Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Shaping the Milky Way: The interplay of mergers and cosmic filaments

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic filaments imprint a long-lived quadrupole shape on Milky Way-mass dark halos, and an LMC-like satellite stirs a far stronger response in those halos than spherical models predict.

desk verdict The filament-quadrupole memory result is solid and worth engaging, but the headline factor-of-ten LMC quadrupole claim rests on an uncontrolled comparison and should be treated as a hypothesis, not an established number. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20133 v2 pith:EBZWVSST submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.GA

Arpit Arora , Nicolás Garavito-Camargo , Robyn E. Sanderson , Martin D. Weinberg , Michael S. Petersen , Silvio Varela-Lavin , Facundo A. Gómez , Kathryn V. Johnston
show 7 more authors
Chervin F. P. Laporte Nora Shipp Jason A. S. Hunt Gurtina Besla Elise Darragh-Ford Nondh Panithanpaisal Kathryne J. Daniel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords darkmatterhaloshapetriaxialityquadrupolemomentcosmicfilamentsLargeMagellanicCloudsphericalharmonicexpansionsingularspectrumanalysisMilkyWaydynamics
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

The paper sets out to separate the two processes that sculpt the dark matter halos of Milky Way-mass galaxies: steady accretion of material along cosmic filaments and the sudden gravitational kicks from massive satellites such as the Large Magellanic Cloud. Using spherical-harmonic decompositions of zoomed cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, it shows that the dipole moment is a transient satellite-driven disturbance while the quadrupole moment is a persistent feature that mirrors the halo's triaxial shape. The claimed discovery is that the quadrupole's orientation stays aligned with the dominant feeding filament, imprinting a long-lived memory in the halo's morphology even in the inner ~30 kiloparsecs, where the quadrupole distortion reaches about half the spherical density. The paper further reports that an LMC-mass satellite produces a quadrupolar response roughly an order of magnitude larger in these realistic halos than in models that start from a spherical Milky Way halo, which matters because most dynamical models of the Milky Way assume spherical symmetry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the basis function expansion: the halo density is written as $\rho(\mathbf{x},t)=\sum_{\ell m n} C_{\ell m n}(t)\,\varrho_{\ell n}(r)Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi)$, with an empirical radial basis fixed by the time-averaged spherical profile, and the gravitational power in harmonic $\ell$ is $P_\ell=\sum_{n,m} C_{\ell,n,m}^2$. The quadrupole position angle is read off the lowest-order $\ell=2$ coefficients, and the orientation of the dominant filament is estimated from infalling particles outside the virial radius. Multichannel singular spectrum analysis on the coefficient time series separates slow (~4 Gyr) filament-driven modes from faster (~1.5 Gyr) satellite-driven modes, letting the paper reconstruct the density fields of each component separately.

What would settle it

Run matched N-body simulations with identical host and satellite masses and orbital parameters, changing only the initial halo shape from spherical to a realistic triaxial configuration; the claim fails if the peak quadrupole power does not increase by roughly an order of magnitude. Observationally, the claim would also be tested by comparing the amplitude of the LMC-induced stellar wake in high-precision astrometric data with predictions from spherical versus triaxial time-evolving halo models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper decomposes the dark-matter density of Milky Way-mass halos into spherical harmonic basis functions and tracks the time-dependent gravitational power per harmonic. It finds that the dipole mode is a transient response to infalling satellites, whereas the quadrupole mode is a persistent, slowly declining feature whose orientation stays aligned with the dominant cosmic filament feeding the halo. The quadrupole's imprint reaches inward to roughly 30 kiloparsecs, and at the virial radius the quadrupole distortion can be one to two times the spherical density. Applying multichannel singular spectrum analysis to the quadrupole coefficients, the paper separates a slow, filament-driven component from a faster, satellite-driven component, and reports that an LMC-mass satellite induces a quadrupolar response about an order of magnitude larger in these cosmological halos than in constrained models that assume a spherical Milky Way halo.

