Paper detail

Characterizing the SHARDS of Disrupted Milky Way Satellites with LAMOST

We derive the fraction of substructure in the Galactic halo using a sample of over 10,000 spectroscopically-confirmed halo giant stars from the LAMOST spectroscopic survey. By observing 100 synthetic models along each line of sight with the LAMOST selection function in that sky area, we statistically characterize the expected halo populations. We define as SHARDS (Stellar Halo Accretion Related Debris Structures) any stars in >3-sigma excesses above the model predictions. We find that at least 10% of the Milky Way halo stars from LAMOST are part of SHARDS. By running our algorithm on smooth halos observed with the LAMOST selection function, we show that the LAMOST data contain excess substructure over all Galactocentric radii R_GC < 40 kpc, beyond what is expected due to statistical fluctuations and incomplete sampling of a smooth halo. The level of substructure is consistent with the fraction of stars in SHARDS in model halos created entirely from accreted satellites. This work illustrates the potential of vast spectroscopic surveys with high filling factors over large sky areas to recreate the merging history of the Milky Way.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access10 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.