Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

An early clumpy star-forming phase is required to make the Milky Way's oldest alpha-poor disk stars.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

In simulated Milky Way-like galaxies, either a retrograde merger or an early clumpy star-formation phase suppresses star formation and creates the observed chemical bimodality; only clumpy models also produce old, α-poor disk stars.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A worthwhile hydro-simulation study that cleanly shows retrograde (not prograde) GSE-like mergers can create a chemical bimodality, and makes a plausible but under-calibrated claim that clumpy disks are needed for old α-poor stars. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.01293 v2 pith:HAHR4HYK submitted 2025-12-01 astro-ph.GA

GASTRO library II: Exploring Chemical Bimodalities in Disk Galaxies with GSE-like Mergers and Massive Star-forming Clumps

Jo\~ao A. S. Amarante , Chervin F. P. Laporte , Victor P. Debattista , Leandro Beraldo e Silva , Guilherme Limberg , H\'elio D. Perottoni , Zhao-Yu Li , Lais Borbolato
show 5 more authors
Karl Fiteni Chengye Cao Nathan Deg Tigran Khachaturyants Xiaojie Liao
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky Way formationchemical bimodalityalpha-rich diskalpha-poor diskGaia-Sausage/Enceladusstar-forming clumpsstar formation ratehydrodynamical simulations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 the Milky Way's two chemical disk sequences — the alpha-rich and alpha-poor populations — can be produced by either a retrograde merger or an early clumpy star-forming phase, but that only the clumpy phase can simultaneously explain the recently observed population of very old (age > 10 Gyr), alpha-poor stars on disk-like orbits. Using a suite of N-body+SPH galaxy models with and without a Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus-like merger, the authors show that both the merger (if retrograde) and the clumps reduce the star formation rate at the right time to split the chemistry into two sequences, while a prograde merger leaves a single sequence. The central result is that the old alpha-poor population, which forms during the first few gigayears alongside the alpha-rich stars, appears only when star formation is clumpy, making high-redshift clumpy disks the likely progenitors of the Milky Way. A sympathetic reader would care because this singles out a specific early phase of galaxy formation — clumpy, high-density star-forming regions at redshift 1–2 — as the missing ingredient in standard sequential formation scenarios.

Core claim

The authors find that a chemical bimodality in the [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] plane arises whenever the disk's star formation rate drops sharply for a brief period (roughly 300 Myr). In their models this drop has two independent causes: an early clumpy phase that exhausts gas in massive star-forming clumps, and a retrograde GSE-like merger that removes angular momentum and suppresses subsequent star formation; prograde mergers do not lower the SFR enough and produce no bimodality. The clumpy models uniquely form a significant fraction (about 10–20%) of old, age > 10–11 Gyr, alpha-poor stars on disk-like orbits, coevally with the alpha-rich population, matching recent observations of the Milky Way. The me

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the modulation of the star formation rate: a brief, sharp decline allows Type Ia supernovae to enrich the interstellar medium in iron, separating a low-alpha sequence from the high-alpha sequence formed earlier. In the clumpy models the agent is the massive star-forming clumps themselves, which drive an intense burst of alpha-rich star formation in the first ~3 Gyr and then cease, forcing the SFR drop; in the merger models the retrograde satellite removes angular momentum and suppresses the alpha-poor SFR. The identity that carries the argument is the chemical bimodality in the [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] plane, whose presence and timing of alpha-poor emergence distinguish the mod

Load-bearing premise

The +3 Gyr age offset added to every model star age determines what counts as 'old'; if the models' first few gigayears do not correspond to the same cosmic epoch and timescale as the early Milky Way disk, the comparison with observed >11 Gyr alpha-poor stars loses its footing.

