Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 59 references

The Stellar Disk Structure Rrevealed by the Mono-age Populations of the LAMOST Red Clump Sample

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's disk has two vertical components: the thin one thickens with stellar age, the thick one stays constant, and both flare outward.

desk verdict Solid incremental mono-age structural study of the Milky Way disk with a large LAMOST RC sample; the main trends are plausible, but the radial break is fixed rather than measured and selection-function systematics are not fully addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14743 v1 pith:2ZBNYASG submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Zheng Yu , Bingqiu Chen , Jianhui Lian , Chun Wang , Xiaowei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords Galaxydiskstructureredclumpstarsmono-agepopulationsflaringscaleheightlengthLAMOSTGaiaDR3
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 maps the Milky Way's stellar disk in age slices, using 138,667 primary red clump stars from LAMOST and Gaia. It claims that the vertical distribution of each mono-age population is best described by two exponential components: a thin disk whose scale height grows with stellar age at every radius, and a thick disk whose scale height stays nearly the same across all ages. Both components flare outward beyond roughly 8 kpc. If this age-resolved structure is real, it provides a direct view of how the disk has heated and thickened over cosmic time and imposes constraints on formation mechanisms such as radial migration. The paper also finds that the radial surface density of both components peaks near the solar circle, between 7.5 and 8.5 kpc.

What carries the argument

The paper's central tool is the double-exponential vertical density model, $\rho = \rho_1[\exp(-|Z-Z_0|/h_{Z1}) + f\exp(-|Z-Z_0|/h_{Z2})]$, fit with an MCMC sampler to radial bins across five mono-age populations. The two scale heights, $h_{Z1}$ and $h_{Z2}$, separate the morphologically thin and thick disks, and their dependence on radius and age carries the entire argument: a fit is judged by whether $h_{Z1}$ tracks age and whether both scale heights rise with radius. The radial surface-density model is a broken exponential with break radius $R_{\mathrm{peak}}$, which lets the paper claim a common peak near 7.5-8.5 kpc. Selection effects are handled by a Bayesian per-star weight derived from the Gaia DR3 parent catalog.

