Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus star formation history as revealed by detailed elemental abundances

\'A Sk\'ulad\'ottir; D. Feuillet; H. Ernandes; S. Feltzing

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus star formation history as revealed by detailed elemental abundances

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus galaxy formed stars slowly for more than 2 billion years, then was abruptly quenched by merging with the Milky Way.

desk verdict The paper's central quenching claim is built into its own selection cutoff, and the science already appeared in the authors' A&A paper; as a proceedings summary it's readable but not a new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06606 v1 pith:64GCG3KB submitted 2025-05-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

H. Ernandes , D. Feuillet , S. Feltzing , Á Skúladóttir This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

keywords Gaia-Sausage-Enceladusstarformationhistorydwarfgalaxymergersr-processenrichmentneutron-captureelementsstellarabundancesgalacticarchaeologyquenching

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

The paper aims to reconstruct how the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus dwarf galaxy, whose debris now orbits the Milky Way, formed its stars before merging with our Galaxy roughly 10 billion years ago. Using the element ratios [Eu/Mg], [Ba/Mg], [Fe/Mg], and [Eu/Ba] for 73 kinematically selected debris stars, it argues that this was not a short, intense starburst but a slow, extended star formation period lasting more than 2 billion years. The chemical fingerprints also suggest that star formation did not fade out as gas was consumed; instead, it was cut off abruptly at an iron abundance near [Fe/H] ~ -0.5, most likely because the galaxy's gas was disrupted when it merged with the Milky Way. If correct, this makes the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus a concrete example of a dwarf galaxy whose star formation was terminated by a major merger.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the set of elemental clocks built from production timescales: Mg from core-collapse supernovae acts as a rapid star-formation tracer; Fe accumulates through delayed Type Ia supernovae; Ba accumulates slowly through AGB stars; Eu is made in both prompt and delayed r-process events such as neutron star mergers. The paper uses the evolution of [Eu/Mg] with [Fe/H] as a gauge for the early star formation rate, and the turn in [Eu/Ba] as a gauge for late-time quenching. The comparison galaxies Sculptor and Fornax provide the extreme cases — short intense burst versus long gradual buildup — against which the GSE trends are read.

What would settle it

Search kinematically selected halo stars with metallicities between [Fe/H] = -0.5 and 0 for members of the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus debris. If a substantial population with rising [Ba/Mg] or falling [Eu/Ba] is found, the claimed quenching at -0.5 is refuted; re-running the same abundance analysis without the upper metallicity cut would directly test whether the truncation is physical or an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a specific star formation history read from neutron-capture and alpha-element abundances. In stars belonging to the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus debris, the ratio [Eu/Mg] stays flat at low [Fe/H], which the authors interpret as inefficient star formation during the first ~2 Gyr: magnesium is produced promptly by core-collapse supernovae, while europium has delayed r-process sources, so a flat trend means the system did not have a strong early burst. At higher [Fe/H], [Eu/Mg] rises, indicating that star formation continued long enough for delayed europium sources to contribute. The ratio [Eu/Ba] does not decline at the metal-rich end, in contrast to the slowly evolving dwarf galaxy Fornax; because barium builds up late through asymptotic giant branch stars, the lack of a decline implies that star formation stopped at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5 before the AGB channel could dominate. The paper compares these trends with Sculptor (brief burst) and Fornax (slow, prolonged history), and places Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus in between: slow to start, long-lived, and abruptly quenched.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the galaxy's star formation stopped at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5 depends entirely on the sample selection, which excluded stars above that iron abundance by construction; if metal-richer debris stars exist, the observed cutoff is an artifact of the data cut, not a property of the galaxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus progenitor was already chemically evolved — with active r-process enrichment — for at least 2 Gyr before merging, implying its debris adds a distinct neutron-capture element signature to the Milky Way's stellar halo.
Star formation in this galaxy ended abruptly rather than through gas starvation, since it never reached the super-solar [Fe/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] values seen in gas-exhausted dwarfs like Sculptor and Fornax.
The quenching metallicity at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5 provides a concrete upper bound for identifying GSE debris: stars with GSE kinematics and higher iron content are likely contamination from other structures.
The observed [Eu/Mg] rise above [Fe/H] ~ -2 implies delayed r-process sources (for example, neutron star mergers) were producing europium before the merger, constraining the timescale of neutron star merger enrichment in low-mass galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own sample cut at [Fe/H] = -0.5 means the quenching claim is directly testable by a targeted search for GSE members at higher metallicities; we would not bet the claim without such a test.
The same ratio-based diagnostic could sort other Milky Way accreted structures into merger-quenched versus gas-exhausted categories, effectively giving every disrupted dwarf a 'quenching fingerprint.'
If the GSE is indeed a merger-quenched galaxy, its present-day descendants — if any — might be identified as massive stellar halos around other local group dwarfs that show flat [Eu/Mg] plateaus at low metallicity.
The qualitative star formation history diagram in the paper could be made quantitative by fitting chemical evolution models to the measured trends, yielding actual star formation rate tracks rather than schematic ones.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The main thing you should know: the central conclusion that GSE was quenched at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5 is not supported by the data shown, because the sample was selected with -2.2 < [Fe/H] < -0.5 (Section 2.1). The absence of stars above -0.5 is a selection effect, not a discovery. The 'lack of decrease in [Eu/Ba] at high [Fe/H]' is therefore circular. The stress-test note is right.

