Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Milky Way Disk

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Milky Way's disk is a barred spiral, chemically two-layered, and out of equilibrium—Gaia data reveal phase spirals, ridges, and warps that record recent perturbations, most likely from the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy.

desk verdict A solid, honest review of the post-Gaia Milky Way disk that is a useful entry point for newcomers, with one soft spot: the Section 3 formation timeline leans on an undefended claim about the precision of relative APOGEE ages. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12252 v1 pith:JT6WU2HW submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.GA

Daisuke Kawata (1 , 2) , Robert J. J. Grand (3) , Jason A.S. Hunt (4) , Ioana Ciucă (5) ((1) MSSL , UCL , (2) NAOJ , (3) LJMU
show 2 more authors
(4) Surrey (5) Stanford)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWaydiskgalacticbarphasespiralgalactoseismologyGaiamissionradialmigrationGaia-Sausage-Enceladusthickandthin
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 review consolidates the current picture of the Milky Way's disk: a barred spiral with an old, high-$[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ thick disk and a younger, low-$[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ thin disk. It argues that Gaia astrometry has overturned the older view of a quiet, equilibrium galaxy: the disk is instead an out-of-equilibrium structure carrying many kinematic substructures, including phase spirals, ridges, and a warped outer disk. These features are read as the signature of phase mixing after perturbations, with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy the leading, though debated, culprit. Combining Gaia with spectroscopic ages of giant stars and cosmological simulations, the review builds a formation narrative: a metal-poor proto-disk, a starburst triggered by the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger, and then 8–10 Gyr of quiet thin-disk growth.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (1) the phase-space maps of disk stars from Gaia—especially the phase spiral, a spiral pattern in the stellar distribution over vertical position $z$ and vertical velocity $v_z$ that encodes phase mixing after a vertical perturbation—and the corresponding ridge structures in the $R$–$v_\phi$ plane; (2) the age–metallicity–$[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ plane of red giant stars, where the relative ordering of proto-disk, starburst, and thin-disk populations is read; and (3) hydrodynamical cosmological simulations that show how a gas-rich merger like the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus event builds a thick disk and Splash halo and triggers the transition to thin-disk growth. These are used together: the kinematic substructures date the perturbations, while the chemical-age planes and simulations anchor the formation timeline.

