Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 101 references

The chemical and spatial variations of the bulge's velocity ellipsoids

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A purely secularly evolved bar simulation reproduces the Milky Way bulge's velocity-ellipse trends, so a significant accreted classical bulge is not required.

desk verdict A careful, useful follow-up on bulge velocity ellipses with a genuinely handy new diagnostic (rho_rl), but the central claim rests on an untested metallicity-as-age proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02876 v1 pith:FZ5E4HC7 submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.GA

Luis M. San Martin Fernandez , Steven Gough-Kelly , Victor P. Debattista , Oscar A. Gonzalez , Ilin Lazar , Alvaro Rojas-Arriagada , Leandro Beraldo e Silva This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords GalacticbulgevelocityellipsoidvertexdeviationkinematicfractionationbarstrengthAPOGEEGaiaDR3N-bodysimulation
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 argues that the Milky Way bulge's velocity ellipses, quantified by the anisotropy $\beta_{rl}$, correlation $\rho_{rl}$, and vertex deviation $l_{\rm v}$, are produced by a bar that forms and evolves purely secularly, with no significant accreted classical bulge. The central evidence is along the bulge minor axis, where the correlation between the heliocentric radial and longitudinal velocities becomes more negative with decreasing stellar age in the simulation and with increasing metallicity in APOGEE DR16 data matched to Gaia DR3 proper motions. That continuous trend is the signature of kinematic fractionation: a bar that separates cooler, younger, more metal-rich stars from hotter, older, more metal-poor ones by their initial velocity dispersions. If the argument holds, the bar's amplitude in the Milky Way varies continuously with population rather than being constant above a metallicity threshold, and the metal-poor bulge need not be an accreted, unbarred component.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the velocity-dispersion tensor of a stellar population, compressed into three dimensionless quantities: in-plane anisotropy $\beta_{ij} = 1-\sigma_{jj}^2/\sigma_{ii}^2$, correlation $\rho_{ij} = \sigma_{ij}^2/(\sigma_i\sigma_j)$, and vertex deviation $l_{\rm v}$, with $\tan(2l_{\rm v}) = 2\rho_{ij}\sqrt{1-\beta_{ij}}/|\beta_{ij}|$ (Eqn. A10). The load-bearing mechanism is kinematic fractionation: the bar forms with a strength set by each age cohort's initial velocity dispersion, so younger, cooler stars become strongly barred and X-shaped while older, hotter stars remain weakly barred and boxy, and the same orbit families imprint age-dependent quadrupoles in $\beta$, $\rho$, and $l_{\rm v}$ that project into observable minor-axis trends along $l=0^\circ$.

