Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 206 references

Rediscovering the Milky Way with orbit superposition approach and APOGEE data III. Panoramic view of the bulge

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the Milky Way's bulge is built from two disc populations in a 4:3 mass ratio and is metal-rich relative to the surrounding disc once the full vertical extent is counted.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, selection-function-free chemo-kinematic map of the bulge, but the headline numbers carry no error bars and the density/orbital results inherit the assumed Sormani potential. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18182 v1 pith:S3DSCXZI submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.GA

Sergey Khoperskov , Paola Di Matteo , Matthias Steinmetz , Bridget Ratcliffe , Glenn van de Ven , Tristan Boin , Misha Haywood , Nikolay Kacharov
show 4 more authors
Ivan Minchev Davor Krajnovic Marica Valentini Roelof S. de Jong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWaybulgeorbitsuperpositionSchwarzschildmethodAPOGEEGaiaastrometrythickdisc/thinmetallicitydistributionfunctionboxy/peanut
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

This paper tries to settle a long dispute about the Milky Way's bulge by reconstructing its three-dimensional structure from the orbits of APOGEE giant stars. It claims the bulge is not a classical spheroid but a bar-built structure made mostly of two disc populations: a metal-poor, high-$\alpha$ thick disc and a metal-rich, low-$\alpha$ thin disc in a 4:3 mass ratio. It further claims that although the bulge's mean metallicity is slightly below solar, the bulge is metal-rich compared with the surrounding disc once the full vertical extent is included, in line with external barred galaxies. A five-component decomposition of the [Fe/H]-[Mg/Fe] plane identifies an accreted, ex-situ population of about $8\times10^8\,M_\odot$ and two intermediate components that merely trace the transition between the two main discs. If these claims hold, the Milky Way is a typical secularly formed barred galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is orbit superposition: each APOGEE giant star's orbit is integrated in a fixed analytic gravitational potential of the inner Milky Way (taken from Sormani et al. 2022, which already includes the X-shaped bar), with a constant bar pattern speed of 37 km/s/kpc. The orbits are assigned non-negative weights by fitting their combined 3D density to the stellar component of that same analytic potential, then each orbit is sampled at 500 phase-space points and the star's measured chemistry is painted along the orbit, spreading abundance information into regions the APOGEE footprint never observed. This converts the survey's patchy, midplane-censoring footprint into a complete, mass-weighted 3D chemo-kinematic model of the bulge. The weight-fitting step is what makes the reconstruction of the X-shape and orbital families, such as banana, pretzel, and longer bar orbits, possible, but it also means those structures are inherited from the adopted potential.

What would settle it

Re-run the orbit-superposition reconstruction with an independently constructed potential that has no X-shaped bulge while matching all other observables; if the X-shape, the 4:3 thin-to-thick disc mass ratio, and the five-component chemical decomposition disappear or change drastically, the central results are artifacts of the chosen potential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the present-day Milky Way bulge is built from the same two chemical discs that extend to the solar neighbourhood: an inner thick disc that is metal-poor with subsolar metallicity and high [Mg/Fe] (the high-$\alpha$ population) and a thin disc that is metal-rich with supersolar metallicity and low [Mg/Fe], contributing in a 4:3 mass ratio inside 3.5 kpc. The paper argues that the apparent metal-poorness of the bulge in (l,b) projections is a projection effect: near the midplane the metal-rich, kinematically cold population has been pushed above the plane by the vertical bar instability, so once the full vertical extent is counted the bulge and the bar major axis are more metal-rich than the surrounding disc. It also finds that no single metallicity gradient describes the bulge: radial gradients trace the X-shaped density structure and vertical gradients trace the boxy component, which explains why surveys covering different fields have reported different gradient values. The most metal-poor of five 2D Gaussian components in the [Fe/H]-[Mg/Fe] plane carries the chemical signature of accreted stars and a mass near $8\times10^8\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction assumes the adopted analytic model of the inner Milky Way's mass distribution, which already contains the X-shaped bar, is the true potential, and that the Galaxy is in dynamical equilibrium with a bar rotating at a fixed 37 km/s/kpc; because the orbit weights are fitted to reproduce that same model's density, the recovered X-shape, orbital families, and mass ratios are partly built into the input rather than independently derived from the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The bulge's two main populations are the inner extensions of the thick and thin discs, so the bulge's chemical history is largely the disc's chemical history, not a separate spheroidal formation event.
  • The 4:3 mass ratio between the metal-poor high-alpha and metal-rich low-alpha components in the bulge, if correct, is a constraint on the relative masses of the thick and thin disc populations before the bar buckled.
  • Because the recovered metallicity gradients vary across the bulge and trace the X-shaped and boxy structure, different spectroscopic surveys of different fields can legitimately report different gradients, and there is no single bulge gradient to compare.
  • The small accreted component of about $8\times10^8\,M_\odot$ for stars with [Fe/H] above about -1.2, together with the absence of a significant spheroid, reinforces the picture of the Milky Way as a secularly formed barred galaxy.
  • Future bulge surveys that cover the midplane regions APOGEE misses should see a metal-rich bar along the major axis, matching the paper's prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a direct test the authors do not perform is to leave the bar pattern speed free rather than fixed at 37 km/s/kpc; the inferred resonance families, bar mass, and the 4:3 thin-to-thick disc ratio could shift if the adopted speed is wrong.
  • Editorial inference: because the X-shape is present in the input potential, the orbital-family decomposition is best read as a property of the assumed potential combined with the data, not as an independent measurement of the Milky Way's orbital structure.
  • Editorial inference: the same orbit-superposition method could be applied to external barred galaxies with integral-field spectroscopy, replacing the chemical painting step with stellar-population gradients from IFU data to test whether the metal-rich-bar pattern is universal.
  • Editorial inference: the metal-rich bar along the major axis implies that kinematic fractionation plus suppressed star formation, rather than in-situ enrichment, sets the abundance pattern; age-dating the metal-rich bulge stars, which the paper omits because of age-catalogue quality issues, could separate these explanations.
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 paper applies the orbit superposition (Schwarzschild) method, previously developed in Papers I and II, to APOGEE DR17 giant stars with Gaia astrometry to reconstruct the 3D density, kinematics, and chemical abundance structure of the Milky Way bulge. The headline results are: (i) the bulge is composed of two main populations, a metal-poor high-alpha thick disc and a metal-rich low-alpha thin disc, with a mass ratio of 4:3; (ii) a five-component 2D GMM decomposition of the [Fe/H]-[Mg/Fe] plane, including a most metal-poor component of likely ex-situ origin with mass about 8e8 M_sun; (iii) the bulge metallicity gradients are spatially variable and trace the X-shaped/boxy density structure; and (iv) although the bulge has slightly subsolar mean metallicity, it is metal-rich relative to the surrounding disc once its full vertical extent is considered. The paper frames these results as evidence that the Milky Way is a typical secularly formed barred galaxy.

