---
author:
- Jovan Veljanoski
- Amina Helmi
title: 'Flavours in the box of chocolates: chemical abundances of kinematic substructures in the nearby stellar halo'
---

<span>Stellar halos contain tracers of the assembly history of massive galaxies like our own. Exploiting the synergy between the TGAS and the spectroscopic RAVE surveys, recently discovered several distinct substructures in the Solar neighbourhood, defined in integrals of motion space. Some of these substructures may be examples of the building blocks that built up the stellar halo.</span> <span>We analyse the chemical properties of stars in these substructures, with focus on their iron and $\alpha$-element abundances as provided by the RAVE survey chemical pipeline.</span> <span>We perform comparisons of the <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>and <span>\[Mg/Fe\]</span>distributions of the substructures to that of the entire halo sample defined in the TGAS$\times$RAVE dataset.</span> <span>We find that over half of the nine substructures have $\sigma_{\text{{[Fe/H]\xspace}}} \leq 0.3$ dex. Two of the substructures have $\sigma_{\text{{[Fe/H]\xspace}}} \leq 0.1$ dex, which makes them possible remnants of disrupted globular clusters. As expected most substructures and the vast majority of our stellar halo sample are $\alpha$-enhanced. Only one substructure shows a \[Mg/Fe\] vs <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>abundance trend distinct from the rest of the halo stars in our sample.</span>

Introduction {#sec:intro}
============

In the current cosmological model, much of the mass in galaxies similar to the Milky Way is assembled hierarchically: pre-galactic fragments coalesce to form larger objects. A by-product of this process is the formation of extended, diffuse stellar halos surrounding their host galaxies. Stellar halos thus keep a record of the accretion and merger events that happened from the onset of the assembly process in the early Universe, all the way to the present day. Indeed, wide-field Galactic surveys such as SDSS and PanSTARS have revealed much substructure in the form of spatially coherent stellar streams [e.g. @2006ApJ...642L.137B; @2014MNRAS.443L..84B; @2016MNRAS.463.1759B] in the outskirts of the Milky Way. Their findings are consistent with the idea that the outer stellar halo is predominantly, if not solely build via mergers.

In contrast, little is known about the assembly process of the inner stellar halo, and what fraction of it is composed by stellar streams. Using kinematic and metallicity data of stars in the extended Solar neighbourhood, @2007Natur.450.1020C [@2010ApJ...712..692C] found those less bound to be on average on retrograde orbits and to be more metal-poor in comparison to inner halo stars, which on average have slightly prograde motions. This led to the idea of a two- component halo, where the inner parts would have predominantly formed *in situ* while the outer regions via accretion. This dual formation path of the Galactic stellar halo is partly supported by hydrodynamical simulations [e.g. @2009ApJ...702.1058Z; @2014MNRAS.439.3128T], where the relative importance of the two channels can vary strongly depending on the cosmological history of the galaxy.

Conversely, if the stellar halo was fully built by accretion, models predict that over 300 streams should cross the Solar neighbourhood [@1999MNRAS.307..495H; @2003MNRAS.339..834H], and the first such streams were discovered nearly two decades ago [@1999Natur.402...53H]. Due to the shorter dynamical time-scales, the inner stellar halo is spatially well mixed however, causing the velocities of the stars in any substructure to become more clustered. Thus, the halo's granularity can only be discerned in large samples with accurate kinematics.

The launch of the <span>*Gaia*</span>satellite puts us in an unprecedented position to study the properties of stellar halo of the the Milky Way. The first <span>*Gaia*</span>Data Release (DR1) provides the positions, parallaxes, proper motions, and mean $G$-band magnitudes for over 2 million stars in common with the *Tycho-II* and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hipparcos</span> catalogues, in what is referred to as the *Tycho- Gaia* Astrometric Solution .

Recently, exploited the synergy between the TGAS and the spectroscopic RAVE surveys [DR5, @2017AJ....153...75K] to select a sample of over 1000 halo stars using kinematics and metallicity criteria. Analysing the velocities of the stars in this sample by means of a correlation function, H17 found that the stellar halo near the Sun is consistent with being fully formed by accretion. In addition, these authors identified 10 distinct, statistically significant substructures in integrals of motion space.

