Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Why is the Galactic disk so cool?

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 cool disk may rule out standard spiral migration, unless past spirals were heavily fine-tuned.

desk verdict A solid simulation study with a plausible central claim that horseshoe spirals overheat the disk; the sharpness of the constraint depends on an observed ratio whose uncertainties the paper understates. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08944 v1 pith:N6R2WJ3Y submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.GA

Chris Hamilton , Shaunak Modak , Scott Tremaine This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radialmigrationorbitalheatingspiralstructureSellwood-BinneymechanismMilkyWaydiskaction-angledynamicsstellarGaia
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 argues that a single observed number—the ratio of radial heating to migration in the Milky Way's disk, rms δJR / rms δJφ ≈ 0.1—strongly constrains what mechanisms could have moved stars across the disk over the last 6 Gyr. Using test-particle simulations of transient spiral arms, the authors find that the classic Sellwood-Binney horseshoe mechanism, when driven by spirals resembling those observed today, produces roughly one unit of radial heating per unit of migration: an order of magnitude too hot. The data can be matched only if past spirals were much more open, heavily concentrated near corotation, or short-lived enough to produce resonant scattering without full horseshoe behavior. The authors conclude that reproducing both the observed migration and the small heating ratio is a severe, nontrivial requirement for models of the Milky Way's dynamical history.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ratio rms δJR / rms δJφ—the change in radial action (heating) divided by the change in angular momentum (migration)—computed for an ensemble of test-particle disks perturbed by transient logarithmic spirals. The spirals are characterized by amplitude η, pitch angle α, arm number m, lifetime τ, and radial envelope width β, and the dynamics are classified into impulsive (τ ≲ t_res), resonant (t_res ≲ τ ≲ t_lib/2), and horseshoe regimes (τ ≳ t_lib/2), with t_lib the horseshoe libration time. This classification carries the argument by showing that only in a narrow, fine-tuned portion of parameter space does the heating-to-migration ratio drop to the observed ~0.1.

What would settle it

A direct, model-independent measurement of the heating-to-migration ratio from, e.g., asteroseismic ages and Gaia kinematics that found a value significantly larger than 0.1 (say >0.3) would remove the tension. Alternatively, a high-resolution N-body simulation of a disk with realistic spiral structure that naturally yields a ratio near 0.1 without tuning would falsify the claim that such fine-tuning is required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed small ratio rms δJR / rms δJφ ≈ 0.1 in the Milky Way's disk cannot be produced by the standard Sellwood-Binney nonlinear horseshoe mechanism if the spiral perturbations have the morphology observed today. In simulations with m=2, amplitude η=0.03, pitch angle α=12°, and a radially uniform envelope, the ratio of radial heating to migration comes out close to 1, about ten times the observed value. The authors identify three dynamical regimes—impulsive, resonant, and horseshoe—and show that in the horseshoe regime resonance overlap between corotation and ultraharmonic resonances drives excess heating. Only by either concentrating the spiral amplitude strongly near corotation (power at Lindblad resonances below a few percent of that at corotation) or by using much more open spirals (α≈30°) can the simulations approach the observed ratio; shorter-lived spirals in the resonant regime also work with less fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The whole constraint rests on Frankel et al.'s measurement that the ratio rms δJR / rms δJφ ≈ 0.1 in the Milky Way over the last 6 Gyr, with the assumption that this measurement is accurate to within a few tens of percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ratio 0.1 is robust, then the measured spiral structure today cannot be representative of the spirals that drove transport over the past 6 Gyr unless those spirals were strongly concentrated near corotation.
  • Simulations of 'Milky Way analogues' should be required to reproduce both the migration amplitude and the heating-to-migration ratio, not just the current thickness or heating.
  • The observed ratio provides a quantitative target for theories of spiral structure: transient spirals must satisfy morphological constraints (pitch angle, radial envelope) or the horseshoe mechanism is not the dominant transport process.
  • Bar-spiral resonance overlap and additional scattering from substructure increase heating per unit migration, making the tension worse unless those processes are subdominant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constraint could be sharpened with a direct measurement of the heating-to-migration ratio in external face-on galaxies, though that is observationally demanding.
  • If future data revise the ratio upward (e.g., due to a larger radial action), the tight constraint could relax, but the paper argues the opposite direction is more likely.
  • The finding implies that 'cold' radial migration may require the dominant perturbers to be long-lived, low-amplitude waves—suggesting a role for quasi-steady spiral structure that does not undergo repeated nonlinear horseshoe events.
  • A testable extension: measure the ratio as a function of stellar age and metallicity to see whether the heating-to-migration ratio was different earlier in the disk's life.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates why the Milky Way disk has experienced substantial radial migration (rms change in angular momentum δJφ ≈ 619 kpc km/s over 6 Gyr) with relatively little radial heating (rms change in radial action δJR ≈ 63 kpc km/s, giving a ratio of about 0.1). Using test-particle simulations of a 2D disk perturbed by transient spiral arms, the authors identify three dynamical regimes—impulsive, resonant, and horseshoe—and show that for Milky-Way-like spirals (m=2, η=0.03, α=12°, β=∞) the horseshoe mechanism of Sellwood & Binney tends to produce a heating-to-migration ratio near unity, about an order of magnitude above the observed value. They argue that matching the data requires either strong suppression of spiral amplitude away from corotation (β≈0.5), significantly larger pitch angles (α≈30°), or shorter-lived resonant (non-horseshoe) spirals. They conclude that reproducing both the observed migration and the small heating ratio is a highly nontrivial constraint on models of spiral structure and on 'Milky Way analogues' in cosmological simulations.