What would settle it

A direct test is to measure ages of Milky Way alpha-poor disk stars with high precision around the 10–11 Gyr boundary: if the fraction of >11 Gyr alpha-poor stars in the solar cylinder is negligible (below the models' ~10–20%), the clumpy explanation for the Milky Way would be falsified. Alternatively, running a cosmological simulation with explicit feedback that suppresses clump formation but still includes a GSE-like retrograde merger, and finding a substantial old alpha-poor disk population, would falsify the claim that clumps are uniquely required.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the clumpy scenario is correct, the Milky Way's early disk formed in massive star-forming clumps at z ≈ 1–2, and the alpha-poor thin disk began forming almost simultaneously with the alpha-rich thick disk, not sequentially after the GSE merger.
  • A GSE-like merger is sufficient to create a chemical bimodality in a non-clumpy galaxy when it is retrograde, but that galaxy will lack old alpha-poor stars; observations of old alpha-poor stars can therefore distinguish merger-only from clump-plus-merger histories.
  • Prograde GSE-like mergers do not lower the SFR enough to create the bimodality, confirming analytic predictions and ruling out a prograde merger as the Milky Way's bimodality trigger.
  • Stars migrating outward from the inner disk (formation radius < 4 kpc) can enhance an existing bimodality but cannot create one by themselves.
  • The transition time from an alpha-rich to an alpha-poor dominated disk can be advanced or delayed by a single merger depending on orbital circularity and the clumpiness of the host.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The +3 Gyr age offset, applied because the simulations only run 10 Gyr, is the paper's most fragile calibration; if the first ~3 Gyr of model time map onto a longer or shorter cosmic epoch than the early Milky Way, the claimed match to >11 Gyr alpha-poor stars weakens. A direct sensitivity test varying this offset would clarify how much of the result depends on that choice.
  • The model suite lacks a galactic bar, which the authors note can drive radial migration; since bar-driven migration is a competing mechanism for assembling alpha-rich stars at the solar neighborhood, adding a bar to the clumpy models is a natural next test that could change the alpha-rich peak strength.
  • Because the models are idealized with a fixed halo mass and a single merger, the result predicts that in cosmological simulations, clumpy high-redshift disks — not merely early mergers — should be the ones that produce old low-alpha disk stars; this is testable in current and upcoming cosmological runs with explicit clumpy star formation.
  • The paper's logic implies that the Milky Way's old alpha-poor stars, if confirmed with precise ages, serve as a fossil tracer of the clumpy phase, providing an observational discriminant that does not depend on the details of the GSE merger orbit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a suite of ten SPH+N-body simulations from the GASTRO library: eight models that add a GSE-like dwarf merger to an MW-like host, varying merger orbit (prograde/retrograde, circularity η=0.3/0.5) and supernova feedback efficiency (low/high, producing clumpy/non-clumpy star formation), plus two isolated control models. The authors diagnose the chemical bimodality in the [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] plane within the disk annulus 4<R<12 kpc, |z|<3 kpc. Their main claims are that (i) a chemical bimodality forms whenever the SFR decreases sufficiently, either through a retrograde merger or through an early clumpy star-forming phase; (ii) a prograde merger in non-clumpy hosts does not produce a bimodality; (iii) stars born in the inner disk can enhance but do not create the bimodality; and (iv) only models with an early clumpy phase produce a significant old, age>10–11 Gyr, alpha-poor disk population on disk-like orbits. The paper interprets this as evidence that clumpy galaxies at z≈1–2 are likely progenitors of the Milky Way's old alpha-poor disk.