What would settle it

Measure the winding angle of the vertical phase spiral as a function of Galactocentric radius with Gaia DR4; if the inferred impact time varies by more than the modeling uncertainty across R ≈ 7–9 kpc, then a single recent Sagittarius-like perturbation cannot be the sole cause. Independently, if asteroseismic ages of the same red giants reverse the relative ordering of the proto-disk, starburst, and thin-disk populations identified from the APOGEE age–metallicity relation, the proposed formation sequence would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Milky Way disk is not a quietly rotating stellar disk. It is a barred spiral disk whose stars display a bimodal chemical distribution—an old, chemically thick, high-$[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ population and a young, low-$[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ thin population—and whose phase-space maps from Gaia show coherent non-equilibrium structures: $m=1$ and $m=2$ phase spirals in $z$–$v_z$, diagonal ridges in the $R$–$v_\phi$ plane, vertical corrugations, and a precessing warp. The authors attribute these structures to perturbations from accreting satellites, most likely the Sagittarius dwarf, and argue that the same Gaia-plus-spectroscopy data, combined with galaxy formation simulations, trace a formation sequence from a proto-disk through the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger (the 'Great Galactic Starburst') to the subsequent quiet growth of the thin disk over the last 8–10 Gyr. They also consolidate the evidence that the bar formed about 8 Gyr ago, with a current pattern speed near 33–40 km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The formation narrative rests on the relative ages of giant stars inferred from spectroscopic and asteroseismic modeling; the authors themselves warn that absolute ages are less meaningful, so if the relative age ordering is biased, the timeline built on it weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the disk is out of equilibrium, dynamical measurements made from local stellar kinematics—circular speed, asymmetric drift, and local dark matter density—must be corrected for non-axisymmetric structures and recent perturbations, and the spread in published local dark matter densities is partly a symptom of this.
  • If the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger was the last major merger, the chemically defined thick disk is largely a merger product, and the thin disk formed afterward in an inside-out and upside-down fashion, as seen in simulations.
  • If the bar formed about 8 Gyr ago with a slowly decelerating pattern speed near 33–40 km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$, then resonant churning from the bar and spiral arms has been redistributing angular momentum in the disk for most of cosmic time, making radial migration a necessary ingredient in Galactic chemical evolution models.
  • If Sagittarius is the main perturber, the phase spirals and corrugations encode the mass, orbit, and timing of that dwarf galaxy, turning the disk into a seismograph for past accretion events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: if phase spirals are generic records of collisions, then similar out-of-equilibrium kinematic patterns should be detectable in external edge-on disk galaxies with next-generation astrometry, and their winding angles could date the last major interaction of each galaxy.
  • The relative-age dependence of the formation timeline predicts that upcoming asteroseismic age samples will reproduce the same ordering of proto-disk, starburst, and thin-disk populations; a reversal of that ordering would falsify the 'Great Galactic Starburst' interpretation.
  • The slow bar pattern speed and 8 Gyr bar age imply that the inner disk has been dynamically settled for most of cosmic history, so young kinematic substructure in the inner disk is more likely external in origin than bar-driven.
  • The link the review draws between the Sun's radial migration and Earth's geological record (snowball Earth) suggests a testable cross-disciplinary correlation, though this is the most speculative thread in the chapter.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review chapter summarizing the current understanding of the structure and formation history of the Milky Way disk, with emphasis on the revolutionary impact of Gaia and complementary spectroscopic and astrometric surveys. The authors describe the disk as a barred spiral galaxy with geometrically and chemically distinct thick and thin components, and argue that the Gaia data reveal a non-equilibrium stellar disk exhibiting phase spirals, ridges, a warp, and corrugations, likely caused by perturbations such as the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. They also review the masses and sizes of the stellar and gas disks, the Sun's position and motion, the bar and spiral arms, radial migration, and the formation scenario from a metal-poor proto-disk (Babi) through the Great Galactic Starburst associated with the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger to the subsequent quiet growth of the thin disk.

Significance. As a review, this paper provides a valuable synthesis of the post-Gaia consensus view of the Milky Way disk. It clearly defines the geometric versus chemical thick/thin disk distinctions, summarizes current estimates of bar and spiral-arm parameters, and critically presents the evidence for disequilibrium and its possible origins. The authors consistently flag open debates (spiral arm nature, phase spiral origin, outer rotation curve tension), and the reference list is comprehensive and appropriate. The manuscript makes no new predictions or model derivations, so it cannot be judged on that axis; its value lies in being a well-organized and mostly accurate reference for the community. The strengths are the breadth of coverage, the explicit use of terminology, and the balanced treatment of competing hypotheses. The main weaknesses are a few factual details and a claim about stellar-age precision that requires further support.