Significance. The orbit superposition approach is a promising technique for correcting survey footprint and selection-function biases, and the paper demonstrates its application to a large spectroscopic sample. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a coherent chemo-kinematic picture of the bulge that supports the bar-buckling scenario and places the Milky Way among external barred galaxies with metal-rich boxy/peanut bulges. The reconstruction of footprint-independent maps, e.g., the face-on metallicity maps in Fig. 15, is a useful methodological contribution. However, the significance is substantially conditional on breaking the circularity with the adopted potential: the orbit weights are fitted to the Sormani et al. (2022) analytic density, which already contains the X-shaped bar, so the recovered morphology and orbital families are partly inherited from the input. The chemical results (mass ratio, GMM decomposition, accreted mass) are less circular, but they lack systematic uncertainty estimates and robustness tests against the adopted potential and pattern speed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The orbit weights are adjusted to reproduce the analytic 3D stellar density of Sormani et al. (2022), which already contains the X-shaped/boxy bar. Consequently, the 'successful recovery' of the X-shape and boxy morphology in Figs. 1-3 and the orbital family decomposition in Figs. 4-5 are largely a re-projection of the input mass model. The manuscript itself acknowledges this in Section 5 (the sentence beginning 'By construction, the 3D density distribution of the MW bulge is defined by the adopted potential'), but the framing in Section 3.1 and in the Summary ('successfully reconstruct the 3D stellar density structure ... including capturing the distinct X-shaped/boxy structure') overstates the independence of the result. I request either a reframing as a consistency check or, preferably, a stress test with an alternative potential (e.g., one without a boxy/peanut bar, or with a different bar strength/pattern speed) to demonstrate that the orbit superposition plus APOGEE data alone would not artificially produce the X-shape.
  2. [Section 5.3] The headline numbers -- the 4:3 high-alpha/low-alpha mass ratio and the 8e8 M_sun accreted-mass estimate -- are quoted without error bars or sensitivity analysis. The mass ratio depends on the arbitrary choice of the high-/low-alpha boundary shown as the white line in Fig. 9, and the accreted mass depends on the GMM membership probabilities, which the authors admit are contaminated. The 50 resamplings only provide scatter in the GMM component centres, not in the model selection or in the derived masses. I ask the authors to provide uncertainty estimates and to test how the mass ratio and accreted mass change when the alpha boundary is varied within a reasonable range, and when the bar pattern speed is varied within the plausible 30-45 km/s/kpc range.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Section 5.2] The claim that 'no universal metallicity gradient value can characterise the MW bulge' and the conclusion that the bulge is metal-rich relative to the surrounding disc (Fig. 15) rely on density-weighted abundance maps that are constructed from the same orbit superposition. Since the density field is fitted to the adopted potential, the spatial variations of the gradients, including the claim that radial gradients 'closely trace the X-shaped bulge density structure' (Fig. 14), may be partly inherited from the input density rather than from the APOGEE chemistry. A concrete test would be to paint the same APOGEE abundances onto orbits integrated in a different (e.g., axisymmetric or non-X-shaped) potential and compare the resulting gradient maps. Without such a test, the reader cannot assess how much of the chemo-morphological correlation is driven by the assumed potential.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] There is a typo in the final paragraph: 'the MW bugle story' should be 'the MW bulge story'.
  2. [Section 4] In the discussion of extremely metal-rich populations, 'do not suggest the precents of the classical bulge' should be 'do not suggest the presence of a classical bulge'.
  3. [Section 5.3] The word 'metallcity' in the paragraph beginning 'The fact that we observe a gap' should be 'metallicity'.
  4. [General] The notation for the orbital frequency ratio is inconsistent: the text uses fr/fx and fz/fx, but the caption of Fig. 4 defines the top panel as 'in-plane orbital frequency ratio, fr/fx' and the bottom as 'fz/fx'. Please define all frequencies once in the text and use consistent notation throughout.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 3D density and X-shape are fit to the Sormani et al. (2022) analytic potential that already contains the X-shape; chemical maps and mass ratios are conditional on that potential but add independent abundance information.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (Orbit superposition method), Section 3.1, Section 5.0.1]
    "We adopt the 3D mass distribution of the MW ... from Sormani et al. (2022), which ... reproduces well the 3D density of the bar, including the X-shape structure of the bulge. ... The weights of the orbits ... were calculated by adjusting their total 3D density to the analytic solution for the stellar component from Sormani et al. (2022). ... By construction, the 3D density distribution of the MW bulge is defined by the adopted potential and the precision of its recovery using the orbit superposition."

