Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

The Milky Way is a less massive galaxy--new estimates of the Milky Way's local and global stellar masses

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper estimates the Milky Way's total stellar mass at about 2.6×10^10 solar masses—roughly half the canonical value—because the inner disk profile is flat, not an exponential extrapolation of the outer disk.

desk verdict A factor-of-two lower Milky Way stellar mass that rests on a single uniform rescale of APOGEE to Gaia; the local measurement is credible, the global claim needs peer review on the radial dependence of that rescale. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13665 v1 pith:XXQJMZAO submitted 2025-08-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Jianhui Lian (Yunnan Uni.) , Tao Wang (Yunnan Uni.) , Qikang Feng (Peking Uni.) , Yang Huang (U of Chinese Academy of Sciences) , Helong Guo (Yunnan Uni.) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords MilkyWaystellarmassGalacticdiskradialprofilesurfacedensityselectionfunctionastrometricsurveyspectroscopicbulge-to-totalratiodarkmatterfraction
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 aims to settle the Milky Way's most fundamental global property—its total stellar mass—by reconstructing the vertical density profile at the solar circle and the radial mass profile across the whole disk, using large astrometric and spectroscopic surveys with careful selection-function corrections. The headline result is that the Galaxy's stellar mass is $(2.607\pm0.353\,(\mathrm{syst.}))\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, about half the canonical value of roughly $6\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. The reason is the shape of the inner disk: the reconstructed radial profile is flat in the inner few kiloparsecs, whereas previous mass estimates extrapolated a single exponential from the outer disk, which overpredicts the mass there. If true, the Milky Way becomes a typical low-mass galaxy in scaling relations (black-hole mass, metallicity, size) and implies a larger dark-matter-to-stellar-mass ratio in the inner Galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radial stellar surface mass density profile $\Sigma_*(R)$, reconstructed from near-infrared spectroscopic survey data by dividing observed star counts in mono-abundance and distance bins by a multi-component selection function (color-magnitude box, targeting fraction, and observed fraction), then converting counts to mass with stellar isochrones, an initial mass function, and stellar-evolution remnant fractions. The key move is the recalibration: because the spectroscopic survey's own local surface density ($43.218\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$) disagrees with the astrometric survey's ($31.563\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$), the entire radial profile i

What would settle it

Measure the stellar mass surface density at $R\approx3\text{--}5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ with a method independent of the spectroscopic survey's selection function—for example, deep near-infrared star counts calibrated by astrometric parallaxes and a 3D extinction map, or gravitational microlensing optical depths toward the bulge. If these find an inner-disk mass close to the old single-exponential extrapolation (total disk of roughly $4.3\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$), the factor-of-two reduction would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives a new total stellar mass of the Milky Way of $(2.607\pm0.353\,(\mathrm{syst.})\pm0.085\,(\mathrm{stoch.}))\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, a factor of two below previous estimates. It attributes this to the radial surface mass density profile: the inner disk ($R<8\,\mathrm{kpc}$) is much flatter than the outer exponential, so extrapolating the outer disk's $2.1\,\mathrm{kpc}$ scale length inward overestimates the disk mass by a factor of roughly 2.2. The mass profile is anchored at the solar circle to a local stellar surface density of $31.563\pm2.813\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$, obtained after a uniform recalibration of the spectroscopic survey profile (which gav