What would settle it

Take a photometrically complete sample of red clump stars selected without spectroscopic targeting, measure the same vertical density profiles in the outer disk beyond 10 kiloparsecs and more than 2 kiloparsecs above the plane, and check whether $h_{Z1}$ and $h_{Z2}$ still rise with radius; if the flaring disappears, the trend was produced by missing faint stars, not by the disk.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the vertical density profile of each mono-age red clump population follows a double exponential rather than a single one, with a compact Component 1 ($h_{Z1}$ roughly 0.15-0.5 kpc) and a diffuse Component 2 ($h_{Z2}$ roughly 0.8-2.5 kpc). At fixed Galactocentric radius, $h_{Z1}$ rises with age across the five age bins, while $h_{Z2}$ is essentially the same for all age groups. Both scale heights increase with radius beyond the solar neighborhood, so the disk flares, and the flaring of the first component is somewhat stronger in older populations. The radial surface density profiles follow a broken exponential that peaks at $R_{\mathrm{peak}}$ between 7.5 and 8.5 kpc for both components, with the morphological thick disk having a larger scale length than the thin disk. The paper interprets this as evidence that the thin disk has been continually heated and has undergone radial migration, while the thick disk formed early and remained structurally stable.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the correction for LAMOST's incomplete sky targeting, derived from the complete Gaia catalog, leaves no remaining bias, particularly in the outer disk and at large heights where faint red clump stars fall below detection limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the age-scale-height trend holds, the thin disk has been heating continuously over its lifetime, so present-day thin-disk stars of different ages must have different vertical velocity dispersions at the same radius.
  • The age-independent thick disk scale height implies the thick disk's structure was set early, so chemodynamical models should not let the thick disk evolve much after the first few billion years.
  • The common break at 7.5-8.5 kpc in both components points to a global structural transition near the solar radius, which any Galactic disk model must reproduce.
  • The larger scale length of the morphological thick disk compared with the thin disk, if physical, conflicts with chemical-based definitions that put the thick disk shorter; reconciling the two will require treating age and chemistry separately.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because age uncertainties blur adjacent bins, the reported rise of $h_{Z1}$ with age is likely a lower bound on the true heating trend; a cleaner measurement with asteroseismic ages should steepen it.
  • The near-solar break at 7.5-8.5 kpc coincides with the outer Lindblad resonance of the Galactic bar; testing whether the break radius moves with the bar pattern speed would directly connect disk structure to the bar potential.
  • If the flaring of Component 2 is truly age-invariant, then the thick disk's flaring was set at birth or by a single early merger event; looking for the flare amplitude to be constant across the oldest mono-age bins in independent surveys would discriminate between secular heating and a one-time event.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a sample of 138,667 primary red clump stars from LAMOST DR8 and Gaia DR3, dividing them into five mono-age bins, constructing stellar number density maps in the R-Z plane, and fitting vertical profiles with a double-exponential disk model (Eq. 5) and radial surface density profiles with a broken exponential (Eq. 7). The central results are that both components of the vertical density profile flare in the outer disk; that the first (thin-disk-like) component's scale height increases with age at fixed radius while the second (thick-disk-like) component's scale height is roughly age-independent; and that the radial surface density profiles of both components peak near 7.5-8.5 kpc and decline outward. The paper also compares the mono-age results to earlier mono-abundance studies and discusses implications for radial migration and disk evolution.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides an age-resolved structural map of the Milky Way disk, with quantitative scale heights, flaring rates, and scale lengths for mono-age populations that can constrain models of disk heating, radial migration, and flaring mechanisms. The analysis uses a large, carefully classified RC sample from Wang et al. (2023), a modern selection-function correction via GaiaUnlimited (Castro-Ginard et al. 2023), and includes a mock test in Appendix A demonstrating that age uncertainties do not erase the age trends. These are genuine strengths. However, the strength of the central claims is limited by unpropagated systematic errors in the distance calibration and selection function, and by the fact that the radial break radius is assumed rather than measured.