These previously unknown substructures are the focus of this paper. Here we analyse the chemical composition of their constituent stars using the abundances available through the public RAVE DR5 catalogue. With the goal of learning more about their possible nature, this study is also a proof-of-concept of the chemical labelling/tagging ideas put forward by . For instance, if some of the substructures are remnants of disrupted globular clusters, their stars are expected to be $\alpha$-enhanced with a very tight, even negligible spread in iron abundance.

This paper is structured as follows. In the next section we revisit the halo sample and the integrals of motion substructures of H17 by taking advantage of the improved parallaxes and metallicities derived by @2017arXiv170704554M for the TGAS$\times$RAVE dataset. In Section \[sec:analysis\] we analyse the abundances of the substructures, and summarise our findings in Section \[sec:discussion\].

"A box full of chocolates" revisited {#sec:remastered}
====================================

We start by redefining the halo substructures initially reported in H17, by using the dataset constructed by @2017arXiv170704554M. These authors use the TGAS parallaxes as priors when computing the spectrophotometric parallaxes for stars in common between TGAS and RAVE. With this method the estimated distances have uncertainties on average two times smaller than their RAVE-only counterparts, and 1.4 times smaller than the corresponding TGAS uncertainties. With their method @2017arXiv170704554M also provide updated and more reliable <span>$log(g)$</span>, <span>$T_{\rm eff}$</span>and <span>$[M/H]$</span>estimates.

We define the sample of halo stars following the steps taken by H17 (see their Sec. 2), using the TGAS$\times$RAVE catalogue provided by @2017arXiv170704554M. After applying several quality cuts[^1], and a metallicity criterion <span>$[M/H]$</span>$\le -1$ dex, we find 1823 tentative halo stars. In this work we use the "calibrated" metallicity estimates provided by @2017arXiv170704554M. We then remove stars with (thick) disk-like kinematics as in H17, by fitting two multivariate Gaussians, and by retaining only those stars that have a higher probability of being drawn from the Gaussian component with the lowest rotational motion (in our case, this has a mean $v_y \approx -15$<span>km s$^{-1}$</span>). With this approach, we find 1217 high confidence, metal-poor halo stars.

With this updated sample we proceed to re-analyse their distribution in integrals of motion space: $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>. Fig. \[fig:watershed\] shows this distribution for the more bound stars in this halo sample (i.e. those that satisfy $-21\times10^4 \le E \le   -10\times10^4$ <span>km$^{2}$ s$^{-2}$</span>and $-2000 \le L_z
\le 2000$ <span>km s$^{-1}$ kpc</span>).

To pick out any substructures that may be significant in this space, we proceed again as in H17. We first determined the density field (shown in Fig. \[fig:watershed\]), then applied a maximum filter to pick out over-densities, and then established which were statistically significant by comparison to randomised datasets obtained by reshuffling two velocity components. In this way we identify 8 over-densities marked by the magenta points on Fig. \[fig:watershed\]. Finally, we employ the `watershed` algorithm [@watershed] to loosely determine the extent of the over- densities and thus their constituent stars.

Fig. \[fig:watershed\], shows that we have recovered all but one of the substructures initially reported by H17 (see their Figure 10). Since not exactly the same stars are found in the substructures as in H17 (there is typically 60% overlap), we added an asterisk at the end of their H17 labels. The one structure that is not recovered, dubbed `VelHel-5`, can be visually identified in our data, but does not pass the significance tests, although a new structure appears that contains some stars from the original `VelHel-1` and `VelHel-5`, which we label `VelHel-pjm`. We also do not recover the metal-poor tail of the disk because, in contrast to H17, we completely removed the disk stars during the Gaussian decomposition phase. Overall, the above procedure adds more validity to the structures discovered by H17, and makes us appreciate how robust results can be to small changes in the data.

In addition to the discoveries of the substructures in integrals of motion space, H17 also found that the stars with binding energies smaller than that of the Sun have preferentially retrograde orbits. We confirmed this result with our updated halo sample: 77% of the stars with $E >-13\times10^4$ <span>km$^{2}$ s$^{-2}$</span>are on retrograde orbits. We also include this low binding energy retrograde component in our abundance analysis.

![image](Fe_hist_new.pdf){width="95.00000%"}

Fig. \[fig:mh\] shows the distribution of halo stars in the integrals of motion space, colour-coded by the value of their metallicity. We can see that the stars with high binding energy are, on average, more metal-rich, while those in the less bound highly retrograde component appear to be somewhat more metal-poor, albeit with large scatter. This would thus be in agreement with the results of @2007Natur.450.1020C, although the "outer halo" component in our dataset is much more prominently retrograde.