    The orbit weights are the free parameters adjusted to match the analytic stellar density of Sormani et al. (2022), and that same adopted model is explicitly described as already containing the X-shaped bulge. Therefore the boxy/X-shaped 3D density presented as 'reconstructed' in Figs. 1-3 and claimed in Section 6 as a successful recovery is the fit target re-expressed through orbits. The morphological structure is inherited from the input potential rather than independently predicted from the APOGEE/Gaia data. The paper's own sentence 'By construction...' concedes this reduction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Orbits of the MW bulge), Figs. 4-5]
    "The stellar mass-weighted distribution roughly follows the ones presented in Portail et al. (2015); however, in our case, the peak at fz/fx≈2, corresponding to the banana-like orbits, is more prominent. We find that about 36% of the bar mass is represented by orbits of this class. ... This discrepancy comes from a higher mass of the peanut and the long bar components which was increased in Portail et al. (2017), providing a better agreement for the bar pattern speed, and propagated to the analytic potential we adapt in our modelling."

    The orbital families and their mass fractions (e.g., ~36% banana-like, ~30% X-shaped) are computed from orbits integrated in the Sormani et al. (2022) potential and weighted by coefficients fit to that same potential's analytic density. The paper explicitly attributes the difference from Portail et al. (2015) to changes already built into the adopted Portail et al. (2017) potential. Presenting this decomposition as the 'orbital composition of the MW bulge' (Section 4 and Section 6) is therefore a re-description of the assumed potential and fitted density, not an empirical finding from the stellar data.

full rationale

The structural core of the paper—the recovered 3D density, the X-shape, and the orbital-family decomposition—is not an independent prediction: the orbit weights are adjusted to reproduce the analytic stellar density of Sormani et al. (2022), which already includes the X-shaped bar. The paper itself states that 'by construction' the 3D density is defined by the adopted potential, so presenting the X-shape as a successful reconstruction is a fitted-input result. The chemical results (high-/low-alpha mass ratio of 4:3, five GMM components, ~8e8 Msun ex-situ component) are not fit targets and do add information from APOGEE abundances, but they are conditional on the same potential, constant pattern speed 37 km/s/kpc, dynamical equilibrium, and the assumption that stars can be painted along orbits. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is invoked, and the method papers (Paper I/II) provide mock-data validation; the limitation is the dependence of the headline structural claims on the input mass model. A potential-replacement or pattern-speed-variation stress test would be needed to establish how much of the orbital and gradient structure is genuinely data-driven.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rely on assumptions about the adopted potential, dynamical equilibrium, pattern speed, and orbit-painted chemistry, plus one hand-defined boundary that sets the 4:3 mass ratio. The paper acknowledges the equilibrium and potential dependence, but the X-shape is nevertheless an input rather than an output.

free parameters (1)
  • High-alpha vs low-alpha separation boundary in [Fe/H]-[Mg/Fe] plane = White dividing line in Fig. 9, imported from Paper II
    The headline 4:3 mass ratio between the two dominant bulge populations is measured after splitting the orbit-weighted stellar mass by this hand-defined boundary. A different boundary choice would change the ratio and the claimed low-alpha fraction of about 40%.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The inner MW is in dynamical equilibrium, rotating rigidly with a constant bar pattern speed of 37 km/s/kpc.
    Stated in Section 2.2 as the basis for orbit superposition. If the bar is decelerating or the disc is out of equilibrium, the orbital weights and all reconstructed maps lose validity.
  • domain assumption The analytic 3D mass distribution of Sormani et al. 2022, which already contains the X-shaped/boxy bar, is the correct gravitational potential of the MW.
    Section 2.2 adopts this potential. The orbit weights are fitted to its density, so the recovered X-shape and bar structure are inherited from this assumption.
  • domain assumption APOGEE giant stars on the same orbit have the same chemical abundance distribution, so abundances can be painted along orbits without additional chemo-kinematic relations.
    Section 2.2: 'each orbit can be considered as a sample of stars following each other along the orbit with similar stellar parameters'. This underlies all abundance maps, MDFs and the GMM decomposition.
  • domain assumption Star formation is negligible in the bar region, so present-day chemistry reflects initial abundances plus dynamical mixing, not ongoing enrichment.
    Used in Section 5.2 to interpret the metal-rich bar and to argue that young stars do not populate the boxy peanut. If recent star formation contributed significantly, the chemo-kinematic interpretation would require revision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rediscovering the Milky Way with orbit superposition approach and APOGEE data III. Panoramic view of the bulge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3DSCXZI

@misc{pith2026241118182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rediscovering the Milky Way with orbit superposition approach and APOGEE data III. Panoramic view of the bulge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3DSCXZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18182}
}
read the original abstract