What would settle it

Measure $\rho_{rl}$ along the minor axis for bulge stars split into narrow bins of individual asteroseismic age; if the correlation amplitude does not increase monotonically with decreasing age at $3.5^\circ<|b|<6.6^\circ$, the kinematic-fractionation explanation of the metallicity trend would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that $\rho_{rl}$ between the heliocentric radial and longitudinal velocities is a clean, continuous tracer of bar strength, while the vertex deviation $l_{\rm v}$ is a blunt one. In the isolated $N$-body$+$SPH simulation, young (4-7 Gyr) stars form a strong bar with a prominent X-shape and show much stronger negative $\rho_{rl}$ than old (9.5-10 Gyr) boxy stars; APOGEE stars split at the median $[{\rm Fe/H}] = -0.21$ dex follow the same separation. At fixed latitude, $\rho_{rl}$ rises in amplitude with decreasing age in the model and with increasing $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ in the data, which the paper reads as the first indication that the Milky Way bar's amplitude varies smoothly with metallicity, as kinematic fractionation predicts, rather than being constant above some metallicity. Along the way the paper shows that $l_{\rm v}$ peaks near $-45^\circ$ for both young and old populations whenever the velocity ellipse is nearly isotropic, so equal vertex-deviation peaks do not imply equal bar strengths, and that $\rho_{rl}$ changes little under distance uncertainties up to 35%, making it the recommended statistic for future bulge surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on treating metallicity as a proxy for age in the observed bulge and on assuming an isolated, merger-free simulation captures the Milky Way's bulge assembly; if $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ and age are scrambled in the real bulge, the agreement could be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Along the bulge minor axis, $l_{\rm v}$ reaches nearly $-45^\circ$ for both young and old populations at $|b|<6^\circ$, so vertex deviation alone cannot be used to argue that metal-poor bulge stars belong to a separate, unbarred accreted component.
  • $\rho_{rl}$ is the recommended bar-strength tracer: it grows monotonically with decreasing age and increasing $[{\rm Fe/H}]$, is robust to radial cuts and to distance uncertainties as large as 35%, and remains unbiased at small sample sizes.
  • Distance errors up to about 20% for the young population leave the anisotropy, correlation, and vertex deviation essentially unchanged, so current APOGEE plus Gaia DR3 data are adequate for the qualitative comparison.
  • The latitude band $3^\circ<|b|<6^\circ$ along the minor axis is the most promising window for future surveys to test whether the Milky Way bar amplitude is a continuous function of stellar population.
  • The model predicts that bar signatures such as the X-shape, strong streaming motions, and forbidden velocities weaken smoothly with age, so bulge samples with reliable individual ages should show a continuum of bar strength rather than two discrete components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the continuous $\rho_{rl}$ trend survives larger samples, the Milky Way bulge would be a single age-stratified bar-disc system whose bimodal metallicity distribution can arise from kinematic fractionation plus a thick disc, pushing any classical bulge below roughly 2% of the stellar mass.
  • A sharper test would replace the $[{\rm Fe/H}]$-age proxy with asteroseismic or Cepheid ages for bulge stars; the model predicts that $\rho_{rl}$ amplitude orders populations by age alone, independent of metallicity.
  • The appendix result that bootstrap errors for $l_{\rm v}$ are biased below a few hundred stars suggests that some small-sample historical vertex-deviation measurements in the bulge should be treated as upper limits on non-axisymmetry rather than detections of distinct components.
  • The same $\rho_{rl}$ diagnostic could be applied to external barred galaxies with integral-field kinematics, where the model's $(l,b)$ maps give a concrete template for how projection mixes near- and far-side bar streaming.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a kinematic analysis of velocity ellipsoids in an N-body+SPH galaxy simulation from Debattista et al. (2017), comparing model predictions for two age-selected bulge populations (young, 4-7 Gyr; old, 9.5-10 Gyr) with APOGEE DR16+Gaia DR3 bulge stars split at the median [Fe/H]. The authors compute the anisotropy beta_ij, correlation rho_ij, and vertex deviation l_v in galactocentric and heliocentric frames, and compare vertical profiles along the bulge minor axis and full (l,b) maps. They find that rho_rl increases in amplitude with decreasing age in the model and with increasing [Fe/H] in the data, and interpret this as evidence that the Milky Way bar's amplitude varies continuously with [Fe/H] through kinematic fractionation, making a significant accreted classical bulge unnecessary. The paper also argues that vertex deviation is a blunt tracer of bar strength whereas the correlation is robust and promising.