What the paper does well: it compiles SAGA abundances for ~70 GSE stars with Gaia kinematics, selects members using Feuillet et al. (2021), and presents the [Fe/Mg], [Ba/Mg], [Eu/Mg], [Eu/Ba] trends cleanly. The comparison with Sculptor and Fornax is useful, and the figures are readable. The writing is clear about methods, and the authors do cite Ernandes et al. (2024) in the Fig 4 caption as the source of the GSE SFH schematic.

Where it falls down: the quenching claim is load-bearing and it collapses under the selection cut. To make it, you would need either an unbounded sample or some argument that Feuillet et al. (2021) has no GSE members above -0.5, which is not provided. The 'slow star formation lasting >2 Gyr' inference is also qualitative, based on assumed Eu enrichment delays rather than a measured SFH, so it is a suggestion, not a constraint. And the result overlaps with the authors' own A&A 2024 paper; this proceedings contribution does not frame itself as a reproduction, which is a transparency problem.

Overall: the compilation has minor value as a proceedings summary, but as a standalone research result it is not sound. The central claim is an artifact of the sample definition, and the rest leans heavily on prior work. I would not cite it as independent evidence. It could serve as a reading-group example of selection effects, but it doesn't need a full referee cycle unless the authors redo the analysis without the artificial cutoff.

Recommendation: if this crossed a journal desk, I'd suggest a major revision or, more honestly, recasting as an abstract of the prior paper. For the IAU proceedings, an editor could accept it as a summary, but the 'quenched at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5' statement should be removed or explicitly qualified as inherited from the selection.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the SAGA database to assemble a sample of 73 Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) candidate stars with both [Eu/Fe] and [Fe/H] measurements, selected with -2.2 < [Fe/H] < -0.5. It presents running-median trends of [Fe/Mg], [Ba/Mg], [Eu/Mg], and [Eu/Ba] against [Fe/H], compares them with the Sculptor and Fornax dwarf galaxies, and concludes that GSE experienced a prolonged period of slow star formation lasting over 2 Gyr and was then quenched at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5 by merging with the Milky Way. The paper frames these abundance trends as a new window into the star formation history of an accreted galaxy.