major comments (2)
  1. [3, Figure 8 note] The three-phase formation narrative (metal-poor proto-disk Babi, Great Galactic Starburst, thin disk) is anchored to the relative ages of APOGEE giant stars. The only safeguard offered is the statement that "the absolute value of the age ... is less meaningful, but the relative difference of the ages is precise and meaningful." This is an empirical claim about the absence of systematic errors, yet no sensitivity analysis or reference to such analysis is provided in this review. If the relative age ordering of the high-[α/Fe] and low-[α/Fe] populations is biased by metallicity- or [α/Fe]-dependent errors in inferred stellar masses, the Babi–GGS–thin-disk sequence could be reordered. Please either cite the robustness tests from Ciucă et al. (2021, 2024) or soften the claim to reflect the dependence on the adopted stellar models.
  2. [2.1.2] The quoted molecular gas mass is M_H2 = 1.2 × 10^10 M⊙, which is an order of magnitude larger than the canonical estimate of roughly 1–2 × 10^9 M⊙ for the Milky Way. This appears to be a typo in the exponent; please verify the value against McMillan (2017) and correct it. As written, the molecular gas mass exceeds the H I mass, which is implausible for the Milky Way.
minor comments (5)
  1. [1] The Hipparcos mission dates are given as "1989−1983"; the correct period is 1989–1993.
  2. [2.4.2] The word "Galatic" appears twice ("Galatic outer disk" and "Galatic disk mid-plane"); it should be "Galactic".
  3. [2.2 / Figure 8] The notation for the mean orbital radius is inconsistent: the text uses Rmean while the caption of Figure 8 uses Rm. Please unify the notation.
  4. [3] The term "Babi" is introduced without explanation; consider adding a brief parenthetical note about the origin or meaning of the name, as is done for other terminology in the glossary.
  5. [4] The phrase "reeling from perturbation(s)" is informal and somewhat vague; consider replacing it with a more precise statement such as "perturbed by gravitational interactions with satellites and dark matter substructure".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review summarizes independent observational and simulation results and makes no derived predictions that reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a literature review, not a derivation. Sections 2 through 4 present measured quantities (e.g., R0, the local circular speed, disk scale lengths, [α/Fe]-[Fe/H] distributions, phase spirals, ridges, and warps) with citations to external analyses from Gaia, APOGEE, GRAVITY, and other independent groups. The Section 3 formation timeline uses APOGEE giant ages from Ciucă et al. (2024), but the review explicitly states that 'the absolute value of the age used in Figures 6-8 is less meaningful, but the relative difference of the ages is precise and meaningful.' That is an asserted empirical reliability claim about an external data product, not a circular definition, and it is accompanied by a caveat about the age-of-the-Universe prior. The authors' own simulation work (e.g., Auriga) is cited as supporting context, and the text repeatedly notes where mechanisms remain debated, such as the origin of phase spirals and the pattern speed of the bar. Self-citations exist because the authors are active researchers in the field, but none of these citations is load-bearing in a way that presupposes the chapter's conclusions: the observational facts are not derived from the review's own framework, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step can be identified, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The review introduces no free parameters and no new physical entities. It depends on well-established background assumptions (Lambda-CDM, Gaia/APOGEE data quality) and one load-bearing methodological assumption: that relative stellar ages inferred from APOGEE are trustworthy enough to order the formation timeline. The authors flag the age limitation themselves.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmogony underlies the formation scenario.
    Section 3 states simulations follow formation under the current standard Lambda-dominated cold dark matter (Lambda-CDM) cosmogony; the review's narrative of mergers and disk growth assumes this framework.
  • domain assumption Relative stellar ages from APOGEE giants are reliable.
    Section 3, Figures 6-8: the authors use age-[Fe/H]-[alpha/Fe] relations to identify formation phases (Babi, GGS, thin disk) and note only relative ages are precise.
  • domain assumption Gaia astrometry and APOGEE spectroscopy accurately measure positions, velocities, and abundances.
    The entire empirical summary in Section 2 uses Gaia and APOGEE data without re-deriving their uncertainties; the review relies on published data quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Milky Way Disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JT6WU2HW

@misc{pith2026241212252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Milky Way Disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JT6WU2HW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12252}
}
read the original abstract

Our understanding of the Milky Way disk is rapidly improving with the recent advent of the high quality and vast amount of observational data. We summarize our current view of the structure of the Milky Way disk, such as the masses and sizes of the gas and stellar disks, and the position and motion of the Sun in the disk. We also discuss the different definitions of the thick and thin disks of the Milky Way, the non-axisymmetric structures of the stellar disk, such as the bar and spiral arms, and the radial migration which can be triggered by these non-axisymmetric stellar structures. After the revolutionary data from the European Space Agency's Gaia mission, our view of the Milky Way disk has been transformed to a non-equilibrium system with many complicated structures in stellar kinematic distribution. We also summarize the recent findings of Galactoseismology research. These detailed observational data provide the archaeological information for us to unveil the formation and evolution history of the Milky Way disk, with the aid of the high-resolution numerical simulations of the Milky Way-like galaxy formation. We also discuss the current view of the formation history of the Milky Way disk.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kinematics and chemical properties of the Galactic stellar populations. The HARPS FGK dwarfs sample