Significance. If the central inference holds, the paper would strengthen the secular-origin scenario for the Milky Way bulge by connecting a specific observable (the v_r-v_l correlation) to a continuously varying bar strength across stellar populations. The paper's strengths include careful bootstrap error estimation with B=500, an explicit test of bootstrap validity in Appendix C showing that vertex deviation is biased for small samples while correlation is well-behaved, a Monte Carlo study of distance-error effects in Section 7, and a comparison with weaker-bar and oval models in Appendix B that supports the proposed interpretation of rho_rl as a bar-strength tracer. These methodological checks make the descriptive kinematic results trustworthy. However, the decisive model-data link depends on an untested metallicity-as-age proxy and on an unquantified trend, so the interpretative conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5; Section 9.3(iv), Fig. 13] The central claim that the APOGEE [Fe/H] trend in rho_rl is evidence for kinematic fractionation depends on [Fe/H] being a monotonic proxy for age, but the paper neither validates this proxy nor can its simulation validate it. Section 5 states only the expectation that older stars are more metal-poor, while Section 3 reports that the simulation lacks metal diffusion, producing an excess of low-metallicity stars forming at all ages and a weakened age-metallicity relation, which is why the model populations are defined by age rather than metallicity. A broad or non-monotonic bulge age-metallicity relation could produce the observed [Fe/H] trend from mixed populations unrelated to the kinematic-fractionation sequence. Please test the proxy directly (e.g., with known APOGEE ages or chemical clocks), and/or compare model metallicity-sorted populations (acknowledging the weakened relation) to see whether the predicted trend survives. If this cannot be done, the inference should be framed as a prediction conditional on a monotonic relation.
  2. [Section 9.1 and Fig. 13] The paper describes the observed trend as a rise in |rho_rl| with [Fe/H] that "appears to be" present and may "plateau or even decline" within errors, but no statistical significance is quantified. With only three or four metallicity bins and bootstrap errors that appear comparable to the bin-to-bin variation, a constant rho_rl within the quoted uncertainties may be consistent with the data. Please provide a quantitative test of monotonicity (e.g., rank correlation with bootstrap significance, or a linear fit with uncertainty), and report the significance of the trend in the 3.5<|b|<6.6 degree bin where the claim is strongest.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (5)] Equation (5) appears to have a typographical issue in the summation notation, with an extra symbol inside the sum; please check and correct the displayed formula.
  2. [Fig. 13 caption] The histogram in Fig. 13 is labeled only with 'N', and the inset values such as '[248 248 117]' are not defined in the caption; please state explicitly what these numbers represent.
  3. [Section 9.2] The acronym 'VRT-LSST' is used without being defined; please expand it or provide a reference at first use.
  4. [Appendix B] The central-oval model has not been presented before, but the appendix gives no description of how it was constructed or how its parameters compare to the fiducial model; a brief description would help the reader assess the comparison.
  5. [Section 5.2] The statement that the APOGEE sample 'may be biased in distance for different metallicities' is noted but not investigated beyond a radial-cut test; please state explicitly whether the quoted rho_rl robustness checks included metallicity-dependent selection functions or whether this remains an open issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation is prior work and the APOGEE/Gaia comparison is independent, though the metallicity-as-age proxy is an untested assumption that limits the inference.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular: the model is a pre-existing N-body+SPH simulation from Debattista et al. (2017), and the observed data are an independent APOGEE DR16 + Gaia DR3 sample from Rojas-Arriagada et al. (2020). The model is not fitted to the observed rho_rl versus [Fe/H] trend. Instead, the paper compares an age-split model prediction with a metallicity-split observed trend. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the simulation lacks metal diffusion, which weakens the model's own age-metallicity relation, and therefore defines model populations by age rather than metallicity. The observational comparison then relies on the stated assumption that older stars are more metal-poor, which is an external validity concern rather than a circular derivation. Self-citations to Debattista et al. (2017) and Gough-Kelly et al. (2022) are legitimate because they describe the same simulation and prior predictions, and the present work adds new observable comparisons. Appendix B independently tests the claim that rho_rl traces bar strength by comparing strong-bar, weak-bar, and oval models, so the interpretation is not forced solely by self-citation. No equation or fitted parameter reduces to the paper's conclusions by construction. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of numerous self-citations and the unvalidated age-metallicity proxy, neither of which constitutes formal circularity.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. It relies on a previously published simulation (Debattista et al. 2017) and assumes several modeling choices, the most important being the age-metallicity proxy and the isolated evolution scenario. The scales (1.7 spatial, 0.48 velocity) are chosen to match the Milky Way but do not enter the dimensionless velocity ellipse diagnostics.

free parameters (4)
  • Spatial scaling factor = 1.7
    Applied to model coordinates to match the Milky Way bar semi-major axis of approximately 5 kpc (Section 3.1). Does not affect dimensionless velocity ellipse quantities but sets the spatial selection of the bulge region.
  • Velocity scaling factor = 0.48
    Applied to model velocities to scale to the Milky Way (Section 3.1). Does not affect anisotropy, correlation, or vertex deviation since they are dimensionless ratios.
  • Sun's distance to Galactic Centre R0 = 8.1 kpc
    Adopted from GRAVITY Collaboration et al. (2018) and used to select the bulge region and convert to Galactic coordinates.
  • Bar orientation angle = 27 degrees
    The model bar is rotated clockwise by 27 degrees to match the Milky Way's bar orientation (Wegg and Gerhard 2013), affecting the observed vertex deviation along l=0.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The N-body+SPH simulation evolves in isolation and forms a realistic barred galaxy with a box/peanut bulge.
    The simulation is the basis of the model. It was run in isolation, with no mergers, and assumes the stellar populations form out of cooling gas with a correlation between age and kinematics, as described in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Metallicity is a reliable proxy for age in the observed APOGEE bulge sample.
    Explicitly stated in Section 5: 'In the observations we use metallicity as a proxy for age, with the expectation that older stars are more metal-poor.' This assumption underpins the entire model-data comparison.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way bulge is symmetric with respect to the mid-plane.
    The observations fold stars across the mid-plane (projecting z'=-z and vz'=-vz for z<0) following Wegg et al. (2015), as stated in Section 5.2.
  • domain assumption Bootstrapping with B=500 iterations provides valid uncertainty estimates for the velocity ellipse statistics.
    Used throughout for both model and observations. Appendix C tests this assumption and finds it breaks for vertex deviation at small sample sizes (n<300-400), with biases up to 10-20 degrees.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The chemical and spatial variations of the bulge's velocity ellipsoids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZ5E4HC7