Significance. If the central claim were solid, the paper would add a useful data point for the chemical evolution of an important Milky Way building block, particularly by connecting neutron-capture element ratios to star formation duration. The paper also demonstrates an effort to combine SAGA literature abundances with Gaia astrometry and to compare with existing GSE selection schemes. However, the main scientific conclusion is not currently supported because the sample's metallicity ceiling coincides exactly with the claimed quenching metallicity, making the 'absence of a high-[Fe/H] tail' an artifact of the selection rather than a discovered property of GSE. The interpretation that GSE experienced slow, extended star formation is qualitatively plausible but rests on model-dependent timescale assumptions rather than a quantitative star formation history analysis.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.1 and Conclusions (item 3)] The claim that GSE was quenched at [Fe/H] ~ -0.5 is circular. Criterion (i) of the SAGA selection explicitly restricts the sample to -2.2 < [Fe/H] < -0.5, so no star above -0.5 could appear in any of the abundance trends in Figure 2. The 'lack of a decrease in [Eu/Ba] at high [Fe/H]' and the 'absence of positive [Fe/Mg] at high [Fe/H]' are therefore guaranteed by the sample definition. The paper does not demonstrate that the Feuillet et al. (2021) membership selection, or any unbounded GSE sample, contains no stars above [Fe/H] = -0.5; it only shows that the SAGA query, as performed, contains none. This makes Conclusions item 3 and the corresponding discussion in Section 5.1 (the 'Quenching Evidence' bullet) unsupported.
[Section 5.1 and Figure 4] The inference of a ~2 Gyr duration of slow star formation is not quantitatively established. The statement that the flat [Eu/Mg] trend at low [Fe/H] 'implies inefficient star formation during the first ~2 Gyr' depends entirely on the assumed delay time of the r-process enrichment source (neutron star mergers), and the paper presents no star formation history model, no chemical evolution calculation, and no error estimate on this timescale. Figure 4 is explicitly a qualitative schematic. As written, the 2 Gyr figure is an interpretive assumption rather than a measured constraint.
[Section 2.1 and Figure 3 comparison] The comparison with Fornax and Sculptor is made on unequal footing. The Fornax and Sculptor median trends extend to [Fe/H] > -0.5, whereas the GSE median is truncated at -0.5 by construction. The visual statement that GSE 'does not show positive [Fe/Mg] at high [Fe/H], unlike Fornax and Sculptor' is therefore comparing a truncated distribution with full distributions; the relevant comparison would require a GSE sample reaching the same metallicity range. This affects the interpretation of the [Fe/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] panels in Figure 3.
[Section 2.1] The exclusion of 'Ba-rich stars' is mentioned without a quantitative criterion. Since barium enhancements from binary mass transfer can strongly affect [Ba/Mg] and [Eu/Ba] trends, the reader cannot assess how many stars were removed or whether the cut is objective. This is a supporting detail, but it should be specified for reproducibility.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 1 caption] The caption reads 'the visual definition we used in fig. 2 to divided the sample'; 'divided' should be 'divide'.
[Section 3] There is a doubled period in 'according to (Carrillo et al. 2024)..' that should be corrected.
[References] Several reference entries contain formatting errors, including 'MNRAS, , 478' (Belokurov et al.) and 'A&A, 649, A1' missing the article number (Gaia Collaboration). The list should be checked against journal style.
[Section 2.2] The text says 'we utilizeGaia astrometric parameters' with a missing space; this is a minor typographical issue.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claim that GSE was quenched at [Fe/H] ~ −0.5 is forced by the paper's own sample cut at [Fe/H] < −0.5; the low-metallicity SFH inferences are independent.

self definitional [Section 2.1 (sample selection) and Section 6, Conclusion 3]
"i) −2.2 < [Fe/H] < −0.5 ... The lack of a decrease in [Eu/Ba] at high [Fe/H] in Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus implies that its star formation was quenched at [Fe/H] ∼ −0.5"

The sample is defined with an upper metallicity limit of [Fe/H] = −0.5, so no star in the sample can lie above −0.5. The paper then cites the absence of a high-[Fe/H] tail (i.e., no decrease in [Eu/Ba] at high [Fe/H]) as evidence that star formation was quenched at exactly the selection boundary. The 'lack' is therefore an artifact of criterion (i), not a discovered turnoff. To infer quenching one would need a sample extending beyond −0.5 or independent evidence that no GSE stars exist above the cut; the paper provides neither. The same cut also caps the maximum [Fe/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] values at ~0, which is used as further evidence that GSE did not exhaust its gas.