The innermost parts of the Milky Way (MW) are very difficult to observe due to the high extinction along the line of sight, especially close to the disc mid-plane. However, this region contains the most massive complex stellar component of the MW, the bulge, primarily composed of disc stars whose structure is (re-)shaped by the evolution of the bar. In this work, we extend the application of the orbit superposition method to explore the present-day 3D structure, orbital composition, chemical abundance trends and kinematics of the MW bulge. Thanks to our approach, we are able to transfer astrometry from Gaia and stellar parameters from APOGEE DR 17 to map the inner MW without obscuration by the survey footprint and selection function. We demonstrate that the MW bulge is made of two main populations originating from a metal-poor, high-{\alpha} thick disc and a metal-rich, low-{\alpha} thin disc, with a mass ratio of 4:3, seen as two major components in the MDF. Finer MDF structures hint at multiple sub-populations associated with different orbital families of the bulge, which, however, have broad MDFs themselves. Decomposition using 2D GMMs in [Fe/H] -[Mg/Fe] identifies five components including a population with ex-situ origin. Two dominant ones correspond to the thin and thick discs and two in between trace the transition between them. We show that no universal metallicity gradient value can characterise the MW bulge. The radial gradients closely trace the X-shaped bulge density structure, while the vertical gradient variations follow the boxy component. While having, on average, subsolar metallicity, the MW bulge populations are more metal-rich compared to the surrounding disc, in agreement with extragalactic observations and state-of-the-art simulations reinforcing its secular origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On sky distribution of the APOGEE stars in our initial sample (left) and stellar mass-weighted density projection obtained by superposition of orbits of these stars (right). The top panels cover the entire disc of the MW, while the bottom ones zoom in into the MW bulge region. The orbit superposition technique not only reconstructs the 3D density distribution of the MW disc and bulge but also maps the abundance patt… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of the inner MW density structure along the line-of￾sight reconstructed using orbit superposition and APOGEE data. From top to bottom, the panels show the stellar density in (l,b) coordinates in 0.6 kpc-width slices with increasing distances from the Sun, as marked in the bottom left of each panel. The middle panel shows the boxy bulge structure at the Galactic centre, while the upper and lower panels show… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Line-of-sight density structure of the MW bulge reconstructed using orbit superposition and APOGEE data. The top left panel shows the selection of the bulge fields marked by circles of different colour with the total column stellar density on the background. Other panels show the stellar density distribution along the line-of-sight at different latitudes, as marked in the top left panel. The colour of the lines matc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orbital frequency distribution of the MW bulge populations. The top panel shows the stellar mass-weighted distribution of the in￾plane orbital frequency ratio, fr/ fx . The elongated orbits, fr/ fx ≈ 2, correspond to the bar, while the rest do not support the bar and r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Orbital decomposition of the MW bulge in face-on (top) and side-on (bottom) projections. The panels show the projected stellar density of orbits classified by their vertical-to-in-plane frequency ratio, fz/ fx (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kinematics of the MW bulge recovered using orbit superposition approach. The panels show the mean line-of-sight velocity (top) and the line-of-sight velocity dispersion (bottom) in the MW bulge region, lim￾ited by a heliocentric distance of 8.12 ± 3.5 kpc, around the G…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kinematics of the inner MW and bulge in the face-on projection. The panels show the mean heliocentric line-of-sight velocity (top) and velocity dispersion (bottom) maps at different latitudes. The grey contours show the total stellar isodensity levels, marking the exte…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Line-of-sight kinematics of the MW bulge. The panels show the mean line-of-sight radial velocity (top) and the line-of-sight velocity dispersion (bottom) versus longitude measured at different latitudes and in [Fe/H] bins, as marked in the header of the top panels. The…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [Mg/Fe] -[Fe/H] relation for the MW bulge. The left panel shows the distribution of APOGEE stars, while the right panel depicts the mass-weighted distribution obtained using the orbit superposition method within < 3.5 kpc from the Galactic centre. The yellow lines show…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the MW bulge MDF limited by different dis￾tances in the vertical direction from the midplane as marked in each panel. The blue line is the MDF weighed using the orbit superposition method versus the raw APOGEE sample counts in grey. The orbit su￾perposit…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MDFs of different orbital families of the MW bulge. The or￾bital families are classified according to the in-plane to vertical fre￾quencies ratio: inner boxy orbits (fz/ fx = 1.4 − 1.6), X-shaped or￾bits (fz/ fx = 1.6 − 1.9), banana orbits (fz/ fx = 1.9 − 2.2) and lon…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Shape of the MW bulge stellar density across different metallicity bins. The corresponding metallicity range and stellar mass are specified at the top of each panel. The top three panels represent the high-α populations, while the bottom panels depict the low-α popula…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Chemical abundance profiles across the bulge region. The left and middle panels in the top row show the mean stellar mass-weighted [Fe/H] and [Mg/Fe] , respectively, while the right one depicts the stellar mass fraction of the low-α populations (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Maps of the radial (top) and vertical (bottom) metallicity gra￾dients in the MW bulge region. The maps show the slopes of the metal￾licity profiles measured in each pixel within ±1 deg in the correspond￾ing direction. The radial and vertical gradient variations trace …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Face-on maps of the mean stellar metallicity [Fe/H] distribution across the MW disc. From left to right, the maps represent stellar populations within horizontal slabs at increasing distances from the midplane. Near the midplane (two panels on left), the bulge region …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Two-dimensional decomposition of the MW bulge in the [Mg/Fe] -[Fe/H] plane as a function of latitude based on the data inside 3.5 kpc from the Galactic centre. The left panels show the normalized stellar density maps, where the contours of different colours show the c…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Density structure of the MW bulge components identified using 2D GMM in the [Fe/H] -[Mg/Fe] plane. The top panels show the stellar mass density of each component obtained by multiplying the total stellar mass in the plane (background contours) by the 2D GMM probabilit…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Energy-angular momentum structure of the MW bulge components identified using 2D GMM in the [Fe/H] -[Mg/Fe] plane. The top panels are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

206 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., Méndez-Abreu, J., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A102

    2015

  3. [3]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44

    2023

  4. [4]

    2010, A&A, 513, A35

    Alves-Brito, A., Meléndez, J., Asplund, M., Ramírez, I., & Yong, D. 2010, A&A, 513, A35

    2010

  5. [5]

    R., Gough-Kelly, S., Debattista, V

    Anderson, S. R., Gough-Kelly, S., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2919

    2024

  6. [6]

    2018, Nature, 561, 360

    Antoja, T., Helmi, A., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 360

    2018

  7. [7]

    F., et al

    Arentsen, A., Starkenburg, E., Martin, N. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, L11

    2020

  8. [8]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179

    2003

Show all 206 references
  1. [9]

    2008, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Athanassoula, E. 2008, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 245, Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges, ed. M. Bureau, E. Athanassoula, & B. Barbuy, 93–102

    2008

  2. [10]

    & Misiriotis, A

    Athanassoula, E. & Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 35

    2002

  3. [11]