major comments (5)
  1. [3.1] The text reports 'The resultant dataset comprised 9176 RCs' after applying the selection criteria in Section 3.1, whereas the abstract and conclusion state that the analysis uses a sample of 138,667 primary red clump stars. The relationship between the 9176-star subsample and the 138,667-star main sample is never explained. This is load-bearing: it is unclear whether the density maps in Section 3.3 are constructed from 138,667 stars or from 9,176 stars, and whether the distance-calibration relation of Eq. (1) is derived from the same sample used for the structure fits. Please clarify explicitly that 9176 is the high-latitude, low-reddening calibration subsample used to derive Eq. (1), and that the subsequent analysis uses the full 138,667-star sample, or correct the numbers so they are consistent throughout.
  2. [4.2] The radial profile fitting does not actually measure the peak radius. The text of Section 4.2 says the fitting is restricted to R > Rpeak, and the caption of Fig. 6 states 'Rpeak (set to 8 kpc)'. Thus the break radius is assumed, not fitted. The abstract, Section 5.2, and the conclusion nevertheless claim that the radial surface density profiles 'predominantly peak within a radial range of 7.5-8.5 kpc.' That range is not a result of any fit presented in the paper; it is an input assumption. Please either fit Rpeak as a free parameter (even with a coarse grid, given the limited number of inner bins) or revise the claims to state explicitly that Rpeak was fixed to 8 kpc and that the data are consistent with a peak in that region without having measured it.
  3. [3.2] The selection-function correction adopted from Castro-Ginard et al. (2023) assumes that the Gaia DR3 parent catalog is complete in every HEALPix, G-band, and color cell used. In the outer-disk, high-|Z| bins where the flaring signal is strongest (approximately R > 10 kpc, |Z| > 1-2 kpc, see Fig. 3 and Table 2), the RC stars are at photometric distances of 12-16 kpc and are near both the Gaia magnitude limit and the LAMOST faint limit, so residual incompleteness is likely largest exactly where the correction weights are largest. The quoted uncertainties in Table 2 are MCMC statistical errors only and do not include this systematic. Please add an end-to-end mock recovery test that injects a known stellar density distribution into the selection-function framework, applies the full pipeline (including the Gaia/LAMOST completeness limits), and checks whether the input flaring trends are recovered; or, failing that, provide a quantitative estimate of the residual selection bias in the outer-disk bins and propagate it into hZ1 and hZ2.
  4. [3.1] The distance calibration carries a systematic uncertainty that is not propagated into the structural results. Section 3.1 mentions a 3-5% systematic uncertainty in distance, and Eq. (1) is a polynomial fit whose coefficients have uncertainties; additionally, the reddening correction via Eq. (2) and the adopted extinction ratios introduce further systematics. These uncertainties affect the density maps through Eq. (3) and hence every fitted scale height and scale length. None of these are included in the error bars of Table 2 or Table 3. Please propagate the distance systematics, for example by re-running the entire fitting procedure with distances shifted by ±3-5% and by ±1-sigma variations of the Eq. (1) coefficients, and report the resulting systematic contributions to hZ1, hZ2, and hR.
  5. [Table 2] The paper's claim that the vertical profiles are 'best described by a dual-component disk model' is not supported in several bins. For example, in the 7-9 Gyr population at 11-12 kpc the BIC for the double-exponential model is +3.431 while that for the single-exponential is -51.112, and the 12-14 kpc bins for the 0-3 and 3-5 Gyr populations also slightly favor the single-exponential model. The text acknowledges this but still draws the universal two-component conclusion. Please quantify the number of radial bins (out of the 35 total) in which the double-exponential is preferred by, say, ΔBIC > 10, and discuss whether the exceptional bins indicate a real breakdown of the two-component description in the outer disk or simply a loss of statistical power due to sparse counts.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'Rrevealed' should be 'Revealed'.
  2. [Author list] The author name 'Chun W ang' appears with an erroneous space; this is likely a typesetting issue that should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (8)] Equation (8) writes Σ(R) = 2ρ1 hZ(R), but for the double-exponential model the vertical integral is 2ρ1(hZ1 + f hZ2). Please define the effective hZ(R) used in the radial surface density computation, or write the integrated form explicitly, so that the radial fitting in Section 4.2 is unambiguous.
  4. [4.1] The MCMC description gives 500 walkers and 40,000 steps but does not state the burn-in length or convergence criteria; please add these details so that the fit quality and the effective number of independent samples can be assessed.
  5. [Appendix A] The mock test in Appendix A only investigates the effect of age uncertainties; it does not include distance errors, selection-function residuals, or reddening systematics. Please state this limitation explicitly in the appendix, since the text currently says the methodology is 'robust' without qualifying the scope of the test.
  6. [5.1] The statement that hZ1 'typically reduces up to a radius of R = 7.5 kpc' is based on 1-kpc wide radial bins, so the minimum near R=7.5 kpc is a bin-scale feature rather than a resolved measurement; please phrase the description accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: structural parameters are empirical fits, and the self-citations are corroborative only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical and self-contained as a measurement. Distances are calibrated in Eq. 1 using a parallax-anchored high-latitude RC subsample and then applied; selection effects are corrected using the Gaia DR3 parent catalog via the Castro-Ginard et al. (2023) method; number densities are computed by Eq. 3; vertical and radial profiles are fitted with Eqs. 5 and 7, with hZ and hR as free MCMC parameters. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to an assumed result; the double-exponential versus single-exponential choice is tested with BIC rather than assumed. The age trends are read from Table 2, not imposed by the model. The self-citations (Yu et al. 2021; Lian et al. 2022, 2024) appear in the discussion as comparisons or corroboration for the solar-radius scale-height minimum and the profile break; they are not load-bearing for the central structural fits. The main vulnerability is the external completeness assumption in the selection-function correction in the outer disk and high |Z|, which is a systematic correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The distance scale, adopted extinction relations, RC classification ages, selection-function corrections, and assumed functional forms (double exponential vertical profile, broken exponential radial profile) carry the bulk of the burden. The structural parameters themselves are fitted outputs, but the claims depend on these upstream inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • M_Ks-[Fe/H] polynomial coefficients = -1.59, -0.097, 0.257, 0.106
    Third-order polynomial fitted to 9,176 RC stars with Gaia parallaxes (Sec. 3.1, Eq. 1) and used to compute distances for the full sample, so the density structure depends on this calibration.
  • Rpeak (radial profile break radius) = 8 kpc
    Set by hand in Sec. 4.2 for the broken exponential fit; the abstract's 7.5-8.5 kpc peak range is read off the data, not a fitted parameter.
  • Z0 (midplane offset) = 25 pc
    Fixed to 25 pc (Juric et al. 2008) in Eq. 5 for all R bins and age groups; affects the vertical profile normalization.
  • MCMC prior bounds (hZ1, hZ2, rho1, f) = hZ1:[0,1.5], hZ2:[0,4], rho1:[0,3e5], f:[0,0.5]
    Hand-set ranges in Table 1 can truncate the posterior; e.g., hZ1 is capped at 1.5 kpc, potentially biasing the derived age-hZ1 trend if the true scale height exceeds this.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption RC absolute magnitude relation M_Ks([Fe/H]) calibrated on high-latitude, low-reddening subsample applies to the full disk sample
    Sec. 3.1 uses the 9,176-star calibration at |b|>=30 deg to derive distances for all RCs; metallicity and extinction differences at low latitude could bias distances.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic color relation (J-Ks)0(Teff, [Fe/H], log g) from Wang & Chen (2019)
    Used for reddening correction and distance computation (Sec. 3.1, Eq. 2); adopted without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallaxes are unbiased with relative uncertainty <15%
    Distance anchors for the calibration sample; parallax systematics or Lutz-Kelker bias are not addressed (Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption LAMOST DR8 RC classification and ages from Wang et al. (2023) are correct to the stated purity and completeness (>90/95%) and age uncertainty (24%)
    The mono-age populations are defined by these ages; errors cause bin mixing, tested in Appendix A but not fully propagated.
  • domain assumption The selection function correction (Castro-Ginard et al. 2023) fully accounts for LAMOST targeting given a complete Gaia DR3 parent catalog
    Sec. 3.2; incompleteness at faint magnitudes or in RC classification is not modeled, which can bias the outer-disk flaring.
  • ad hoc to paper Vertical density profile is a sum of two exponentials (Eq. 5)
    The two-component decomposition is assumed across all R and age bins; the BIC itself sometimes prefers a single exponential for R>12 kpc and old ages (Table 2).
  • domain assumption Broken exponential radial profile with a single break radius (Eq. 7)
    Functional form adopted from Bovy et al. (2016); the break is not fitted but fixed.
  • domain assumption The extinction ratios RKS and RJ from Yuan et al. (2013) are accurate
    Used in AKS computation in Sec. 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Stellar Disk Structure Rrevealed by the Mono-age Populations of the LAMOST Red Clump Sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZBNYASG

@misc{pith2026241214743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Stellar Disk Structure Rrevealed by the Mono-age Populations of the LAMOST Red Clump Sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZBNYASG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14743}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the structure of the Galactic disk is crucial for understanding the formation and evolutionary history of the Milky Way. This study examines the structure of the Galactic disk by analyzing a sample of 138,667 primary red clump (RC) stars from the LAMOST and Gaia datasets. We have categorized these RC stars into mono-age populations and investigated their spatial distributions within the R - Z plane, estimating scale heights and lengths through the fitting of their vertical and radial density profiles. Our analysis indicates that the vertical profiles of these mono-age populations fit a dual-component disk model, where both components exhibit significant flaring, particularly in the outer disk regions. Within a constant Galactocentric radius R, the scale heights of the first component, representing the morphologically thin disk, rise with age. In contrast, the scale heights of the second component, corresponding to the morphologically thick disk, remain comparatively stable across different age groups. Additionally, the radial density profiles of both disk components predominantly peak within a radial range of 7.5-8.5 kpc. These findings underscore the importance of age as a crucial factor in shaping the spatial distribution and structural evolution of the Galactic disk, offering valuable insights into its complex dynamics and history.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. KS band absolute magnitudes of primary RCs as a function of metallicity [Fe/H]. Red points denote median values obtained by binning the data points into 15 bins with a bin size of 0.1 dex in [Fe/H]. The error bars indicate the standard deviations of the individual bins. The red dashed line is a third-order polynomial fit to the red points. [M/H], and log g): (J − KS)0 = − 4.791 log(Teff) 2 + 32.094 log(Teff) − 0.053… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: The number density distribution of the RC sample in R − Z plane. The density map uses a bin size of 0.03 × 0.025 kpc. The Sun is located at (R, Z) = (8, 0.025) kpc. Bottom panel: Sky maps of the selection function for our RC sample, illustrating variations in detec￾tion probability across different Galactic coordinates. The scatter plot displays data points spanning Galactic latitudes from −60 to 80 deg. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of stellar number density in the disk R–Z plane for different mono-age populations, indicated in the upper right corner of each panel. The density map uses a bin size of 0.125 × 0.125 kpc. Each panel represents a distinct age group, with density variations shown through a color gradient from blue (low density) to red (high density). For each mono-age population, stars are grouped into bins based on the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fitting of vertical stellar number density for the mono-age population (5−7 Gyr) using a double exponential function. Each panel shows results for a specific Ri bin, marked at the top. Median values and standard errors in 100 pc wide vertical bins (Zbins) are depicted …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Vertical scale height profiles for various mono-age populations. Error bars indicate 1-sigma uncertainty. The top and bottom panels show the radial dependencies of hZ1 and hZ2, respectively, for different age groups, as indicated. models (e.g., Bovy et al. 2016 for mon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial surface density profiles Σ(R) for the five mono-age populations. Different populations are offset ver￾tically for clarity. The top panel highlights Component 1, while the bottom panel focuses on Component 2. Each point represents the natural logarithm of surface…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [Fe/H]-[α/Fe] distributions for our RC sample stars across two age populations: 0−3 Gyr (left column) and >9 Gyr (right column). The red demarcations in Panels (a) and (b) distinguish the chemical thin and thick disk stars. Panels (c) and (e) respectively depict double…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The resulting age–hZ trend from the set of mock density distributions for a double exponential model. The left panel shows Component 1 (hZ1), while the right panel shows Component 2 (hZ2). The input density models had both hZ1 and hZ2 increasing monotonically with age …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Figures analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Figures analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Figures analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Figures analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z., Santos, N., Sousa, S., & Israelian, G

