Influence of Bar Formation on Star Formation Segregation and Stellar Migration: Implications for Variations in the Age Distribution of Milky Way Disk Stars

Junichi Baba (Kagoshima U./NAOJ)

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Influence of Bar Formation on Star Formation Segregation and Stellar Migration: Implications for Variations in the Age Distribution of Milky Way Disk Stars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chemo-dynamical simulation predicts that bar formation imprints a distinctive peak in the stellar age distribution of the Milky Way's outer disk, tied to an approximately 8 Gyr-old bar.

desk verdict A clean single simulation shows bar-driven migration can create an outer-disk age peak at the bar epoch, but without a no-bar control the 8 Gyr Milky Way prediction rests on a coincidence between spiral growth and bar formation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16528 v1 pith:R6IJ63QF submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.GA

Junichi Baba (Kagoshima U./NAOJ) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords Galaxy:diskevolutionkinematicsanddynamicsgalaxies:structurestars:formationchemicalmethods:numerical

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

Using a chemo-dynamical N-body/hydrodynamic simulation of an isolated Milky Way-like galaxy, this paper argues that the epoch of bar formation leaves a distinct, detectable signature in the ages of disk stars. Before the bar fully forms, strong spiral arms boost star formation in the inner disk; once the bar is established, star formation there is suppressed, while bar-driven migration carries many of those inner-formed stars outward. The result is a pronounced peak in the stellar age distribution of the outer disk at the bar formation epoch. Since recent observations place the Milky Way's bar at roughly 8 Gyr old, the paper predicts that the solar-circle and outer-disk stellar age distributions should show a corresponding peak around 8 Gyr. The point matters because stellar age distributions are often read as direct star-formation histories, and this work shows bar-induced migration can decouple the two.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-stage coupling between star formation and orbital migration. The first stage is 'bar quenching': once the bar is established, gas in the inner disk is consumed or driven to the center, sharply reducing star formation there. The second is bar-driven radial migration: during and after bar formation, angular-momentum exchange with the bar and spiral arms moves inner-disk stars outward, so the outer disk accumulates stars born in the earlier inner-disk burst. The paper identifies the bar formation epoch as the organizing time variable, and uses a chemo-dynamical N-body/hydrodynamic simulation with self-gravity, cooling, star formation, supernova feedback, and metal diffusion to generate the age, birth-radius, and metallicity distributions that reveal this signature.

What would settle it

Measure the stellar age distribution of the outer disk (galactocentric radius roughly 11–12 kpc) using precise ages from a large spectroscopic sample; the model predicts a distinct peak at the bar formation epoch (about 8 Gyr for the Milky Way) that is stronger than the local in-situ star formation history, so the absence of such a peak would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that bar formation itself—not a globally enhanced star formation episode—creates a peak in the outer disk's stellar age distribution. During the transient bar-formation phase, strong spiral arms in the inner disk (roughly 2–6 kpc) drive a burst of star formation; once the bar stabilizes, the same region is quenched as gas is funneled inward and consumed. Stars born in that early burst are then scattered outward by the bar's torques, so the outer disk ends up with an excess of stars whose ages coincide with the bar formation epoch and whose metallicities reflect their metal-rich inner-disk origins. The paper shows this in a single self-consistent simulation and connects it to observations by noting that if the Milky Way's bar is 8 Gyr old, the outer disk should show a corresponding age peak.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that an isolated galaxy simulation without gas accretion, satellite interactions, or a strongly slowing bar captures the dominant processes shaping the Milky Way's disk age structure, so that bar-driven star-formation segregation and migration are not overwhelmed by these missing effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the Milky Way's bar is about 8 Gyr old, the stellar age distribution in the solar circle and outer disk should show a local peak near 8 Gyr.
Stars in the outer disk that are older than the bar should be, on average, more metal-rich than the gas at their current radii, because they formed in the metal-rich inner disk and migrated outward.
The age distribution of disk stars is not a direct tracer of the star formation history; bar-driven migration can create peaks that do not correspond to global star formation bursts.
After bar formation, star formation in the inner disk (2–6 kpc) is suppressed, while outer-disk star formation continues, producing a segregation of star formation activity across the disk.
The bar formation epoch is the dominant imprint on the age distribution, even though bar–spiral interactions later modulate star formation with periods of roughly 200–300 Myr.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension: high-precision age distributions of outer-disk red giants from current and upcoming surveys could confirm or rule out the predicted 8 Gyr peak, and one observational study cited in the paper already reports no pronounced peak in the outer disk.
The same mechanism may apply to other barred galaxies: their outer disks should show an age peak at the epoch of bar formation, which could be searched for in resolved stellar populations of nearby barred spirals.
If gas accretion or satellite galaxy interactions substantially alter the star-formation or migration history, the 8 Gyr peak could be shifted, broadened, or masked, a limitation the author acknowledges.
The pre-bar inner-disk burst need not be caused by spiral arms; any process that raises inner-disk star formation before bar formation would feed the same outward-migrated population, so the prediction is robust to the specific trigger.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Junichi Baba's paper is a clean, honest simulation study with one genuinely new prediction: that the outer disk's stellar age distribution should show a peak at the bar formation epoch, which for the Milky Way implies an ~8 Gyr peak if the bar is 8 Gyr old. The mechanisms involved—spiral-driven inner starburst, bar quenching, bar-driven outward migration—are individually well known, but tying them together into a specific, observationally testable age-distribution signature is new. The simulation itself is well documented: McMillan (2017) initial conditions via AGAMA, ASURA-3 with DISPH, CELib with explicit yields and metal diffusion, and bar strength measured with the Dehnen et al. method. The analysis of birth radii and age-metallicity relations is clear, and the paper is unusually candid about its own limitations.

