Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

A Gaia-Enceladus Analog in the EAGLE Simulation: Insights into the Early Evolution of the Milky Way

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simulated Milky Way analog with a Gaia-Enceladus-like merger shows the merger heated the young disk into a thick disk and triggered a burst of star formation.

desk verdict A single-object EAGLE case study with an honest but partly self-fulfilling selection: useful proof-of-concept for Gaia-Enceladus disk heating, though the 84% thick-disk growth rests on bins the paper itself calls fiducial. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07080 v3 pith:ATNMOIOL submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.GA

Lucas A. Bignone , Amina Helmi , Patricia B. Tissera This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Gaia-EnceladusMilkyWayanalogthickdiskformationgalaxymergerstarhistorystellarkinematicscosmologicalsimulation
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 identifies, in a large cosmological hydrodynamical simulation, a galaxy that matches the Milky Way in mass, disk fraction, and quiet recent merger history, and whose last significant merger closely resembles the Gaia-Enceladus event. It argues that this merger, with a stellar mass ratio of about 0.2 at redshift 1.2, heated stars out of the young thin disk and into a thick disk, while also driving a starburst that contributed roughly 13 percent of the present thin disk's stellar mass. If correct, the result provides a concrete, self-consistent story for how the Milky Way's thick disk and inner halo formed, and identifies a specific galaxy worth re-simulating at higher resolution to study the dark matter near the Sun and other details of early Galactic evolution.

What carries the argument

The central object is the circularity parameter, defined as epsilon = L_z / L_z_max(E), the ratio of a star's angular momentum around the disk axis to the maximum possible angular momentum at its binding energy. Stars are split into three fiducial components: epsilon greater than 0.65 (thin disk), between 0.4 and 0.65 (thick disk), and below 0.4 (spheroid). The argument works by tracking how particles move between these bins across the merger: the thick disk's growth is attributed to a decrease in circularity of pre-existing thin-disk stars during the first passage, rather than to direct accretion of satellite stars, which identifies dynamical heating as the physical mechanism building the thick disk.