Significance. If the central constraint is robust, this is an important result: it challenges the widely invoked nonlinear horseshoe mechanism as the primary driver of radial migration, sharpens the requirements on spiral structure models, and offers a quantitative criterion for selecting Milky Way analogues in cosmological simulations. The paper has clear strengths: it presents a transparent and reproducible simulation setup, defines the three dynamical regimes with explicit timescale criteria, and makes falsifiable predictions (e.g., the excluded region in the spiral-lifetime–envelope plane). The simulations directly produce the key observable ratio and do not fit model parameters to it, so the argument is not circular. However, the strength of the conclusion rests on the adopted observed ratio (3), whose uncertainty is not fully quantified; this is the main load-bearing weakness addressed in the major comments.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV, Figs. 4–5] The central claim—that horseshoe transport by Milky-Way-like spirals is excluded unless the spirals are strongly suppressed away from corotation (β≈0.5) or have notably larger pitch angles—is sensitive to the assumed observed ratio rms δJR/rms δJφ ≈ 0.1. The error analysis in §IV is qualitative: the two simple estimates used to justify uncertainties of 'a few tens of percent' have systematic uncertainties of order tens of percent or more. For example, the kinematic estimate uses σ_R ≈ 38 km/s, but for old (>6 Gyr) stars a value of 40–50 km/s raises rms δJR by roughly 30–70%, directly increasing the ratio. If the true ratio were 0.2–0.3, the β=1 simulations in Fig. 5b (which lie at ≈0.2–0.4 for horseshoe-regime lifetimes) would be consistent with the data, and the condition 'heavily suppressed away from corotation' would no longer be required. The statement that the error bars 'would have to be drastically larger' is not quantitatively justified. The authors should either provide a proper propagation of the systematic uncertainties in equations (1)–(3) or explicitly present the conclusions as conditional on the current central value of the ratio.
  2. [§I, Eq. (4); Fig. 4] The scaling (4) with f ≈ 7 from unpublished shearing-sheet simulations is used to argue that random substructure makes the heating problem worse and to draw the black dashed line in Fig. 4. Since no details of these simulations are given, the reader cannot assess the uncertainty in f; if the true f were substantially smaller (e.g., 3), the line in Fig. 4 would shift downward, and some points previously classified as inconsistent might become marginal. This auxiliary ingredient should either be described in an appendix or clearly labeled as a preliminary estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The word 'deefined' should be 'defined'.
  2. [Eq. (4) and Fig. 4 caption] The text uses f≈7 in equation (4) but f=5.2 in the Fig. 4 caption; the difference should be explained or a consistent value used.
  3. [Figs. 4–5] The error bars on the Milky Way data point are applied to rms δJR and rms δJφ separately (±30% each); the resulting uncertainty on the ratio is larger and should be displayed or stated explicitly.
  4. [§II, §IV] The idealized setup omits gas, dark matter substructure, and self-gravity; the argument that these would only increase heating-per-unit-migration is plausible but should be framed as an expectation rather than a proven result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central constraint is an externally measured benchmark, not a fitted output or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the observed small ratio rms delta-JR / rms delta-Jphi ≈ 0.1, taken from Frankel et al. (2020), is difficult to reproduce with Sellwood & Binney horseshoe transport. That ratio is an external observational input, not a quantity derived from the paper's own model or fitted to its own simulations. The authors run test-particle simulations over a grid of spiral parameters (m, eta, alpha, beta, tau, N_sp) and compare the resulting transport ratios directly with the Frankel et al. measurement; no spiral parameter is tuned to match the target ratio, and the paper