Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Recent star formation episodes in the Galaxy: impact on its chemical properties and the evolution of its abundance gradient

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Recent star-formation episodes can explain the wiggly abundance gradient of the Milky Way disk, so the wiggle is not by itself evidence of a major merger.

desk verdict Worthwhile model exploration: the wiggle-gradient reproduction is a tuned fit, and the abstract overstates it, but the paper deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03342 v1 pith:GTDWKC5G submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.GA

Tianxiang Chen , Nikos Prantzos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWaydiskchemicalevolutionstarformationepisodesradialmigrationabundancegradientage-metallicityrelationalphaenhancementgalacticarchaeology
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 asks whether the recently reported wiggly age dependence of the Milky Way's disk abundance gradient must be read as the fossil of a major merger, and answers that it need not be. Using a multi-ring chemical evolution model that lets stars migrate radially, the authors introduce Gaussian bursts of star formation at times suggested by recent observational reconstructions of the local star-formation history. They find that these bursts reshape the local age-metallicity relation, the $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ versus metallicity plane, the stellar metallicity distribution, and the inferred birth place of the Sun. The central claim is that the wiggles in the gradient at birth radius can be reproduced by either bursts of star-formation efficiency or episodes of pristine gas infall, with a testable difference: burst episodes coincide with wiggle maxima, while infall episodes coincide with wiggle minima. If the claim is right, the wiggly gradient no longer gives unique evidence for a recent major merger, and the interpretation space for the disk's recent history broadens.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a one-dimensional, multi-ring chemical evolution model of the Galactic disk, with rings coupled by a statistical stellar radial-migration prescription (blurring and churning) and a star-formation law proportional to the molecular-gas surface density. Episodes of star formation are inserted as Gaussian boosts to the star-formation efficiency, either confined to a local annulus, global across the disk, or propagating outward with a radial time delay; a parallel scheme inserts Gaussian episodes of primordial gas infall into the outer disk. The argument runs by comparing the model's local age-metallicity distributions and reconstructed birth-radius gradients against observed stellar samples. The diagnostic that carries the central claim is the relation between the timing of an episode and the phase of the wiggle in the reconstructed gradient: efficiency bursts coincide with wiggle maxima, while infall-dilution episodes coincide with wiggle minima.