Abundance analysis {#sec:analysis}
==================

The nominal RAVE DR5 data release provides abundances of a few iron peak elements (Fe, Ni), as well as several $\alpha$-elements (Mg, Si, Ti). These abundances were derived with a pipeline first introduced for the third data release of RAVE [@2011AJ....142..193B], and subsequently improved in later releases. The typical abundance is $\sim 0.2$ dex, and can increase slightly for $S/N < 40$. In addition, the RAVE DR5 stars have a mean $S/N = 55$ and a resolving power $R = \lambda/\Delta\lambda \sim 7500$.

Note that we do not use the abundance elements provided by *The Cannon* pipeline because the training set used is sparse in the regime of low metallicity giants and hence not reliable.

<span>\[Fe/H\]</span>and $\alpha$ abundances {#sec:feh}
--------------------------------------------

Figure \[fig:fe\_hist\] shows the <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions for the stars that comprise the statistically significant substructures identified in Section \[sec:remastered\], as well as for the retrograde outer halo. One can see that substructures `VelHel-4*`, `VelHel-pjm`, `VelHel-9*`, and even the retrograde halo have pronounced peaks in their <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions, and relatively small dispersions.

We now examine whether the small spread of <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>exhibited by the substructures is genuine, which would separate them from the overall halo sample judging by their iron abundances alone, or whether their observed <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions are simply chance occurrences. To quantify this we do the following test. We draw 10000 random sets of stars from the entire halo sample. Each random set contains as many stars as the substructure that is being examined. We then count how often a random set has a smaller <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>spread[^2] compared to what is observed in the actual substructures.

The results from this test are listed in Table \[tab:stat\]. From the second column of this Table we see that 5 out the 9 substructures we are investigating, including the retrograde halo, have <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>spreads of 0.3 dex or less. This is a rather small value given the typical abundance uncertainties are 0.25 dex. For substructures `VelHel-4*`, `VelHel-pjm*` and the retrograde halo, we see that the probability of observing distributions with such small spread by randomly selecting stars is $\sim 1\%$. Substructure `VelHel-9*` has the smallest <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>spread amongst the substructures, but this quantity was measured only from 3 stars, and such a configuration happens 6% of the time in our random realisations.

Both Mg and Si are $\alpha$-elements and their abundance is available for the largest fraction of stars that comprise our substructures. In Fig. \[fig:fe\_alpha\] we show the <span>\[Mg/Fe\]</span>as a function of <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>(<span>\[Si/Fe\]</span>follows a similar distribution). One can see that almost all substructures appear to be $\alpha$-enhanced. The only exception is substructure `VelHel-3*`, but this result is still tentative at best, given that only 3 have Mg (and 4 stars have Si) abundance estimates. This is intriguing , and a K-S test that compares the cumulative distribution of the "smooth" stellar halo sample to that of `VelHel-3*` confirms this: we find a $p-$value $<0.01$.

![image](Fe_MgFe_scatter_new.pdf){width="95.00000%"}\

  -------------- ------------------- -------------- ------------------- --------------
  Substructure    $\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$   p$_{[Fe/H]}$   $\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$   p$_{[Fe/H]}$
                        (dex)             (%)              (dex)             (%)
  `VelHel-1*`            0.4               66               0.4               51
  `VelHel-3*`            0.7               99               0.5               90
  `VelHel-4*`            0.1              $<1$              0.2              $<1$
  `VelHel-6*`            0.4               28               0.3               1
  `VelHel-7*`            0.4               63               0.2              $<1$
  `VelHel-8*`            0.3               44               0.4               61
  `VelHel-9*`            0.1               6                0.1              $<1$
  `VelHel-pjm`           0.2               2                0.3               2
  retr. halo             0.3              1.2               ...              ...
  -------------- ------------------- -------------- ------------------- --------------

  : The standard deviations of the <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions of the $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>substructures and the less-bound retrograde halo. The table also shows the frequency of observing a spread as small or smaller in the 10000 randomly drawn sets from the full halo dataset (see main text for details).<span data-label="tab:stat"></span>