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spectroscopic radial profile can be corrected to the astrometric local density by a single, uniform rescaling factor, even though the paper reports a 37% local disagreement with unknown cause; if the discrepancy varies with radius (for example, if it grows toward the high-extinction inner disk), both the flat inner profile and the total mass would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way's supermassive black hole becomes normal: $M_{\rm BH}/M_*$ rises to $\sim1.6\times10^{-4}$, consistent with that of local galaxies.
  • The baryon budget shifts: dark matter dominates the inner Galaxy's mass budget, with a more concentrated dark halo (smaller scale radius, larger characteristic density) than previously inferred.
  • The Galaxy's integrated gas and stellar metallicities become closer to those of comparable low-mass galaxies, reducing its apparent offset in mass-metallicity relations.
  • The half-mass radius of $4.12\,\mathrm{kpc}$ being far smaller than the half-light radius of $5.75\,\mathrm{kpc}$ indicates a strong radial gradient in the mass-to-light ratio.
  • The bulge mass of $0.673\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ is at the low end of previous bulge estimates, favoring photometric star-count determinations over dynamical ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unexplained 37% local discrepancy between the two survey surface densities is the paper's largest unresolved internal tension; if it is radial-dependent rather than a constant offset, the flat inner-disk conclusion and the total mass would need revision, and the quoted systematic budget does not include this effect.
  • If the Milky Way is genuinely a $\sim2.6\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ galaxy, then external late-type galaxies with similarly broken inner light profiles may have masses systematically overestimated by exponential extrapolations of their outer disks; a statistical re-analysis of external galaxy mass profiles could test this.
  • The method predicts that future inner-disk and bulge surveys will find lower stellar mass in the bulge region than indicated by dynamical models, because the photometric star-count approach used here delivers the low end of the previous bulge mass range.
  • A tight test would be to re-derive the local vertical density profile with the full astrometric data and a purely data-driven selection function; if the local surface density drops further, the total mass would shift even lower.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines Gaia-based vertical mass density reconstruction in the solar cylinder with an APOGEE-based radial surface mass density profile of the Milky Way, corrected for selection effects on mono-abundance populations. The Gaia data yield a local stellar surface density of 31.563±2.813(syst.)±0.024(stoch.) Msun/pc2, with a fit that favors exponential over sech2 vertical profiles and shows north-south asymmetry beyond 1 kpc. The APOGEE radial profile is recalibrated to the Gaia local value, integrated to give a total stellar mass of 2.607±0.353(syst.)±0.085(stoch.)×10^10 Msun, and decomposed into disk and bulge masses, implying B/T≈0.26 and a half-mass radius of 4.12 kpc. The authors argue that the previously used single-exponential outer-disk extrapolation overestimates the inner disk mass by a factor of ~2, making the Milky Way a less massive galaxy than often assumed and changing its placement in scaling relations.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper is significant: it would revise the Milky Way's stellar mass downward by roughly a factor of two, with consequences for supermassive-black-hole scaling relations, mass-metallicity comparisons, and the inferred inner dark-matter fraction. The local Gaia measurement is a genuine strength: the sample is large, the distance quality is high, and the vertical-model dependence of the integrated local surface density is small (~2% across the models in Table 1). The APOGEE-based radial profile spanning 0–16 kpc in mono-age populations is also a valuable product. However, the global claim rests on a uniform recalibration of the APOGEE profile to the Gaia local density, a step whose validity is not yet established and whose uncertainty is not included in the quoted systematics. The paper therefore needs additional validation or a substantially expanded error budget before the global result can be regarded as secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] The global mass is anchored by multiplying the APOGEE radial profile by a constant factor 31.563/43.218 ≈ 0.73, because the local APOGEE surface density (43.218 Msun/pc2) exceeds the Gaia value (31.563 Msun/pc2) by 37%. The paper states that 'the reason for the discrepancy is still unknown.' The headline M* = 2.607×10^10 Msun and the flat inner-disk claim are contingent on this discrepancy being a radius-independent normalization error. If the APOGEE selection-function correction is biased in a radius-dependent way—for example, if the error grows toward the high-extinction inner disk—then both the flat inner component and the integrated mass would change. The authors should provide a test of radius-independence, e.g. by comparing the APOGEE profile with independent inner-disk tracers (red-clump counts, microlensing, LAMOST-based density maps), or by explicitly allowing a radial-dependent
  2. [§3.2] The quoted systematic uncertainty in the integral mass, ±0.353×10^10 Msun, is derived only from the choice of stellar evolution model and the bulge extinction map (sqrt(0.329^2+0.129^2)). The 37% APOGEE/Gaia local normalization mismatch is not included in this budget. Because the central value is directly proportional to the adopted anchor (31.563/43.218), this is the dominant unknown and must be reflected in the systematic error bar. At minimum, the authors should report how M* changes if the Gaia local density is shifted by its own systematic uncertainty and if the recalibration factor is allowed to vary with radius.
  3. [Abstract / §3.2 / Table 2] The stochastic uncertainty reported for the total mass is internally inconsistent: the Abstract gives ±0.085×10^10 Msun, §3.2 gives ±0.148×10^10 Msun, and Table 2 lists ±0.11×10^10 Msun. The local surface-density stochastic error is also given as ±0.024 in the Abstract and ±0.03 in §3.1. These numbers must be harmonized and their definitions clarified; currently a reader cannot tell which value represents the actual precision of the measurement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The text cites 'Lian et al. submitted' in §3.2, but no corresponding entry appears in the reference list. Please add the reference or replace it with a published citation.