Load-bearing premise

The factor-of-ten comparison rests on two simulations that differ in host mass, satellite mass, orbit, resolution, and baryonic treatment; without a control run that varies only the halo's initial shape, part of the enhancement could come from those other differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static, spherical Milky Way halo models will underestimate the gravitational response to the LMC, including the induced wake and the torque that drives disk warps.
  • The orientation of the inner ~30 kpc quadrupole can be read as a fossil record of the direction of the cosmic filament that fed the halo.
  • Because the satellite-induced quadrupole has stayed near its peak since the LMC's first pericenter, present-day Milky Way observables should be modeled with time-evolving asymmetric potentials.
  • The dipole must be measured and subtracted before the intrinsic triaxial shape can be inferred from stellar kinematics.
  • The mSSA decomposition gives a general method to compare how environment versus mergers set halo shape in different cosmological halos.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tenfold enhancement holds for lower-mass satellites as well, even smaller infalling galaxies could leave detectable quadrupole signatures in a triaxial halo, a possibility the paper does not test.
  • If triaxiality boosts the LMC-induced quadrupole, then LMC mass estimates derived from wake measurements in spherical models may need rescaling, since the same wake amplitude would require a different satellite mass in a triaxial potential.
  • Extending the same decomposition to the octupole and higher harmonics could reveal whether residual angular structure at small radii is dominated by the live halo response or by stripped satellite debris, a distinction the paper leaves open.
  • A direct observational test would compare the inner halo's quadrupole orientation with the symmetry plane of the Magellanic Stream or the orbital plane of the Sagittarius stream, though the paper does not perform such a comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes seven FIRE-2 Latte zoom-in cosmological hydrodynamical Milky Way-mass halos using spherical-harmonic basis function expansions (BFE), focusing on the dipole and quadrupole gravitational power. It reports that the quadrupole orientation aligns with the dominant cosmic filament, that this alignment persists into the inner halo (~30 kpc), and that the quadrupole distortion can reach 1–2 times the spherical density near the virial radius. Using multichannel singular spectrum analysis (mSSA) on the m12b halo, the authors separate a slowly declining filament-associated quadrupole from an LMC-analog-associated response, and they argue that the latter is an order of magnitude stronger than in spherically symmetric MW–LMC constrained simulations. The paper then discusses implications for disk warps, the LMC-induced wake, and stellar-stream modeling.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper makes a valuable contribution by connecting cosmic-web accretion to present-day Milky Way halo shape and by providing a method to separate filamentary and satellite-induced quadrupole distortions. The study's strengths include the use of public FIRE-2 simulations and open-source pyEXP/EXP software, explicit validation of the BFE density reconstruction (Fig. 2), tests of radial-basis stability (Appendix A), and an external spatial-alignment check of the mSSA decomposition via the satellite and filament position angles (Fig. 13). The qualitative picture—that triaxial cosmological halos respond more strongly to an LMC-mass satellite than spherical models—is plausible and well motivated by earlier work. The paper is clearly written and the methodology is mostly sound, but the headline order-of-magnitude comparison and the mSSA grouping procedure need additional support before the central claim can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 10] The central quantitative claim—that an LMC-mass satellite induces a quadrupolar response an order of magnitude larger in cosmological halos than in spherically symmetric MW models—rests on an uncontrolled comparison. The m12b halo differs from the Garavito-Camargo et al. (2021) constrained simulation not only in initial halo shape but also in host mass and concentration, satellite mass and orbital parameters (mass ratio 1:8, pericenter ~40 kpc, eccentricity 0.83), baryonic treatment, numerical resolution, and in which multipoles and radial truncation enter the quoted power. Moreover, the m12b analysis removes the satellite's debris (Sec. 2.3), whereas the comparison simulation may include different particle content. The factor of ten therefore cannot currently be attributed to pre-existing triaxiality as stated in the text. A matched control run that varies only the initial halo shape (e.g., sphericalizing the same host and rerunning the same LMC orbit), or a systematic comparison across several FIRE-2 halos with different triaxialities, is needed to isolate the shape effect. Without such a control, the order-of-magnitude statement should be softened to a qualitative enhancement.
  2. [Sec. 2.4, Appendix C] The mSSA decomposition is the basis for separating filament and LMC quadrupole contributions, but the PC grouping (PC0–PC3 vs. PC4–PC11) is a judgment call based on qualitative inspection of time evolution, DFT spectra, and the w-correlation matrix. The paper does not report sensitivity to the mSSA window length L (fixed at half the series), the number of PCs retained, or the grouping rule. Because the reconstructed filament and LMC amplitudes, and hence the factor-of-ten comparison, depend on this grouping, the authors should provide robustness tests—for example, varying L, using an automated clustering of the w-correlation matrix, or showing that the LMC group continues to track the satellite position when the grouping is perturbed. Without such tests, the disentanglement claim is not uniquely determined by the data.
  3. [Sec. 6, Fig. 10] The order-of-magnitude statement is demonstrated for a single halo, m12b, although the text says '(and in other FIRE-2 analogs)'. No other halo is shown in the mSSA comparison, and the selection of m12b as the MW–LMC analog is based on prior work rather than on an independent criterion established here. Given that the paper analyzes a sample of seven halos, the authors should either present the same decomposition for other halos hosting LMC-mass satellites or explicitly limit the quantitative claim to m12b and quantify the expected halo-to-halo scatter. This is particularly important because the paper draws general conclusions about the Milky Way's present-day response in Sec. 6.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 6] The bullet 'Haloresponseatpericenter. ,andthisbulkmotionmust...' is garbled and appears to be a duplicated or incomplete sentence; please fix the text.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Fig. 2] The text states that reconstructed profiles are 'accurate to within 5%' out to the virial radius, but the figure shows 8–10% deviations in the inner 2–3 kpc and beyond Rvir at early times; please restate the accuracy claim to match the figure.
  3. [Sec. 5.1 and Appendix C] The paper states in Sec. 5.1 that the first six PCs account for ~95% of power and the first eleven ~99%, while Appendix C says the first 12 PCs account for 98%; these numbers should be reconciled or more precisely defined.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Abstract, Sec. 6] The phrase 'quadrupole distortion can reach 1–2 times the spherical density' could be misread as a total density contrast; please define it explicitly as max|ρ_l=2|/ρ_l=0 at a given radius, as used in Sec. 4.2.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical slips, including 'filamentry memory' (Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 6), 'within within 5%' (Sec. 2.3), 'an shown in TNG' (Sec. 6), 'overalltheitremains' (Sec. 5.2), and 'color-coded curvesa' (Fig. 8 caption).
  6. [Sec. 3.3] The paper attributes the secular decline in quadrupole power to halo relaxation, but does not separate this from the growth of the monopole normalization over time; a brief discussion of this normalization effect would improve interpretation of Figs. 4 and 5.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor mSSA timescale labeling is partly self-referential, but the core filament-alignment and LMC-amplitude claims are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 5.1 and Appendix C, Fig. 16]
    "Filamentary structure group: PC0–PC3 exhibit low-frequency variations with characteristic timescales of∼4 Gyr, consistent with the slow evolution of the large-scale halo anisotropy. These components also share power at a secondary ∼3 Gyr timescale. LMC-analog response group: PC4–PC11 contain power at higher frequencies, peaking at∼1.5 Gyr, indicative of the satellite-induced perturbations."