    Adibekyan VZ, Figueira P , Santos NC, Hakobyan AA, Sousa SG, Pace G, Delgado Mena E, Robin AC, Israelian G and Gonz ´alez Hern ´andez JI (2013), Jun. Kinematics and chemical properties of the Galactic stellar populations. The HARPS FGK dwarfs sample. A&A 554, A44. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321520. 1304.2561. Agertz O, Renaud F , Feltzing S, Read JI, Ryde N...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834707

    A&A 622, L6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834707. 1811.09205. Kobayashi C, Karakas AI and Lugaro M (2020), Sep. The Origin of Elements from Carbon to Uranium. ApJ 900 (2),

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    Summary of the content and survey properties.A&A 674, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940. 2208.00211. 20 Milky Way Disk Gallart C, Bernard EJ, Brook CB, Ruiz-Lara T, Cassisi S, Hill V and Monelli M (2019), Jul. Uncovering the birth of the Milky Way through accurate stellar ages with Gaia. Nature Astronomy 3: 932–939. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 . 1901....

    arXiv 2019

  4. [5]

    1511.08877

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psv108. 1511.08877. Nissen PE and Schuster WJ (2010), Feb. Two distinct halo populations in the solar neighborhood. Evidence from stellar abundance ratios and kinematics. A&A 511, L10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913877. 1002.4514. Noguchi M (1998), Mar. Clumpy star-forming regions as the origin of the peculiar morphology of high-redshift ga...

    arXiv 2010

  5. [12]

    2211.05668

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca27c. 2211.05668. Wegg C and Gerhard O (2013), Nov. Mapping the three-dimensional density of the Galactic bulge with VVV red clump stars. MNRAS 435 (3): 1874–1887. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1376. 1308.0593. Wegg C, Gerhard O and Portail M (2015), Jul. The structure of the Milky Way’s bar outside the bulge. MNRAS 450 (4): 4050–4069. doi:...

    arXiv 2013

  6. [15]

    Keeping it Cool: Much Orbit Migration, yet Little Heating, in the Galactic Disk

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c. 2002.04622. Friske JKS and Sch ¨onrich R (2019), Dec. More than just a wrinkle: a wave-like pattern in U g versus L z from Gaia data. MNRAS 490 (4): 5414–5423. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2951. 1902.09569. Funakoshi N, Matsunaga N, Kawata D, Baba J, Taniguchi D and Fujii M (2024), Oct. Clues to growth and disruption of two neighbour...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [27]

    1910.03357

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11. 1910.03357. Rix HW, Chandra V, Andrae R, Price-Whelan AM, Weinberg DH, Conroy C, Fouesneau M, Hogg DW, De Angeli F , Naidu RP , Xiang M and Ruz-Mieres D (2022), Dec. The Poor Old Heart of the Milky Way. ApJ 941 (1),

    arXiv 2022

  8. [29]

    1412.3451

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29. 1412.3451. Bovy J, Rix HW, Liu C, Hogg DW, Beers TC and Lee YS (2012), Jul. The Spatial Structure of Mono-abundance Sub-populations of the Milky Way Disk. ApJ 753 (2),

    arXiv 2012

Show all 33 references
  1. [37]

    2004.11688

    doi:10.3390/galaxies8020037. 2004.11688. Sormani MC, Binney J and Magorrian J (2015), Dec. Gas flow in barred potentials - III. Effects of varying the quadrupole. MNRAS 454 (2): 1818–1839. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2067. 1507.03078. Sun W, Huang Y , Shen H, Wang C, Zhang H, Tian Z,...

    2015 arXiv

  2. [39]

    2001.04386

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cd. 2001.04386. Reid MJ, Menten KM, Brunthaler A, Zheng XW, Dame TM, Xu Y , Li J, Sakai N, Wu Y , Immer K, Zhang B, Sanna A, Moscadelli L, Rygl KLJ, Bartkiewicz A, Hu B, Quiroga-Nu ˜nez LH and van Langevelde HJ (2019), Nov. Trigonometric Parallaxes of...

    2019 arXiv

  3. [43]

    1301.0620

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/43. 1301.0620. Bland-Hawthorn J and Gerhard O (2016), Sep. The Galaxy in Context: Structural, Kinematic, and Integrated Properties. ARA&A 54: 529–596. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 . 1602.07702. Bland-Hawthorn J and Tepper-Garc´ıa T (2021)...