full rationale

The central quenching conclusion reduces by construction to the sample-selection upper bound. However, the other two SFH constraints (initial low star formation from low [Ba/Mg]/[Eu/Ba], and extended star formation from increasing [Eu/Mg]) are based on abundance trends within the selected metallicity range and do not reduce to the cut. The paper's reliance on Skuladottir & Salvadori (2020) and Ernandes et al. (2024) is self-referential for the qualitative comparison framework, but that is not the main reduction; the selection artifact is. Hence partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on assumptions about nucleosynthesis timescales, membership selection, and the interpretive framework from prior dwarf-galaxy studies. The key issue is that the sample's metallicity ceiling is a choice that is later treated as a physical quenching boundary. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Metallicity selection bounds = -2.2 < [Fe/H] < -0.5
Chosen to include stars with Eu measurements in SAGA; the upper bound directly truncates the sample and is later interpreted as the quenching metallicity, so it functions as a hand-selected cutoff that shapes the central conclusion.
Running median bin size and step = 0.25 dex bins, 0.15 dex steps
Smoothes the abundance trends; not physically motivated, but does not affect the qualitative conclusions.
Staeckel delta = 0.4
Standard choice for the action-angle approximation in galpy; affects GSE membership assignment.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption GSE debris originated from a single, ancient, low-mass galaxy
Stated in Section 5: 'Assuming the debris originated from a single, ancient, low-mass galaxy...' The entire interpretation of the trends as one star formation history depends on this.
domain assumption Eu has both prompt and delayed r-process sources, with the delayed source turning on after a few hundred Myr to about 2 Gyr
Used in Section 5.1 to translate the flat [Eu/Mg] at low [Fe/H] into a ~2 Gyr duration of low star formation; relies on literature NS-merger delay distributions, not quantified here.
domain assumption Ba is produced mostly in AGB stars on delayed timescales
Section 5.1 uses [Ba/Mg] as an extended-enrichment tracer; the lack of a high-[Fe/H] tail is read as quenching based on this assumed AGB timescale.
domain assumption SN Ia contribute Fe on 0.1-2 Gyr timescales
Section 5.1: basis for using [Fe/Mg] as a star formation truncation tracer, following Maoz et al. 2014 and Palicio et al. 2024.
domain assumption Sculptor and Fornax provide known contrasting SFHs that calibrate the abundance trends
Section 5: The comparison in Fig 3 assumes Sculptor's short burst and Fornax's prolonged SFH (from Skuladottir & Salvadori 2020) are reliable templates.
domain assumption The Feuillet et al. (2021) selection is sufficiently pure for GSE membership
Section 3: adopted based on Carrillo et al. 2024, but the resulting sample is small (73 stars) and the selection is not re-validated in this paper.
domain assumption The SAGA database is a complete and unbiased compilation of literature abundances for metal-poor stars
Section 2.1: the sample is drawn from SAGA; heterogeneous systematics are acknowledged but not corrected.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus star formation history as revealed by detailed elemental abundances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64GCG3KB

@misc{pith2026250506606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus star formation history as revealed by detailed elemental abundances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64GCG3KB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06606}
}

read the original abstract

The Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus was the last major merger and central turning point in the Milky Way's story. This event, comparable in mass to the Large Magellanic Cloud today, left behind significant debris that provides valuable insights into the assembly history of our Galaxy and the chemical evolution of dwarf galaxies. By examining the aftermath of the GSE merger, we can delve deeper into understanding how the Milky Way's formation unfolded and how dwarf galaxies evolved chemically. Specifically, the distinct patterns of neutron capture elements such as Eu and Ba, along with Mg, offer clues about the star formation history. Through a comprehensive analysis of data compiled in the SAGA database, we investigated the Gaia Sausage-Enceladus' star formation history. Elemental abundance ratios ([Eu/Mg], [Ba/Mg], and [Eu/Ba]) derived from this study, when compared with those of surviving Milky Way satellites, indicate that the GSE experienced a prolonged period of slow star formation, lasting over 2 Gyr, until it was eventually quenched by merging with the Milky Way. Consequently, these elemental signatures serve as a unique window into the complex history of both surviving and accreted satellites orbiting our Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06606 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Properties of the stars in our final sample with SAGA and Gaia data, with three 10 Gyr PARSEC isochrones overlaid, metallicity as indicated in the legends: Kiel diagram, colour-coded by the median [Fe/H]. The shaded grey line represents the visual definition we used in fig. 2 to divided the sample into dwarf and giant stars. Skulad ´ ottir and Salvadori (2020), combining nucleosynthesis timescales with observational… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Elemental abundance ratios as a function of [Fe/H] for Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus stars selected from the SAGA database. Panels display: a) [Fe/Mg]; b) [Ba/Mg]; c) [Eu/Mg]; and d) [Eu/Ba]. Symbols indicate dwarfs (circles) and giants (x-symbols), with r-II stars shown in cyan and r-normal stars in purple. Pink lines represent the median trends. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 [Fe/H] 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 [Fe/Mg] a) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Median abundance trends of stars in the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: presents a qualitative schematic of the star formation history for Gaia-SausageEnceladus. This schematic is shown alongside the qualitative star formation histories of Sculptor and Fornax, based on the elemental abundance trends analysed in Skulad ´ ottir and ´ Salvad…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, e. a., (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, & Virgo Collaboration) 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 851(2), L35. Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., & Astropy Contributors 2018, AJ, 156,

work page 2017
[12]