What would settle it

Measure the birth-radius [Fe/H] gradient as a function of look-back time from a sample of subgiant stars with age uncertainties below roughly 0.3 Gyr, and compare the phase of each wiggle with independently dated star-formation episodes; the paper predicts wiggle maxima at efficiency-driven starburst epochs and wiggle minima at infall-dilution epochs, so scrambled phases would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that episodes of enhanced star formation over the last few gigayears are not a minor correction to the Milky Way's chemical evolution: they leave visible overdensities in the age-metallicity plane, temporarily raise both [Fe/H] and $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ (because core-collapse supernovae release $\alpha$ elements before the delayed Type Ia iron catches up), broaden the local stellar metallicity distribution, and shift the inferred birth radius of the Sun inward. In a model with two star-formation episodes placed at 4.5 and 7 Gyr ago, the reconstructed gradient of [Fe/H] at stellar birth radius versus look-back time acquires two wiggles similar to those reported in recent red-giant samples, and a model with two episodes of dilute, zero-metallicity infall in the outer disk reproduces the same observational pattern. The demonstration is conditional: the times of the star-formation episodes must be adjusted to the times of the wiggle maxima in the observed data, as the authors state in their discussion. The paper also shows that the large-scale non-monotonic gradient evolution arises in the baseline model without any burst, from inside-out disk formation plus radial migration, so that broad shape is not by itself a merger signature either.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes that stars drift across the disk at the rates set by the model's statistical prescription for radial migration; if real stars migrate much more or much less, the predicted wiggle positions and stellar overdensities would move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The wiggly age dependence of the birth-radius gradient can no longer be read as unique evidence of a recent major merger; star-formation episodes or infall episodes with suitable timing reproduce it.
  • The phase of each wiggle points to the physical nature of the episode: maxima correspond to enhanced star-formation efficiency, minima to fresh-gas dilution.
  • Recent starbursts broaden the local stellar metallicity distribution, can create secondary peaks, and move the Sun's inferred birth radius inward by about 0.5 to 1.5 kpc relative to a smooth history.
  • Strong, narrow starbursts temporarily raise $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ by roughly 0.3 dex after the burst, alleviating but not solving the puzzle of young alpha-rich stars.
  • A propagated starburst scheme reproduces the age-metallicity overdensities seen in inner and local disk samples, though it leaves the older outer-disk overdensity about 0.2 dex too metal-poor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the phase relation is within reach: precise ages for subgiant stars combined with birth radii from dynamics should show wiggle maxima at starburst epochs and minima at infall epochs, and scrambled phases would falsify the mechanisms.
  • The degeneracy between starbursts and infall means that any purely chemical reconstruction of a disk's past interaction history is underdetermined; kinematical data or gas-phase abundance measurements at the episode epochs would be needed to break it.
  • For external galaxies, the same reconstruction logic could misattribute a bursty star-formation history to a merger if radial migration and inside-out formation are ignored; the nearly flat high-redshift gradients noted in the paper suggest that the Milky Way-style steepening may not be universal.
  • Because alpha elements and iron are released on different timescales, repeating the mass-weighted gradient analysis with oxygen or silicon instead of iron should sharpen the timing of the episodes and help separate core-collapse from Type Ia supernova contributions.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses a multi-ring semi-analytic chemical evolution model with parametrized stellar radial migration to study the consequences of recent star formation episodes (SFBs) on Milky Way disk observables. The authors introduce local, global, and radially propagating SFBs whose amplitudes, durations, and radial extents are adjusted to reproduce the local star formation histories inferred by Mor et al. (2019), Ruiz-Lara et al. (2020), and Sahlholdt et al. (2022). They show that such SFBs affect the local age-metallicity relation, the [alpha/Fe] versus metallicity distribution, the stellar metallicity distribution, the inferred birth radius of the Sun, and the population of young [alpha/Fe]-rich stars. The central new claim is that the recently reported wiggly behavior of the disk abundance gradient at birth radius as a function of age can be interpreted in terms of either star formation episodes or infall/dilution episodes, without invoking a major merger at 8-9 Gyr ago as the sole explanation.

