Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Spatial variations in the Milky Way disc metallicity-age relation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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 metallicity-age relation varies with radius and height, and the present-day gradient from young stars is -0.059 +/- 0.010 dex/kpc.

desk verdict Solid, well-documented mapping of the disc's age–metallicity relation in 12 zones; the main caveat is real but the authors have it in view, and the results line up with independent tracers. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02772 v1 pith:7DLAYDYK submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Diane K. Feuillet , Neige Frankel , Karin Lind , Peter M. Frinchaboy , D.A. Garcia-Hernandez , Richard R. Lane , Christian Nitschelm , Alexandre Roman-Lopes This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords MilkyWaydiscage-metallicityrelationradialmigrationgalacticchemicalevolutionstellaragesGaiaDR2APOGEE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the relationship between stellar metallicity and age in the Milky Way's disc is not the same everywhere: it changes with distance from the Galactic centre and with distance from the disc mid-plane. Using roughly 77,500 red giants from APOGEE with Gaia DR2 distances, the authors derive age-metallicity relations in twelve spatial zones and measure the present-day radial metallicity gradient from the youngest stars in the plane. If correct, the results support radial migration as a significant process in the disc plane, provide direct constraints on models of galactic chemical evolution, and give a disc-wide observational baseline for simulations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a hierarchical star-formation-history model applied to chemically binned red giants. Each star's age likelihood comes from Bayesian isochrone matching using APOGEE DR14 $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, [M/H], [$\alpha$/M], and absolute $K$-band magnitude (from Gaia DR2 parallax-based distances), with PARSEC isochrones and a Chabrier IMF; the star formation history is modelled as a Gaussian plus a uniform outlier component, and the fit returns a mean age and dispersion per abundance bin. This converts about 77,500 giants in twelve zones (four radii by three heights) into metallicity-age and [$\alpha$/M]-age relations. The secondary machinery is the partial bias correction: a $\log g$ correction for the 20 percent parallax-uncertainty cut and an APOGEE-1 colour-selection model, leaving the full APOGEE-Gaia crossmatch selection function unmodelled.