The soft spots are real but partly acknowledged. The biggest one is that the causal link between the age peak and bar formation is not uniquely established. Section 5 concedes that the pre-bar inner starburst comes from spiral arms, not the bar itself, and that any mechanism producing strong spirals would do the same. In this single realization the spiral growth and bar formation happen to coincide; without a no-bar control run or a run with a shifted bar-formation epoch, the temporal alignment of the peak with the bar could be a coincidence of initial conditions rather than a bar-specific signature. The stress-test note is right on this point. The paper's generalization in Section 6—that the imprint is independent of the initial enhancement because bar-driven segregation does the work—helps the conceptual story but does not rescue the specific prediction of an 8 Gyr peak; that prediction needs the burst to be locked to bar formation timing. Also minor: no error bars or multiple realizations, no gas accretion, an unresolved reference placeholder in Section 5, and the 8 Gyr bar age is itself debated. The finite-gas-supply effect indeed contributes to the post-bar SFR decline.

Despite these issues, the paper is worth engaging with. The central simulation result is internally consistent, and the framework is useful for interpreting survey data. It deserves peer review, but a serious referee should push for a control run without a bar (or with a delayed bar) and for some quantification of stochasticity. With that, the Milky Way prediction would be much stronger.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a single chemo-dynamical simulation of an isolated Milky Way-like disk galaxy, evolved with the ASURA-3 code to 3.5 Gyr, to study the effect of bar formation on disk star formation and stellar migration. In the simulation, a bar forms at ~1 Gyr (look-back time 2.5 Gyr). The authors find that the inner disk (2-6 kpc) experiences a burst of star formation in the ~500 Myr before bar formation, driven by the growth of strong spiral arms, and that after the bar stabilizes the inner-disk star formation rate drops sharply. They then show that stars formed in the inner disk during that burst migrate outward, producing an age-distribution peak at the bar formation epoch in the solar-neighborhood and outer-disk radial bins. Combining this with recent observational estimates of the Milky Way's bar age (~8 Gyr), the authors predict that the age distributions of solar-circle and outer-disk stars should exhibit a peak at ~8 Gyr. The paper is explicit that the model is an idealized isolated galaxy and that many Milky Way complexities (Sagittarius encounters, gas accretion, bar slowing) are not included.

Significance. If the simulation's interpretation is correct, the paper provides a novel and falsifiable connection between the epoch of bar formation and the appearance of a peak in the stellar age distribution at 8-9 Gyr, offering a plausible resolution of ongoing debates about peaks in the Galactic disk star formation history. The study makes good use of modern tools: the initial conditions are anchored to the McMillan (2017) Milky Way model, the chemical evolution is handled with CELib, and the bar epoch is measured with the established Dehnen et al. (2023) method, so the bar-age measurement is not circularly tied to the star formation rate. The paper also clearly states the limitations of the isolated-galaxy assumption. However, because the central causal claim is based on a single realization and lacks a no-bar control, the strength of the prediction is currently limited; the reported agreement of the age peak with the bar epoch could be coincidental with spiral-arm growth.