    The PC groups are defined by their DFT frequency content and w-correlation structure, i.e., by characteristic timescale. The paper then reports as a physical finding that the filament-driven quadrupole evolves on ∼4 Gyr and the LMC-driven quadrupole on ∼1.5 Gyr. That timescale separation is therefore a restatement of the grouping criterion rather than an independent measurement. The physical identification is partly corroborated by the independent alignment checks in Fig. 13 and by matching the oscillatory component to pericenter passages, so the circularity is confined to the timescale characterization and does not by itself force the paper's central alignment or order-of-magnitude amplitude claims.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claims are not circular in the sense of being equivalent to their inputs by construction. The BFE coefficients are measured directly from the simulation particle data, and the quadrupole power and orientation are computed from those coefficients; the filament orientation is measured independently from infalling particles outside the virial radius. The alignment between quadrupole and filaments is a genuine statistic that varies from 0.34 to 0.99 across epochs, so it is not forced by definition. The order-of-magnitude comparison with the constrained MW–LMC simulation is an external comparison to a different simulation, not a fitted parameter or a self-derived prediction; its weakness is an uncontrolled comparison with multiple confounds, which is a correctness or robustness concern rather than circularity. Self-citations to Weinberg & Petersen (2021), Petersen et al. (2022b), Arora et al. (2024a), and Garavito-Camargo et al. (2021) are used for method background, halo selection, and external comparison, and none of them is a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in to force the result. The only mild circular flavor is the mSSA grouping: PCs are grouped by frequency content and then the same frequency content is reported as the physical timescale of the filament and LMC components. Because this is ancillary to the main alignment and amplitude conclusions, and because independent alignment checks support the physical labels, the overall circularity is minor.