    & Gilmore, G

    Babusiaux, C. & Gilmore, G. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1309

    2005

  4. [12]

    2010, A&A, 519, A77

    Babusiaux, C., Gómez, A., Hill, V ., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A77

    2010

  5. [13]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 223

    Barbuy, B., Chiappini, C., & Gerhard, O. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 223

    2018

  6. [14]

    Barbuy, B., Friaça, A. C. S., Ernandes, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2365

    2023

  7. [15]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

    2018

  8. [16]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689

    2022

  9. [17]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4456

    2023

  10. [18]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V ., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880

    2020

  11. [19]

    2011, A&A, 533, A134

    Bensby, T., Adén, D., Meléndez, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A134

    2011

  12. [20]

    2019, The Messenger, 175, 35

    Bensby, T., Bergemann, M., Rybizki, J., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 35

    2019

  13. [21]

    2017, A&A, 605, A89

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Gould, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A89

    2017

  14. [22]

    A., et al

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A41

    2010

  15. [23]

    2003, A&A, 410, 527

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundström, I. 2003, A&A, 410, 527

    2003

  16. [24]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71

    2014

  17. [25]

    C., et al

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Yee, J. C., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A130

    2020

  18. [26]

    2021, A&A, 655, A117

    Bensby, T., Gould, A., Asplund, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A117

    2021

  19. [27]

    C., Feltzing, S., et al

    Bensby, T., Yee, J. C., Feltzing, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A147 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V . P., Anderson, S. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 38

    2013

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09799

    Boin, T., Di Matteo, P., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09799

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    W., Hunt, J

    Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4740

    2019

  22. [30]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 148

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Liu, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 148

    2012

  23. [31]

    & Papaderos, P

    Breda, I. & Papaderos, P. 2018, A&A, 614, A48

    2018

  24. [32]

    V ., & Dutton, A

    Buck, T., Ness, M., Obreja, A., Macciò, A. V ., & Dutton, A. A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 67

    2019

  25. [33]

    K., Macciò, A

    Buck, T., Ness, M. K., Macciò, A. V ., Obreja, A., & Dutton, A. A. 2018, ApJ, 861, 88

    2018

  26. [34]

    K., et al

    Buder, S., Lind, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2407

    2022

  27. [35]

    & Freeman, K

    Bureau, M. & Freeman, K. C. 1999, AJ, 118, 126

    1999

  28. [36]

    L., González-Fernández, C., et al

    Cabrera-Lavers, A., Hammersley, P. L., González-Fernández, C., et al. 2007, A&A, 465, 825

    2007

  29. [37]

    Chiba, R., Friske, J. K. S., & Schönrich, R. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4710

    2021

  30. [38]

    C., Fragkoudi, F., Khoperskov, S., Di Matteo, P., & Combes, F

    Ciambur, B. C., Fragkoudi, F., Khoperskov, S., Di Matteo, P., & Combes, F. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2203

    2021

  31. [39]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    Cirasuolo, M., Fairley, A., Rees, P., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    2020

  32. [40]

    Clarke, J. P. & Gerhard, O. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2171

    2022

  33. [41]

    P., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., et al

    Clarke, J. P., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3519

    2019

  34. [42]

    & Sanders, R

    Combes, F. & Sanders, R. H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    1981

  35. [43]

    P., Carollo, C

    Debattista, V . P., Carollo, C. M., Mayer, L., & Moore, B. 2004, ApJ, 604, L93

    2004

  36. [44]

    P., Carollo, C

    Debattista, V . P., Carollo, C. M., Mayer, L., & Moore, B. 2005, ApJ, 628, 678 Article number, page 20 of 24 S. Khoperskov et al.: Rediscovering the Milky Way bulge

    2005

  37. [45]

    P., Gonzalez, O

    Debattista, V . P., Gonzalez, O. A., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5073

    2019

  38. [46]

    P., Liddicott, D

    Debattista, V . P., Liddicott, D. J., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 118

    2023

  39. [47]

    P., Liddicott, D

    Debattista, V . P., Liddicott, D. J., Khachaturyants, T., & Beraldo e Silva, L. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3334

    2020

  40. [48]

    P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C

    Debattista, V . P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 209

    2006

  41. [49]

    P., Ness, M., Earp, S

    Debattista, V . P., Ness, M., Earp, S. W. F., & Cole, D. R. 2015, ApJ, 812, L16

    2015

  42. [50]

    P., Ness, M., Gonzalez, O

    Debattista, V . P., Ness, M., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1587

    2017

  43. [51]

    Debattista, V . P. & Sellwood, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 493, L5

    1998

  44. [52]

    Debattista, V . P. & Sellwood, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 704 Dékány, I., Minniti, D., Catelan, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, L19 Di Matteo, P. 2016, PASA, 33, e027 Di Matteo, P., Fragkoudi, F., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2019a, A&A, 628, A11 Di Matteo, P., Gómez, A., Haywood, M., et al. ...

    2000

  45. [53]

    G., Hauser, M

    Dwek, E., Arendt, R. G., Hauser, M. G., et al. 1995, ApJ, 445, 716

    1995

  46. [54]

    1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069

    Efstathiou, G., Lake, G., & Negroponte, J. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069

    1982

  47. [55]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 162

    Elia, D., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 162

    2022

  48. [56]

    & Debattista, V

    Erwin, P. & Debattista, V . P. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2058

    2017

  49. [57]

    & Gilmore, G

    Feltzing, S. & Gilmore, G. 2000, A&A, 355, 949

    2000

  50. [58]

    2023, A&A, 673, A44

    Ferrone, S., Di Matteo, P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A44

    2023

  51. [59]

    K., Sahlholdt, C

    Feuillet, D. K., Sahlholdt, C. L., Feltzing, S., & Casagrande, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489

    2021

  52. [60]

    2018, A&A, 616, A180

    Fragkoudi, F., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A180

    2018

  53. [61]

    Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5936

    2020

  54. [62]

    Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, L16

    2021

  55. [63]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3324

    Fragkoudi, F., Katz, D., Trick, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3324

    2019

  56. [64]

    2020, MN- RAS, 499, 1116

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Merrifield, M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al. 2020, MN- RAS, 499, 1116

    2020

  57. [65]

    Gadotti, D. A. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3308 Gaia Collaboration, Antoja, T., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A8 Gaia Collaboration, Drimmel, R., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A37 Gaia Collaboration, Katz, D., Antoja, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A11 Gaia Collaborati...