explicitly reports that most Milky-Way-like spiral ensembles fail by an order of magnitude. Equation (4) is an auxiliary isotropic-scattering scaling, and its f factor is calibrated from separate shearing-sheet experiments, not from the Milky Way data; the central conclusions in Figures 4 and 5 do not reduce to this formula. The self-citations (Hamilton, Modak & Tremaine 2024, Galactokinetics) are used only for supporting resonance-transport formalism and are not load-bearing for the observed ratio or for the exclusion of horseshoe regimes. The skeptical concern that the Frankel et al. measurement could be off by a factor of 2-3 is a legitimate scientific robustness criticism, but it is not circularity: if the true ratio were larger, the paper's conclusion would weaken, which is exactly what an external benchmark does. No step in the derivation equates a prediction to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-contained against an external benchmark and merits a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its model parameters (spiral morphology, lifetime, number) are scanned rather than fitted to the target ratio, and the central constraint depends on the observed ratio supplied by Frankel et al. as an external benchmark. The main stated axioms are the idealized disk model and the assumed accuracy of the observational inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • spiral amplitude eta = 0.03 fiducial, varied 0.01 to 0.03
    Dimensionless spiral perturbation strength, chosen from Eilers et al. (2020) but scanned over a narrow range. The paper finds no value reconciles the data without other fine-tuning.
  • spiral pitch angle alpha = 12 degrees fiducial, varied to 30 and 50 degrees
    Pitch angle of the logarithmic spiral; observed value from Eilers et al. (2020). The paper finds larger angles reduce heating per migration and can match data.
  • radial envelope concentration beta = infinity, 1, 0.5
    Sets the Gaussian radial envelope width relative to the distance to Lindblad resonances. The paper finds beta about 0.5 is needed for horseshoe spirals to match the data.
  • spiral lifetime tau = 0.1 to 10 T8, plus tau = 2 pi / Omega_p
    Gaussian lifetime of each transient spiral, scanned to cover impulsive, resonant, and horseshoe regimes.
  • number of arms m = 2 and 4
    Azimuthal harmonic number; m=4 produces too much heating per migration.
  • number of spirals N_sp = 4, 8, 16, 32, 64
    Number of transient spirals over 6 Gyr; more spirals increase both migration and heating.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed values (1)-(3) from Frankel et al. (2020) are accurate to within a few tens of percent.
    The central constraint is anchored to these measurements; the authors argue they are robust but do not independently verify them.
  • domain assumption A 2D test-particle disk in a static logarithmic potential is an adequate model for computing the relative heating and migration rates.
    Self-gravity, gas, bulge, and 3D effects are omitted; the authors argue these would increase heating-per-unit-migration, making their conclusions conservative, but this is not demonstrated quantitatively.
  • ad hoc to paper Transient spirals follow the Gaussian-envelope form of equations (8)-(11).
    The functional form is a choice, not derived from spiral formation theory; the paper varies its parameters but does not justify the form itself.
  • domain assumption The bar perturbation (Dehnen 2000) is a reasonable representation of the Milky Way's bar, with radius 3.2 kpc, strength 0.048, and pattern speed 35.2 km/s/kpc.
    The bar parameters are taken from Milky Way estimates; the authors state the results are insensitive to reasonable variations.
  • ad hoc to paper The scaling (4) for isotropic scattering, with f about 7 from unpublished shearing-sheet simulations, correctly characterizes heating-to-migration for random substructure.
    The scaling is used to argue substructure worsens the problem, but the supporting simulations are not shown in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why is the Galactic disk so cool?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6R2WJ3Y