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

The central claims rest on the FIRE-2 Latte simulations being representative MW-mass halos; on the empirical BFE radial basis remaining fixed and adequate; on mSSA separating processes by timescale; and on the satellite-debris removal not biasing the response. None of these is delivered by the paper itself; they are domain assumptions. The analysis introduces no new physical entities, and the main hand-chosen analysis parameters are the mSSA window length, the 600 kpc fitting boundary, and the PC grouping.

free parameters (3)
  • mSSA window length L = ≈ 3.5 Gyr (half the 7 Gyr time series)
    Chosen to prioritize low-frequency signals; directly sets the time-frequency resolution of the decomposition and influences which PCs are grouped as filament vs. LMC (Sec. 2.4, Sec. 5.1).
  • Radial fitting boundary = 600 kpc, with 350 and 125 kpc sensitivity tests
    All particles within 600 kpc are used for the BFE fit; the authors test smaller boundaries and note ~15% amplitude change at 125 kpc, so the boundary is a hand-chosen scale (Sec. 3.3).
  • PC group assignment in mSSA = PC0-PC3 filament, PC4-PC11 LMC (m12b)
    The grouping is based on singular values, time evolution, DFT power, and w-correlation; it is a judgment call that determines the reconstructed filament vs. LMC quadrupole amplitudes (Appendix C).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The seven Latte halos are representative of Milky Way-mass halos with the full range of merger and filamentary accretion histories.
    The paper's broad conclusions (filament alignment, declining quadrupole) are drawn from this suite and assumed to extend to the Milky Way; the suite contains only seven halos (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption The time-averaged, spherically averaged density profile yields a fixed radial basis that adequately represents the evolving halo.
    The basis is built once from the mean profile over 7.5 Gyr and held fixed; Appendix A shows it is stable except during major mergers (e.g., m12w), and any basis mismatch would imprint spurious time variation in the coefficients (Sec. 2.3, Appendix A).
  • ad hoc to paper mSSA separates physical processes into distinct frequency groups that can be identified a priori as filament and LMC modes.
    The grouping (Appendix C) uses singular values, time evolution, DFT power, and w-correlation, but is a heuristic, not a uniqueness theorem; a process with a time-varying frequency could be split between groups (Sec. 5.1).
  • domain assumption Removing all particles from the most massive satellite across all snapshots leaves the halo's intrinsic response measurable without biasing the quadrupole.
    Debris removal is applied to isolate the response, but the paper acknowledges ROCKSTAR tracking can fail for stripped subhalos, and removing debris also removes part of the accreted anisotropy (Sec. 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shaping the Milky Way: The interplay of mergers and cosmic filaments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EBZWVSST

@misc{pith2026250420133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shaping the Milky Way: The interplay of mergers and cosmic filaments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EBZWVSST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20133}
}
abstract