major comments (4)

[Section 5 ('As a caveat...') and Section 6] The paper states that the inner-disk star formation enhancement before bar formation 'does not arise directly from the bar but from the rapid growth of strong spiral arms' and that 'any mechanism that produces such pronounced spiral structure' would have the same effect. This concession directly weakens the central claim that the outer-disk age peak is a bar-formation signature. In the single realization shown, spiral-arm growth and bar formation coincide by the particular evolution of the initial conditions. Without a no-bar control run, or a run in which the bar formation epoch is shifted artificially, the age peak cannot be uniquely attributed to bar formation rather than to a generic disk-instability star formation burst. This is load-bearing because the Milky Way prediction assumes that the age peak marks the bar age.
[Section 3 and Figure 3] The simulation is a single realization with no multiple runs, no convergence tests, and no uncertainty quantification for the age-distribution histograms. Figure 3 states that each radial bin 'contains tens of thousands of star particles,' but no Poisson errors or significance tests are reported. It is therefore not established that the τ ≈ 0 peak is a robust feature of the model rather than a stochastic fluctuation of this particular initial condition. Given that the entire paper rests on the existence and timing of this peak, the absence of any statistical or numerical robustness assessment is a major concern.
[Section 4 ('Note that in our current model...')] The post-bar decline of the inner-disk star formation rate, which is essential for creating the age peak, is partly a consequence of the finite gas reservoir in an isolated galaxy with no gas accretion. The authors argue that bar-induced inflows, not gas consumption, dominate the gas loss in the inner disk, but this conclusion is based on a decomposition of a single run rather than on a comparison with an accretion-enabled simulation. If gas replenishment from the halo or cosmological accretion were included, the inner-disk SFR might not drop as sharply after bar formation, thereby reducing the contrast between the pre-bar burst and the post-bar quiescence. The manuscript should justify that the missing gas supply does not qualitatively alter the predicted age peak.
[Section 6 (extrapolation to the Milky Way)] The predicted 8 Gyr peak in the Milky Way is obtained by translating the simulation's age axis by the assumed bar age of ~8 Gyr (from Sanders et al. 2024 and other studies). This translation implicitly assumes that the physical mechanism that produces the age peak is invariant to the actual bar formation time, i.e., that the age distribution shape is simply shifted along the age axis. The simulation provides only one bar formation event, with one specific pattern-speed evolution, so this time-scale invariance is not tested. Adding a simulation with a different bar formation epoch (e.g., by varying the initial disk stability) would substantially strengthen the extrapolation.

minor comments (5)

[References] In the last paragraph of Section 5, the reference in the sentence 'This behavior closely aligns with the age-metallicity relation reported by ?' is missing; a citation should be inserted.
[Header/Title page] The header 'Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan (2018)' and the manuscript dates 'Received 2025 20; Accepted 2025 22' appear to be leftover template text; they should be updated to the submission year and complete dates.
[Section 3] The definition of 'bar age' as τ_bar = 2.5 Gyr (the look-back time to bar formation) may confuse readers; a more precise term such as 'bar look-back time' would be clearer.
[Abstract] Given the mixed observational evidence cited in Section 6 (e.g., Sahlholdt et al. 2022; Ruiz-Lara et al. 2020), the abstract's phrasing 'should show a corresponding peak around that age' may be too strong; a softer conditional ('would be expected to show') would better match the manuscript's own caveats.
[Figure 2] The color maps in Figure 2 lack colorbars, making quantitative interpretation of the gas surface density, SFR surface density, and stellar density ratio difficult.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bar-formation epoch is measured independently, the age peak is a simulation output, and the 8 Gyr mapping uses external observations; one mild self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The bar formation epoch is defined from the simulation's own Fourier amplitudes and bar length using Dehnen et al. (2023), not from the star formation peak: 'A bar spontaneously forms around t ≈ 1 Gyr... We determine the bar's pattern speed and length at each epoch using the method described by Dehnen, Semczuk & Schönrich (2023).' The outer-disk age peak is an output (Figure 3), produced by the simulated in-situ SFR history plus measured outward migration, and is not imposed as an input. The Milky Way mapping is conditional on an externally estimated bar age: 'if the Milky Way's bar did indeed form around 8 Gyr ago ... one would expect to observe a corresponding peak in the age distribution of disk stars.' The 8 Gyr value is not fitted to reproduce the predicted peak. The only self-referential element is that one cited bar-age estimate (Sanders et al. 2024) 'applied the methods of Baba & Kawata (2020) and Baba, Kawata & Schönrich (2022)'; however, the paper also cites several independent observational estimates (Bovy et al. 2019; Nogueras-Lara et al. 2020; Schödel et al. 2023; Haywood et al. 2024), and the prediction's conditional form ('if the bar formed around 8 Gyr ago') means the argument does not reduce to the self-citation. The paper itself flags the main non-circular weaknesses: the pre-bar SFR enhancement 'does not arise directly from the bar but from the rapid growth of strong spiral arms,' and any mechanism producing such spiral structure would have the same effect; the model has no gas replenishment, no Sagittarius interaction, and no strong bar slowdown. These affect causal uniqueness and observational match, not circularity, because the bar epoch is not defined by the SFR peak and the age peak is not a renamed input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the dynamics of bar formation and migration, which are governed by the simulated galactic potential and initial conditions. The free parameters listed are mostly subgrid and chemical evolution choices; the bar formation itself is an emergent property of the initial model, not a fitted parameter. The axioms capture the main simplifications: isolation, subgrid physics, Milky Way-like setup, and the time scaling to the observed bar age.