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Santos, N., Sousa, S., & Israelian, G. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 535, L11

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Z., Sousa, S., Santos, N., et al

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Sousa, S., Santos, N., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 545, A32

    2012

  3. [3]

    Z., Figueira, P., Santos, N., et al

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Figueira, P., Santos, N., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 554, A44

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00036 Amˆ ores, E., Robin, A., & Reyl´ e, C

    Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00036 Amˆ ores, E., Robin, A., & Reyl´ e, C. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 602, A67

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A158

    Anders, F., Gispert, P., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A158

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 735, L46

    Melendez, J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 735, L46

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 410, 527 —

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundstr¨ om, I. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 410, 527 —. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, 969

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A71

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

    work page 2014

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    F., et al

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 30

    2016

  2. [10]

    L., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Bovy, J., Nidever, D. L., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 127

    2014

  3. [11]

    G., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., et al

    Castro-Ginard, A., Brown, A. G., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A37

    2023

  4. [12]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 34

    Chang, C.-K., Ko, C.-M., & Peng, T.-H. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 34

    2011

  5. [13]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3278

    Chen, B., Liu, X., Yuan, H., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3278

    2018

  6. [14]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2545

    Chen, B.-Q., Liu, X.-W., Yuan, H.-B., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2545

    2017

  7. [15]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320

    2019

  8. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    2012

  9. [17]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Freudenreich, H., Berriman, G., Dwek, E., et al. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 429, no. 2, pt. 2, p. L69-L72, 429, L69

    1994

  10. [18]