The large-scale morphology of Milky Way (MW)-mass dark matter (DM) halos is shaped by two key processes: filamentary accretion from the cosmic web and interactions with massive satellites. Disentangling their contributions is essential for understanding galaxy evolution and constructing accurate mass models of the MW. We analyze the time-dependent structure of MW-mass halos from zoomed cosmological-hydrodynamical simulations by decomposing their mass distribution into spherical harmonic expansions. We find that the dipole ($\ell=1$) and quadrupole ($\ell=2$) moments dominate the gravitational power spectrum, encoding key information about the halo's shape and its interaction with the cosmic environment. While the dipole reflects transient perturbations from infalling satellites and damps on dynamical timescales, the quadrupole -- linked to the halo's triaxiality -- is a persistent feature. We show that the quadrupole's orientation aligns with the largest filaments, imprinting a long-lived memory on the halo's morphology even in its inner regions ($\sim30$ kpc). At the virial radius, the quadrupole distortion can reach 1-2 times the spherical density, highlighting the importance of environment in shaping MW-mass halos. Using multivariate Singular Spectrum Analysis, we successfully disentangle the effects of satellite mergers and filamentary accretion on quadrupole. We find that the quadrupolar response induced by LMC-mass satellites has an order of magnitude larger gravitational power than in spherically symmetric MW models. This highlights the need for models that incorporate the MW's asymmetry and time-evolution, with direct consequences for observable structures such as disk warps, the LMC-induced wake, and stellar tracers -- particularly in the era of precision astrometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20133 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Spherically averaged density profiles for m12w (solid black lines) and reconstructions using the monopole (ℓ = 0) term from the BFE (dashed red lines) at 1 Gyr intervals over the last 7 Gyr. Times are labeled in the top-right corner of each panel. Subpanels show the percentage difference between the reconstructed and true profiles. Reconstructed profiles are accurate to within 5% errors out to the virial radius at a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the time-averaged gravitational power in each harmonic mode (ℓmax ≤ 4) relative to the monopole term, across all simulated halos (with diverse assembly histories) in the Latte suite. The dipole (ℓ = 1) and quadrupole (ℓ = 2) consistently dominate the harmonic spectrum capturing the most relevant dynamical features of the halo, with their am￾plitudes almost a magnitude higher than those of the higher￾order mode… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. shows the temporal evolution of ℓ = 2 power across all simulations in the top row, with the corresponding orbital histories of massive satellites shown in the bottom row. The left panels provide an overview of the full 7 Gyr period, while the right panels zoom in on the ±1 Gyr window around the first pericentric passage. The dashed lines indicate the times of pericentric passages for the satellites. The quadrupole p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time evolution of the quadrupole-environment view (as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The absolute value of the dot product between the quadrupole position angle 𝑛ˆℓ=2 and the maximum-density filament orientation 𝑛ˆfila for all simulations, shown as color-coded curvesa as a function of time. Vertical dashed lines—two for m12f—also color-coded, mark the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The maximum value of the absolute density in the quadrupole component 𝜌ℓ=2 at each spherical radius 𝑟, normalized by the spherically averaged density 𝜌ℓ=0 (𝑟), shown as a function of radius and time across all simulations. The top row features simulations without massi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reconstructed gravitational power in the quadrupole har￾monics relative to the monopole as a function of time, derived from the BFE coefficients decomposed using mSSA. The cyan and yel￾low curves represent the contributions from the filament-associated and LMC-analog-…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the quadrupole-environment view (columns 1 and 3) described in Sec. 4.1, reconstructed for the two identified frequency groups: filament frequency (first two columns) and LMC frequency (last two columns) PCs in the m12b halo. Each row spans from 5.8 …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Temporal evolution of the absolute value of the dot prod￾uct (alignment) between the PC group quadrupole position angles 𝑛ˆℓ=2,group kind for the filament (cyan) and LMC (yellow) groups with the maximum-density filament orientation 𝑛ˆfila and the LM￾C-analog position …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Temporal evolution of orthogonal radial basis functions for m12i, computed by solving the Poisson equation using the empirical density profile at each time step. Columns represent different epochs from 5.8 Gyr to 13.8 Gyr, while rows correspond to the monopole (top) a…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time evolution of the quadrupole-environment view (as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Principal Component (PC) grouping for the quadrupole time series in m12b, based on mSSA decomposition. Top row: PC amplitudes as a function of time (half-window length shown). The left panel presents PC0–PC3, which exhibit similar long-timescale evolution, while the r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Dependence of halo properties on central-satellite magnitude gaps through weak lensing measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A claimed first weak-lensing detection of magnitude-gap dependence in halo mass and concentration, unverifiable because the provided body is a different paper.