    2011

  58. [66]

    George, K., Subramanian, S., & Paul, K. T. 2019, A&A, 628, A24

    2019

  59. [67]

    2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Gerhard, O. 2020, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 353, Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys, ed. M. Valluri & J. A. Sellwood, 26–28 Géron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4389 Gómez, A., Di Matteo, P., Stefanovitch, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A122

    2020

  60. [68]

    A., Debattista, V

    Gonzalez, O. A., Debattista, V . P., Ness, M., Erwin, P., & Gadotti, D. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L93

    2017

  61. [69]

    A., Gadotti, D

    Gonzalez, O. A., Gadotti, D. A., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A7

    2016

  62. [70]

    A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 18

    2020

  63. [71]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A54

    2011

  64. [72]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A110

    2013

  65. [73]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1733

    Guo, R., Mao, S., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1733

    2019

  66. [74]

    R., Majewski, S

    Hayes, C. R., Majewski, S. R., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 49

    2018

  67. [75]

    D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109

    2013

  68. [76]

    2024, A&A, 690, A147

    Haywood, M., Khoperskov, S., Cerqui, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A147

    2024

  69. [77]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    2018

  70. [78]

    & de Zeeuw, P

    Helmi, A. & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657

    2000

  71. [79]

    2011, A&A, 534, A80

    Hill, V ., Lecureur, A., Gómez, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A80

    2011

  72. [80]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 933

    Hilmi, T., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 933

    2020

  73. [81]

    2009, A&A, 501, 941

    Holmberg, J., Nordström, B., & Andersen, J. 2009, A&A, 501, 941

    2009

  74. [82]

    D., Rich, R

    Howard, C. D., Rich, R. M., Clarkson, W., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, L153

    2009

  75. [83]

    D., Rich, R

    Howard, C. D., Rich, R. M., Reitzel, D. B., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1060

    2008

  76. [84]

    Hunt, J. A. S. & Bovy, J. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3945

    2018

  77. [85]

    A., et al

    Imig, J., Price, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 124

    2023

  78. [86]

    2017, A&A, 604, A106

    Jean-Baptiste, I., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A106

    2017

  79. [87]

    I., Rich, R

    Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Kobayashi, C., & Fulbright, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 749, 175

    2012

  80. [88]

    I., Rich, R

    Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Kobayashi, C., Kunder, A., & Koch, A. 2014, AJ, 148, 67

    2014

  81. [89]

    I., Rich, R

    Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Simion, I. T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1469

    2022

  82. [90]

    L., et al

    Kacharov, N., Tahmasebzadeh, B., Cioni, M.-R. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05374

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    & Gerhard, O

    Khoperskov, S. & Gerhard, O. 2022, A&A, 663, A38

    2022

  84. [92]

    2020, A&A, 634, L8

    Khoperskov, S., Gerhard, O., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, L8

    2020

  85. [93]

    2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.05287

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.05287

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.15062 Khoperskov et al

    Khoperskov, S., van de Ven, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.15062 Khoperskov et al. 2024, A&A

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    & Kennicutt, Robert C., J

    Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

    2004

  88. [96]

    M., et al

    Kunder, A., Koch, A., Rich, R. M., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 57

    2012

  89. [97]

    M., et al

    Kunder, A., Pérez-Villegas, A., Rich, R. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 270

    2020

  90. [98]

    M., Koch, A., et al

    Kunder, A., Rich, R. M., Koch, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, L25

    2016

  91. [99]

    Leung, H. W. & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2079

    2019

  92. [100]

    W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J

    Leung, H. W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J. T., & Miglio, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4577

    2023

  93. [101]

    & Shen, J

    Li, Z.-Y . & Shen, J. 2012, ApJ, 757, L7

    2012

  94. [102]

    Lian, J., Bergemann, M., Pillepich, A., Zasowski, G., & Lane, R. R. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 951 Łokas, E. L. 2019, A&A, 629, A52

    2023

  95. [103]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426

    2019

  96. [104]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107

    2022

  97. [105]

    & Gerhard, O

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I. & Gerhard, O. 2011, ApJ, 734, L20

    2011

  98. [106]

    & Gerhard, O

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I. & Gerhard, O. 2013, ApJ, 766, L3

    2013

  99. [107]

    2006, ApJ, 637, 214

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2006, ApJ, 637, 214

    2006

  100. [108]

    2016, PASA, 33, e040

    McWilliam, A. 2016, PASA, 33, e040

    2016

  101. [109]

    & Zoccali, M

    McWilliam, A. & Zoccali, M. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1491

    2010

  102. [110]

    & Sellwood, J

    Merritt, D. & Sellwood, J. A. 1994, ApJ, 425, 551

    1994

  103. [111]

    2013, A&A, 558, A9

    Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., & Martig, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A9

    2013

  104. [112]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New A, 15, 433

    2010

  105. [113]

    W., Liebert, J., et al

    Minniti, D., Olszewski, E. W., Liebert, J., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1293

    1995

  106. [114]

    2016, MN- RAS, 456, 692

    Molaeinezhad, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., Martínez-Valpuesta, I., et al. 2016, MN- RAS, 456, 692