Significance. The paper's strongest asset is its clean, controlled experimental design: a 10-model grid with a single varied merger orbit and feedback efficiency, plus isolated controls, allows direct attribution of the bimodality to the SFR history. The SFR analysis in Section 4.2 gives a clear mechanistic explanation—a sustained decrease in SFR separates the alpha-rich and alpha-poor episodes—and connects idealized simulations with cosmological results (Renaud et al. 2021; Orkney et al. 2025). The analysis of birth radii (Section 4.3) is a useful quantitative check on analytical migration models. The authors are also transparent about caveats: no bar, qualitative [O/Fe] normalization, fixed halo mass, and idealized assembly. If the age calibration is properly justified and the bimodality classification is made statistical, the distinctive claim that clumpy high-z disks are required progenitors of the MW's old alpha-poor population would be a meaningful advance. At present, that claim is conditional on an uncalibrated +3 Gyr post-processing age shift (Section 6, footnote 4), and the 'clumpy-only' conclusion needs to be robust to plausible variations of that shift.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, footnote 4] The paper's most distinctive claim—only clumpy models form a significant fraction (≈10–20%) of old, age>10–11 Gyr, alpha-poor disk stars (Section 6, Figure 6, concluding bullet)—rests entirely on the +3 Gyr age shift added to every model star. The initial conditions place a fully assembled 10^12 Msun NFW halo and 1.4e11 Msun gas corona at t=0 (Section 2.2), so model time is not automatically cosmic time. The shift is equivalent to asserting that stars with t_form<3 Gyr are older than 10 Gyr, but no physical justification or sensitivity test is provided. Because the comparison is to observed >11 Gyr alpha-poor stars (Borbolato et al. 2025), the conclusion is conditional on this arbitrary mapping. Please justify the mapping (e.g., calibrating to the GSE epoch or to a cosmological assembly model) and show how the clumpy versus non-clumpy difference in Figure 6 changes if the shift is varied
  2. [Section 4.1 / Table 1 / Figure 4] The classification of models as having 'Yes', 'No', or 'weak' chemical bimodality is based on visual inspection of the [O/Fe] histograms. No quantitative criterion (e.g., Hartigan dip test, Gaussian mixture model, or bootstrap bimodality index) is used. This is load-bearing because the central comparison—which merger orbits or star-formation modes do or do not produce a bimodality—is the basis for the paper's conclusions. The 'weak' designation for c.p.c03 and c.p.c05 in Table 1 is never defined. Please add a statistical measure of bimodality and report its significance for each model, including the depth of the valley relative to sampling noise.
  3. [Section 4 / Section 6] The paper repeatedly relies on [O/Fe] as a qualitative tracer while stating that it is 'not quantitatively similar' to the MW's [alpha/Fe] (Section 4). This is acceptable as a stated limitation, but the old-alpha-poor identification in Section 6 is made by applying a fixed [O/Fe] threshold to the models and then comparing directly to observed age>11 Gyr alpha-poor stars. Because the model's [O/Fe] scale is not calibrated to observed abundances, the mapping between 'old alpha-poor' in the simulations and in the data is not strictly established. At minimum, the authors should show that the qualitative conclusions are unchanged if the [O/Fe] threshold separating the two populations is varied within a reasonable range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7.3] The text refers to 'the presence of an old, age<10 Gyr, alpha-poor disk'; this should read 'age>10 Gyr'.
  2. [Abstract vs Section 6] The abstract quotes 'age > 11 Gyr' while Section 6 and the concluding bullet use 'age > 10 Gyr'. These correspond to different t_form thresholds under the +3 Gyr shift; please use a single threshold or report results as a function of age threshold.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'We return to Figure 4, where we measured the present day [O/Fe] distribution for stars at 4< R_form/kpc<12' is confusing: the present-day selection is at 4<R<12, while R_form is used to separate the shaded contributions. Please rephrase.
  4. [Table 1] The scale lengths and scale heights h_z1, h_z2 are quoted without defining how the double-exponential decomposition was performed. Please add a brief definition or reference in the caption or Section 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the conclusions are simulation outputs, not fitted inputs; the +3 Gyr age shift is an assumption, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: set up idealized MW-like SPH models with/without clumpy star formation and with GSE-like mergers of varying orbit/feedback, evolve to t=10 Gyr, then measure [O/Fe] and stellar ages. The central claims — that only clumpy models produce a substantial old α-poor disk population and that retrograde mergers (or clumps) create chemical bimodality — are read from the simulations, not derived by algebraic identity or fitted to the observed quantities. In particular, the 'old α-poor' result is not an input: the clumpy runs were not tuned to produce it, and the non-clumpy runs with bimodality fail to produce it (Section 6, Figure 6). Footnote 4 ('we added +3 to the ages of the stars in our models... same as selecting stars with formation time tform<3 Gyr') is a post-processing mapping from simulation time to cosmic age; applied uniformly to all models, it does not by itself force the clumpy-only conclusion. Whether +3 is physically justified is a legitimate robustness/correctness question, but it is not a circularity: the output is not equivalent to the input by construction. The paper does cite the authors' own earlier framework (Amarante et al. 2022; Clarke et al. 2019; Beraldo e Silva et al. 2021), but the new comparisons with mergers are presented in this paper's own Figures 3-6, and the observational benchmark (Borbolato et al. 2025) is external LAMOST/APOGEE data even if authorship overlaps. Self-citation is present but not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked in place of the simulations shown here. No circular step can therefore be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new physical entities. Its results rest on three kinds of inputs: standard simulation subgrid physics (feedback efficiency, SF criteria), orbital parameters of the merger, and a post-hoc age calibration. The feedback efficiency and orbit parameters are motivated by prior work, but the age offset is the most ad hoc element and is directly load-bearing for the paper's most distinctive conclusion.