@misc{pith2026241108944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why is the Galactic disk so cool?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6R2WJ3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08944}
}
read the original abstract

The bulk of old stars in the Galactic disk have migrated radially by up to several kpc in their lifetimes, yet the disk has remained relatively cool, i.e., the ratio of radial heating to migration has been small. Here, we demonstrate that this small ratio places very strong constraints on which mechanisms could have been responsible for orbital transport in our Galaxy. For instance, Sellwood & Binney's mechanism of nonlinear horseshoe transport by spirals tends to produce too high a ratio of heating to migration, unless the spirals' amplitudes are heavily suppressed away from their corotation resonances, or their pitch angles are significantly larger than is observed. This problem is only made worse if one includes the effect of the Galactic bar, diffusion due to disk or halo substructure, etc. Resonant (but non-horseshoe) scattering by spirals can drive transport consistent with the data, but even this requires some fine-tuning. In short, reproducing both the observed radial migration and the small ratio of heating to migration is a highly nontrivial requirement, and poses a significant challenge to models of the Milky Way's dynamical history, theories of spiral structure, and the identification of 'Milky Way analogues' in cosmological simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The response of the disk to a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. As in Figure 1 except for a stronger spiral, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mean absolute changes to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Radial migration and fractional heating-per-unit-migration after 6 Gyr of evolution for simulations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. As in Figure 4a and 4b, with spiral parameters fixed to ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Spiral Morphology and Radial Migration: Kinematically heating, cooling, and cold

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cold torquing by spiral arms is more efficient for more open spiral patterns if the arms rotate rigidly, but the trend reverses for spirals that wind up over time.

  2. Observational Constraints of Radial Migration in the Galactic Disc Driven by the Slowing Bar

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The slowing Galactic bar's corotation resonance can explain the double age-metallicity sequence near the Sun and implies the bar formed with pattern speed 60-100 km/s/kpc and began slowing 6-8 Gyr ago.

  3. On the maximum disk heating attributable to fuzzy dark matter

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the observed ratio of radial migration to heating, the paper caps the fraction of disk heating that fuzzy dark matter can cause and revises the particle-mass lower bound upward.

  4. Signatures of simulated spiral arms on radial actions

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Spiral arms and low-radial-action regions coincide in most of 23 simulated disc galaxies, supporting the use of Gaia radial action maps to trace Milky Way spiral arms and recent disturbances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    We simulate for 40 T8 and choose each spiral to peak in amplitude half way through the simulation, tpeak = 20 T8

    Three dynamical regimes First, we set η = 0.01 and β → ∞, and run four simu- lations corresponding to τ /T8 = (a) 0 .1, (b) 0 .3, (c) 1 .0, (d) 10 .0, where T8 ≡ 2π(8R0)/V0 ≈ 220 Myr is the cir- cular period at 8 kpc (note that the libration period (5) in each case is tlib/T8 = 5.0). We simulate for 40 T8 and choose each spiral to peak in amplitude half w...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Heating versus migration Next, we ran additional single-spiral simulations like the ones above, but for many different values of τ /T8, spanning all three dynamical regimes (13)-(15), and us- ing three different choices of the parameters ( m, η, β), namely (a) (2 , 0.01, ∞) as in Figure 1; (b) (2 , 0.03, ∞) as in Figure 2; and (c) (4 , 0.03, ∞). Moreover,...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The remaining unfixed parameters are then the number of spirals Nsp and their characteristic lifetimes τ , neither of which are known observationally

    Spirals with a uniform radial envelope ( β → ∞) First, we run simulations using (roughly) Milky-Way- like parameters: m = 2, η = 0.03, α = 12◦, and β = ∞. The remaining unfixed parameters are then the number of spirals Nsp and their characteristic lifetimes τ , neither of which are known observationally. In Figure 4a we show the radial migration and frac-...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Spirals with a finite radial envelope The final parameter we can sensibly vary is β, which sets the concentration of the radial envelope of the spi- ral around corotation (equation (11)). Most simulations of spiral-forming galactic disks find that radial envelopes are concentrated between inner and outer Lindblad res- onances (ILR/OLR), with a peak somewh...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Chiba, R., Friske, J. K. & Sch¨ onrich, R. Resonance sweeping by a decelerating galactic bar. MNRAS 500, 4710–4729 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Antoja, T. et al. A dynamically young and perturbed milky way disk. Nature 561, 360–362 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    F., Minchev, I., Johnston, K