Enlarged membership selection {#ss:ellipses}
-----------------------------

One of the biggest challenges we are currently facing while trying to detect and characterise spatially mixed substructures in the Solar neighbourhood is the small number of halo stars that are available to us for analysis. In fact, the main reason why examining integrals of motion diagrams is so beneficial, is because we are effectively folding the 6-dimensional phase-space information into two dimensions, thus increasing the clustering an object exhibits in an $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>space for example, as we show on Figure \[fig:watershed\]. As described in Section \[sec:remastered\], we detected the substructures analysed in this paper as over-densities in $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>space. The members of each structure were determined with the `watershed` algorithm that traces the density contour at some level of each structure. However, when the number of members is small, the extent and shape of a structure in $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>space is likely not well defined. From simulations of spatially mixed substructures in the Solar neighbourhood, we know that in $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>space they have regular, almost elliptical shapes with a small dispersion in <span>$L_z$</span>, while they can be quite elongated in energy, depending on the orbit and mass of the progenitor system [see e.g. Figure 6 in @2000MNRAS.319..657H]. Thus it is possible that other members of the substructures are present in the $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>diagrams on Fig. \[fig:watershed\], but they are not selected simply due to the shape of the underlying density field in the regime of low number statistics.

We thus attempt to analyse the elemental abundances of the substructures by selecting all stars that fall within an ellipse centred on the peak of the over- density identified in $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>space, with a semi-major axis of 0.5 in scaled units of energy, and a semi-major axis of 0.25 in scaled units of <span>$L_z$</span>(since $\Delta E/E \propto 2 \Delta L_z/L_z$), as shown in Fig. \[fig:watershed\]. The major axes of the ellipses are aligned with the line connecting the density peak of the substructures and the point of origin. Such a selection should approximate the shape that a substructure is expected to have in $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>in the presence of significantly more members. We proceed to re- examine the Fe and $\alpha$-element abundance distributions of the substructures when their members are determined with this elliptical selection.

The red dashed histograms in Figure \[fig:fe\_hist\] show that adding more potential members to the substructures with the elliptical selection enhances the features seen in the original <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions. The most striking example is substructure `VelHel-9*`, in which the tentative peak observed with the nominal density selection is significantly enhanced: it now features 8 stars with a dispersion smaller than 0.1 dex.

This simple exercise shows that, there are potentially several stars that are likely members of the substructures which were not included via the original `watershed`-based criteria. If this were not the case, we would expect adding random stars to the substructures to smear out, and not improve, the features seen in their <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions. To quantify this, we repeat the statistical test we conducted in Section \[sec:feh\], now considering the additional stars. The last two columns in Table \[tab:stat\] indeed show that the increased prominence of the peaks makes the <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>distributions for most of the structures less likely to be drawn by chance from the overall halo sample. On the other hand, the elliptical membership selection does not significantly change the distribution of stars in <span>\[Mg/Fe\]</span>vs <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>in our substructures, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fe\_alpha\].

Summary {#sec:discussion}
=======

In this paper the examined the iron and $\alpha$-element abundance distributions of the substructures originally identified in integrals of motions space by in the Solar neighbourhood, searching for hints of their origin.

We started by defining a metal-poor halo sample following the steps described in using the cross-match between the TGAS and RAVE catalogues with the updated spectrophotometric distances provided by @2017arXiv170704554M. With this procedure we selected 1217 high confidence metal-poor halo stars. Using this data, we redefined the substructures originally discovered by in $E$-<span>$L_z$</span>space. We recover all substructures (with at least 60% overlap in terms of membership) except for one, which is found to be less statistically significant.

We proceeded to analyse the Fe and Mg abundances available in RAVE DR5 for stars in the substructures, as well as for the retrograde halo stars that have $E>-13
\times 10^4$ <span>km$^{2}$ s$^{-2}$</span>. These more loosely-bound retrograde stars are found to be on average more metal-poor, in agreement with e.g. @2007Natur.450.1020C. We find that over half of the identified substructures have $\sigma_{\text{{[Fe/H]\xspace}}} \leq 0.3$ dex, which is rather small given that the formal uncertainties of the individual star abundances in the RAVE data are $\sim 0.25$ dex. In fact, substructures `VelHel-4*` and `VelHel-9*` have $\sigma_{\text{{[Fe/H]\xspace}}} \leq 0.1$ dex, which makes them good candidates for being remnants of disrupted globular clusters.

We find all substructures, save for `VelHel-3*`, to be $\alpha$-enhanced in both Mg and Si as expected. In general, the $\alpha$ abundances of the stars in the substructures and in the retrograde halo component are consistent with the rest of the stars in our halo sample. This is also the case for their distribution in the space of \[$\alpha$/Fe\] vs <span>\[Fe/H\]</span>, where the different substructures, with the exception of `VelHel-3*`, follow the same trend as the rest of the halo sample.