free parameters (3)
  • Supernova feedback efficiency (20% vs 80%, plus 10% in FB10 isolated) = 20%, 80%, 10%
    Chosen to produce clumpy and non-clumpy star formation modes; it is the switch that enables or suppresses the clumpy phase, and therefore directly controls whether the old α-poor population appears.
  • Merger orbit circularity η and inclination θ = η = 0.3, 0.5; θ = 15°
    Orbital parameters motivated by Naidu et al. (2021) to mimic GSE; not fitted to the chemical bimodality, but they determine whether the merger is retrograde or prograde and how strong the dynamical effect is.
  • Age offset +3 Gyr = +3 Gyr
    Added to all model star ages to compare with observational ages (footnote 4). This post-hoc calibration defines which stars are 'old' and is essential to the claim that clumpy models produce old α-poor stars; no sensitivity test is provided.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption GASOLINE SPH+N-body code correctly implements the relevant gas cooling, star formation, and feedback physics.
    Section 2.1 refers to Amarante et al. (2022) for input physics; the fidelity of the subgrid model is assumed.
  • domain assumption The blastwave supernova feedback model with 20%/80% coupling brackets the real feedback regime.
    The clumpy/non-clumpy distinction is set entirely by this parameter (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The initial NFW halo, gas corona, and dwarf galaxy ICs are representative of the MW and the GSE event.
    The models are idealized with fixed halo mass and a single tailored dwarf (Sections 2.2-2.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The simulated [O/Fe] ratio, despite not being quantitatively similar to observations, is a valid qualitative tracer of the α-rich/α-poor dichotomy.
    Section 4 states that 'this ratio not being quantitatively similar to what is observed in the MW' but uses it for the bimodality diagnosis; if the yields are wrong the bimodality could be an artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper The +3 Gyr age-shift maps simulation clock time to cosmic lookback time such that t_form < 3 Gyr corresponds to age > 10 Gyr.
    Footnote 4: 'we added +3 to the ages of the stars in our models... This age shift allows a better comparison with observational data.' This mapping is necessary for the old-star claim and is not derived from the simulation itself.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GASTRO library II: Exploring Chemical Bimodalities in Disk Galaxies with GSE-like Mergers and Massive Star-forming Clumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HAHR4HYK

