Paper detail

Relating the Diverse Merger Histories and Satellite Populations of Nearby Galaxies

We investigate whether the considerable diversity in the satellite populations of nearby Milky Way (MW)-mass galaxies is connected with the diversity in their host's merger histories. Analyzing 8 nearby galaxies with extensive observations of their satellite populations and stellar halos, we characterize each galaxy's merger history using the metric of its most dominant merger, $M_{\rm \star,Dom}$, defined as the greater of either its total accreted stellar mass or most massive current satellite. We find an unexpectedly tight relationship between these galaxies' number of $M_{V}\,{<}\,{-}9$ satellites within 150 kpc ($N_{\rm Sat}$) and $M_{\rm \star,Dom}$. This relationship remains even after accounting for differences in galaxy mass. Using the star formation and orbital histories of satellites around the MW and M81, we demonstrate that both likely evolved along the $M_{\rm\star,Dom}{-}N_{\rm Sat}$ relation during their current dominant mergers with the LMC and M82, respectively. We investigate the presence of this relation in galaxy formation models, including using the FIRE simulations to directly compare to the observations. We find no relation between $M_{\rm\star,Dom}$ and $N_{\rm Sat}$ in FIRE, and a universally large scatter in $N_{\rm Sat}$ with $M_{\rm \star,Dom}$ across models $-$ in direct contrast with the tightness of the empirical relation. This acute difference in the observed and predicted scaling relation between two fundamental galaxy properties signals that current simulations do not sufficiently reproduce diverse merger histories and their effects on satellite populations. Explaining the emergence of this relation is therefore essential for obtaining a complete understanding of galaxy formation.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.

Institutions

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.