    1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Fuhrmann, K. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 338, p. 161-183 (1998), 338, 161 —. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 173 Garc ´ ıa de la Cruz, J., Martig, M., Minchev, I., & James, P. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 5105

    1998

  11. [19]

    1983, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 202, 1025

    Gilmore, G., & Reid, N. 1983, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 202, 1025

    1983

  12. [20]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 2829

    Girardi, M., Boschin, W., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 2829

    2016

  13. [21]

    J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1481

    2023

  14. [22]

    D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 560, A109

    2013

  15. [23]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 29 15 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al

    Huang, Y., Sch¨ onrich, R., Zhang, H., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 29 15 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 864

    2020

  16. [24]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 094102

    Koo, B.-C., Park, G., Kim, W.-T., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 094102

    2017

  17. [25]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 1637

    Laney, C., Joner, M., & Pietrzy´ nski, G. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 1637

    2012

  18. [26]

    S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C

    Levine, E. S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 881

    2006

  19. [27]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 53

    Li, C., Zhao, G., Zhai, M., & Jia, Y. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 53

    2018

  20. [28]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Chen, B., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    2024

  21. [29]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4130

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Mackereth, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4130

    2022

  22. [30]

    2018, Astronomy & astrophysics, 616, A2

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & astrophysics, 616, A2

    2018

  23. [31]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095

    2015

  24. [32]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 94

    2017

  25. [33]

    L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al

    Martell, S. L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stw2835

    2016

  26. [34]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2474

    Martig, M., Minchev, I., & Flynn, C. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2474

    2014

  27. [35]

    Mateu, C., & Vivas, A. K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 211

    2018

  28. [36]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 7pp

    Minchev, I. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 7pp

    2017

  29. [37]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A92

    Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., & Martig, M. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A92

    2014

  30. [38]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 548, A127

    Minchev, I., Famaey, B., Quillen, A., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 548, A127

    2012

  31. [39]

    McWilliam, A., & Wolfe, A. M. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 2513

    2000

  32. [40]

    E., Lambert, D

    Reddy, B. E., Lambert, D. L., & Prieto, C. A. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 367, 1329

    2006

  33. [41]

    2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1

    Rix, H.-W., & Bovy, J. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1

    2013

  34. [42]

    C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S

    Robin, A. C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 409, 523 Romero-G´ omez, M., Mateu, C., Aguilar, L., Figueras, F., &

    2003

  35. [43]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A150

    Castro-Ginard, A. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A150

    2019

  36. [44]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 337, 332

    Salaris, M., & Girardi, L. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 337, 332

    2002

  37. [45]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525

    1998

  38. [46]

    1978, The annals of statistics, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The annals of statistics, 461

    1978

  39. [47]

    M., Skowron, J., Mr´ oz, P., et al

    Skowron, D. M., Skowron, J., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11142 Ted Mackereth, J., Bovy, J., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 3057

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 858, L7

    Ting, Y.-S., Hawkins, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 858, L7

    2018

  41. [49]

    G., Prusti, T., et al

    Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G., Prusti, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1

    2023

  42. [50]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 51

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Yuan, H., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 51

    2022

  43. [51]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A26

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, H. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A26

    2023

  44. [52]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 116

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 116

    2019

  45. [53]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599

    2022

  46. [54]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Yang, H., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    2024

  47. [55]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 33

    Xiang, M., Shi, J., Liu, X., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 33

    2018

  48. [56]

    1982, Publications of the Astronomical Society of

    Yoshii, Y. 1982, Publications of the Astronomical Society of

    1982

  49. [57]

    Japan, Vol. 34, P. 365, 1982, 34, 365

    1982

  50. [58]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 106

    Yu, Z., Li, J., Chen, B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 106

    2021

  51. [59]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 2188 16 APPENDIX A

    Yuan, H.-B., Liu, X.-W., & Xiang, M.-S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 2188 16 APPENDIX A. APPENDIX: THE EFFECT OF UNCERTAINTIES ON TRENDS WITH AGE To assess the impact of age uncertainties on our derived structural parameters, we conducted tests...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.