@misc{pith2026250602876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The chemical and spatial variations of the bulge's velocity ellipsoids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZ5E4HC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02876}
}
abstract

We study the velocity ellipsoids in an $N$-body$+$SPH simulation of a barred galaxy which forms a bar with a BP bulge. We focus on the 2D kinematics, and quantify the velocity ellipses by the anisotropy, $\beta_{ij}$, the correlation, $\rho_{ij}$, and the vertex deviation, $l_{\rm v}$. We explore the variations in these quantities based on stellar age within the bulge and compare these results with the Milky Way's bulge using data from APOGEE DR16 and {\it Gaia} DR3. We first explore the variation of the model's velocity ellipses in galactocentric velocities, $v_R$ and $v_\phi$, for two bulge populations, a (relatively) young one and an old one. The bar imprints quadrupoles on the distribution of ellipse properties, which are stronger in the young population, as expected from their stronger bar. The quadrupoles are distorted if we use heliocentric velocities $v_r$ and $v_l$. We then project these kinematics along the line of sight onto the $(l,b)$-plane. Along the minor axis $\beta_{rl}$ changes from positive at low $|b|$ to negative at large $|b|$, crossing over at lower $|b|$ in the young stars. Consequently the vertex deviation peaks at lower $|b|$ in the young population, but reaches similar peak values in the old. The $\rho_{rl}$ is much stronger in the young stars, and traces the bar strength. The APOGEE stars split by the median [Fe/H] follow the same trends. Lastly we explore the velocity ellipses across the entire bulge region in $(l,b)$ space, finding good qualitative agreement between the model and observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cumulative distribution of the stellar ages in the model for the bulge region. The total number of bulge stars is 𝑁⋆ ∼ 7.27 × 106 . We take stars in the range 4-7 Gyr (∼19%) and 9.5-10 Gyr (∼24%) as representing our young and old bulge populations, respectively. 3 SIMULATION We study the dependence of the vertex deviation on stellar ages across the bulge using the same 𝑁-body+smooth particle hydrody￾namics (SPH) sim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face-on view of stars of different ages, indicated at top left of each panel, in the bulge of the model, with (a) |𝑧 | < 3 kpc and (b) 0.5 < |𝑧 | < 3 kpc. The Sun is located at (𝑥, 𝑦) = (−8.1, 0) kpc. White dashed lines represent longitudes from −20◦ to 20◦ in steps of 5 ◦ (straight lines) and distances from the Sun from 5.1 to 11.1 kpc in steps of 1 kpc (curves). The 𝑅GC = 3.5 kpc circle is also shown. MNRAS 000, 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Edge-on view of stars of different ages, as indicated at top left in each panel, in the bulge of the model, with |𝑦| < 5 kpc. The Sun is located at (𝑥, 𝑦) = (−8.1, 0) kpc. White dashed lines represent latitudes from −20◦ to 20◦ in steps of 5 ◦ (straight lines) and distances from the Sun from 5.1 to 11.1 kpc in steps of 1 kpc (curves). a low vertex deviation everywhere within 𝑅 < 1.5 kpc (ignoring the outer noisy reg… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Face-on and (b) side-on views of the surface density of the young (left) and old (right) populations we use. In (a) we use a slice of 0.5 < |𝑧 | < 3 kpc, and in (b) we use |𝑦| < 5 kpc. White dashed lines represent longitudes (a) and latitudes (b) from −20◦ to 20◦ i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Face-on kinematic maps of the model using galactocentric cylindrical velocities 𝑣𝑅-𝑣𝜙 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Face-on view of the velocity ellipses of the young (left) and old (right) stars in the model, coloured by the vertex deviation 𝑙 𝑅𝜙 v . We have overlaid on each ellipse both its semi-major axis (solid coloured line) and a dotted black line pointing in the radial direct…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left block: anisotropy, correlation and vertex deviation (top to bottom). Right block: the associated errors, computed using bootstrapping with 500 repetitions. Each block contains two columns, corresponding to the young (left) and old (right) populations. Black solid …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Face-on kinematic maps of the heliocentric galactic velocities, 𝑣𝑟 and 𝑣𝑙 , for the model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of the APOGEE stars in our bulge sample in different spatial representations. The top row shows the distribution in Galactic coordinates, while the bottom row shows Cartesian Galactocentric coordinates. The Sun is located at (𝑥, 𝑦)⊙ = (−8.1, 0) kpc. All t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Metallicity distribution function of the APOGEE stars in the bulge region. The vertical line at −0.21 indicates the median metallicity. Given the relatively strong positive anisotropy, 𝛽𝑟 𝑙, of the model in the 𝑥-𝑦 plane along 𝑙 ∼ 0 ◦ across the full depth of the bulg…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Vertical profiles of anisotropy (top), correlation (middle) and vertex deviation (bottom) along the bulge minor axis, |𝑙| < 2 ◦ , within 𝑅GC < 3.5 kpc (darker) and 𝑅GC < 2 kpc (lighter). The shaded areas show the model while the data points show the APOGEE data. The n…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Kinematics as a function of metallicity (left) and age (right) for the APOGEE data and model respectively, along the bulge minor axis, |𝑙| < 2 ◦ . Each panel shows 3 different latitudes, as indicated in the legend, with saturated and light colours representing results…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: shows the variations of the anisotropy (top), correla￾tion (middle) and vertex deviation (bottom) with fractional distance errors from 0.05 to 0.35, for the young (left) and old (right) popu￾lations selected within |𝑙| < 2 ◦ , 3 ◦ < |𝑏| < 6 ◦ and 𝑅GC < 3.5 kpc. The va…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spatial distributions of stars in (𝑙, 𝑏) space, within 𝑅GC < 3.5 kpc. Panel (a) shows the surface density in the model for the young (left) and old (right) populations, and panel (b) shows the observed metal-rich (left) and metal-poor (right) star counts in selected b…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Kinematic maps in Galactic coordinates of the Galactic velocities for (a) the model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Babusiaux C., 2016, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2016.1] 10.1017/pasa.2016.1 , 33, e026