@misc{pith2026251201293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GASTRO library II: Exploring Chemical Bimodalities in Disk Galaxies with GSE-like Mergers and Massive Star-forming Clumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HAHR4HYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.01293}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We use several smoothed particle hydrodynamics+N-body models as part of the GASTRO library to study the role of high-density star-forming clumpy regions and a single merger on the formation of the $\alpha$-rich and $\alpha$-poor populations in the disk galaxies. These experiments are tailored to mimic what is expected to be the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE) accretion event, which occurred circa 10 Gyr ago in the Milky Way (MW). We find that either an early clumpy phase or a retrograde merger significantly reduces the star formation rate (SFR) of the disk, giving rise to a chemical bimodality qualitatively similar to the MW's. The decrease of the SFR as the cause of the chemical bimodality is consistent with previous idealized and cosmological simulations. On the other hand, a prograde radial merger does not significantly modify the SFR of the disk, resulting in no clear chemical bimodality. We further show that stars originating from the inner regions ($R_{form}<4$ kpc) do not create the disk's chemical bimodality, although they can enhance it. Finally, only the models with an early clumpy phase can produce a significant fraction of old, age $>11$ Gyr, $\alpha-$poor stars with disk-like orbits, similar to what has been recently observed in the MW. Our results strengthen the case of clumpy disky galaxies observed at redshift $z\approx 1-2$ as likely progenitors of our Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.01293 by Chengye Cao, Chervin F. P. Laporte, Guilherme Limberg, H\'elio D. Perottoni, Jo\~ao A. S. Amarante, Karl Fiteni, Lais Borbolato, Leandro Beraldo e Silva, Nathan Deg, Tigran Khachaturyants, Victor P. Debattista, Xiaojie Liao, Zhao-Yu Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: The orbital evolution of the satellite galaxy for all the merger models. Low and high supernova feedback models are shown by the green and purple lines, respectively. Prograde and retrograde mergers are represented by dashed and solid lines, respectively. While the subgrid physics and nature of the merger do not influence the orbital evolution, the initial orbital circularity does. More radial orbits … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Face-on view of the stellar density distribution in model c.r.c03. Time increases from left to right and is measured since the start of the simulation at t = 0 Gyr. The clumpy features are visible early in the evolution of the main galaxy and last up to approximately 3 Gyr. At 1.6 and 3.0 Gyr, the GSE-like dwarf is at its first and nearing its last pericenter, respectively. disk, defined as the region with… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Density in the [α/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane for the spatial range 4 < R/kpc < 12, and |z| < 3 kpc. All models share the same initial gas and dark matter distribution for the MW-like and dwarf galaxies. Clumpy and non-clumpy models are distinguished by titles colored in green and purple, respectively. Isolated, retrograde, and prograde models are shown in the first, second, and third rows, respectively. The satellit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [O/Fe] histogram for the interval −0.7 < [Fe/H] < −0.2, 4 < R/kpc < 12, and |z| < 3 kpc. All models share the same initial gas and dark matter distribution for the MW-like and dwarf galaxies. Clumpy and non-clumpy models are distinguished by titles colored in green and purple, respectively. Retrograde and prograde models are shown in the second and third rows, respectively. The satellite’s initial orbital … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SFR of the disk, 4 < R/kpc < 12, and |z| < 3 kpc. The solid line shows the case for the isolated models (top row), and for those with a retrograde (middle row) or prograde merger (bottom row). Purple and green titles correspond to non-clumpy and clumpy models. The contribution to the SFR from the α−rich and α−poor populations is represented by orange and blue areas, respectively. The models with a clea… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Present-day chemical disks mass fraction per age bin. We use the previous definition of α−poor (blue) and α−rich (orange) populations to calculate their fraction contribution in each age bin. Colored dotted and dashed lines show the corresponding clumpy or non-clumpy isolated model counterpart. The time of the pericenter passage is indicated by the vertical gray dashed lines. the blue dashed lines in the l… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Epoch of the GSE Merger: Insights from the Splash and Thick Disk Age Distributions

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Age uncertainties after GSE truncation bias Splash ages older via Eddington bias; the observed peak offset dates the merger to 10.1^{+0.2}_{-0.2} Gyr.