  2. Pickles on FIRE: The 3D Shape Evolution of Simulated Milky Way-Mass Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In 13 FIRE-2 Milky Way-mass simulations, all progenitors pass through transient elongated phases, while their present-day stellar populations are symmetric disks or spheroids, implying many observed high-redshift elon...

  3. OTI on FIRE: Testing the Efficacy of Orbital Torus Imaging to Recover the Galactic Potential

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OTI recovers the known vertical acceleration of a FIRE-2 simulated Milky Way-like disk within 3 sigma in 15 of 16 solar-analog volumes, though its error bars likely understate model systematics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Primack, J

    Allgood, B., Flores, R. A., Primack, J. R., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 367, 1781

    2006

  2. [2]

    A., Koposov, S

    Amarante, J. A., Koposov, S. E., & Laporte, C. F. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A166

    2024

  3. [3]

    2025,, V1 Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/QWFJZP

    Arora, A. 2025,, V1 Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/QWFJZP

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/qwfjzp 2025

  4. [4]

    E., Panithanpaisal, N., et al

    Arora, A., Sanderson, R. E., Panithanpaisal, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 2

    2022

  5. [5]

    Arora, A., & Williams, L. L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 53

    2020

  6. [6]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 376

    Aubert, D., Pichon, C., & Colombi, S. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 376

    2004

  7. [7]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 627, 647

    Bailin, J., & Steinmetz, M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 627, 647

    2005

  8. [8]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 44

    Baptista, J., Sanderson, R., Huber, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 44

    2023

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Bennett, M., Bovy, J., & Hunt, J. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 131

    2022

  2. [10]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 949

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 949

    2007

  3. [11]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 721, L97

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 721, L97

    2010

  4. [12]

    S., et al

    Bett, P., Eke, V., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 376, 215

    2007

  5. [13]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  6. [14]

    R., Faber, S., Primack, J

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

    1984

  7. [15]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 3171

    Bonamigo, M., Despali, G., Limousin, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 3171

    2015

  8. [16]

    K., & Kallivayalil, N

    Bovy, J., Bahmanyar, A., Fritz, T. K., & Kallivayalil, N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 31

    2016

  9. [17]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 3316

    Bryan, S., Kay, S., Duffy, A., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 3316

    2013

  10. [18]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Buch, D., Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., & Mao, Y.-Y. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 79 Byström, A., Koposov, S. E., Lilleengen, S., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09149

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Benitez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 4291

    2020

  12. [20]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 83

    Cavieres, M., Chanamé, J., Navarrete, C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 83

    2025

  13. [21]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01676

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D., & Katz, N

    Choi, J.-H., Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 1247

    2009

  15. [23]

    1972, Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, 101

    Clutton-Brock, M. 1972, Astrophysics and Space Science, 16, 101

    1972

  16. [24]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 4753

    Codis, S., Jindal, A., Chisari, N., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 4753

    2018

  17. [25]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 3369

    Codis, S., Pichon, C., & Pogosyan, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 3369

    2015

  18. [26]

    2015, XIII

    Collaboration, P., Ade, P., Aghanim, N., et al. 2015, XIII. Cosmological parameters

    2015

  19. [27]

    P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al

    Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 534

    2021

  20. [28]

    P., Cole, S., Frenk, C., et al

    Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 744

    2010

  21. [29]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Sanders, J

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Sanders, J. L. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3426

    2019

  22. [30]

    P., Roškar, R., Valluri, M., et al

    Debattista, V. P., Roškar, R., Valluri, M., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2971

    2013

  23. [31]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 3208

    Despali, G., Giocoli, C., & Tormen, G. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 3208

    2014

  24. [32]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 3811 D’Onghia, E., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., & Keres, D

    Diemer, B., Behroozi, P., & Mansfield, P. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 3811 D’Onghia, E., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., & Keres, D. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 1138

    2024

  25. [33]

    1970, astrofizika, 6, 581

    Doroshkevich, A. 1970, astrofizika, 6, 581

    1970

  26. [34]

    1991, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X),vol.378,Sept.10,1991,p.496-503.Researchsupportedby Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and NSERC., 378, 496 D’Souza, R., & Bell, E