Significance. If the central claim is sustained, the paper broadens the interpretation space for the wiggly gradient recently reported by Ratcliffe et al. (2023) and provides a useful cautionary analysis of birth-radius reconstruction methods. The work has genuine strengths: it compares the model against several independent observational datasets (APOGEE DR17, Feuillet et al. 2019, Nissen et al. 2020, Anders et al. 2023, Sahlholdt et al. 2022); it shows that the single-slope assumption in Lu et al. (2022b) and Ratcliffe et al. (2023) is violated in the model whenever the metallicity profile is multi-slope (Sec. 6.3); and it honestly reports where the model fails, such as the older overdensity in the outer disk in the propagated-SFB case (Sec. 5). The paper also quantifies the difficulty of reproducing the youngest high-[alpha/Fe] stars with the adopted SFBs. However, the central demonstration is conditional rather than predictive: the times of the SFBs and infall episodes are adjusted to the observed wiggle extrema, and the younger wiggle is not recovered by the authors' own mass-weighted gradient method. The significance of the paper is therefore real but weaker than the abstract claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6.1 and Sec. 8] The reproduction of the wiggly gradient is a tuned consistency fit rather than a fixed-parameter prediction. In Sec. 6.1 the authors state that 'we adjusted their temporal positions of our model according to the Anders et al. (2023) data', and in Sec. 8 they concede that the SF episodes explain the wiggles 'provided that the times of the SF episodes are adjusted to the times of the wiggle maxima' in Ratcliffe et al. (2023). The 4.5 Gyr SFB used to create the younger wiggle is not among the SFBs reported by Mor et al. (2019), Ruiz-Lara et al. (2020), or Sahlholdt et al. (2022) as summarized in Sec. 2 and Fig. 1, so the match in Fig. 5 largely confirms the chosen parameterization rather than testing whether published SFB timings produce wiggles. The abstract's claim that the wiggles 'can be interpreted' in terms of SFBs or infall episodes should be reframed as a demonstration of consistency, or supported by a fixed-parameter prediction using the published SFB times.
  2. [Sec. 6.2] The younger wiggle is not robustly recovered by the authors' own preferred method. Sec. 6.2 states that the mass-weighted gradient 'fails to identify clearly the impact of the younger SFB of age 4.5 Gyr', recovering only a slope change with a time delay, while the older SFB is recovered with a 0.3 Gyr delay. The claimed reproduction of the younger wiggle in panel B5 of Fig. 5 therefore rests on the mirror-image method of Lu et al. (2022b)/Ratcliffe et al. (2023), a method whose single-slope assumption the authors themselves criticize in Sec. 6.3. Since the abstract presents the wiggle interpretation as the main result, the authors should demonstrate that the younger wiggle appears in their own more reliable gradient reconstruction, or explicitly separate the two method-dependent conclusions.
  3. [Sec. 7 and Sec. 8] The infall model is as tuned as the SFB model, with no independent priors. The two infall episodes at 6.3 and 3.7 Gyr ago are chosen ad hoc, with amplitudes and radial profiles adjusted to match the Ratcliffe et al. (2023) wiggles. The interesting distinction between maxima (SFBs) and minima (infall) stated in Sec. 8 is a property of the constructed models rather than a predictive test, because the infall times are selected after seeing the observed minima. A parameter scan over infall time, width, and radial profile, or a prediction made before comparison, would be needed to establish that infall episodes generically produce minima at their epochs.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The adopted radial migration prescription is load-bearing for the reconstruction of the gradient at birth radii, yet its sensitivity is not tested. The model's prediction that older local stars originate in the inner disk, and hence the shape of the inferred gradient-age relation, depends on the adopted blurring exponent beta=0.25 and the Kubryk et al. (2015a) churning prescription. If the migration efficiency or its radial dependence differs substantially, the predicted wiggle positions and the recovered birth-radius distributions in Fig. 6 would shift. The authors should at least assess how the wiggle timing and amplitude in panel B5 of Fig. 5 respond to plausible variations in the migration parameters, since the central claim concerns the shape of that curve.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The sentence 'In Sec. and 7 we discuss...' is missing the section number for the discussion of SFBs and the gradient; it should read 'In Secs. 6 and 7'.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'in precnetage' for 'in percentage'.
  3. [Sec. 4.3.2] The word 'attibuted' should be 'attributed', and 'swallower' should be 'shallower' in the discussion of local versus global SFBs.
  4. [Sec. 6] The text 'and references therein RECIO' contains a stray 'RECIO' fragment that should be removed.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The phrase 'fitting the observationnally inferred SF history' has a typo ('observationnally' should be 'observationally') and 'main constrain' should be 'main constraint'.
  6. [Sec. 4.2.1] The discussion of the Sun's birthplace would benefit from stating explicitly which of the model variants (baseline, single local/global SFB, three local/global SFBs) is used when quoting the numerical birth-radius ranges, since the values are method-dependent.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Wiggle reproduction is a tuned fit: SFB and infall epochs are placed at the observed wiggle maxima/minima, so the central 'interpretation' is a consistency check rather than a prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Secs. 6.1 and 8]
    "we find that such SF episodes can explain the 'wiggly' behaviour of the gradient vs age found by Ratcliffe et al. (2023), provided that the times of the SF episodes are adjusted to the times of the wiggle maxima in the latter work (see Sec. 6.1 and Fig. 5)"

    SFB epochs are the free parameters controlling the phase of the output wiggles; Sec. 6.1 sets them to the Anders et al. (2023) overdensity times, and Sec. 8 concedes the wiggles appear only 'provided that the times of the SF episodes are adjusted to the times of the wiggle maxima' in Ratcliffe et al. (2023). The 4.5 Gyr SFB responsible for the younger wiggle is not independently required by the SFH studies quoted in Sec. 2; it is placed on the same age-metallicity data that define the wiggles. Since Sec. 6.2 further admits that the model's own mass-weighted gradient 'fails to identify clearly the impact of the younger SFB of age 4.5 Gyr', the Fig. 5 match is a tuned consistency check rather than a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 7]
    "We assume episodes of gaussian form, with maxima at ages of 6.3 Gyr and 3.7 Gyr ago, respectively, and standard deviations of 0.5 Gyr each."