  2. The Low-$\alpha$ Splash Population in the Milky Way

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Observational identification of a low-α Splash population in APOGEE DR17 and GASTRO simulations showing that clumpy proto-disk scattering, but not a major merger alone, heats old thin-disk stars to form both high- and...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab322

    Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab322

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab322 2021

  2. [2]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., & Smith, M. C. 2020, ApJL, 891, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab78a4 2020

  3. [3]

    Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  4. [4]

    B., Glazebrook, K., et al

    Ambachew, L., Fisher, D. B., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac622

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac622 2022

  5. [5]

    X., et al

    Anders, F., Chiappini, C., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323038

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323038 2014

  6. [6]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb83e

    Beane, A. 2025, ApJ, 982, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb83e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb83e 2025

  7. [7]

    W., Semenov, V

    Beane, A., Johnson, J. W., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceab 2025

  8. [8]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  9. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 —

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1267 —. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1267 2022

  10. [10]

    2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundstr¨ om, I. 2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031213 2003

  11. [11]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., Khachaturyants, T., & Nidever, D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa065 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., Nidever, D.,

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  12. [12]

    Amarante, J. A. S., & Garver, B. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3966

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3966 2021

  13. [13]

    A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, ApJL, 883, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e0e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e0e 2019

  14. [14]

    C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D

    Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/43

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/43 2013

  15. [15]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  16. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3996

    Bobrick, A., Iorio, G., Belokurov, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3996

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3996 2024

  17. [17]

    A., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa 2020

  18. [18]

    D., et al

    Borbolato, L., Rossi, S., Perottoni, H. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00135, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.00135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.00135 2025

  19. [19]

    G., & Martig, M

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Martig, M. 2009, ApJL, 707, L1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/l1 2009

  20. [20]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Liu, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/148 2012

  21. [21]

    B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B

    Brook, C. B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B. K., & Freeman, K. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, 894, doi: 10.1086/422709

    doi:10.1086/422709 2004

  22. [22]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3289 2020

  23. [23]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2736

    Buck, T., Rybizki, J., Buder, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2736

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2736 2021

  24. [24]

    S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T

    Bullock, J. S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T. S., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240, doi: 10.1086/321477

    doi:10.1086/321477 2001

  25. [25]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 76, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0295-x

    Cava, A., Schaerer, D., Richard, J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 76, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0295-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0295-x 2018

  26. [26]

    2025, A&A, 699, A277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452448

    Casamiquela, L. 2025, A&A, 699, A277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452448

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452448 2025

  27. [27]

    A., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Chandra, V., Semenov, V. A., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b60

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b60 2024

  28. [28]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/303726 1997

  29. [29]

    Chiba, M., & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 119, 2843, doi: 10.1086/301409

    doi:10.1086/301409 2000

  30. [30]

    Chasing the impact of the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger on the formation of the Milky Way thick disc

    Chiba, R., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2412, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1094 Ciuc˘ a, I., Kawata, D., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01006, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.01006

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.01006 2021

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3791

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3791 2023

  32. [32]

    J., Debattista, V

    Clarke, A. J., Debattista, V. P., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz104

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz104 2019

  33. [33]

    H., Naidu, R

    Conroy, C., Weinberg, D. H., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.02989, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.02989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02989 2022

  34. [34]

    L., Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., & Songaila, A. 1995, AJ, 110, 1576, doi: 10.1086/117631 de la Vega, A., Mobasher, B., Manesh, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14972, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14972 16Amarante et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14972 1995

  35. [35]

    J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Johnston, K. V. 2013, ApJ, 763, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/113

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/113 2013

  36. [36]

    P., Liddicott, D

    Debattista, V. P., Liddicott, D. J., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb00

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbb00 2023

  37. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1203

    Carignan, C. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1203

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1203 2019

  38. [38]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785 2009

  39. [39]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    doi:10.1086/164050 1986

  40. [40]

    2017, ApJL, 836, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d52

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Schaerer, D., Cava, A., Mayer, L., & Tamburello, V. 2017, ApJL, 836, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d52

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d52 2017

  41. [41]

    2007, ApJ, 667, 859, doi: 10.1086/520573

    Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., & Madau, P. 2007, ApJ, 667, 859, doi: 10.1086/520573

    doi:10.1086/520573 2007

  42. [42]

    Diemer, B., More, S., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2013, ApJ, 766, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/25 D’Orazi, V., Storm, N., Casey, A. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/25 2013

