 1:5 merger: the original orbit (light green), a more circular orbit (green), and a more radial orbit (sandy brown). 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 Emedian/Emedian, i 0 10 20 3…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: —: The ratio of distribution of median energy change with respect to initial median energy at 0 Gyrs (two leftmost panels) and ratio of change in inter-quartile range w.r.t. IQR in energy at 0 Gyrs (two rightmost panels) relative to their initial values, for low–mass …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: —: Circular orbit: Positions and velocities for star particles in 5 example stellar streams in their great circle coordinate frame (left column) and cartesian coordinates (x-y and x-z, middle columns colored by total energy, and their median radius with time (right co…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: —: Radial orbit: Positions and velocities for star particles in 5 example stellar streams in their great circle coordinate frame (left column) and cartesian coordinates (x-y and x-z, middle columns colored by total energy, and their median radius with time (right colu…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Constraints on the population level distribution of nearby Dark Matter halo shapes with extragalactic streams

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    A gold subsample of 17 photometry-only extragalactic streams yields a mildly oblate dark-matter halo population with mean flattening μ_q ≈ 0.72 and scatter σ_q ≈ 0.34.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    420, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19336-6

    2016, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 420, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19336-6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19336-6 2016

  2. [2]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad159c

    Aganze, C., Pearson, S., Starkenburg, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad159c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad159c 2024

  3. [3]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  4. [4]

    C., Martinez-Delgado, D., & Schedler, J

    Amorisco, N. C., Martinez-Delgado, D., & Schedler, J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1504.03697. https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03697

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.15998, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15998

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.15998 2023

  6. [6]

    E., Panithanpaisal, N., et al

    Arora, A., Sanderson, R. E., Panithanpaisal, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fb 2022

  7. [7]

    Banik, N., Bertone, G., Bovy, J., & Bozorgnia, N. 2018, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2018, 061, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/061

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/061 2018

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz142

    Banik, N., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz142

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz142 2019

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    F., Zucker, D

    Bell, E. F., Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 295, doi: 10.1086/588032

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

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

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L137, doi: 10.1086/504797

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., Evans, N. W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1862

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Hogg, D

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Hogg, D. W. 2019a, ApJ, 881, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab36ba

    doi

  6. [14]

    Bonaca, A., Geha, M., K¨ upper, A. H. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/94

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Bonaca, A., & Hogg, D. W. 2018, ApJ, 867, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae4da

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Price-Whelan, A

    Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019b, ApJ, 880, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2873

    doi

  9. [17]

    Bonaca, A., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19410

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    M., et al

    Bonaca, A., Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 889, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5afe

    doi

  11. [19]

    W., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 892, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab800c Dancing Streams In Merging Halos 19

    doi

  12. [20]

    Bovy, J., Erkal, D., & Sanders, J. L. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3067

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Bowden, A., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv285

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Brooks, R. A. N., Garavito-Camargo, N., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02574

    doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Brooks, R. A. N., Sanders, J. L., Lilleengen, S., Petersen, M. S., & Pontzen, A. 2024b, MNRAS, 532, 2657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1565

    doi

  16. [24]

    Carlberg, R. G. 2012, ApJ, 748, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/20 —. 2016, ApJ, 820, 45, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/45 —. 2020, ApJ, 889, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f0

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    G., & Grillmair, C

    Carlberg, R. G., & Grillmair, C. J. 2013, ApJ, 768, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/171

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Chiba, M., & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 119, 2843, doi: 10.1086/301409 de Boer, T. J. L., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty677 de Boer, T. J. L., Erkal, D., & Gieles, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa917

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2311

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Dodd, E., Helmi, A., & Koppelman, H. H. 2022, A&A, 659, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141354

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Bovy, J., & Sanders, J. L. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1957

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    E., & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D., Koposov, S. E., & Belokurov, V. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 60, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1208

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1371 Euclid Collaboration, Borlaff, A. S., G´ omez-Alvarez, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141935

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1198

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz749

    Molina, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz749

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Weinberg, M. D., Babul, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1121

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    W., et al

    Fellhauer, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 167, doi: 10.1086/507128

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al

    Ferguson, P. S., Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3492 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 —. 2016b, A&A, 595, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 Gaia...

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Gibbons, S. L. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1986

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Grillmair, C. J. 2006, ApJ, 645, L37, doi: 10.1086/505863

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    J., & Dionatos, O

    Grillmair, C. J., & Dionatos, O. 2006, ApJ, 643, L17, doi: 10.1086/505111

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    2004, ApJ, 610, L97, doi: 10.1086/423340 —

    Helmi, A. 2004, ApJ, 610, L97, doi: 10.1086/423340 —. 2008, A&A Rev., 15, 145, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0009-6 —. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    H., et al

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

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999a, Nature, 402, 53, doi: 10.1038/46980 —. 1999b, Nature, 402, 53, doi: 10.1038/46980

    doi

  36. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960c

    Hernitschek, N., Sesar, B., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960c

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  38. [46]

    Ibata, R., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07759.x

    2004

  39. [47]

    F., Irwin, M., Totten, E., & Quinn, T

    Ibata, R., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M., Totten, E., & Quinn, T. 2001, ApJ, 551, 294, doi: 10.1086/320060

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303

    Ibata, R., Thomas, G., Famaey, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7303

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Martin, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc2

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0 —. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.3.781

    1994 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., Irwin, M. J., & Quinn, T. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 915, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05358.x