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.1 2016

  2. [2]

    Babusiaux C., et al., 2010, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014353] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014353 , 519, A77

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014353 2010

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    Bekki K., Tsujimoto T., 2011, @doi [MNRAS Letters https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01097.x] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01097.x , 416, L60

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Bensby T., et al., 2019, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Msngr.175...35B 175, 35

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5123 2019

  6. [6]

    Princeton University Press

    Binney J., Merrifield M., 1998, Galactic Astronomy . Princeton University Press

    1998

  7. [7]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...28B] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , 154, 28

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  8. [8]

    V., Bajkova A

    Bobylev V. V., Bajkova A. T., 2021, @doi [Astron. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063772921070015] 10.1134/S1063772921070015 , 65, 498

    doi:10.1134/s1063772921070015 2021

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ApJS http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , 216, 29

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Hunt J

    Bovy J., Leung H. W., Hunt J. A. S., Mackereth J. T., García-Hernández D. A., Roman-Lopes A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2891] 10.1093/mnras/stz2891 , 490, 4740

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Anderson J., Gnedin O

    Brown W. R., Anderson J., Gnedin O. Y., Bond H. E., Geller M. J., Kenyon S. J., Livio M., 2010, @doi [ApJL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L23] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L23 , 719, L23

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    L., 2015, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1314] 10.1093/mnras/stv1314 , 452, 956

    Büdenbender A., van de Ven G., Watkins L. L., 2015, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1314] 10.1093/mnras/stv1314 , 452, 956

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Calamida A., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/164] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/164 , 790, 7

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Cirasuolo M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...10C 180, 10

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Clarkson W., et al., 2008, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1086/590378] 10.1086/590378 , 684, 1110