free parameters (5)

Initial gas-phase metallicity [Fe/H]_ISM central value = -0.3 dex
Set deliberately low (Section 2, Eq. 1) so the simulated metallicity approaches observed values after 3.5 Gyr; a tuning parameter.
Initial gas-phase metallicity slope = -0.03 dex/kpc
Adopted from Cepheid observations (Matsunaga et al. 2023); an input from data, not fitted in this paper.
Metal diffusion scaling factor C_d = 0.1
Recommended by Hirai & Saitoh (2017); a free subgrid coefficient.
Type Ia SN DTD normalization = cumulative 0.8e-3 per Msun by 10 Gyr
Chosen to match observational estimates; affects metallicity evolution.
Star formation and feedback parameters = not specified
Referenced to Saitoh et al. 2008; parameters not given in the paper, making exact reproduction difficult.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The galaxy evolves in isolation, with no gas accretion from the halo and no satellite interactions.
The paper explicitly chooses an isolated galaxy to isolate bar effects (Section 2), and later acknowledges this may miss important processes (Section 6).
domain assumption The subgrid recipes for cooling, star formation, and supernova feedback approximate the real interstellar medium.
These are standard, unresolved prescriptions (Section 2), but their validity is not proven; the central result may depend on them.
domain assumption The Milky Way model initial conditions from McMillan (2017) represent the Galactic disk.
Structural parameters and the central gas hole are taken from McMillan (2017); the simulation is intended as a Milky Way analog.
ad hoc to paper The bar formation epoch in the simulation can be scaled to the Milky Way's bar formation epoch (about 8 Gyr ago).
The paper maps tau_bar = 2.5 Gyr lookback in the simulation to the observational bar age estimate of 8 Gyr (Section 3, 6). This scaling is a modeling choice, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of Bar Formation on Star Formation Segregation and Stellar Migration: Implications for Variations in the Age Distribution of Milky Way Disk Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6IJ63QF

@misc{pith2026250516528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of Bar Formation on Star Formation Segregation and Stellar Migration: Implications for Variations in the Age Distribution of Milky Way Disk Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6IJ63QF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16528}
}