We are clearly limited in our ability to understand the structures by the low number of stars with measured chemical abundances. This will change with the <span>*Gaia*</span>Data Release 2, that will certainly help us to better define the extent of the substructures in integrals of motion space, and to find more members. But more crucial are the upcoming spectroscopic surveys carried out by the new multi-object spectrographs WEAVE and 4MOST, which will be of great help in providing the data necessary to understand the nature and origin of these objects.

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from a VICI grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, NWO and from NOVA. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission <span>*Gaia*</span>(<http://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the <span>*Gaia*</span>Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, <http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the *Gaia* Multilateral Agreement.

This work made use of `vaex` [@2018arXiv180102638B], `numpy` [@Walt:2011:NAS:1957373.1957466], `matplotlib` [@Hunter:2007], `scikit-learn` [@2011JMLR.1953048.2078195], and `scikit-image` [@10.7717/peerj.453].

natexlab\#1<span>\#1</span>

, V., <span>Zucker</span>, D. B., <span>Evans</span>, N. W., <span>et al.</span> 2006, , 642, L137

, E. J., <span>Ferguson</span>, A. M. N., <span>Schlafly</span>, E. F., <span>et al.</span> 2014, , 443, L84

, E. J., <span>Ferguson</span>, A. M. N., <span>Schlafly</span>, E. F., <span>et al.</span> 2016, , 463, 1759

, C., <span>Siebert</span>, A., <span>Williams</span>, M., <span>et al.</span> 2011, , 142, 193

, M. A. & <span>Veljanoski</span>, J. 2018, ArXiv e-prints \[\]

, D., <span>Beers</span>, T. C., <span>Chiba</span>, M., <span>et al.</span> 2010, , 712, 692

, D., <span>Beers</span>, T. C., <span>Lee</span>, Y. S., <span>et al.</span> 2007, , 450, 1020

, A. R., <span>Hawkins</span>, K., <span>Hogg</span>, D. W., <span>et al.</span> 2017, , 840, 59

, K. & <span>Bland-Hawthorn</span>, J. 2002, , 40, 487

, <span>Brown</span>, A. G. A., <span>Vallenari</span>, A., <span>et al.</span> 2016, , 595, A2

, A. & <span>de Zeeuw</span>, P. T. 2000, , 319, 657

, A., <span>Veljanoski</span>, J., <span>Breddels</span>, M. A., <span>Tian</span>, H., & <span>Sales</span>, L. V. 2017, , 598, A58

, A. & <span>White</span>, S. D. M. 1999, , 307, 495

, A., <span>White</span>, S. D. M., <span>de Zeeuw</span>, P. T., & <span>Zhao</span>, H. 1999, , 402, 53

, A., <span>White</span>, S. D. M., & <span>Springel</span>, V. 2003, , 339, 834

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

, A., <span>Kordopatis</span>, G., <span>Steinmetz</span>, M., <span>et al.</span> 2017, , 153, 75

, L., <span>Lammers</span>, U., <span>Bastian</span>, U., <span>et al.</span> 2016, , 595, A4

, P. J., <span>Kordopatis</span>, G., <span>Kunder</span>, A., <span>et al.</span> 2017, ArXiv e-prints \[\]

, P. E. & <span>Schuster</span>, W. J. 2010, , 511, L10

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., <span>et al.</span> 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

, P. B., <span>Beers</span>, T. C., <span>Carollo</span>, D., & <span>Scannapieco</span>, C. 2014, , 439, 3128

van der Walt, S., Schönberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., <span>et al.</span> 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453

Vincent, L. & Soille, P. 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 13, 583

Walt, S. v. d., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engg., 13, 22

, A., <span>Willman</span>, B., <span>Brooks</span>, A. M., <span>et al.</span> 2009, , 702, 1058

[^1]: including a relative parallax uncertainties $\Delta\varpi/\varpi
    \le 30\%$, where this can be the updated RAVE or TGAS-only parallaxes depending on which measurement has a smaller relative error, provided that the TGAS parallax is positive.

[^2]: What we refer to as "spread" is the difference between the values of the distribution at the 16th and the 84th percentile, divided by two. This is equivalent to one standard deviation in the case of a Gaussian distribution.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/1804'}