Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Investigating lower limit of metallicity for Galactic thin disk

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper identifies 56 giant stars with low $\alpha$-enhancement and thin-disk kinematics at metallicities between $-1.2$ and $-0.8$ dex, and concludes that the thin disk extends below $[\mathrm{M/H}] = -0.95$ dex.

desk verdict A plausible but unproven identification of a metal-poor thin disk tail; the count of 56 and the -0.95 dex floor rest on boundaries borrowed from more metal-rich calibrations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06187 v1 pith:E33CLJBZ submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.GA

Guozhen Hu , Zhengyi Shao , Erbil Gugercinoglu , Wenyuan Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galacticthindiskmetal-poorstarsalphaenhancementstellarkinematicschemicalevolutiontwo-infallmodelAPOGEEGaiaDR3
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

Metal-poor stars are usually assigned to the halo or thick disk, but this paper argues that some of them belong to the Milky Way's thin disk. Using APOGEE and Gaia data, the authors find a distinct low-$\alpha$, fast-rotating group of giant stars in the range $-1.2 < [\mathrm{M/H}] < -0.8$ dex, and after chemical filtering they confirm 56 of them as high-possibility metal-poor thin disk stars, seven with $[\mathrm{M/H}] < -0.95$ dex. The paper concludes that the thin disk's lower metallicity limit is below $-0.95$ dex, deeper than the usual $-0.7$ dex boundary. This matters because the existence of such stars is a direct test of how the disk formed: the two-infall model naturally produces a low-$\alpha$ metal-poor population from diluted gas, while a continuously accreting disk has trouble making stars this metal-poor at low $\alpha$.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-stage selection on the $[\alpha/\mathrm{M}]$--$V_\phi$ plane and on three abundance ratios. First, stars with low $\alpha$-enhancement ($-0.08 < [\alpha/\mathrm{M}] < 0.2$ dex) and high rotational velocity ($180 < V_\phi < 300$ km/s) are chosen as thin-disk candidates, because thick disk and accreted halo stars occupy different parts of this plane. Second, the candidates are classified on the $[\mathrm{Mg/Mn}]$--$[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$ plane using the in-situ/accreted and thin/thick disk separation lines, with $[\mathrm{C+N/Fe}]$ as a consistency check; $[\mathrm{Mg/Mn}]$ acts as a star-formation clock (Type II vs Type Ia supernova enrichment), $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$ marks accreted systems, and $[\mathrm{C+N/Fe}]$ traces the common envelope of low-mass giants.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to take the seven HP-MPTnD stars with $[\mathrm{M/H}] < -0.95$ and obtain independent, higher-resolution spectra with a different abundance pipeline, then re-derive $[\mathrm{Mg/Mn}]$, $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$, and $[\mathrm{C+N/Fe}]$ and compare against separation lines recalibrated on metal-poor calibration stars; if the stars scatter to the accreted-halo or thick-disk side, the claimed lower limit of $-0.95$ dex and the support for two-infall formation would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the thin disk does not stop at the canonical metal-rich boundary; a kinematically cold, low-$\alpha$, fast-rotating stellar population exists at $-1.2 < [\mathrm{M/H}] < -0.8$ dex. After selecting 91 candidates by their position in the $[\alpha/\mathrm{M}]$--$V_\phi$ plane and filtering with the abundance ratios $[\mathrm{Mg/Mn}]$, $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$, and $[\mathrm{C+N/Fe}]$, the paper confirms 56 'high-possibility metal-poor thin disk' giants, seven of them below $[\mathrm{M/H}] = -0.95$ dex. These stars share the guiding-radius, vertical excursion, eccentricity, orbital inclination, and age trends of canonical thin disk stars, placing them in the outer disk and dating their formation to the early phase of thin disk assembly. The paper uses this population to argue for the two-infall formation scenario and to constrain the timing ($\sim 5.5$ Gyr ago) and the gas metallicity of the second infall.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $[\mathrm{Mg/Mn}]$--$[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$ separation lines for thin disk, thick disk, and accreted halo, calibrated on more metal-rich stars, still separate the populations at metallicities between $-1.2$ and $-0.8$; if those boundaries shift in the metal-poor regime, some or all of the 56 claimed thin disk stars, and the $-0.95$ dex floor, would be misidentified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The thin disk's lower metallicity limit is at or below $[\mathrm{M/H}] = -0.95$ dex, deeper than the old canonical boundary of about $-0.7$ dex.
  • Metal-poor thin disk stars form a distinct, chemically separable population from both the thick disk and the accreted halo, despite abundance overlap with halo stars.
  • Their number and chemical pattern favor the two-infall model; the continuous-accretion model predicts too few low-$\alpha$ stars this metal-poor in the outer disk.
  • The second gas infall began roughly 5.5 Gyr ago, shortly after thick disk formation and slightly before the inner thin disk formed.
  • The infalling gas must have been very metal-poor; if it came from accreted dwarf galaxies, each would have to be less massive than about $10^6\,M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same abundance classification were applied to main-sequence stars or to a kinematic sample not preselected in $[\alpha/\mathrm{M}]$, the number of confirmed metal-poor thin disk stars could grow or shrink; the paper's count of 56 is tied to the giant-only, APOGEE footprint sample.
  • A testable extension: use the same $[\mathrm{Mg/Mn}]$--$[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$ criteria on an independent spectroscopic survey with a different selection function to check whether the metal-poor thin disk tail persists.
  • The paper's mass limit for accreted dwarf galaxies assumes the infalling gas came from dwarfs; if the gas was instead primordial or from filamentary accretion, the mass constraint does not apply, and the timing argument becomes the main test.
  • Because only seven HP-MPTnD stars sit below $-0.95$ dex, the exact floor is statistically thin; a larger sample could push the floor lower or reveal that the low-metallicity tail is a different population.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper searches for the most metal-poor thin-disk stars in the Milky Way by selecting stars in the metallicity interval -1.2 < [M/H] < -0.8 dex from APOGEE DR17 and Gaia DR3. Using the [α/M]–Vφ plane, the authors identify an overdensity of low-α, fast-rotating stars, select 91 candidate stars in a hand-drawn box, and then apply [Mg/Mn], [Al/Fe], and [C+N/Fe] abundance criteria to classify 56 of them as high-probability metal-poor thin-disk (HP-MPTnD) giants. They further report that seven of these stars have [M/H] < -0.95 dex and conclude that the lower metallicity limit of the thin disk is below -0.95 dex. Spatial and kinematic comparisons with canonical thin-disk, thick-disk, and accreted-halo samples lead the authors to argue for the two-infall model of disk formation.