abstract

We present a chemo-dynamical $N$-body/hydrodynamic simulation of an isolated Milky Way-like galaxy to investigate how bar formation influences star formation rates, stellar migration, and the resulting age and metallicity distributions of disk stars. Focusing on the transient epoch of bar formation, a phase that triggers gas inflows, enhances local star formation, and drives significant orbital migration, we find that the star formation rate in the inner disk exhibits a pronounced peak during this period. This behavior arises from the combined effect of vigorous star formation driven by strong spiral arms prior to bar formation and the subsequent suppression of star formation once the bar is established. In contrast, star formation in the outer disk persists after bar formation at modest levels, and enhanced outward migration of stars originally formed in the inner regions gives rise to a pronounced peak in the outer disk's stellar age distribution corresponding to the bar formation epoch. Moreover, stars formed during this epoch tend to exhibit higher gas-phase metallicities, reflecting their origin in more metal-rich inner regions. Although our model does not capture every detail of the Milky Way's complex evolution, our results highlight the dominant role of bar driven migration in segregating star formation activity and in shaping the long-term chemical and age structure of the Galactic disk. Recent observational studies suggest that the Milky Way's bar is approximately 8 Gyr old; therefore, our findings imply that the age distribution of stars in the solar circle and outer disk should show a corresponding peak around that age.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16528 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Evolution of the simulated galaxy. The displayed time steps, from left to right, are τ = +0.5, +0.3, +0.1, −0.1, −0.3, and −0.5 Gyr. Here, τ is defined as the look-back time (tbk) relative to the bar age (τbar), i.e. τ = tbk − τbar. The galaxy rotates in the φ < 0 direction. (Top row) Radial profiles of the relative Fourier amplitude |Am|/|A0| of the stellar surface density for m = 2 (solid), 3 (dashed), and 4 (dot-… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Temporal evolution of gas, SFR, and stellar surface densities, plotted against galactocentric radius R and look-back time τ (= tbk − τbar). The horizontal gray-shaded region denotes the bar formation epoch (|τ| < 0.5Gyr). Overlaid in each panel are the bar radius (Rb; red solid), the corotation radius (RCR; blue solid), and the outer Lindblad resonance (ROLR; thin blue solid). (a) Gas surface density, Σgas(R, τ). (b… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Stellar properties at t = 3.5Gyr in four galactocentric cylindrical regions: 2 < R < 3kpc (leftmost), 5 < R < 6kpc, 8 < R < 9kpc, and 11 < R < 12kpc (rightmost). Note that the horizontal axis indicates stellar ages relative to the bar age, τ. (Top row) Temporal evolution of In-situ SFR (filled red histogram) and age distributions of newly formed stars (blue histogram) in each cylindrical region. A pronounced peak at… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[1]

Anders F. et al. , 2019, , 628, A94

2019
[2]

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

2024
[3]

S., Baba J., Portegies Zwart S., B \'e dorf J., 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12436

Asano T., Fujii M. S., Baba J., Portegies Zwart S., B \'e dorf J., 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12436

arXiv 2025
[4]

Athanassoula E., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

1992
[5]

Baba J., 2015, , 454, 2954

2015
[6]

Baba J., Kawata D., 2020, , 492, 4500

2020
[7]

Baba J., Kawata D., Sch \"o nrich R., 2022, , 513, 2850

2022
[8]

R., 2017, , 464, 246

Baba J., Morokuma-Matsui K., Saitoh T. R., 2017, , 464, 246

2017

Show all 89 references

[9]

R., 2024, , 976, L29

Baba J., Tsujimoto T., Saitoh T. R., 2024, , 976, L29

2024
[10]

C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D

Bird J. C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D. H., 2012, , 420, 913

2012
[11]

Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, , 54, 529

2016
[12]

N., 1991, , 370, 205

Blitz L., Spergel D. N., 1991, , 370, 205

1991
[13]

W., Hunt J

Bovy J., Leung H. W., Hunt J. A. S., Mackereth J. T., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Roman-Lopes A., 2019, , 490, 4740

2019
[14]

B., Kawata D., Gibson B

Brook C. B., Kawata D., Gibson B. K., Freeman K. C., 2004, , 612, 894

2004
[15]

V., Laporte C

Carr C., Johnston K. V., Laporte C. F. P., Ness M. K., 2022, , 516, 5067

2022
[16]

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

1997
[17]

Chiappini C., Matteucci F., Romano D., 2001, , 554, 1044

2001
[18]

Chiba R., Friske J. K. S., Sch \"o nrich R., 2021, , 500, 4710

2021
[19]

Dantas M. L. L. et al. , 2023, , 669, A96

2023
[20]

Dehnen W., Semczuk M., Sch \"o nrich R., 2023, , 518, 2712

2023
[21]

C., Bienaym \'e O., Anders F., 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17236

del Alc \'a zar-Juli \`a M., Figueras F., Robin A. C., Bienaym \'e O., Anders F., 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17236

2025 arXiv
[22]

N., 2013, , 553, A102

Di Matteo P., Haywood M., Combes F., Semelin B., Snaith O. N., 2013, , 553, A102

2013
[23]

L., Gil-Pons P., Lau H

Doherty C. L., Gil-Pons P., Lau H. H. B., Lattanzio J. C., Siess L., 2014, , 437, 195