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    I., et al., 2011, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/37] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/37 , 735, 37

    Clarkson W. I., et al., 2011, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/37] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/37 , 735, 37

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Debattista V

    Cole D. R., Debattista V. P., Erwin P., Earp S. W. F., Roskar R., 2014, @doi [MNRAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1985] 10.1093/mnras/stu1985 , 445, 3352

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Ness M., Earp S

    Debattista V. P., Ness M., Earp S. W. F., Cole D. R., 2015, @doi [ApJL] 10.1088/2041-8205/812/1/L16 , 812, L16

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Ness M., Gonzalez O

    Debattista V. P., Ness M., Gonzalez O. A., Freeman K., Zoccali M., Minniti D., 2017, @doi [MNRAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx947] 10.1093/mnras/stx947

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Gonzalez O

    Debattista V. P., Gonzalez O. A., Sanderson R. E., El-Badry K., Garrison-Kimmel S., Wetzel A., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., 2019, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz746] 10.1093/mnras/stz746 , 485, 5073

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acbb00] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb00 , 946, 118

    Debattista V. P., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acbb00] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb00 , 946, 118

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Dehnen W., Binney J., 1998, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01282.x] https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01282.x , 294, 429

    1998

  15. [23]

    K., Hempel M., Gonzalez O

    D \'e k \'a ny I., Minniti D., Catelan M., Zoccali M., Saito R. K., Hempel M., Gonzalez O. A., 2013, @doi [ApJL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L19] 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L19 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776L..19D 776, L19

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Di Matteo P., et al., 2015, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424457] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424457 , 577, A1

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Khoperskov, S

    Di Matteo P., Fragkoudi, F. Khoperskov, S. Ciambur, B. Haywood, M. Combes, F. Gómez, A. 2019, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832606] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832606 , 628, A11

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Drimmel R., Poggio E., 2018, @doi [RNAAS https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b] 10.3847/2515-5172/aaef8b , 2, 210

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142...72E] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 , 142, 72

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142...72E] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 , 142, 72

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Ferreras I., Wyse R. F. G., Silk J., 2003, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07056.x] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07056.x , 345, 1381

    2003

  21. [29]

    Haywood, M

    Fragkoudi F., Di Matteo, P. Haywood, M. Gómez, A. Combes, F. Katz, D. Semelin, B. 2017a, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201630244] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630244 , 606, A47

    doi

  22. [30]

    Haywood, M

    Fragkoudi F., Di Matteo, P. Haywood, M. Khoperskov, S. Gomez, A. Schultheis, M. Combes, F. Semelin, B. 2017b, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731597] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731597 , 607, L4

    doi

  23. [31]

    Haywood, M

    Fragkoudi F., Di Matteo, P. Haywood, M. Schultheis, M. Khoperskov, S. Gómez, A. Combes, F. 2018, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201732509] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732509 , 616, A180

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Fragkoudi F., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1104] 10.1093/mnras/staa1104 , 494, 5936

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833718] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 , 615, L15

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833051] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , 616, A1

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243940] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , 674, A1

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    E., et al., 2016, @doi [ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , 151, 144

    García Pérez A. E., et al., 2016, @doi [ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , 151, 144

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Robin A

    Gardner E., Debattista V. P., Robin A. C., Vásquez S., Zoccali M., 2014, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2430] 10.1093/mnras/stt2430 , 438, 3275

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87615] 10.1525/collabra.87615 , 9, 87615

    Gnambs T., 2023, @doi [Collabra Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87615] 10.1525/collabra.87615 , 9, 87615

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Rejkuba M., Minniti D., Zoccali M., Valenti E., Saito R

    Gonzalez O. A., Rejkuba M., Minniti D., Zoccali M., Valenti E., Saito R. K., 2011, @doi [ http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201117959 A & A ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117959 , 534

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527806] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527806 , 591, A7

    Gonzalez O. A., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527806] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527806 , 591, A7

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...18G 180, 18

    Gonzalez O. A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...18G 180, 18

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Clarkson W

    Gough-Kelly S., Debattista V. P., Clarkson W. I., Gonzalez O. A., Anderson S. R., Gennaro M., Calamida A., Sahu K. C., 2022, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3192] 10.1093/mnras/stab3192 , 509, 4829

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Governato F., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08640 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.463..203G 463, 203