    Dubinski, J., & Carlberg, R. 1991, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X),vol.378,Sept.10,1991,p.496-503.Researchsupportedby Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and NSERC., 378, 496 D’Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 739

    1991

  27. [35]

    J., & Loeb, A

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Loeb, A. 1995, ApJ, 439, 520, doi: 10.1086/175193 24

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2685 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A., Vallenari, A., et al

    Erkal, D., Belokurov, V., Laporte, C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2685 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616

    2019

  29. [37]

    F., et al

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 51

    2019

  30. [38]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Samuel, J., et al

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Price-Whelan, A. M., Samuel, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 100

    2024

  32. [40]

    F., Wetzel, A., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 4133

    2018

  33. [41]

    H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 4

    2017

  34. [42]

    Golyandina, N., Nekrutkin, V., & Zhigljavsky, A. A. 2001, Analysis of time series structure: SSA and related techniques (CRC press) Gómez, F. A., Besla, G., Carpintero, D. D., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 128 Gómez, F. A., Minchev, I., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 201...

    2001

  35. [43]

    J., Pakmor, R., Fragkoudi, F., et al

    Grand, R. J., Pakmor, R., Fragkoudi, F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 801

    2023

  36. [44]

    M., & Dekel, A

    Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C. M., & Dekel, A. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 375, 489

    2007

  37. [45]

    J., Naidu, R

    Han, J. J., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 14

    2022

  38. [46]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Hernquist, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 386, 375, doi: 10.1086/171025

    1992 doi

  40. [48]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53

    2015

  41. [49]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 800

    2018

  42. [50]

    1953, Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Hoyle, F. 1953, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 118, p. 513, 118, 513

    1953

  43. [51]

    A., Stelea, I

    Hunt, J. A., Stelea, I. A., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 1459

    2021

  44. [52]

    A., & Vasiliev, E

    Hunt, J. A., & Vasiliev, E. 2025, New Astronomy Reviews, 101721

    2025

  45. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Hüttig, C., & Stemmer, K. 2008, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9 Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Petersen, M

    Johnson, A. C., Petersen, M. S., Johnston, K. V., & Weinberg, M. D. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 1757

    2023

  47. [55]

    V., Bullock, J

    Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., Sharma, S., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, 936

    2008

  48. [56]

    V., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1995, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9502005

    1995 arXiv

  49. [57]

    V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 512, L109

    1999

  50. [58]

    V., Zentner, A

    Kazantzidis, S., Kravtsov, A. V., Zentner, A. R., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, L73

    2004

  51. [59]

    E., Erkal, D., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4936

    2023

  52. [60]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 286

    Besla, G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 286

    2018

  53. [61]

    F., Johnston, K

    Laporte, C. F., Johnston, K. V., & Tzanidakis, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 1427

    2019

  54. [62]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 123, 3

    1999

  55. [63]

    I., Hoffman, Y., Forero-Romero, J., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., Forero-Romero, J., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 2489

    2013

  56. [64]

    I., Knebe, A., Hoffman, Y., & Gottlöber, S

    Libeskind, N. I., Knebe, A., Hoffman, Y., & Gottlöber, S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 1274

    2014

  57. [65]

    S., Erkal, D., et al

    Lilleengen, S., Petersen, M. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 774

    2023

  58. [66]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 2697

    Lowing, B., Jenkins, A., Eke, V., & Frenk, C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 2697

    2011

  59. [67]

    Malhan, K., & Ibata, R. A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2995

    2019

  60. [68]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 178

    Mansfield, P., Darragh-Ford, E., Wang, Y., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 178

    2024

  61. [69]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 985, L22

    Nibauer, J., & Bonaca, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 985, L22

    2025

  62. [70]

    Patel, E., Besla, G., Mandel, K., & Sohn, S. T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 78

    2018

  63. [71]

    Peebles, P. J. 1969, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 155, p. 393, 155, 393

    1969

  64. [72]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  65. [73]

    S., & Peñarrubia, J

    Petersen, M. S., & Peñarrubia, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 494, L11

    2020

  66. [74]