    Laporte, C. F., Minchev, I., Johnston, K. V. & G´ omez, F. A. Footprints of the sagittarius dwarf galaxy in the gaia data set. MNRAS 485, 3134–3152 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    & Bovy, J

    Tremaine, S., Frankel, N. & Bovy, J. The origin and fate of the gaia phase-space snail. MNRAS 521, 114–123 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Ostriker, E. C. & Binney, J. J. Warped and tilted galactic discs. MNRAS 237, 785–798 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    Poggio, E. et al. The galactic warp revealed by gaia dr2 kinematics. MNRAS: Letters 481, L21–L25 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    J., Conroy, C

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C. & Hernquist, L. A tilted dark halo origin of the galactic disk warp and flare. Nature Astronomy 7, 1481–1485 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    & Lacey, C

    Binney, J. & Lacey, C. The diffusion of stars through phase space. MNRAS 230, 597–627 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    A., Arzamasskiy, L

    Hamilton, C., Tolman, E. A., Arzamasskiy, L. & Duarte, V. N. Galactic bar resonances with diffusion: An ana- lytic model with implications for bar–dark matter halo dynamical friction. Astrophys. J. 954, 12 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    & Rix, H.-W

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Ting, Y.-S. & Rix, H.-W. Keep- ing it cool: Much orbit migration, yet little heating, in the galactic disk. Astrophys. J. 896, 15 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Lian, J. et al. Quantifying radial migration in the milky way: inefficient over short time-scales but essential to the very outer disc beyond 15 kpc. MNRAS 511, 5639–5655 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    & Tremaine, S

    Hamilton, C., Modak, S. & Tremaine, S. Galactokinetics. arXiv e-prints (2024). 2408.03366

    2024

  9. [17]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Masters, K. L. Spirals in galaxies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 60, 73– 120 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Binney, J. J. Radial mixing in galactic discs. MNRAS 336, 785–796 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    & Fouvry, J.-B

    Hamilton, C. & Fouvry, J.-B. Kinetic Theory of Stellar Systems: A Tutorial. arXiv e-prints (2024). 2402.13322

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    & Famaey, B

    Minchev, I. & Famaey, B. A new mechanism for radial migration in galactic disks: spiral-bar resonance overlap. Astrophys. J. 722, 112 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    P., Quinn, T

    Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R. & Wadsley, J. Radial migration in disc galaxies—i. transient spi- ral structure and dynamics. MNRAS 426, 2089–2106 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    J., Schaffner, D

    Daniel, K. J., Schaffner, D. A., McCluskey, F., Fiedler Kawaguchi, C. & Loebman, S. When Cold Radial Mi- gration is Hot: Constraints from Resonant Overlap. As- trophys. J. 882, 111 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Eilers, A.-C. et al. The strength of the dynamical spiral perturbation in the galactic disk. Astrophys. J. 900, 186 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    The Effect of the Outer Lindblad Resonance of the Galactic Bar on the Local Stellar Velocity Distri- bution

    Dehnen, W. The Effect of the Outer Lindblad Resonance of the Galactic Bar on the Local Stellar Velocity Distri- bution. AJ 119, 800–812 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    & Sch¨ onrich, R

    Chiba, R. & Sch¨ onrich, R. Oscillating dynamical friction on galactic bars by trapped dark matter. MNRAS 513, 768–787 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W. & Davies, E. Y. Stellar halo substructure generated by bar reso- nances. MNRAS 524, 3596–3608 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yu, S.-Y. & Ho, L. C. The statistical properties of spiral arms in nearby disk galaxies. ApJ 900, 150 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Vall´ ee, J. P. A guided map to the spiral arms in the galactic disk of the milky way. Astronomical Review 13, 113–146 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    & Carlberg, R

    Sellwood, J. & Carlberg, R. Transient spirals as super- posed instabilities. Astrophys. J. 785, 137 (2014). 12

    2014

  22. [30]

    & Abadi, M

    Vera-Ciro, C., D’Onghia, E., Navarro, J. & Abadi, M. The effect of radial migration on galactic disks. Astro- phys. J. 794, 173 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.