  2. [Table 1] The column headers are hard to parse: 'nz 0 ρ0,thin' appears to combine the sech2/n index n, the mid-plane offset z0, and the mid-plane density, but the notation is not defined clearly. For the sech2/n rows, the reported first entry (e.g. 3.6±0.1 for the asymmetric model) should be explicitly labelled as n.
  3. [Figure 1] Axis labels in the draft render as 'log(*/M pc3)' and 'log(*/M pc2)' without subscripts or superscripts. Please ensure the final figures use ρ* and Msun pc^-3 / Msun pc^-2.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and LaTeX artifacts: 'Possion' should be 'Poisson', 'drived' should be 'derived', 'anoymous' should be 'anonymous', and 'high-qaulity' should be 'high-quality'. These should be corrected in the final version.
  5. [§3.2] The bulge/disk decomposition is described in only one sentence: 'the bulge mass is estimated as the sum ... after subtracting the disk contribution extrapolated from a linear fit to the disk profile between 4 and 7 kpc.' More detail on the fit and a sensitivity test would help, especially because B/T=0.26 appears in the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the total stellar mass is a genuine integral of a calibrated radial profile, not a tautology; the Gaia-anchored recalibration is transparent and the factor-of-two discrepancy persists even with the APOGEE anchor.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular in the strict sense. The Gaia-based local surface density (31.563 M_sun/pc^2) is an independent measurement obtained from Gaia parallaxes, a completeness-adjusted sample, and a vertical-density fit. The APOGEE radial mass profile is separately reconstructed from APOGEE counts corrected for a multi-dimensional selection function. The total stellar mass (2.607e10 M_sun) is then the integral of the recalibrated radial profile. The recalibration step explicitly multiplies the APOGEE profile by the ratio of the Gaia local density to the APOGEE local density (31.563/43.218); this is a stated calibration, not a hidden fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Moreover, the paper shows that even using the APOGEE normalization the total mass would be 3.55e10 M_sun, still substantially below the canonical 6.08e10 M_sun, so the core 'factor of two lower' claim does not reduce solely to the choice of Gaia anchor. The flat inner disk, which drives the mass reduction, is derived from the APOGEE-based mass profile in this paper as well as from the companion brightness profile (Lian et al. 2024), but it is an independent reconstruction rather than an input assumed a priori. Self-citations to Lian et al. (2022, 2024) provide methods and prior context, but the load-bearing quantities (local density, radial profile shape, total integral) are computed here from the data. The assumption that the 37% APOGEE/Gaia discrepancy is a radius-independent normalization is a robustness concern, not a circularity, and is acknowledged by the authors as an unknown discrepancy. No equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central total-mass claim rests on: a uniform recalibration factor chosen between two disagreeing measurements, vertical-profile model parameters fit to the same data, a mock-catalog age-metallicity distribution imported from the authors' earlier paper, stellar evolution and IMF inputs, an axisymmetry assumption, and a disk-subtraction extrapolation for the bulge. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • APOGEE-to-Gaia recalibration factor = 31.563/43.218 ≈ 0.730
    Chosen because the paper judges Gaia more accurate; applied uniformly to the whole APOGEE radial profile (§3.2). The alternative (no recalibration) yields 3.55×10^10 M_sun, 36% higher.
  • Vertical density profile model parameters = Table 1 asymmetric exp: rho0,thin=0.036, hz,thin,n=0.26, hz,thin,s=0.27, rho0,thick=0.0042, hz,thick,n=0.77, hz,thick,s=
    Fit to the Gaia vertical profile; the adopted exponential asymmetric model is one of six fitted forms. Alternative models give Σ* from 24.52 to 25.07 M_sun/pc^2, so this is a minor driver.
  • sech2/n index n = 3.6±0.1 (asymmetric), 3.5±0.1 (offset)
    Fitted from the data; the paper then adopts n=∞ (exponential) for the final integral, so the fitted n is not directly used in the headline value.
  • NFW dark matter parameters = rho_s=0.337 (Fig. 3 units), r_s=3.2 kpc
    Fitted to the Zhou et al. (2023) circular velocity curve in the rotation-curve decomposition; affects the dark-matter-to-baryon ratio implication, a secondary claim.
  • Mock catalog age-metallicity distribution = Taken from Lian et al. (2022)
    Used to convert Gaia star counts into mass via PARSEC isochrone sampling; imported from the authors' earlier paper rather than measured here.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The selected Gaia sample is complete to 15.5 mag in RP throughout the cylinder region given the parallax cut, and the per-bin absolute magnitude limit of Eq. (1) captures the selection.
    §2.1; if completeness is wrong, the vertical profile and the 31.563 local surface density change.
  • domain assumption PARSEC isochrones, the Kroupa IMF, and Maraston (2005) age/metallicity-dependent remnant fractions correctly convert star counts into stellar mass.
    §2.1; the isochrone choice alone shifts the local density by 2.81 M_sun/pc^2, quoted as the main local systematic.
  • ad hoc to paper The APOGEE selection function, with targeting fractions from Imig et al. (2022) and distance/age from astroNN, is accurate in the inner Galaxy where extinction is high.
    §2.2; the flat inner disk, the main driver of the factor-of-two mass reduction, is a product of this correction in the least-verified regime, and no independent validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The 37% discrepancy between the APOGEE-derived and Gaia-derived local densities is radial-independent and can be removed by a uniform recalibration.
    §3.2; 'the reason for the discrepancy is still unknown,' yet the entire radial profile is rescaled by one factor.
  • domain assumption The Galaxy is axisymmetric in each mono-abundance population bin for the radial profile reconstruction.
    §2.2; departures such as the bar or warp would bias the radial profile and thus the integral.
  • domain assumption The bulge mass can be obtained by subtracting a disk component extrapolated from a linear fit to the disk profile between 4 and 7 kpc down to R=0.
    §3.2; the bulge contributes 0.673×10^10 M_sun, about 26% of the total, so this extrapolation matters for the headline value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Milky Way is a less massive galaxy--new estimates of the Milky Way's local and global stellar masses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXQJMZAO

@misc{pith2026250813665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Milky Way is a less massive galaxy--new estimates of the Milky Way's local and global stellar masses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXQJMZAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13665}
}
abstract

Stellar mass is the most fundamental property of a galaxy. While it has been robustly measured for millions of external galaxies, it remains poorly constrained for the Milky Way because of the strong selection effect from our inside perspective. In this work, we reconstruct the intrinsic vertical mass density profile in the solar neighborhood and the radial mass density profile across the entire Galaxy using data from the Gaia and APOGEE surveys, following careful correction for the selection function. The local density profile exhibits strong north-south asymmetry in the geometric thick disk regime and increases steeply toward the disk mid-plane, favoring an exponential model over the sech$^2$ model. Integrating the local vertical density profile yields a surface stellar mass density of 31.563$\pm$2.813(syst.)$\pm$0.024(stoch.)~${\rm M_{\odot}pc^{-2}}$, of which 25.074 and 6.489~${\rm M_{\odot}pc^{-2}}$ correspond to living stars and stellar remnants, respectively. The radial surface mass density profile {of the Milky Way} shares the same flat inner component as observed in the brightness profile. With this mass density profile {and local mass density from Gaia}, we derive a new estimate of the total stellar mass of the Milky Way of 2.607$\pm$0.353(syst.)$\pm$0.085(stoch.)${\rm \times10^{10}M_{\odot}}$, a factor of two lower than the previous results. This discrepancy arises primarily from the inner disk profile, which was previously unavailable and extrapolated from the outer disk profile. The lower stellar mass estimate of the Milky Way significantly reduces its rarity in terms of supermassive black hole mass among external galaxies and implies a larger dark matter-to-baryon mass ratio in the inner Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vertical mass density profiles of living stars and stellar remnants. Asymmetric and offset density models with exponential, sech2 , and sech2/n profiles are applied to fit the vertical density profiles as shown in the right panel. In the left panel, only the best-fitted exponential model for the living stars is included as shown in black line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial surface mass density profile of various stellar objects. The thin dashed line in the left panel represents an exponential profile with scale length of 2.1 kpc. Each type of stellar objects is separated into mono-age populations shown in colorful lines in the right four panels. Shade regions indicate 1σ uncertainties of the density measurements. density profile and its age dependence generally follow that of l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circular velocity decomposition based on our new stellar mass surface density profile. Observational results are taken from Zhou et al. (2023). The disk component is calculated based on the mass profile presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    B., G´ omez, H