    The infall epochs are chosen as 6.3 and 3.7 Gyr ago (Sec. 7) without an independent prior, and the paper later states that for infall episodes the minima of the observed wiggles correspond to the infall times (Sec. 8). The 'quite satisfactory' match to Ratcliffe et al. (2023) in panel B7 is therefore produced by placing the infall episodes at the wiggle minima by hand; the model converts the input phase into output minima through the assumed dilution chemistry, but the wiggle positions are not predicted. This is the same fitted-input structure as the SFB case, with the sign reversed.

full rationale

The paper's main new demonstration—that the age-dependent birth-radius metallicity gradient can be reproduced by recent SFBs—is not wholly circular, because the model is run forward and the amplitude and width of the wiggles are not forced by the timing alone. However, the central comparison is a tuned fit: Sec. 6.1 sets the two SFB epochs to the overdensity times of Anders et al. (2023), and Sec. 8 explicitly limits the claim to cases where the SFB times are adjusted to the wiggle maxima of Ratcliffe et al. (2023). The 4.5 Gyr SFB that produces the younger wiggle is not an output of the independent SFH constraints; it is calibrated on the same age-metallicity data used to define the wiggles. The infall scenario in Sec. 7 is analogous, with infall epochs placed at the wiggle minima. Both demonstrations therefore establish consistency, not independent prediction. By contrast, the other reported impacts—broadening of the local metallicity distribution, distortion of the age-metallicity relation, and changes in the [alpha/Fe] tracks—are driven by SFBs fixed by external SFH studies and are not circular. No load-bearing self-citation was found; the reliance on Prantzos et al. (2023) and Kubryk et al. (2015a) is ordinary model inheritance, and the gradient reconstruction is compared against external data.

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

The model carries a large number of parameters from prior literature (infall timescales, IMF, yields, migration prescriptions), plus a set of newly introduced SFB parameters that are fitted to the very observations the paper seeks to interpret. Most importantly, the timing of the SFBs and infall episodes that produce the wiggly gradient is set by the observed wiggle times, so the central demonstration is partly circular. However, other predicted observables (metallicity distribution, [Si/Fe] vs [Fe/H]) are not used to set the parameters and provide independent checks.

free parameters (5)
  • SFB amplitude gamma_b (per burst) = not tabulated in text
    Adjusted to reproduce the observationally inferred local star formation history of Mor et al. (2019) and Ruiz-Lara et al. (2020), Sec. 4.1.
  • SFB central time mu_t = e.g., 4.5 and 7 Gyr for two-SFB model
    Set to match overdensities in Anders et al. (2023) and wiggle maxima in Ratcliffe et al. (2023), Sec. 6.1.
  • SFB duration sigma_t and radial width sigma_R = sigma_R fixed to 1 kpc; sigma_t varied
    Chosen to reproduce the shapes of the observed SFHs (short bursts for Ruiz-Lara et al. 2020, broad for Mor et al. 2019), Sec. 3.4.
  • Propagated SFB parameters mu_R, t_R = mu_R=5.5 and 7 kpc; t_R=0.42 and 0.16 Gyr/kpc
    Adopted to reproduce the age distributions of inner, local, and outer stellar samples from Sahlholdt et al. (2022), Sec. 5.
  • Infall episode times, widths, and radial profile = peaks at 6.3 and 3.7 Gyr ago, sigma=0.5 Gyr, null inside 6 kpc
    Chosen to generate dilution episodes whose effects mimic the wiggles in Ratcliffe et al. (2023), Sec. 7.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Milky Way disk forms inside-out, with gas infall timescales increasing from 0.5 Gyr at 2 kpc to 7.5 Gyr at 21 kpc.
    Baseline structure from Prantzos et al. (2023), used throughout, Sec. 3.1.
  • domain assumption Star formation rate is proportional to molecular hydrogen surface density, with a single efficiency alpha.
    Adopted from Blitz & Rosolowsky (2006) and Krumholz (2014), Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Stellar radial migration follows the parametrized blurring and churning prescriptions of Kubryk et al. (2015a), with beta=0.25.
    Sec. 3.2; all results depend on this migration scheme.
  • domain assumption Nucleosynthetic yields are those of Cristallo et al. (2015) for low/intermediate mass stars and Limongi & Chieffi (2018) for massive stars.
    Sec. 3.3; adopted from prior work.
  • domain assumption In the main scenarios, SFBs are caused by enhanced star formation efficiency without additional gas infall.
    Sec. 3.4; the infall-driven alternative is explored only in Sec. 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent star formation episodes in the Galaxy: impact on its chemical properties and the evolution of its abundance gradient." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTDWKC5G