    2016 arXiv

  4. [45]

    2209.02722

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01. 2209.02722. Robertson B, Bullock JS, Cox TJ, Di Matteo T, Hernquist L, Springel V and Y oshida N (2006), Jul. A Merger-driven Scenario for Cosmological Disk Galaxy Formation. ApJ 645 (2): 986–1000. doi:10.1086/504412. astro-ph/0503369. Robin AC, R...

    2006 arXiv

  5. [71]

    1607.05281

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/71. 1607.05281. Lin CC and Shu FH (1964), Aug. On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies. ApJ 140:

    1964 arXiv

  6. [72]

    2205.15507

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a6. 2205.15507. Majewski SR, Schiavon RP , Frinchaboy PM, Allende Prieto C, Barkhouser R, Bizyaev D, Blank B, Brunner S, Burton A, Carrera R, Chojnowski SD, Cunha K, Epstein C, Fitzgerald G, Garc´ıa P´erez AE, Hearty FR, Henderson C, Holtzman JA, John...

    2017 arXiv

  7. [75]

    1911.08675

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab59d1. 1911.08675. Belokurov V and Kravtsov A (2022), Jul. From dawn till disc: Milky Way’s turbulent youth revealed by the APOGEE+Gaia data.MNRAS 514 (1): 689–714. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1267. 2203.04980. Belokurov V, Erkal D, Evans NW, Koposov SE and De...

    2022 arXiv

  8. [94]

    1509.05420

    doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d. 1509.05420. Mason AC, Crain RA, Schiavon RP , Weinberg DH, Pfeffer J, Schaye J, Schaller M and Theuns T (2024), Sep. Realistic simulated galaxies form [α/Fe]-[Fe/H] knees due to a sustained decline in their star formation rates.MNRAS 533 (1): 184...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [103]

    doi:10.3389/fspas.2021. 671670. 2110.04446. Howard CD, Rich RM, Reitzel DB, Koch A, De Propris R and Zhao H (2008), Dec. The Bulge Radial Velocity Assay (BRAVA). I. Sample Selection and a Rotation Curve. ApJ 688 (2): 1060–1077. doi:10.1086/592106. 0807.3967. Hu S and Sijacki D...

    2008 arXiv

  10. [113]

    1805.02617

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad235. 1805.02617. Haywood M, Snaith O, Lehnert MD, Di Matteo P and Khoperskov S (2019), May. Revisiting long-standing puzzles of the Milky Way: the Sun and its vicinity as typical outer disk chemical evolution. A&A 625, A105. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/20183...

    2019 arXiv

  11. [124]

    2307.13887

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b8. 2307.13887. Jeans JH (1922), Jan. The Motions of Stars in a Kapteyn Universe. MNRAS 82: 122–132. doi:10.1093/mnras/82.3.122. Juri´c M, Ivezi´c ˇZ, Brooks A, Lupton RH, Schlegel D, Finkbeiner D, Padmanabhan N, Bond N, Sesar B, Rockosi CM, Knapp GR,...

    1922 arXiv

  12. [131]

    2107.08055

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021. 2107.08055. Bensby T, Feltzing S and Oey MS (2014), Feb. Exploring the Milky Way stellar disk. A detailed elemental abundance study of 714 F and G dwarf stars in the solar neighbourhood. A&A 562, A71. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631. 1309.2631. Be...

    2014 arXiv

  13. [132]

    1503.02110

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132. 1503.02110. Haywood M, Di Matteo P , Lehnert MD, Snaith O, Khoperskov S and G ´omez A (2018), Aug. In Disguise or Out of Reach: First Clues about In Situ and Accreted Stars in the Stellar Halo of the Milky Way from Gaia DR2. ApJ 863 (2),

    2018 arXiv

  14. [137]

    2010.05962

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc00a. 2010.05962. Vall´ee JP (2021), Sep. A low density wave’s spiral pattern speed, from the tracer separations (age gradient) across a spiral arm in the Milky Way. MNRAS 506 (1): 523–530. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1679. 2106.15761. Vislosky E, Minchev I, ...