2014
[24]

Feuillet D. K. et al. , 2018, , 477, 2326

2018
[25]

Fragkoudi F. et al. , 2020, , 494, 5936

2020
[26]

Friedli D., Benz W., 1995, , 301, 649

1995
[27]

Friedli D., Benz W., Kennicutt R., 1994, , 430, L105

1994
[28]

S., B \'e dorf J., Baba J., Portegies Zwart S., 2018, , 477, 1451

Fujii M. S., B \'e dorf J., Baba J., Portegies Zwart S., 2018, , 477, 1451

2018
[29]

T., 2019, , 628, A24

George K., Subramanian S., Paul K. T., 2019, , 628, A24

2019
[30]

Grand R. J. J., Kawata D., Cropper M., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 167

2012
[31]

Grand R. J. J., Kawata D., Cropper M., 2015, , 447, 4018

2015
[32]

Halle A., Di Matteo P., Haywood M., Combes F., 2015, , 578, A58

2015
[33]

Hayden M. R. et al. , 2015, , 808, 132

2015
[34]

Haywood M., Khoperskov S., Cerqui V., Di Matteo P., Katz D., Snaith O., 2024, , 690, A147

2024
[35]

D., Di Matteo P., Snaith O., Schultheis M., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2016, , 589, A66

Haywood M., Lehnert M. D., Di Matteo P., Snaith O., Schultheis M., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2016, , 589, A66

2016
[36]

Hilmi T. et al. , 2020, , 497, 933

2020
[37]

R., 2017, , 838, L23

Hirai Y., Saitoh T. R., 2017, , 838, L23

2017
[38]

Hunt J. A. S., Stelea I. A., Johnston K. V., Gandhi S. S., Laporte C. F. P., B \'e dorf J., 2021, , 508, 1459

2021
[39]

Hunt J. A. S., Vasiliev E., 2025, , 100, 101721

2025
[40]

R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, , 125, 439

Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, , 125, 439

1999
[41]

I., 2010, , 403, 1413

Karakas A. I., 2010, , 403, 1413

2010
[42]

N., 2020, , 638, A144

Khoperskov S., Di Matteo P., Haywood M., G \'o mez A., Snaith O. N., 2020, , 638, A144

2020
[43]

Kubryk M., Prantzos N., Athanassoula E., 2013, , 436, 1479

2013
[44]

Laporte C. F. P., Minchev I., Johnston K. V., G \'o mez F. A., 2019, , 485, 3134

2019
[45]

Lehmann C., Feltzing S., Feuillet D., Kordopatis G., 2024, , 533, 538

2024
[46]

Li Z., Shen J., Kim W.-T., 2015, , 806, 150

2015
[47]

Lu Y. L. et al. , 2024, , 535, 392

2024
[48]

Maoz D., Graur O., 2017, , 848, 25

2017
[49]

Maoz D., Mannucci F., Nelemans G., 2014, , 52, 107

2014
[50]

Marques L. et al. , 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.02651

2025 arXiv
[51]

Matsunaga N. et al. , 2023, , 954, 198

2023
[52]

J., 2017, , 465, 76

McMillan P. J., 2017, , 465, 76

2017
[53]

Minchev I., Chiappini C., Martig M., 2014, , 572, A92

2014
[54]

Minchev I., Famaey B., 2010, , 722, 112

2010
[55]

C., Figueras F., Roca-F \`a brega S., Luri X., 2019, , 624, L1

Mor R., Robin A. C., Figueras F., Roca-F \`a brega S., Luri X., 2019, , 624, L1

2019
[56]

Nakada Y., Onaka T., Yamamura I., Deguchi S., Hashimoto O., Izumiura H., Sekiguchi K., 1991, , 353, 140

1991
[57]

Nepal S. et al. , 2024, , 681, L8

2024
[58]

Nogueras-Lara F. et al. , 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 377

2020
[59]

Nomoto K., Kobayashi C., Tominaga N., 2013, , 51, 457

2013
[60]

P., Stinson G

Ro s kar R., Debattista V. P., Stinson G. S., Quinn T. R., Kaufmann T., Wadsley J., 2008, , 675, L65

2008
[61]

J., Cassisi S., 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965

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

2020
[62]

L., Feltzing S., Feuillet D

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

2022
[63]

R., 2017, , 153, 85

Saitoh T. R., 2017, , 153, 85

2017
[64]