    2016

  107. [115]

    Moorthy, B. K. & Holtzman, J. A. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 583

    2006

  108. [116]

    2024, A&A, 690, A136

    Mori, A., Di Matteo, P., Salvadori, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A136

    2024

  109. [117]

    C., Belokurov, V ., Aguado, D

    Myeong, G. C., Belokurov, V ., Aguado, D. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 21

    2022

  110. [118]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 96

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Mace, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 96

    2024

  111. [119]

    2017, A&A, 606, A97

    Nandakumar, G., Schultheis, M., Hayden, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A97

    2017

  112. [120]

    Nataf, D. M. 2017, PASA, 34, e041

    2017

  113. [121]

    M., Udalski, A., Gould, A., Fouqué, P., & Stanek, K

    Nataf, D. M., Udalski, A., Gould, A., Fouqué, P., & Stanek, K. Z. 2010, ApJ, 721, L28

    2010

  114. [122]

    P., Bensby, T., et al

    Ness, M., Debattista, V . P., Bensby, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L19

    2014

  115. [123]

    & Freeman, K

    Ness, M. & Freeman, K. 2016, PASA, 33, e022

    2016

  116. [124]

    2013b, MNRAS, 432, 2092

    Ness, M., Freeman, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 432, 2092

  117. [125]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 22

    Ness, M., Freeman, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 22

    2012

  118. [126]

    & Lang, D

    Ness, M. & Lang, D. 2016, AJ, 152, 14

    2016

  119. [127]

    A., et al

    Ness, M., Zasowski, G., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 2

    2016

  120. [128]

    2020, A&A, 637, A56

    Neumann, J., Fragkoudi, F., Pérez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A56

    2020

  121. [129]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 2438 Nordström, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al

    Neumann, J., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2438 Nordström, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 989

    2024

  122. [130]

    1977, Nature, 265, 515

    Okuda, H., Maihara, T., Oda, N., & Sugiyama, T. 1977, Nature, 265, 515

    1977

  123. [131]

    1995, Nature, 377, 701

    Ortolani, S., Renzini, A., Gilmozzi, R., et al. 1995, Nature, 377, 701

    1995

  124. [132]

    Ostriker, J. P. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1973, ApJ, 186, 467

    1973

  125. [133]

    2023, A&A, 673, A86

    Pagnini, G., Di Matteo, P., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A86

    2023

  126. [134]

    E., Wetzel, A., et al

    Panithanpaisal, N., Sanderson, R. E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 10

    2021

  127. [135]

    D., Smirnov, A

    Parul, H. D., Smirnov, A. A., & Sotnikova, N. Y . 2020, ApJ, 895, 12

    2020

  128. [136]

    Patsis, P. A. & Athanassoula, E. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2740

    2019

  129. [137]

    Patsis, P. A. & Harsoula, M. 2018, A&A, 612, A114

    2018

  130. [138]

    Patsis, P. A. & Katsanikas, M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3525

    2014

  131. [139]

    A., Skokos, C., & Athanassoula, E

    Patsis, P. A., Skokos, C., & Athanassoula, E. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 578

    2002

  132. [140]

    & Friedli, D

    Pfenniger, D. & Friedli, D. 1991, A&A, 252, 75

    1991

  133. [141]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 169

    Pietrukowicz, P., Udalski, A., Soszy´nski, I., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 169

    2012

  134. [142]

    M., Zhu, L., & van de Ven, G

    Poci, A., McDermid, R. M., Zhu, L., & van de Ven, G. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3776

    2019

  135. [143]

    G., et al

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Lattanzi, M. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L21

    2018

  136. [144]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18659

    Poggio, E., Khanna, S., Drimmel, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18659

    2024 arXiv

  137. [145]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., & Ness, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621

    2017

  138. [146]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 713

    Portail, M., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Martinez-Valpuesta, I. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 713

    2015

  139. [147]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155

    2023

  140. [148]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Chiappini, C., Perez-Villegas, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A156

    2021

  141. [149]

    Quillen, A. C. 2002, AJ, 124, 722

    2002

  142. [150]

    C., Minchev, I., Sharma, S., Qin, Y .-J., & Di Matteo, P

    Quillen, A. C., Minchev, I., Sharma, S., Qin, Y .-J., & Di Matteo, P. 2014, MN- RAS, 437, 1284 Article number, page 21 of 24 A&A proofs: manuscript no. mmw03_bulge

    2014

  143. [151]

    A., James, R

    Raha, N., Sellwood, J. A., James, R. A., & Kahn, F. D. 1991, Nature, 352, 411

    1991

  144. [152]

    B., & Stanek, K

    Rangwala, N., Williams, T. B., & Stanek, K. Z. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1387

    2009

  145. [153]

    J., Mao, S., Sumi, T., & Smith, M

    Rattenbury, N. J., Mao, S., Sumi, T., & Smith, M. C. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1064

    2007

  146. [154]

    E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D

    Reddy, B. E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 304

    2003

  147. [155]

    Rich, R. M. 1990, ApJ, 362, 604

    1990

  148. [156]

    M., Origlia, L., & Valenti, E

    Rich, R. M., Origlia, L., & Valenti, E. 2007, ApJ, 665, L119

    2007

  149. [157]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 293

    Rix, H.-W., Chandra, V ., Zasowski, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 293

    2024

  150. [158]

    2017, A&A, 601, A140

    Rojas-Arriagada, A., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A140

    2017

  151. [159]

    2014, A&A, 569, A103

    Rojas-Arriagada, A., Recio-Blanco, A., Hill, V ., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A103

    2014

  152. [160]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 1037

    Rojas-Arriagada, A., Zasowski, G., Schultheis, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1037

    2020

  153. [161]