Significance. If the claimed population is real, the paper provides a valuable constraint on the metal-poor tail of the thin disk and directly informs models of disk formation, particularly the two-infall scenario. The work is based on public survey data and combines kinematics, chemistry, and ages in a multi-step classification. The comparison with Fernández-Alvar et al. (2024) is useful. I consider the principal results plausible but not yet convincing because the candidate selection and chemical classification lack statistical validation and rely on extrapolated abundance boundaries; a targeted revision could make the claim robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The existence of a 'well-separated extension' is asserted from visual inspection of smoothed number-density contours; no statistical significance test (e.g., comparison of the binned density with a null model of thick-disk plus halo contamination) is provided. The cyan box boundaries (180 < Vφ < 300 km/s, -0.08 < [α/M] < 0.2 dex) are hand-chosen, and the 91 MPTnD candidates are entirely determined by these choices. Please add a significance estimate for the overdensity and a robustness test of the box boundaries, since the central claim depends on this selection.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The classification into HP-MPTnD, LP-MPTnD, and accretion stars uses 'criteria very similar' to Horta et al. (2021) and Naidu et al. (2022), but the boundary equations are not given and no recalibration is performed for the target interval -1.2 < [M/H] < -0.8, below the metallicity range in which those criteria were established. Because [Mg/Mn] is expected to rise toward low metallicity as SNIa Mn production drops, a horizontal cut calibrated at higher [M/H] may misplace stars at the metal-poor end. Please state the exact boundary equations and test how the 56 HP-MPTnD count and the seven stars with [M/H] < -0.95 respond to plausible shifts (e.g., ±0.1 dex) of the separator.
  3. [§3.1, Figs. 2–6] The 'canonical thin disk' and 'thick disk' distributions used for comparison throughout are taken from the authors' own HS22 GMM model, and the MPTnD candidates are selected by drawing a box around the location predicted by that same model. This circularity is not fatal because the later chemical and orbital comparisons use independent axes, but the initial overdensity claim would be stronger if tested against a non-parametric density in the [α/M]-Vφ plane or validated with an independent kinematic sample.
  4. [§3.2, Table 1] The lower metallicity limit of the thin disk below -0.95 dex is based on only seven HP-MPTnD stars (three with age estimates). The paper should provide a confidence interval or an upper limit on the floor rather than a point estimate, and it should quantify how the floor would change if even one of these seven stars were reclassified as LP-MPTnD or accreted (see comment 2). The current 'below -0.95' phrasing overstates the robustness of the result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The [M/H] > -0.95 column contains an arithmetic error: 49 + 22 + 3 = 74, not 81. The corresponding parenthesis total is 29 + 16 + 0 = 45. Please correct the totals.
  2. [§2.1 and §3.2] The number of giant stars is reported as 119,752 in §2.1 but as 119,572 in §3.2; these should be reconciled.
  3. [Abstract and throughout] The term 'high-possibility' is used repeatedly; the standard and clearer term is 'high-probability'.
  4. [§4] The sentence 'with only 11% of the local gas having a metallicity of [M/H]=0 dex, it is possible to enrich the pristine infalling gas to [M/H]=-0.95 dex' is unclear; please present the dilution calculation explicitly.
  5. [§3.4] The phrase 'does not effect on measurements' should be 'does not affect the measurements'.
  6. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption describes 'black contours' but the figure appears to use colored contours; please make the description consistent with the figure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Kinematically, the thin-disk similarity is partly by construction: the MPTnD selection box and the HS22 canonical thin-disk template occupy the same [α/M]-Vφ locus, but the chemical identification of the 56 stars uses external boundaries and retains independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (Fig. 2) and Sections 3.2-3.3 (Figs. 4-5)]
    "In order to facilitate comparison, we show the modelled distribution of canonical thick disk stars (orange concentric ellipses) and thin disk stars (cyan concentric ellipses) in all three panels. Their positions and dispersions are derived from the corresponding members of Table 2 of HS22. ... Specifically, stars with 180 km s−1 < Vϕ < 300 km s−1 and -0.08 dex < [α/M] < 0.2 dex are indicated by the cyan box in this panel. ... HP-MPTnD stars almost follow the distribution of the canonical thin disk (green shadows), but with slightly lower [Al/Fe] and higher [Mg/Mn]."