@misc{pith2026250103342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent star formation episodes in the Galaxy: impact on its chemical properties and the evolution of its abundance gradient},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTDWKC5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03342}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the chemical evolution of the Milky Way disc exploring various schemes of recent (last several Gyr) star formation episodes, as reported in recent observational works. We use a semi-analytical model with parametrized radial migration and we introduce gaussian star formation episodes constrained by those recent observations. We find significant impact of the star formation episodes on several observables, like the local age-metallicity and [alpha/Fe] vs metallicity relations, as well as the local stellar metallicity distribution or the existence of young [alpha/Fe]-rich stars. Moreover, we show that the recently found "wiggly" behaviour of the disk abundance gradient with age can be interpreted in terms of either star formation or infall episodes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Recently reported episodes of star formation in the late history of the local region of our Galaxy. From top to bottom: a) SFR obtained from main-sequence stars (Mor et al. 2019), with error bars in age and SFR intensity. b) The cyan curve represents the SFH in a bubble of radius ∼ 2 kpc around the Sun (Ruiz-Lara et al. 2020). The three subsequent panels display results for age distribution of stars obtained from Sa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of various quantities as function of age among models with five different SFHs (standard, single local SFB, single global SFB, 3 local SFBs, 3 global SFBs). Row 1: The true SFR in different radial zones, divided into inner disk (𝑅 < 5 kpc, red), intermediate disk (5 < 𝑅 < 11 kpc, blue) and outer disk (𝑅 > 11 kpc, green). The evolution at 𝑅⊙ = 8 kpc is depicted by dashed blue curve. Row 2: SFH as observed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the fifth row we show the evolution of [Si/Fe], using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Model results (colour coded as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Same as the second and fourth row of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In model (B) on the right, the SFB results in a sharp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Age-metallicity relations and gradient evolutions in our stan￾dard model (left column, compared to Lu et al. (2022b)) and in the 2-SFB model (right column, compared to Ratcliffe et al. (2023)). Row 1: Gaseous metallicity every 2-zones of the model. Row 2: Density isoco…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The oldest profile (lowest curve at age of 11 Gyr ) is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We think that this property may help in the future, through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    S., et al

    Anders, F., Chiappini, C., Rodrigues, T. S., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A30

    2017

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 678, A158

    Anders, F., Gispert, P., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A158

    2023

  4. [4]

    & Khoperskov, S

    Annem, B. & Khoperskov, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2426

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1697 Bailer-Jones,C.A.L.,Rybizki,J.,Fouesneau,M.,Demleitner,M.,&Andrae,R

    Aumer, M., Binney, J., & Schönrich, R. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1697 Bailer-Jones,C.A.L.,Rybizki,J.,Fouesneau,M.,Demleitner,M.,&Andrae,R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., Nidever, D., Amarante, J. A. S., & Garver, B. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 260

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    2008

  8. [8]

    & Rosolowsky, E

    Blitz, L. & Rosolowsky, E. 2006, ApJ, 650, 933

    2006

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    & Prantzos, N

    Boissier, S. & Prantzos, N. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 857