    2019, A&A, 626, A16

    Rojas-Arriagada, A., Zoccali, M., Schultheis, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A16

    2019

  154. [162]

    2010, A&A, 509, A20

    Ryde, N., Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A20

    2010

  155. [163]

    & Gerhard, O

    Saha, K. & Gerhard, O. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2039

    2013

  156. [164]

    2016, A&A, 588, A42

    Saha, K., Gerhard, O., & Martinez-Valpuesta, I. 2016, A&A, 588, A42

    2016

  157. [165]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 333

    Saha, K., Martinez-Valpuesta, I., & Gerhard, O. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 333

    2012

  158. [166]

    K., Zoccali, M., McWilliam, A., et al

    Saito, R. K., Zoccali, M., McWilliam, A., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 76 Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Méndez-Abreu, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A6

    2011

  159. [167]

    L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al

    Sanders, J. L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2972

    2024

  160. [168]

    2020, A&A, 641, A96

    Savino, A., Koch, A., Prudil, Z., Kunder, A., & Smolec, R. 2020, A&A, 641, A96

    2020

  161. [169]

    2015, A&A, 584, A45

    Schultheis, M., Cunha, K., Zasowski, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A45

    2015

  162. [170]

    E., et al

    Schultheis, M., Rojas-Arriagada, A., García Pérez, A. E., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A14

    2017

  163. [171]

    1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  164. [172]

    Sellwood, J. A. 1981, A&A, 99, 362

    1981

  165. [173]

    Sellwood, J. A. 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

    2014

  166. [174]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Gerhard, O. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3175

    2020

  167. [175]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Wilkinson, A. 1993, Reports on Progress in Physics, 56, 173

    1993

  168. [176]

    A., Conroy, C., Chandra, V ., Hernquist, L., & Nelson, D

    Semenov, V . A., Conroy, C., Chandra, V ., Hernquist, L., & Nelson, D. 2024, ApJ, 962, 84

    2024

  169. [177]

    M., Kormendy, J., et al

    Shen, J., Rich, R. M., Kormendy, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, L72

    2010

  170. [178]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2026

    Siebert, A., Famaey, B., Minchev, I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2026

    2011

  171. [179]

    A., & Athanassoula, E

    Skokos, C., Patsis, P. A., & Athanassoula, E. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 847

    2002

  172. [180]

    C., Lucas, P

    Smith, L. C., Lucas, P. W., Kurtev, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1826

    2018

  173. [181]

    C., Gerhard, O., Portail, M., Vasiliev, E., & Clarke, J

    Sormani, M. C., Gerhard, O., Portail, M., Vasiliev, E., & Clarke, J. 2022, MN- RAS, 514, L1

    2022

  174. [182]

    M., & Kuijken, K

    Soto, M., Rich, R. M., & Kuijken, K. 2007, ApJ, 665, L31

    2007

  175. [183]

    A., Imig, J., et al

    Stone-Martinez, A., Holtzman, J. A., Imig, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 73

    2024

  176. [184]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 861

    Tahmasebzadeh, B., Zhu, L., Shen, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 861

    2024

  177. [185]

    M., et al

    Uttenthaler, S., Schultheis, M., Nataf, D. M., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A57

    2012

  178. [186]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    2019

  179. [187]

    & Valluri, M

    Vasiliev, E. & Valluri, M. 2020, ApJ, 889, 39 Vásquez, S., Zoccali, M., Hill, V ., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A91

    2020

  180. [188]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3576

    Vislosky, E., Minchev, I., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3576

    2024

  181. [189]

    J., & Shen, J

    Wang, Y ., Mao, S., Long, R. J., & Shen, J. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3437

    2013

  182. [190]

    Wang, Y ., Zhao, H., Mao, S., & Rich, R. M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1429

    2012

  183. [191]

    & Gerhard, O

    Wegg, C. & Gerhard, O. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1874

    2013

  184. [192]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4050

    Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Portail, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4050

    2015

  185. [193]

    Whitford, A. E. & Rich, R. M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 723

    1983

  186. [194]

    Williams, M. E. K., Steinmetz, M., Binney, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 101

    2013

  187. [195]

    M., Gerhard, O

    Wylie, S. M., Gerhard, O. E., Ness, M. K., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A143

    2021

  188. [196]

    E., Chojnowski, S

    Zasowski, G., Cohen, R. E., Chojnowski, S. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 198

    2017

  189. [197]

    W., et al

    Zhang, H., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16815

    2024 arXiv

  190. [198]

    N., & Rich, R

    Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., & Rich, R. M. 1994, AJ, 108, 2154

    1994

  191. [199]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1579

    Zhu, L., van de Ven, G., Leaman, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1579

    2020

  192. [200]

    2022, A&A, 664, A115

    Zhu, L., van de Ven, G., Leaman, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A115

    2022

  193. [201]

    A., Vasquez, S., et al

    Zoccali, M., Gonzalez, O. A., Vasquez, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A66

    2014

  194. [202]

    2008, A&A, 486, 177

    Zoccali, M., Hill, V ., Lecureur, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 177

    2008

  195. [203]

    2006, A&A, 457, L1

    Zoccali, M., Lecureur, A., Barbuy, B., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, L1

    2006

  196. [204]

    2003, A&A, 399, 931

    Zoccali, M., Renzini, A., Ortolani, S., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 931

    2003

  197. [205]

    Zoccali, M., Valenti, E., & Gonzalez, O. A. 2018, A&A, 618, A147

    2018

  198. [206]

    A., et al

    Zoccali, M., Vasquez, S., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A12 Article number, page 22 of 24 S. Khoperskov et al.: Rediscovering the Milky Way bulge Fig. A.1. Stellar mass-weighted age distribution (top) and age- metallicity relation (bottom) in the MW bulge region ( < ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.