What would settle it

Re-simulate the same galaxy at much higher resolution and track the circularity of individual star particles across the merger: if the 84 percent growth of the intermediate-circularity component is not recovered, or if the transferred stars cannot be identified as originally thin-disk particles, the dynamical-heating claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Gaia-Enceladus-like merger can simultaneously build a thick disk and boost star formation in a Milky Way-mass galaxy. In the selected analog, the merger occurred between lookback times of roughly 8.8 and 9.6 Gyr, with the satellite reaching closest approach at about 4.9 kpc. By following star particles across the merger, the authors show that the intermediate-circularity component, identified as a fiducial thick disk, grows by 84 percent, almost entirely because stars originally in the thin disk lose circularity and are dynamically heated, not because satellite stars are directly deposited there (only 3.5 percent of the satellite's stars end up in this component). The same interaction raises the star formation rate, converting about 2.9 billion solar masses of gas into thin-disk stars over the course of the merger. The debris of the satellite ends up predominantly in the spheroid, and at large heights above the disk plane, 38 percent of stars within 30 kpc come from the accreted galaxy, matching the observational picture of the inner stellar halo.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the three circularity bins applied to the low-resolution simulation genuinely separate thin disk, thick disk, and spheroid stars, rather than mixing populations or producing numerical artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way's thick disk can be explained by a single Gaia-Enceladus-like merger that heats the pre-existing thin disk without destroying it.
  • The same merger naturally produces an inner halo dominated at large heights by accreted debris, consistent with the observed retrograde, radially anisotropic stellar halo.
  • The merger-triggered starburst contributes a significant fraction of the present thin disk, about 13 percent of its stellar mass, linking the event to the Milky Way's star formation history.
  • The identified galaxy is a prime target for high-resolution zoom-in re-simulation, which could constrain the dark matter distribution near the Sun and the formation of the bulge and bar.
  • The kinematic signatures of the simulated debris, including the sausage-like velocity distribution and slight retrograde rotation, validate the use of such analogs for interpreting Gaia data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this scenario is correct, the thick disk should show an age-metallicity break at the merger epoch: stars heated from the old thin disk should be older and more metal-poor than stars formed in the post-merger starburst, a prediction testable with current spectroscopic surveys.
  • The nearly coplanar, retrograde encounter imprints a specific mean rotation on the thick disk; measuring a net retrograde rotation component in the Milky Way's thick disk would distinguish this heating mechanism from alternatives such as internal instabilities or multiple minor mergers.
  • Since 96 percent of the satellite's stars end up in the spheroid, the inner halo's phase-space structure should be dominated by one coherent debris stream; mapping its action-space distribution could directly constrain the mass and orbit of Gaia-Enceladus.
  • The selection method used here, requiring both global Milky Way properties and a Gaia-Enceladus-like merger, could be applied to other simulations to estimate how common such events are and what fraction of Milky Way analogs would have thick disks built this way.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a single Milky Way analog in the EAGLE Ref-L100N1504 cosmological simulation whose merger history resembles the proposed Gaia-Enceladus event, with a satellite of stellar mass ~3.1e9 Msun merging with a host of ~1.5e10 Msun at z~1.2-1.7. The authors analyze the merger's orbital configuration, star formation history, and the evolution of stellar mass in three circularity bins meant to represent thin disk, thick disk, and spheroid. They report that the merger produced a starburst and increased the mass of the intermediate-circularity 'fiducial thick disk' by 84%, primarily by lowering the circularity of pre-existing thin-disk stars rather than by direct accretion. They conclude that the simulated system supports the scenario in which Gaia-Enceladus contributed to the Milky Way's thick disk and inner halo.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a concrete demonstration in a cosmological simulation that a G-E-like merger can heat an early disk and trigger star formation, lending support to the interpretation of the observed Gaia-Enceladus debris and thick disk. The paper is valuable for selecting a strong candidate for future zoom-in re-simulation. Strengths: the analysis is based on public EAGLE data; the selection procedure is explicit; the authors track particle histories to distinguish accretion from in-situ heating; they acknowledge resolution limits by calling the components 'fiducial'; and they exclude timesteps contaminated by close passage. The main limitation is that the quantitative thick-disk growth depends on uncalibrated circularity thresholds in a simulation whose resolution cannot resolve the thin/thick disk vertical structure, and the selection of the analog itself guarantees some similarity to G-E debris.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 3.3/Figure 4] The central quantitative claim that the merger built the thick disk rests on the 0.4<epsilon<0.65 circularity bin, yet Section 2 states that 'the numerical resolution of the simulation prevents us from obtaining a detailed definition of thin and thick disks.' The thresholds epsilon>0.65, 0.4-0.65, and <0.4 are not calibrated against a resolved simulation, a scale-height criterion, or an observational definition. At z=1.7 the intermediate bin already contains ~27% of the stellar mass, so the reported 84% growth could in part reflect mixing with spheroid/halo particles or artificial lowering of circularity by the 0.7 kpc softening and the poorly defined disk plane during the encounter. To support the abstract's claim, the authors should either validate that the intermediate bin traces a bona fide thick disk (e.g., by showing a distinct vertical scale height and kinematic structure, or by testing convergence at higher resolution) or rephrase the abstract and conclusions to refer to the 'fiducial thick disk' and present the 84% as a resolution-dependent indicator rather than a direct measurement.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 4] The analog was deliberately selected to have a G-E-like mass ratio, merger time, and high halo anisotropy; therefore, the qualitative similarity of the simulated debris (eccentric, slightly retrograde orbits) to observed Gaia-Enceladus is partly by construction and should not be presented as independent validation. The genuinely new results are the dynamical heating of the pre-existing disk and the starburst, which were not part of the selection criteria. The discussion should clearly separate selection outcomes from predictions, and ideally quantify how much of the reported agreement follows from the selection.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 4] There is a numerical inconsistency in the gas mass contributed by the satellite to the thin disk: Section 3.2 gives ~4.5e9 Msun of gas and ~2.9e9 Msun converted into thin-disk stars, while Section 4 states that G-E 'contributes a significant amount of gas (~2.9e10 Msun) to the thin disk.' These numbers differ by an order of magnitude; the text should be corrected and the actual value stated consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: 'diskovery' should be 'discovery', 'diskard' should be 'discard', 'Diskussion' should be 'Discussion', 'right pnale' should be 'right panel', and 'eagle' should be consistently capitalized as 'EAGLE'.
  2. [Section 1] The phrase 'eagle suit' should be 'EAGLE suite'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'G-E thus contributes a significant amount to the subsequent growth of the MW, but does not accounts for all of it' contains a grammatical error ('does not accounts') and should be reworded.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to 'The shaded region on the left' for the previous major merger, but the text does not specify the redshift or lookback time of that event in the caption; adding a brief description would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Selection criteria restated as agreement; central dynamical claims are emergent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (G-E analog identification) and Section 4 (Discussion and Conclusions)]
    "We analyzed their assembly histories, searching for the accreted satellite galaxies that contributed more significantly to the anisotropic distribution and had a stellar mass ratio that is comparable to the value estimated for G-E by Helmi et al. (2018) and occurred around the estimated time by Helmi et al. (2018); Hawkins et al. (2014). Only one of the selected halos satisfies these constraints and also has a value of β∼ 0.73, which is comparable to that found for the dynamical structure commonly referred to as the Gaia Sausage. ..."