2014, ARA&A, 52,

Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52,

work page 2014
[23]

Horta, D., & Schiavon, R. P. e. a. 2023,MNRAS, 520,

work page 2023
[29]

2013,ApJ, 779,

Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013,ApJ, 779,

work page 2013
[85]

Helmi, A., & Irwin, e. a. 2019, The Messenger, 175,

work page 2019
[98]

H., Massari, D., Veljanoski, J., & Brown, A

Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., Massari, D., Veljanoski, J., & Brown, A. G. A. 2018,Nature, 563,

work page 2018
[107]

Cosmic Type Ia SN rate and constraints on SN Ia progenitors

Matsuno, T., Hirai, Y ., Tarumi, Y ., Hotokezaka, K., Tanaka, M., & Helmi, A. 2021,A&A, 650, A110. McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465(1), 76–94. Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V . 2019,MNRAS, 488(1), 1235–1247. Palicio, P. A., Matteucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Spitoni, E. 2024,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16635. Sk´ulad´ott...

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[115]

J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024,MNRAS, 527, 2165–2184. Chiappini, C., Minchev, e. a., & 4MIDABLE-Lr Team 2019,The Messenger, 175, 30-34. Christlieb, N., Battistini, C., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 26-29. Ernandes, H., Feuillet, D., Feltzing, S., & Sk´ulad´ottir, A. 2024, A&A, 691, A33...

work page 2024

Show all 15 references

[123]

M., & Astropy Project Contributors 2022, ApJ, 935,

Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., & Astropy Project Contributors 2022, ApJ, 935,

2022
[147]

W., Koposov, S

Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018,MNRAS, , 478(1), 611–619. Bensby, T., & Bergemann, e. a. 2019,The Messenger, 175, 35-38. Binney, J. 2012, MNRAS, , 426(2), 1324–1327. Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216,

2018
[167]

P., Tollerud, E

Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., & Greenfield, e. a. 2013,A&A, 558, A33. Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161,

2013
[269]

E., & Weaver, T

Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995,ApJS, 101, 181

1995
[1159]

2021,A&A, 649, A126

Tautvaisiene, G., Viscasillas V´azquez, C., Mikolaitis, S., Stonkute, E., Minkeviciute, R., Drazdauskas, A., & Bagdonas, V . 2021,A&A, 649, A126. Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., Dubois, P., Bonnarel, F., Borde, S., Genova, F., Jasniewicz, G.,Laloe, S., Lesteven, S., & M...

2021
[1489]

Gaia Collaboration, Brown, e. a. 2021, A&A, 649, A1. Ginsburg, A., Sipocz, e. a., Astroquery Collaboration, & a subset of astropy Collaboration 2019, AJ, 157,

2021
[5671]

I., & Lattanzio, J

Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030. Li, H., Aoki, W., Matsuno, T., et al. 2022,ApJ, 931,

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, e. a., (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, & Virgo Collaboration) 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 851(2), L35. Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., & Astropy Contributors 2018, AJ, 156,

work page 2017

[2] [12]

2014, ARA&A, 52,

Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52,

work page 2014

[3] [23]

Horta, D., & Schiavon, R. P. e. a. 2023,MNRAS, 520,

work page 2023

[4] [29]

2013,ApJ, 779,

Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013,ApJ, 779,

work page 2013

[5] [85]

Helmi, A., & Irwin, e. a. 2019, The Messenger, 175,

work page 2019

[6] [98]

H., Massari, D., Veljanoski, J., & Brown, A

Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., Massari, D., Veljanoski, J., & Brown, A. G. A. 2018,Nature, 563,

work page 2018

[7] [107]

Cosmic Type Ia SN rate and constraints on SN Ia progenitors

Matsuno, T., Hirai, Y ., Tarumi, Y ., Hotokezaka, K., Tanaka, M., & Helmi, A. 2021,A&A, 650, A110. McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465(1), 76–94. Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V . 2019,MNRAS, 488(1), 1235–1247. Palicio, P. A., Matteucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Spitoni, E. 2024,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16635. Sk´ulad´ott...

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[8] [115]

J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024,MNRAS, 527, 2165–2184. Chiappini, C., Minchev, e. a., & 4MIDABLE-Lr Team 2019,The Messenger, 175, 30-34. Christlieb, N., Battistini, C., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 26-29. Ernandes, H., Feuillet, D., Feltzing, S., & Sk´ulad´ottir, A. 2024, A&A, 691, A33...

work page 2024