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1487H 112, 1487

    Harris W. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1487H 112, 1487

    1996 doi

  37. [45]

    C., 2015, Am Stat https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2015.1089789, 69, 371

    Hesterberg T. C., 2015, Am Stat https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2015.1089789, 69, 371

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    F., 2015, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv195] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , 450, 53

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv195] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , 450, 53

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1690] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , 480, 800

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1690] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , 480, 800

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    I., Rich R

    Johnson C. I., Rich R. M., Fulbright J. P., Valenti E., McWilliam A., 2011, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/108] 10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/108 , 732, 108

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    I., Rich R

    Johnson C. I., Rich R. M., Kobayashi C., Kunder A., Pilachowski C. A., Koch A., de Propris R., 2013, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/157] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/157 , 765, 157

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    I., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1840] 10.1093/mnras/stac1840 , 515, 1469

    Johnson C. I., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1840] 10.1093/mnras/stac1840 , 515, 1469

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    M., 2002, @doi [AJ http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/342540] 10.1086/342540 , 124, 2054

    Kuijken K., Rich R. M., 2002, @doi [AJ http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/342540] 10.1086/342540 , 124, 2054

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    Lucey M., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab003] 10.1093/mnras/stab003 , 501, 5981

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L13] 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L13 , 777, L13

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2013, @doi [ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L13] 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L13 , 777, L13

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [AJ https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [AJ https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , 154, 94

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    McWilliam A., Zoccali M., 2010, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/1491] 10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/1491 , 724, 1491

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    Ness M., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/22] 10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/22 , 756, 22

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Ness M., et al., 2013, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sts629] 10.1093/mnras/sts629 , 430, 836

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Bensby T., Feltzing S., Ro s kar R., Cole D

    Ness M., Debattista V. P., Bensby T., Feltzing S., Ro s kar R., Cole D. R., Johnson J. A., Freeman K., 2014, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L19] 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L19 , 787, L19

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [AJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , 150, 173

    Nidever D. L., et al., 2015, @doi [AJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , 150, 173

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    M., 1995, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1038/377701a0] 10.1038/377701a0 , 377, 701

    Ortolani S., Renzini A., Gilmozzi R., Marconi G., Barbuy B., Bica E., Rich R. M., 1995, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1038/377701a0] 10.1038/377701a0 , 377, 701

    1995 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Zakamska N., Wood P

    Qin W., Nataf D. M., Zakamska N., Wood P. R., Casagrande L., 2018, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fb] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fb , 865, 47

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Queiroz A. B. A., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039030] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039030 , 656, A156

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Villata M., Navarro J

    Raiteri C. M., Villata M., Navarro J. F., 1996, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A 315, 105

    1996

  56. [64]

    J., Brunthaler A., 2004, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/424960] 10.1086/424960 , 616, 872

    Reid M. J., Brunthaler A., 2004, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/424960] 10.1086/424960 , 616, 872

    2004 doi

  57. [65]

    Renzini A., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aad09b] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09b , 863, 16

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Roca-Fàbrega S., Antoja T., Figueras F., Valenzuela O., Romero-Gómez M., Pichardo B., 2014, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu437] 10.1093/mnras/stu437 , 440, 1950

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    Rojas-Arriagada A., et al., 2014, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424121] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424121 , 569, A103

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    Rojas-Arriagada A., et al., 2017, @doi [A&A ttps://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629160] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629160 , 601, A140

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Recio-Blanco, A

    Rojas-Arriagada A., Zoccali M., Schultheis, M. Recio-Blanco, A. Zasowski, G. Minniti, D. Jönsson, H. Cohen, R. E. 2019, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201834126] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834126 , 626, A16

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    Rojas-Arriagada A., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2807] 10.1093/mnras/staa2807 , 499, 1037

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    C., et al., 2006, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05158] 10.1038/nature05158 , 443, 534

    Sahu K. C., et al., 2006, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05158] 10.1038/nature05158 , 443, 534

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    K., Zoccali M., McWilliam A., Minniti D., Gonzalez O

    Saito R. K., Zoccali M., McWilliam A., Minniti D., Gonzalez O. A., Hill V., 2011, @doi [AJ https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/76] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/76 , 142, 76

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    K., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118407 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    Saito R. K., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118407 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    Schultheis M., et al., 2017, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201630154] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630154 , 600, A14