    Arellano-Valle, R. B., G´ omez, H. W., & Quintana, F. A. 2005, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 128, 427, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2003.11.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2003.11.014 2005

  3. [3]

    2023, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 53, 6189

    Arnroth, L., & Vegelius, J. 2023, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 53, 6189 . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259691629

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Final Targeting Strategy for the SDSS-IV APOGEE-2N Survey

    Beaton, R. L., Oelkers, R. J., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.11907. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.11907

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 Bienaym´ e, O., Famaey, B., Siebert, A., et al

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 Bienaym´ e, O., Famaey, B., Siebert, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424478

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  6. [6]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18268.x

    Binney, J., & McMillan, P. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18268.x

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  8. [8]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Liu, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    F., et al

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/30

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  5. [13]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    2004

  6. [14]

    Q., Schultheis, M., Jiang, B

    Chen, B. Q., Schultheis, M., Jiang, B. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219682

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 765, doi: 10.1086/303726

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Gratton, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 765, doi: 10.1086/303726

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Warren, S

    Dobbie, P. S., & Warren, S. J. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 5, doi: 10.21105/astro.2003.05757

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., & Jahreiß, H. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    2006

  12. [20]

    Freudenreich, H. T. 1998, ApJ, 492, 495, doi: 10.1086/305065 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6...

    1998 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Chen, B

    Guo, H. L., Chen, B. Q., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc68a

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Yuan, H

    Huang, Y., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2096

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Zasowski, G. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 54, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 216.04

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  18. [26]

    W., & Bovy, J

    Leung, H. W., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3217

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Lane, R. R. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01977-z

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, ApJL, 984, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adccb7

    Lian, J., Du, M., Lu, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adccb7

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1302, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02315-7

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Chen, B., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1302, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02315-7

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2020a, MNRAS, 494, 2561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa867 —

    Lian, J., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 494, 2561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa867 —. 2020b, MNRAS, 497, 2371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2078 11

    doi

  23. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 4130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1151

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Mackereth, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1151

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 L´ opez-Corredoira, M., Cabrera-Lavers, A., Mahoney, T. J., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 154, doi: 10.1086/509605

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Crain, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Crain, R. A., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5072, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty972

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Bovy, J., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1774

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    T., Bovy, J., Leung, H

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1521

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2005, MNRAS, 362, 799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09270.x

    2005

  30. [38]

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

    Martell, S. L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2835

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D

    McKee, C. F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D. J. 2015, ApJ, 814, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/13

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 720, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.3.720

    1995 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Picaud, S., & Robin, A. C. 2004, A&A, 428, 891, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041218

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, A&A, 651, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Read, J. I. 2014, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 41, 063101, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/41/6/063101

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Beaton, R

    Santana, F. A., Beaton, R. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.11908. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.11908

    2021

  39. [47]

    R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Sharma, S., Hayden, M. R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.03646. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03646

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 159, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/159

    Shen, J., & Zheng, X.-W. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 159, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/159

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    2003

  42. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty977

    Steger, P. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty977

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V. V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2019, A&A, 623, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188

    Grisoni, V. 2019, A&A, 623, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16427.x

    Silk, J. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16427.x

    2010

  46. [54]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264

    2004 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, L31, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae059

    Wang, T., Chen, B.-Q., Lian, J.-H., Xiang, M.-S., & Liu, X.-W. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L31, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae059

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L41

    Chen, H.-Y. 2012, ApJL, 750, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L41

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad237

    Xiang, M., Shi, J., Liu, X., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad237

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/91

    Yanny, B., & Gardner, S. 2013, ApJ, 777, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/91

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf098

    Yu, Z., Li, J., Chen, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf098

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    A., Frinchaboy, P

    Zasowski, G., Johnson, J. A., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/81

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Chojnowski, S

    Zasowski, G., Cohen, R. E., Chojnowski, S. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9

    Zhou, Y., Li, X., Huang, Y., & Zhang, H. 2023, ApJ, 946, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadd9

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2009, Journal of Econometrics, 148, 86, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.09.038

    Zhu, D., & Zinde-Walsh, V. 2009, Journal of Econometrics, 148, 86, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.09.038

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.