    1999

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 668, A181

    Borisov, S., Prantzos, N., & Charbonnel, C. 2022, A&A, 668, A181

    2022

  3. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435

    Buck, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435

    2020

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1565

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1565

    2023

  5. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150 Cartledge,S.I.B.,Lauroesch,J.T.,Meyer,D.M.,&Sofia,U.J.2006,ApJ,641, 327

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150 Cartledge,S.I.B.,Lauroesch,J.T.,Meyer,D.M.,&Sofia,U.J.2006,ApJ,641, 327

    2021

  6. [14]

    2023, A&A, 676, A108

    Cerqui, V., Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Katz, D., & Royer, F. 2023, A&A, 676, A108

    2023

  7. [15]

    2014, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Chiappini, C., Anders, F., & Minchev, I. 2014, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 67-68, EAS Publications Series, 169–176

    2014

  8. [16]

    S., et al

    Chiappini, C., Anders, F., Rodrigues, T. S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, L12

    2015

  9. [17]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 765

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Gratton, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 765

    1997

  10. [18]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Piersanti, L., & Gobrecht, D. 2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    2015

  11. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 821 Di Cintio, A., Mostoghiu, R., Knebe, A., & Navarro, J

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Cirasuolo, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 821 Di Cintio, A., Mostoghiu, R., Knebe, A., & Navarro, J. F. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 531

    2020

  12. [20]

    Diaz, A. I. & Tosi, M. 1984, MNRAS, 208, 365

    1984

  13. [21]

    B., & Agertz, O

    Feltzing, S., Bowers, J. B., & Agertz, O. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1419

    2020

  14. [22]

    C., & Diaz, A

    Ferrini, F., Molla, M., Pardi, M. C., & Diaz, A. I. 1994, ApJ, 427, 745

    1994

  15. [23]

    K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al

    Feuillet, D. K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1742

    2019

  16. [24]

    Frankel, N., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., Ness, M., & Hogg, D. W. 2018, ApJ, 865, 96

    2018

  17. [25]

    L., Yin, J., & Chang, R

    Fu, J., Hou, J. L., Yin, J., & Chang, R. X. 2009, ApJ, 696, 668 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2009

  18. [26]

    K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C

    Gibson, B. K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C. B., Stinson, G. S., & Bailin, J. 2013, A&A, 554, A47

    2013

  19. [27]

    & Wyse, R

    Gilmore, G. & Wyse, R. F. G. 1991, ApJ, 367, L55 Gómez, F. A., Minchev, I., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 159

    1991

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 683, A111

    Grisoni, V., Chiappini, C., Miglio, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A111

    2024

  21. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570

    Grisoni, V., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hammer, F., Puech, M., Chemin, L., Flores, H., & Lehnert, M. D. 2007, ApJ, 662, 322

    2007

  23. [31]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132

    2015

  24. [32]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    2020

  25. [33]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    2018

  26. [34]

    S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al

    Hemler, Z. S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3024

    2021

  27. [35]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125

    2018

  28. [36]

    L., Prantzos, N., & Boissier, S

    Hou, J. L., Prantzos, N., & Boissier, S. 2000, A&A, 362, 921

    2000

  29. [37]

    2019, ApJ, 878, L11 Jofré, P., Jorissen, A., Van Eck, S., et al

    Isern, J. 2019, ApJ, 878, L11 Jofré, P., Jorissen, A., Van Eck, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A60

    2019

  30. [38]

    Johnson, J. W. & Weinberg, D. H. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1364

    2020

  31. [39]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Vincenzo, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4484

    2021

  32. [40]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    1998

  33. [41]

    2023, A&A, 677, A89

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Libeskind, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A89

    2023

  34. [42]

    & Nakasato, N

    Kobayashi, C. & Nakasato, N. 2011, ApJ, 729, 16

    2011

  35. [43]

    2002, Science, 295, 82

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    2002

  36. [44]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2014, Phys. Rep., 539, 49

    2014

  37. [45]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    2018

  38. [46]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 411

    Lu, Y., Buck, T., Nidever, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 411