  43. [43]

    Efstathiou, G., Davis, M., White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1985, ApJS, 57, 241, doi: 10.1086/191003

    doi:10.1086/191003 1985

  44. [44]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2005a, ApJ, 627, 632, doi: 10.1086/430514 —. 2005b, ApJ, 627, 632, doi: 10.1086/430514 Fern´ andez-Alvar, E., Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19536, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19536

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.19536 2025

  45. [45]

    J., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac947c 2022

  46. [46]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec76 2023

  47. [47]

    Fiteni, K., Caruana, J., Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V. P., & Beraldo e Silva, L. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab619

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab619 2021

  48. [48]

    Frankel, N., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., Ness, M., & Hogg, D. W. 2018, ApJ, 865, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 2018

  49. [49]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840

    Freeman, K., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840

    arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    1998, A&A, 338, 161

    Fuhrmann, K. 1998, A&A, 338, 161

    1998

  51. [51]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 2019

  52. [52]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdfc6

    Silva, L., & Khachaturyants, T. 2023, ApJ, 953, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdfc6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdfc6 2023

  53. [53]

    R., Eitner, P., Serenelli, A., et al

    Gent, M. R., Eitner, P., Serenelli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244157

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244157 2024

  54. [54]

    Grand, R. J. J., Bustamante, S., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3025

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3025 2018

  55. [55]

    Grand, R. J. J., Kawata, D., Belokurov, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2057

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2057 2020

  56. [56]

    C., Bell, E

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Bell, E. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/39

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/39 2015

  57. [57]

    F., et al

    Guo, Y., Rafelski, M., Bell, E. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa018 2018

  58. [58]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/132 2015

  59. [59]

    D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & G´ omez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321397

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321397 2013

  60. [60]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 2018

  61. [61]

    2024, A&A, 690, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348767

    Haywood, M., Khoperskov, S., Cerqui, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348767

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348767 2024

  62. [62]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  63. [63]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac590e 2022

  64. [64]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd058 2023

  65. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2777

    Huertas-Company, M., Guo, Y., Ginzburg, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2777

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2777 2020

  66. [66]

    A., et al

    Imig, J., Price, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b8 2023

  67. [67]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab005

    Iorio, G., & Belokurov, V. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab005

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab005 2021

  68. [68]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08688, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08688

    Silva, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08688, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08688

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08688 2025

  69. [69]

    S., Silverman, J

    Kalita, B. S., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee4 —. 2025a, MNRAS, 537, 402, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf031

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfee4 2024

  70. [70]

    S., Suzuki, T

    Kalita, B. S., Suzuki, T. L., Kashino, D., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 536, 3090, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2781

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2781

  71. [71]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3996

    Khoperskov, S., Haywood, M., Snaith, O., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3996

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3996 2021

  72. [72]

    2025a, A&A, 700, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453305

    Khoperskov, S., Steinmetz, M., Haywood, M., et al. 2025a, A&A, 700, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453305

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453305

  73. [73]

    2025b, A&A, 695, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453304

    Khoperskov, S., van de Ven, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2025b, A&A, 695, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453304

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453304

  74. [74]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c7

    Gerhard, O. 2023, ApJL, 956, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c7 2023

  75. [75]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 2020

  76. [76]

    H., Bos, R

    Koppelman, H. H., Bos, R. O. Y., & Helmi, A. 2020, A&A, 642, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038652 GASTRO II17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038652 2020

  77. [77]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 1341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1341

    Kuijken, K., & Dubinski, J. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1341

    doi:10.1093/mnras/277.4.1341 1995

  78. [78]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., Smith, M. C., & Hill, V. 2020, MNRAS, 492, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz167

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz167 2020

  79. [79]

    A., & Mendel, J

    Leaman, R., VandenBerg, D. A., & Mendel, J. T. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1540

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1540 2013

  80. [80]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 4130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1151

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Mackereth, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1151

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1151 2022

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.