    2021 arXiv

  15. [141]

    2310.15408

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad06ad. 2310.15408. Tremaine S, Frankel N and Bovy J (2023), May. The origin and fate of the Gaia phase-space snail.MNRAS 521 (1): 114–123. doi:10.1093/mnras/ stad577. 2212.11990. Tsujimoto T and Baba J (2020), Dec. Remarkable Migration of the Solar Syste...

    2023 arXiv

  16. [148]

    1111.1724

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148. 1111.1724. Bovy J, Leung HW, Hunt JAS, Mackereth JT, Garc´ıa-Hern´andez DA and Roman-Lopes A (2019), Dec. Life in the fast lane: a direct view of the dynamics, formation, and evolution of the Milky Way’s bar.MNRAS 490 (4): 4740–4747. doi:10.109...

    2019 arXiv

  17. [179]

    2008.04660

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ abae65. 2008.04660. Laporte CFP , Minchev I, Johnston KV and G´omez FA (2019), May. Footprints of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy in the Gaia data set. MNRAS 485 (3): 3134–3152. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz583. 1808.00451. Lian J, Zasowski G, Chen B, Imig J, Wang ...

    2019 arXiv

  18. [186]

    2003.01132

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abac0b. 2003.01132. Fragkoudi F , Katz D, Trick W, White SDM, Di Matteo P , Sormani MC, Khoperskov S, Haywood M, Hall´e A and G ´omez A (2019), Sep. On the ridges, undulations, and streams in Gaia DR2: linking the topography of phase space to the orbital ...

    2019 arXiv

  19. [302]

    Kawata D and Chiappini C (2016), Sep

    doi:10.1086/142670. Kawata D and Chiappini C (2016), Sep. Milky Way’s thick and thin disk: Is there a distinct thick disk?Astronomische Nachrichten 337 (8-9):

    2016 doi

  20. [438]

    Density distribution of faint stars in the direction of the north galactic pole.PASJ 34: 365–379

    Y oshii Y (1982), Jan. Density distribution of faint stars in the direction of the north galactic pole.PASJ 34: 365–379. Zhang H and Sanders JL (2023), May. A kinematic calibration of the O-rich Mira variable period-age relation from Gaia. MNRAS 521 (1): 1462–1478. doi:10.1093...

    1982 arXiv

  21. [631]

    Bovy J (2015), Feb

    doi:10.1086/170535. Bovy J (2015), Feb. galpy: A python Library for Galactic Dynamics. ApJS 216 (2),

    2015 doi

  22. [646]

    Lin Z, Xu Y , Hou L, Liu D, Li Y , Hao C, Li J and Bian S (2022), May

    doi:10.1086/147955. Lin Z, Xu Y , Hou L, Liu D, Li Y , Hao C, Li J and Bian S (2022), May. Local Spiral Structure Traced by Red Clump Stars. ApJ 931 (1),

    2022 doi

  23. [748]

    Eilers AC, Hogg DW, Rix HW, Frankel N, Hunt JAS, Fouvry JB and Buck T (2020), Sep

    doi:10.1086/147433. Eilers AC, Hogg DW, Rix HW, Frankel N, Hunt JAS, Fouvry JB and Buck T (2020), Sep. The Strength of the Dynamical Spiral Perturbation in the Galactic Disk. ApJ 900 (2),

    2020 doi

  24. [976]

    1608.01698

    doi:10.1002/asna.201612421. 1608.01698. Kawata D, Baba J, Ciucˇa I, Cropper M, Grand RJJ, Hunt JAS and Seabroke G (2018), Sep. Radial distribution of stellar motions in Gaia DR2. MNRAS 479 (1): L108–L112. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly107. 1804.10175. Kawata D, Kawahara H, Gouda N, Se...

    2018 arXiv

  25. [1595]

    Eggen OJ, Lynden-Bell D and Sandage AR (1962), Nov

    doi:10.1086/118126. Eggen OJ, Lynden-Bell D and Sandage AR (1962), Nov. Evidence from the motions of old stars that the Galaxy collapsed. ApJ 136:

    1962 doi

Pith tools

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