    The concluding 'agreement' is not an independent test: the galaxy was selected specifically because its halo had β>0.68 (the anisotropic Gaia-Sausage-like signature) and because it had a satellite with a G-E-like mass ratio and merger time. The statement 'evidence can be found in the present-day kinematic properties of halo stars' refers to the same anisotropy criterion used to choose the object, so that particular claim reduces by construction to the selection input. This circularity is minor because the paper's central dynamical results — the 84% growth of the fiducial thick-disk bin and the merger-induced star formation enhancement — are measured from the simulation after selection and are not part of the selection criteria.

full rationale

The paper openly states that the simulated galaxy was selected to resemble the Milky Way's assembly history, including a Gaia-Enceladus-like merger, so the subsequent detection of such a merger and an anisotropic halo is by construction rather than an independent prediction. The one explicitly circular sentence appears in the conclusions, where the selection criteria are restated as 'agreement' with the Gaia-Enceladus scenario. The main claim, however — that the merger heated the pre-existing disk and triggered star formation — is an emergent outcome of the EAGLE simulation, quantified via circularity-bin mass evolution and star-formation histories. The circularity bins are acknowledged as 'fiducial' and limited by resolution, but that is a resolution/proxy concern, not a self-referential reduction. Self-citations to Helmi et al. (2018) are used for observational context and for interpreting the simulation, not as the load-bearing justification of the dynamical results. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against the simulation; the identified circularity is confined to one concluding restatement and does not undermine the independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on a series of hand-chosen selection thresholds and on the assumption that a single EAGLE galaxy, chosen partly because it matches Gaia-Enceladus properties, can stand in for the Milky Way. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Virial mass window = M200 = [1, 1.5]e12 solar masses
    Selects Milky Way-like host mass; taken from observational estimates.
  • Stellar mass threshold = greater than 1e10 solar masses within 30 kpc
    Hand-chosen to guarantee a Milky Way-like stellar mass.
  • Star formation rate window = 0.1 to 3 solar masses per year
    Present-day star formation rate range for Milky Way-like galaxies.
  • Disk-to-total ratio threshold = D/T greater than 0.4
    Ensures a significant disk component in the sample.
  • Recent merger exclusion = exclude mergers with stellar mass ratio greater than 0.15 at z below 1
    Based on the Sagittarius dwarf mass; removes late major mergers.
  • Circularity boundaries = epsilon = 0.65 and 0.4
    Fiducial split into thin disk, thick disk, and spheroid; affects all component mass results.
  • Halo star selection = epsilon below 0.4, |Z| greater than 5 kpc, R between 5 and 12 kpc
    Defines the halo sample used for the anisotropy parameter beta.
  • Anisotropy threshold = beta greater than 0.68, which is the median plus two sigma
    Selects the five candidates with sausage-like halos.
  • Gaia-Enceladus matching criteria = stellar mass ratio around 0.2 and merger time around 10 Gyr ago
    Hand-tuned to find a Gaia-Enceladus-like event; this encodes the signal later identified in the chosen galaxy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption EAGLE subgrid physics produces a realistic population of Milky Way-mass galaxies.
    Invoked in Section 2 when selecting analogs from EAGLE and trusting their merger histories.
  • domain assumption High radial anisotropy, beta greater than 0.68, in old halo stars marks accreted Gaia-Enceladus-like debris.
    Used in Section 2 to reduce the sample from 101 to 5 galaxies.
  • domain assumption Circularity bins correspond to the thin disk, thick disk, and spheroid at all times.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 3.3 to measure component mass growth and interpret it as merger heating.
  • domain assumption The star formation rate increase coincident with the merger is caused by the merger.
    Section 3.2 interprets the shaded-region star formation peak as merger-induced without a control run.
  • domain assumption Particle assignment near closest approach is reliable enough after exclusions.
    Section 3.3 and Figure 4 exclude contaminated timesteps but assume the remaining data are trustworthy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Gaia-Enceladus Analog in the EAGLE Simulation: Insights into the Early Evolution of the Milky Way." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATNMOIOL

@misc{pith2026190807080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Gaia-Enceladus Analog in the EAGLE Simulation: Insights into the Early Evolution of the Milky Way},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATNMOIOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07080}
}
abstract

We identify a simulated Milky Way analog in the EAGLE suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. This galaxy not only shares similar global properties as the Milky Way, but was specifically selected because its merger history resembles that currently known for the Milky Way. In particular we find that this Milky Way analog has experienced its last significant merger (with a stellar mass ratio $\sim 0.2$) at $z\sim 1.2$. We show that this merger affected both the dynamical properties of the stars present at the time, contributing to the formation of a thick disk, and also leading to a significant increase in the star formation rate of the host. This object is thus particularly suitable for understanding the early evolutionary history of the Milky Way. It is also an ideal candidate for re-simulation with much higher resolution as this would allow addressing a plethora of interesting questions such as, for example, the specific distribution of dark matter near the Sun.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Left panel: velocity distribution of stars in spherical coordinates, radial vr and azimuthal vφ for stellar particles in an eagle galaxy that had a G-E type merger event. Black points represent the accreted stars from the G-E analog. Other colors represent stars in the circularity ranges displayed in the legend. Contours envelop 68% of particles in each subsample. Middle panel: Toomre diagram of stellar particles.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Face-on and edge-on views of the spatial distribution of stars in the MW (blue points) and G-E (black points) analogs during the merger. The reference frame has been centered on the center of potential of the host disk and has also been rotated to align the angular momentum of the main disk with the z-axis at each timestep. The last panel shows the final configuration of the MW analog at z = 0 considered as consti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Star formation history of the host galaxy, diskriminating stars in three circularity ranges at z = 0 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Evolution of the stellar mass content with lookback time in the host galaxy for stellar particles in three circularity ranges. The stellar mass in particles with  < 0.4 presents a marked increase due to the accretion of stars from the satellite. The stellar mass wit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    Barnes, J. E. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 798, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07725.x

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    Buder, S., Asplund, M., Duong, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1281 2018

  5. [5]

    B., Beers, T

    Carollo, D., Tissera, P. B., Beers, T. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac2dc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac2dc 2018

  6. [6]

    Evidence for the Third Stellar Population in the Milky Way's Disk

    Carollo, D., Chiba, M., Ishigaki, M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.04881

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  8. [8]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Fattahi, A., Belokurov, V., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz159 Fern´ andez-Alvar, E., Tissera, P. B., Carigi, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz443 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A,...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nat Astron, 407, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 G´ omez, F. A., Grand, R. J. J., Monachesi, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2149

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 2575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1910

    Hawkins, K., Jofr´ e, P., Gilmore, G., & Masseron, T. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1910

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, Phys

    Herzog-Arbeitman, J., Lisanti, M., Madau, P., & Necib, L. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 041102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.041102

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    1994 doi

  8. [16]

    Katz, N., Quinn, T., Bertschinger, E., & Gelb, J. M. 1994, MNRAS, 270, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.1.L71

    1994 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJ, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    Koppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, ApJ, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, AJ, 153, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75

    Kunder, A., Kordopatis, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Tissera, P

    Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Alonso, M. S., & Coldwell, G. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1189, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07179.x

    2003

  12. [20]

    B., & Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., & Tinsley, B. M. 1978, Astrophys. J., 219, 46, doi: 10.1086/155753

    1978 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2955

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Schaller, M., et al

    McAlpine, S., Helly, J. C., Schaller, M., et al. 2016, A&C, 15, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 464, 641, doi: 10.1086/177353

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    Koposov, S. E. 2018, ApJ, 856, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab613

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    F., & White, S

    Navarro, J. F., & White, S. D. M. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/267.2.401

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.12301

    Necib, L., Lisanti, M., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.12301

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2019, A&A, 621, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833355

    Posti, L., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 621, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833355

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Lambas, D

    Sillero, E., Tissera, P. B., Lambas, D. G., & Michel-Dansac, L. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2265

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    B., White, S

    Tissera, P. B., White, S. D. M., & Scannapieco, C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 255, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20028.x Villalobos, ´A., & Helmi, A. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1806, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13979.x

    2012

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    Vincenzo, F., Spitoni, E., Calura, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    L., van der Marel, R

    Watkins, L. L., van der Marel, R. P., Sohn, S. T., & Evans, N. W. 2019, ApJ, 873, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab089f

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.