    2002

  45. [53]

    A., Lewis, G

    Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., & Martin, N. F. 2016, ApJ, 819, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/1 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Johnston, K. V. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 420, Tidal Streams in the Local Group and Beyond, ed. H. J. Newberg & J. L. Carlin, 141, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19336-6_6

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M

    Johnston, K. V., Hernquist, L., & Bolte, M. 1996, ApJ, 465, 278, doi: 10.1086/177418

    1996 doi

  48. [56]

    V., Law, D

    Johnston, K. V., Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2005, ApJ, 619, 800, doi: 10.1086/426777

    2005 doi

  49. [57]

    V., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Haydn, C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 656, doi: 10.1086/339791

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    V., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1995, ApJ, 451, 598, doi: 10.1086/176247

    1995 doi

  51. [59]

    V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1999, ApJ, 512, L109, doi: 10.1086/311876

    1999 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Hasan, I., & Tyson, J

    Kelvin, L. S., Hasan, I., & Tyson, J. A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad180

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D

    Koposov, S. E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2010, ApJ, 712, 260, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/260

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Erkal, D., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad551

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    Koppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, ApJ, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

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

    Koppelman, H. H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Starkenburg, T. K. 2019, A&A, 631, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936738

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2452 K¨ upper, A. H. W., Balbinot, E., Bonaca, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/80

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    R., & Majewski, S

    Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2010, ApJ, 714, 229, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/229

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb18

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Ji, A

    Li, T. S., Ji, A. P., Pace, A. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46d3

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    S., Erkal, D., et al

    Lilleengen, S., Petersen, M. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3108 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2023 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Lynden-Bell, R. M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.429

    1995 doi

  63. [71]

    Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082, doi: 10.1086/379504

    2003 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Carlberg, R

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Carlberg, R. G., Valluri, M., & Freese, K. 2019, ApJ, 881, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e07

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    A., & Martin, N

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., & Martin, N. F. 2018a, MNRAS, 481, 3442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2474 —. 2018b, MNRAS, 481, 3442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2474

    doi

  66. [74]

    F., Venn, K

    Martin, N. F., Venn, K. A., Aguado, D. S., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04162-2

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    2019, ApJ, 874, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec0

    Matsuno, T., Aoki, W., & Suda, T. 2019, ApJ, 874, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec0

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

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

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

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

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B. A. 2009, ApJ, 700, L61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L61 20 Weerasooriya et al

    2009 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 245, doi: 10.1086/338983

    2002 doi

  72. [80]

    Ngan, W. H. W., & Carlberg, R. G. 2014, ApJ, 788, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/181

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

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

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

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    Nidever, D. L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.05156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.05156

    2023 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    E., & Schuster, W

    Nissen, P. E., & Schuster, W. J. 2010, A&A, 511, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913877

    2010 doi

  76. [84]

    K., Rockosi, C

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, L165, doi: 10.1086/319095 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Benson, A. J., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., & Rix, H. W. 2006, ApJ, 645, 240, doi: 10.1086/504316

    2001 doi

  77. [85]

    M., Hogg, D

    Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfb

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    K., Johnston, K

    Pearson, S., Starkenburg, T. K., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e06

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    F., Jenkins, A., et al

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x

    2003

  80. [88]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, JOSS, 2, 18, doi: 10.21105/joss.00388

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac238

    Qian, Y., Arshad, Y., & Bovy, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac238

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    M., Sanderson, R

    Reino, S., Rossi, E. M., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2021a, MNRAS, 502, 4170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab304 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 502, 4170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab304

    doi

  83. [91]

    L., & Binney, J

    Sanders, J. L., & Binney, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt816

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.07641

    Sanderson, R., Carlin, J., Cunningham, E., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.07641

    2019 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2017, ApJ, 844, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c61

    Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 844, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7c61

    2017 doi

  86. [94]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdab

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    S., Pace, A

    Shipp, N., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bf

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

    Shipp, N., Erkal, D., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e93

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc582

    Shipp, N., Panithanpaisal, N., Necib, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc582

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    A., Savchenko, S

    Smirnov, A. A., Savchenko, S. S., Poliakov, D. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4735, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3765

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  92. [100]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c06

    Tian, H., Liu, C., Luo, C., Xue, X.-X., & Yang, Y. 2024, ApJ, 965, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c06

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    E., et al

    Valluri, M., Fagrelius, P., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06336

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [103]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    H., et al

    Viswanathan, A., Starkenburg, E., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad380

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    C., Koop, O., Balbinot, E., & Helmi, A

    Woudenberg, H. C., Koop, O., Balbinot, E., & Helmi, A. 2023, A&A, 669, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243266

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    D., Johnston, K

    Yavetz, T. D., Johnston, K. V., Pearson, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Weinberg, M. D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3687

    2021 doi

  99. [107]

    H., Johnston, K

    Yoon, J. H., Johnston, K. V., & Hogg, D. W. 2011, ApJ, 731, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/58

    2011 doi

  100. [108]

    C., Beers, T

    Yuan, Z., Myeong, G. C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6ef7

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    V., Hernquist, L., & Spergel, D

    Zhao, H., Johnston, K. V., Hernquist, L., & Spergel, D. N. 1999, A&A, 348, L49, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907203 APPENDIX STELLAR STREAMS IN ISOLATION In this section we explore in more detail how stellar streams are impacted when evolved in an isolated MW–like host halo f...

    1999 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.