    S., & Peñarrubia, J

    Petersen, M. S., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 251

    2021

  67. [75]

    S., & Weinberg, M

    Petersen, M. S., & Weinberg, M. D. 2025, Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7302, doi: 10.21105/joss.07302

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 237

    Pillepich, A., Vogelsberger, M., Deason, A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 237

    2014

  69. [77]

    F., Jenkins, A., et al

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 338, 14

    2003

  70. [78]

    1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 255, 729

    Quinn, T., & Binney, J. 1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 255, 729

    1992

  71. [79]

    E., Panithanpaisal, N., Rossi, E

    Reino, S., Sanderson, R. E., Panithanpaisal, N., Rossi, E. M., & Kuijken, K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 5365

    2022

  72. [80]

    K., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al

    Robotham, A., Baldry, I. K., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 1448

    2012

  73. [81]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 77

    Salem, M., Besla, G., Bryan, G., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 77

    2015

  74. [82]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 1379

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Chapman, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 1379

    2021

  75. [83]

    L., Lilley, E

    Sanders, J. L., Lilley, E. J., Vasiliev, E., Evans, N. W., & Erkal, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 4793

    2020

  76. [84]

    E., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S., et al

    Sanderson, R. E., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 6

    2020

  77. [85]

    B., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., et al

    Santistevan, I. B., Wetzel, A., Tollerud, E., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 8841

    2024

  78. [86]

    D., Frenk, C

    Schneider, M. D., Frenk, C. S., & Cole, S. 2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 030

    2012

  79. [87]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 149

    Shipp, N., Erkal, D., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 149

    2021

  80. [88]

    2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    D., Jenkins, A., et al

    Springel, V., White, S. D., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, nature, 435, 629

    2005

  82. [90]

    A., Hunt, J

    Stelea, I. A., Hunt, J. A., & Johnston, K. V. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 252

    2024

  83. [91]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 2727

    Tempel, E., Guo, Q., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 2727

    2015

  84. [92]

    R., & White, S

    Tormen, G., Bouchet, F. R., & White, S. D. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 286, 865

    1997

  85. [93]

    M., & Snyder, S

    Valluri, M., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Snyder, S. J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 150 van der Velden, E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, doi: 10.21105/joss.02004

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 3174

    Vasiliev, E. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 3174

    2013

  87. [95]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    Vasiliev, E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 437

    Vasiliev, E. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 437

    2024

  89. [97]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2279

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2279

    2021

  90. [98]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 773, L4 Quadrupole in the Milky W ay 25

    Vera-Ciro, C., & Helmi, A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 773, L4 Quadrupole in the Milky W ay 25

    2013

  91. [99]

    A., Sales, L

    Vera-Ciro, C. A., Sales, L. V., Helmi, A., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 1377

    2011

  92. [100]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    Weinberg, M. D. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 297, 101

    1998

  94. [102]

    Weinberg, M. D. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 117, 629

    1999

  95. [103]

    Weinberg, M. D. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 4962

    2023

  96. [104]

    D., & Blitz, L

    Weinberg, M. D., & Blitz, L. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, L33

    2006

  97. [105]

    D., & Petersen, M

    Weinberg, M. D., & Petersen, M. S. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 5408

    2021

  98. [106]

    2020a, http://ascl.net/2002.015

    Wetzel, A., & Garrison-Kimmel, S. 2020a, http://ascl.net/2002.015

    2002

  99. [107]

    2020b, http://ascl.net/2002.014

    Wetzel, A., & Garrison-Kimmel, S. 2020b, http://ascl.net/2002.014

    2002

  100. [108]

    C., Sanderson, R

    Wetzel, A., Hayward, C. C., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 44

    2023

  101. [109]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 827, L23

    2016

  102. [110]

    White, S. D. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 286, Nov. 1, 1984, p. 38-41. NASA-supported research., 286, 38

    1984

  103. [111]

    D., & Rees, M

    White, S. D., & Rees, M. J. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 183, 341

    1978

  104. [112]

    S., & Peñarrubia, J

    Yaaqib, R., Petersen, M. S., & Peñarrubia, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3524

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.