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Gerhard O., 2020, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1336] 10.1093/mnras/staa1336 , 495, 3175

    Sellwood J. A., Gerhard O., 2020, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1336] 10.1093/mnras/staa1336 , 495, 3175

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Kormendy J., Howard C

    Shen J., Rich R. M., Kormendy J., Howard C. D., Propris R. D., Kunder A., 2010, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/l72] 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/l72 , 720, L72

    2010 doi

  69. [77]

    T., Shen J., Koposov S

    Simion I. T., Shen J., Koposov S. E., Ness M., Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., Lewis G. F., 2021, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab073] 10.1093/mnras/stab073 , 502, 1740

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    K., 2020, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff6] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff6 , 900, 4

    Sit T., Ness M. K., 2020, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff6] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff6 , 900, 4

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [AJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/498708] 10.1086/498708 , 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [AJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/498708] 10.1086/498708 , 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  72. [80]

    C., Evans N

    Smith M. C., Evans N. W., An J. H., 2009, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1110] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1110 , 698, 1110

    2009 doi

  73. [81]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac639] 10.1093/mnras/stac639 , 512, 1857

    Sormani M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac639] 10.1093/mnras/stac639 , 512, 1857

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Kuijken K., 2007, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1086/521098] 10.1086/521098 , 665, L31

    Soto M., Rich R. M., Kuijken K., 2007, @doi [ApJ https://doi.org/10.1086/521098] 10.1086/521098 , 665, L31

    2007 doi

  75. [83]

    Soto M., Kuijken, K. Rich, R. M. 2012, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116522] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116522 , 540, A48

    2012 doi

  76. [84]

    Stinson G., Seth A., Katz N., Wadsley J., Governato F., Quinn T., 2006, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x , 373, 1074

    2006

  77. [85]

    Surot F., et al., 2019, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935730] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935730 , 629, A1

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2015, @doi [Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261094] 10.1126/science.1261094 , 348, 314

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    Thielemann F.-K., Nomoto K., Yokoi K., 1986, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A\

    1986

  80. [88]

    Nataf, D

    Uttenthaler S., Schultheis, M. Nataf, D. M. Robin, A. C. Lebzelter, T. Chen, B. 2012, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219055] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219055 , 546, A57

    2012 doi

  81. [90]

    Renzini, A

    Valenti E., Zoccali, M. Renzini, A. Brown, T. M. Gonzalez, O. A. Minniti, D. Debattista, V. P. Mayer, L. 2013a, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321962] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321962 , 559, A98

    doi

  82. [91]

    Vásquez S., et al., 2013, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220222] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220222 , 555, A91

    2013 doi

  83. [92]

    W., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2004, @doi [New Astron

    Wadsley J. W., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2004, @doi [New Astron. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewA....9..137W] 10.1016/j.newast.2003.08.004 , 9, 137

    2004 doi

  84. [93]

    Wegg C., Gerhard O., 2013, @doi [MNRAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1376] 10.1093/mnras/stt1376 , 435, 1874

    2013 doi

  85. [94]

    Wegg C., Gerhard O., Portail M., 2015, @doi [MNRAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv745] 10.1093/mnras/stv745 , 450, 4050

    2015 doi

  86. [95]

    Weidemann V., 1987, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A\

    1987

  87. [96]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L29] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L29 , 824, L29

    Williams A. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L29] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L29 , 824, L29

    2016 doi

  88. [97]

    Zasowski G., et al., 2017, @doi [AJ https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9 , 154, 198

    2017 doi

  89. [98]

    N., Rich R

    Zhao H., Spergel D. N., Rich R. M., 1994, @doi [AJ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....108.2154Z] 10.1086/117227 , 108, 2154

    1994 doi

  90. [99]

    Zoccali M., et al., 2003, @doi [ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20021604] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021604 , 399, 931

    2003 doi

  91. [100]

    Barbuy, B

    Zoccali M., Hill V., Lecureur, A. Barbuy, B. Renzini, A. Minniti, D. G\'omez, A. Ortolani, S. 2008, @doi [A&A https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200809394] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809394 , 486, 177

    2008 doi

  92. [101]

    ichi Tadaki K., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJ https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/135] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/135 , 834, 135

    2017 doi

  93. [102]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.