    2024

  39. [47]

    2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04515

    Lu, Y., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04515

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    J., Lago, L

    Maciel, W. J., Lago, L. G., & Costa, R. D. D. 2006, A&A, 453, 587

    2006

  41. [49]

    J., Quireza, C., & Costa, R

    Maciel, W. J., Quireza, C., & Costa, R. D. D. 2007, A&A, 463, L13

    2007

  42. [50]

    2017, A&A, 603, A2

    Magrini, L., Randich, S., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A2

    2017

  43. [51]

    2023, A&A, 669, A119

    Magrini, L., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Spina, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A119

    2023

  44. [52]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2230

    Martig, M., Rix, H.-W., Silva Aguirre, V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2230

    2015

  45. [53]

    T., et al

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A85

    2021

  46. [54]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645

    2018

  47. [55]

    2013, A&A, 558, A9

    Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., & Martig, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A9

    2013

  48. [56]

    & Hekker, S

    Mints, A. & Hekker, S. 2017, A&A, 604, A108 Mollá, M., Díaz, Á. I., Ascasibar, Y., & Gibson, B. K. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 305 Mollá, M., Díaz, Á. I., Cavichia, O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3071 Montalbán,J.,Mackereth,J.T.,Miglio,A.,etal.2021,NatureAstronomy,5,640

    2017

  49. [57]

    C., Figueras, F., Roca-Fàbrega, S., & Luri, X

    Mor, R., Robin, A. C., Figueras, F., Roca-Fàbrega, S., & Luri, X. 2019, A&A, 624, L1

    2019

  50. [58]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 2918 Article number, page 15 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Mott, A., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2918 Article number, page 15 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main_file

    2013

  51. [59]

    Nieva, M. F. & Przybilla, N. 2012, A&A, 539, A143

    2012

  52. [60]

    E., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Mosumgaard, J

    Nissen, P. E., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Mosumgaard, J. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A81 Peñarrubia, J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L26

    2020

  53. [61]

    Philcox, O., Rybizki, J., & Gutcke, T. A. 2018, ApJ, 861, 40

    2018

  54. [62]

    G., Gibson, B

    Pilkington, K., Few, C. G., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A56

    2012

  55. [63]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2126

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Chen, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2126

    2023

  56. [64]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    2020

  57. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., & Cristallo, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    2018

  58. [66]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155

    2023

  59. [67]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.09260

    Ratcliffe, B., Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.09260

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2208

    Ratcliffe, B., Minchev, I., Anders, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2208

    2023

  61. [69]

    M., Jenkins, E

    Ritchey, A. M., Jenkins, E. B., Shull, J. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 57

    2023

  62. [70]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965

    2020

  63. [71]

    L., Feltzing, S., & Feuillet, D

    Sahlholdt, C. L., Feltzing, S., & Feuillet, D. K. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4669

    2022

  64. [72]

    1993, ApJ, 414, 580

    Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580

    1993

  65. [73]

    Sanders, J. L. & Binney, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3479

    2015

  66. [74]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243

    1959

  67. [75]

    1963, ApJ, 137, 758 Schönrich, R

    Schmidt, M. 1963, ApJ, 137, 758 Schönrich, R. & Binney, J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 203

    1963

  68. [76]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785

    2002

  69. [77]

    H., Dotter, A., Majewski, S

    Siegel, M. H., Dotter, A., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, L57

    2007

  70. [78]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581

    2010

  71. [79]

    2024, A&A, 690, A208

    Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., Gratton, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A208

    2024

  72. [80]

    B., Machado, R

    Tissera, P. B., Machado, R. E. G., Vilchez, J. M., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A118

    2017

  73. [81]

    & Kobayashi, C

    Vincenzo, F. & Kobayashi, C. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 80

    2020

  74. [82]

    H., Andrews, B

    Weinberg, D. H., Andrews, B. H., & Freudenburg, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 183

    2017

  75. [83]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 145 Article number, page 16 of 15

    Zhang, M., Xiang, M., Zhang, H.-W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 145 Article number, page 16 of 15

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.