    The MPTnD candidates are selected by drawing a box around the same low-α, high-Vφ locus that the authors' own prior HS22 paper uses to define the canonical thin disk, and the overdensity is identified as thin-disk-like by comparison with the HS22 ellipses. The later statements that HP-MPTnD stars 'almost follow' the canonical thin disk and are a 'natural extension of the thin disk' in Rg, Zmax, ecc, and θL therefore compare the sample with the template used to select it; the kinematic part of the claimed chemo-dynamical similarity is true by construction rather than by independent confirmation. The chemical classification into HP-MPTnD, however, relies on the external [Mg/Mn]-[Al/Fe] separation of Horta et al. (2021) and Naidu et al.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—56 HP-MPTnD giants and a thin-disk floor below -0.95 dex—rests on two separable chains. The kinematic selection in Section 3.1 is intentionally centered on the HS22 low-α sequence, and the subsequent 'similarity to canonical thin disk' comparisons in Figs. 2, 4, 5, and 6 reuse the same HS22 template, so part of the confirmation is circular by construction. However, the chemical classification into HP-MPTnD uses external separation lines from Horta et al. (2021) and Naidu et al. (2022), which are independent of the authors' own prior work (though their metallicity dependence in the -1.2 to -0.8 dex range is unvalidated). The age comparison uses Sanders & Das (2018). Therefore the main quantitative claim (56 stars, floor < -0.95) is not forced by the authors' prior parameters alone; it retains independent content, though the kinematic similarity is partially self-referential. Score 4: some self-citation and one construction-dependent comparison, but the central chemical classification is externally anchored.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard astrophysical classifications and adopted external calibrations; the novel contribution is the specific sample selection. The main hand-chosen parameters are the kinematic selection box and the metallicity split, both of which influence the central claim. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Vphi selection range = 180 to 300 km/s
    The cyan box in Fig 2b defining MPTnD candidates is chosen by eye to encompass the low-alpha fast-rotating overdensity. The number of candidates (91) and hence the final 56 HP-MPTnD stars depends on these hand-chosen boundaries.
  • [alpha/M] selection range = -0.08 to 0.2 dex
    Same cyan box boundary in Fig 2b, chosen by eye to isolate the low-alpha sequence.
  • Metallicity split = -0.95 dex
    Used to partition HP-MPTnD stars into high/low metallicity subsamples (Table 1, hollow vs solid circles). The value is set near the apparent tail of the candidate metallicity distribution (Fig 3), and the claim of a lower limit below -0.95 depends on this split.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The low-alpha sequence in the [alpha/M]-[M/H] plane defines the thin disk, and the high-alpha sequence defines the thick disk.
    Standard bimodality interpretation adopted in Section 1 and used to construct the modelled thin/thick disk distributions in Fig 2 from HS22.
  • domain assumption The boundaries in the [Mg/Mn]-[Al/Fe] plane defined by Horta et al. (2021) and Naidu et al. (2022) remain valid at [M/H] < -0.8.
    The chemical classification in Section 3.2 adopts pre-existing in-situ/accreted and thin/thick disk separations calibrated at higher metallicity, with no local recalibration in the metal-poor regime.
  • domain assumption The McMillan (2017) Galactic potential accurately describes stellar orbits for computing Rg, Zmax, ecc, and theta_L.
    Used in Section 2.2 for orbit integration; standard but not unique choice.
  • domain assumption The APOGEE survey selection function does not qualitatively alter the spatial distribution of the identified stars.
    Section 3.3 acknowledges incomplete spatial coverage but compares relative distributions without modelling the selection function.
  • domain assumption Ages from Sanders & Das (2018) are reliable for the giant stars in the sample.
    Section 3.4 uses these ages to infer the timing of the second infall; the ages carry systematic uncertainties noted by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating lower limit of metallicity for Galactic thin disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E33CLJBZ