R., Daisaka H., Kokubo E., Makino J., Okamoto T., Tomisaka K., Wada K., Yoshida N., 2008, , 60, 667

Saitoh T. R., Daisaka H., Kokubo E., Makino J., Okamoto T., Tomisaka K., Wada K., Yoshida N., 2008, , 60, 667

2008
[65]

R., Makino J., 2009, , 697, L99

Saitoh T. R., Makino J., 2009, , 697, L99

2009
[66]

R., Makino J., 2013, , 768, 44

Saitoh T. R., Makino J., 2013, , 768, 44

2013
[67]

L., Kawata D., Matsunaga N., Sormani M

Sanders J. L., Kawata D., Matsunaga N., Sormani M. C., Smith L. C., Minniti D., Gerhard O., 2024, , 530, 2972

2024
[68]

Sch \"o del R. et al. , 2023, , 672, L8

2023
[69]

A., 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

Sellwood J. A., 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

2014
[70]

A., Binney J

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

2002
[71]

A., Sparke L

Sellwood J. A., Sparke L. S., 1988, MNRAS, 231, 25P

1988
[72]

F., 2019, , 872, 5

Seo W.-Y., Kim W.-T., Kwak S., Hsieh P.-Y., Han C., Hopkins P. F., 2019, , 872, 5

2019
[73]

Shen S., Wadsley J., Stinson G., 2010, , 407, 1581

2010
[74]

D., Combes F., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2015, , 578, A87

Snaith O., Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M. D., Combes F., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2015, , 578, A87

2015
[75]

C., Tress R

Sormani M. C., Tress R. G., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., Battersby C. D., Clark P. C., Hatchfield H. P., Smith R. J., 2020, , 497, 5024

2020
[76]

C., Tre R

Sormani M. C., Tre R. G., Ridley M., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., Binney J., Magorrian J., Smith R., 2018, , 475, 2383

2018
[77]

Spinoso D., Bonoli S., Dotti M., Mayer L., Madau P., Bellovary J., 2017, , 465, 3729

2017
[78]

Tanikawa A., Yoshikawa K., Nitadori K., Okamoto T., 2013, New A., 19, 74

2013
[79]

Totani T., Morokuma T., Oda T., Doi M., Yasuda N., 2008, , 60, 1327

2008
[80]

G., Sormani M

Tress R. G., Sormani M. C., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., Battersby C. D., Clark P. C., Hatchfield H. P., Smith R. J., 2020, , 499, 4455

2020
[81]

Tsujimoto T., Baba J., 2019, , 878, 125

2019
[82]

Vasiliev E., 2019, , 482, 1525

2019
[83]

Verley S., Combes F., Verdes-Montenegro L., Bergond G., Leon S., 2007, , 474, 43

2007
[84]

Vislosky E. et al. , 2024, , 528, 3576

2024
[85]

Wegg C., Gerhard O., 2013, , 435, 1874

2013
[86]

Wegg C., Gerhard O., Portail M., 2015, , 450, 4050

2015
[87]

M., Clarke J

Wylie S. M., Clarke J. P., Gerhard O. E., 2022, , 659, A80

2022
[88]

Zhang H. et al. , 2025, , 983, L10

2025
[89]

Computer Modern (defalt font)

\@bibitem \@bib@author\@prev@author \@set@biblabel \@lbibitem[#1] \@bib@parse#1()\@nil \@set@biblabel \@bib@parse#1(#2)#3\@nil \@bib@author #1 @edef\@bib@year @space#2 \@empty \@set@biblabel#1 \@bib@author\@empty \@latex@warning Author name should be given for reference entry ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Anders F. et al. , 2019, , 628, A94

2019

[2] [2]

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

2024

[3] [3]

S., Baba J., Portegies Zwart S., B \'e dorf J., 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12436

Asano T., Fujii M. S., Baba J., Portegies Zwart S., B \'e dorf J., 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12436

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Athanassoula E., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

1992

[5] [5]

Baba J., 2015, , 454, 2954

2015

[6] [6]

Baba J., Kawata D., 2020, , 492, 4500

2020

[7] [7]

Baba J., Kawata D., Sch \"o nrich R., 2022, , 513, 2850

2022

[8] [8]

R., 2017, , 464, 246

Baba J., Morokuma-Matsui K., Saitoh T. R., 2017, , 464, 246

2017