@misc{pith2026241206187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating lower limit of metallicity for Galactic thin disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E33CLJBZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06187}
}
abstract

We explore the metal-poor regime of the Galactic disk on the distribution of stars in the [$\alpha$/M]-$V_{\phi}$ plane, to identify the most metal-poor thin disk (MPTnD) stars belonging to the low-$\alpha$ sequence. Chemical abundances and velocities of sample stars are either taken or derived from APOGEE DR17 and Gaia DR3 catalogs. We find the existence of a well-separated extension of the kinematically thin disk stars in the metallicity range of -1.2 $<$[M/H]$<$ -0.8 dex. Based on two-by-two distributions of [Mg/Mn], [Al/Fe] and [C+N/Fe], we further confirmed 56 high-possibility metal-poor thin disk (HP-MPTnD) giant stars and suggested the lower metallicity limit of the thin disk below -0.95 dex. A comparative analysis of HP-MPTnD sample with other Galactic components revealed its chemo-dynamical similarities with canonical thin disk stars. These low-$\alpha$ metal-poor stars are predominantly located in the outer disk region and formed in the early stage of the formation of thin disk. Their existence provides compelling support for the two-infall model of the Milky way's disk formation. Moreover, these stars impose observational constraints on the timing and metallicity of the second gas infall event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The logarithmic greyscale plot of the number density of sample stars in the [α/M]-[M/H] plane. As defined in HS22, the dashed orange and cyan lines correspond to the 1σ and 2σ contours for the high-α and low-α sequences, respectively. Two red dashed-dotted lines at [M/H]=-1.2 dex and -0.8 dex divide the sample into three metallicity intervals. 2.1. Sample selection Our sample was obtained by cross-matching APOGEE DR… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The [α/M]-Vϕ distribution for the parent sample stars: (a) [M/H] < -1.2 dex; (b) -1.2 < [M/H] < -0.8 dex; (c) [M/H] > -0.8 dex. The black contours denote 1σ, 2σ and 3σ number distribution densities in each panel. The orange and cyan concentric ellipses represent the modelled distribution of thick and thin disk, respectively. In panel (b), the cyan and blue boxes delineate the location of selected the MPTnD star cand… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The metallicity distribution of MPTnD candi￾dates (stars in cyan box of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panels from left to right: Projections of the MPTnD candidates along the [Mg/Mn]-[Al/Fe], [C+N/Fe]-[Mg/Mn] and [Al/Fe]-[C+N/Fe] planes. The error bars in the bottom-left corner of each panel represent the typical uncertainties of the corresponding parameters. The b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spatial (Rg and Zmax) and dynamical distributions (ecc and θL) of Galactic components. The orange and cyan lines with shadow represent the standard deviations of corresponding parameters as functions of metallicity for the thick and thin disk, respectively. The pur…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The age distributions for the galactic compo￾nents. The symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tracing the early Milky Way thin disc with the Gaia-ESO Survey

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A single metal-poor, alpha-enhanced star with thin-disc-like kinematics is identified as a candidate relic of the early Milky Way disc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    Z., Santos, N

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Santos, N. C., Sousa, S. G., & Israelian, G. 2011, A&A, 535, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118240

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118240 2011

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  4. [4]

    Johnson, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 835, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224 2017

  5. [5]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    2020, A&A, 643, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038881

    Bashi, D., Zucker, S., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038881 2020

  7. [7]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa876

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3289

    Buck, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3289

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac518

    Carrillo, A., Hawkins, K., Jofr´ e, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac518

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

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

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

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 5195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3537 Fern´ andez-Alvar, E., Kordopatis, G., Hill, V., et al

    Das, P., Hawkins, K., & Jofr´ e, P. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3537 Fern´ andez-Alvar, E., Kordopatis, G., Hill, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2617 —. 2024, A&A, 685, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348918

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Ferreira, L., Adams, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 3, doi: 10.1002/asna.200310173 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fuhrmann, K. 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 3, doi: 10.1002/asna.200310173 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151...

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Gilmore, G., & Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

    1983 doi

  10. [18]

    2020a, MNRAS, 492, 2828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa051

    Grisoni, V., Cescutti, G., Matteucci, F., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 492, 2828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa051

    doi

  11. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2428

    Grisoni, V., Matteucci, F., Romano, D., & Fu, X. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2428

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2020b, MNRAS, 498, 1252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2316

    Grisoni, V., Romano, D., Spitoni, E., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 498, 1252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2316

    doi

  13. [21]

    2015, A&A, 583, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525883

    Guiglion, G., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525883

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Hasselquist, S., Carlin, J. L., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafdac

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Lian, J., et al

    Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., Lian, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f9

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1586

    Hawkins, K., Jofr´ e, P., Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1586

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C. C. 2017, A&A, 608, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731494 11

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2987

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac590e

    Hu, G., & Shao, Z. 2022, ApJ, 929, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac590e

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd058

    Hu, G., Shao, Z., & Li, L. 2023, ApJ, 950, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd058

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    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

    doi

  25. [33]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Schiavon, R

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

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Korotin, S. A. 2004, A&A, 418, 551, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034454

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Ji, A

    Naidu, R. P., Ji, A. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    X., Kanekar, N., & Rafelski, M

    Neeleman, M., Prochaska, J. X., Kanekar, N., & Rafelski, M. 2020, Nature, 581, 269, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2276-y

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    B., et al

    Nepal, S., Chiappini, C., Queiroz, A. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449445

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    E., & Schuster, W

    Nissen, P. E., & Schuster, W. J. 2010, A&A, 511, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913877

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Yi, S

    Park, M. J., Yi, S. K., Peirani, S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe937

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, A&A, 567, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322944

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322944

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, 304, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06305.x

    Prieto, C. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 304, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06305.x

    2003

  39. [47]

    E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, A&A, 586, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526969

    Rojas-Arriagada, A., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526969

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 1045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad530

    Roman-Oliveira, F., Fraternali, F., & Rizzo, F. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad530

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    L., & Das, P

    Sanders, J. L., & Das, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2490

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2005, ApJ, 635, 260, doi: 10.1086/497331 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W

    Savaglio, S., Glazebrook, K., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 260, doi: 10.1086/497331 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2005

  44. [52]

    F., Starkenburg, E., et al

    Sestito, F., Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa022

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Sharma, S., Hayden, M. R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2015

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Soltis, J., Casertano, S., & Riess, A. G. 2021, ApJL, 908, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdbad

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2005, A&A, 438, 139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042390

    Soubiran, C., & Girard, P. 2005, A&A, 438, 139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042390

    2005 doi

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    2020, A&A, 635, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937275 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Spitoni, E., Verma, K., Silva Aguirre, V., & Calura, F. 2020, A&A, 635, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937275 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Andrews, B

    Weinberg, D. H., Andrews, B. H., & Freudenburg, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/183

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 4246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1633

    Wojno, J., Kordopatis, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1633

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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