What would settle it

Recompute the zone-by-zone metallicity-age relations after applying the full APOGEE-Gaia crossmatch selection function, or restrict the sample to stars with asteroseismic ages in the same zones; if the zone-to-zone differences in mean age at fixed [M/H] shrink to within the quoted uncertainties (up to about 0.15 dex in the outer zones), the claimed spatial variation would be an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the disc's metallicity-age relation is not a single universal curve: it shifts with Galactocentric radius and with height above the mid-plane. In the plane, the most metal-rich stars are not the youngest; the youngest stars sit near solar metallicity, and their metallicity declines outward at $-0.059 \pm 0.010$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ (or $-0.061 \pm 0.015$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ with coarser radial bins), matching independent Cepheid and young-field-star gradients. The paper interprets the high-metallicity turnover in the in-plane relations as evidence that metal-rich stars migrated from the inner disc, while the softening of the turnover at larger height indicates migration is less efficient away from the plane. It also reports a flared distribution of young stars in the outer disc and an [$\alpha$/M]-age relation that is nearly uniform across zones, and it concludes from the solar-neighbourhood chemo-age map that high-metallicity stars are more plausibly an extension of the high-$\alpha$ sequence than of the low-$\alpha$ sequence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the survey's incomplete modelling of which stars were observed, together with the loss of faint low-surface-gravity giants from the parallax cut, does not push the mean ages in different directions in different zones; the paper estimates these biases at up to about 0.15 dex in the outermost zones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the plane, the youngest stars in each radial zone define a present-day metallicity gradient of $-0.059 \pm 0.010$ dex kpc$^{-1}$, consistent with Cepheid and young-field-star measurements and shallower than gradients from mixed-age giant samples (about 0.08 to 0.1 dex kpc$^{-1}$).
  • The high-metallicity turnover in all in-plane metallicity-age relations supports the picture in which many metal-rich stars at a given radius were born in the inner disc and migrated outward.
  • The flattening of the metallicity-age relation with height implies that radial migration is less efficient for stars that spend time far from the mid-plane.
  • The flared distribution of young stars in the outer disc confirms predictions of inside-out disc formation and matches previous large-survey observations.
  • The solar-neighbourhood chemo-age map places the high-metallicity stars as an extension of the high-$\alpha$ sequence rather than of the low-$\alpha$ sequence, which constrains the star-formation history before the gas infall epoch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims: if the measured young-star gradient is combined with the steeper gradients found in older giant samples, the difference becomes a direct, zone-resolved measure of how much radial migration has flattened the disc's chemical profile over time; the paper notes the discrepancy but does not turn it into such a measurement.
  • Beyond the paper's claims: applying the same hierarchical age modelling to individual elements (for example [C/N] or [O/Fe]) in these twelve zones would separate age patterns set by nucleosynthesis timescales from those set by migration, a test that the grouping by [M/H] and [$\alpha$/M] alone leaves open.
  • Beyond the paper's claims: if the vertical flattening of the metallicity-age relation survives a full selection-function treatment, then the efficiency of radial migration as a function of scale height could be mapped directly; the paper stops at identifying the flattening.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives metallicity-age relations (MARs) and [alpha/M]-age relations across twelve spatial zones of the Milky Way disc, using a hierarchical Bayesian model to infer mean ages of stars binned by chemical abundance in a sample of 77,562 APOGEE DR14 red giants with Gaia DR2 parallaxes. The authors report significant spatial variations of the MAR as a function of both Galactocentric radius and distance from the mid-plane, measure a present-day metallicity gradient of -0.059 +/- 0.010 dex/kpc from the youngest abundance bin in each radial zone, and identify a vertically flared distribution of young stars in the outer disc. They also interpret the solar-neighbourhood MAR and the [alpha/M]-[M/H]-age diagram in terms of radial migration and the separate evolutionary paths of the high- and low-alpha sequences.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a novel, disc-wide empirical constraint on the age-metallicity relation and its spatial variation, with direct implications for models of radial migration and Galactic chemical evolution. The analysis is built on a large public dataset, the hierarchical modelling approach is described in detail, and the measured gradient agrees with independent Cepheid and young-field-star results, which is an important external check. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable predictions about the present-day and past metallicity gradient that future surveys and simulations can test. However, the central claim of spatial variation rests on a partially modelled selection function; the manuscript itself notes that unmodelled biases may be as large as ~0.1-0.15 dex in age in different zones, comparable to the quoted age uncertainties.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Section 3.1] The unmodelled APOGEE-Gaia crossmatch selection and the parallax-uncertainty luminosity bias are acknowledged in Section 2 to shift mean ages by up to ~0.1 dex (dual-colour bias) and ~0.15 dex (luminosity bias) in different zones, values comparable to the ~0.09 dex typical uncertainty quoted for Figure 7. Since the central claims are the spatial variations of the MAR and the gradient, these systematic shifts need to be propagated into the quoted uncertainties or ruled out with a quantitative test, for example by reweighting the sample with a completeness function in R_Gal, |z|, log g, and colour, or by injecting a mock selection function. The APOGEE-1-only consistency check in Section 3.2 addresses the single-colour selection but not the Gaia crossmatch or the parallax-dependent luminosity selection, so it does not close this gap.
  2. [Section 3.1] The formal uncertainty of the gradient measurement, -0.059 +/- 0.010 dex/kpc, is derived from the scatter of the youngest-bin metallicities and does not include systematic contributions from isochrone choice, extinction estimation, the Gaia parallax zero-point, or the selection biases discussed above. The paper should explicitly state which systematics are included in the quoted error; otherwise the precision may be overstated. This is not fatal given the agreement with independent Cepheid and young-star gradients, but the robustness claim requires a clear statement of the systematic budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There are several typos in the introduction: 'main difficultly' should be 'main difficulty', 'observational charactization' should be 'observational characterization', and 'neutral network analyses' should be 'neural network analyses'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The text says 'We preformed the same analysis'; 'preformed' should be 'performed'.
  3. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'Very few stars are have been reported with such high metallicities' contains a duplicated verb; it should read 'Very few stars have been reported'.
  4. [Section 2, sample definition] In the sentence 'We therefore use|z| to increase the signal', a space is missing after 'use'; it should read 'use |z|'.
  5. [Section 3.1, Figure 3 caption] The caption states 'Bins with only 15 stars are lighter in color than the other bins.' It would be clearer to state explicitly that these are bins with the minimum required number of stars and that the bin width was increased to reach that number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MAR, gradient, and flare are empirical outputs of a hierarchical SFH fit, cross-checked against independent Cepheid, LAMOST, asteroseismic, and [C/N]-based age studies.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measurements rather than derivations from a separate input. The MARs are explicitly produced by 'hierarchically modelling the star formation history of stars within a given chemical abundance bin' (abstract), so the plotted age-metallicity relations are empirical summaries of the fitted mean ages, not quantities that were assumed in order to produce them. The present-day metallicity gradient is read off from the '[M/H] bin with the youngest mean age at each radial zone in the plane of the disc'; it is not a free parameter of the SFH model and is therefore not forced by construction. The hierarchical modelling method is cited to Feuillet et al. (2016, 2018), which is a self-citation, but the citation is methodological rather than load-bearing in a logical sense, and the paper repeatedly validates its results against independent data: Cepheid gradients (Genovali et al. 2014; Inno et al. 2019), open clusters (Donor et al. 2018), [C/N]-based ages (Hasselquist et al. 2018), LAMOST ages (Xiang et al. 2017), and asteroseismic ages (Silva Aguirre et al. 2018; Wu et al. 2018). The acknowledged incompleteness of the selection function ('This does not account for the full APOGEE - Gaia crossmatch selection function, which is more complex and beyond the scope of this paper') is a robustness limitation that could shift mean ages zone-by-zone, but it is not a circularity: the paper treats the relations as empirical fits, applies a log g bias correction, estimates the opposing color and luminosity biases, and repeats the flare analysis on an APOGEE-1-only subsample. No equation or argument in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by definition, nor is any central premise justified solely by a self-citation chain. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks as far as logical circularity is concerned; concerns about selection-function systematics belong to correctness risk, not to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are empirical fits to data rather than derivations from first principles. The main hand-set parameters are the outlier fraction and the adaptive binning threshold. The analysis rests on the accuracy of isochrone models, the APOGEE abundance calibration, and the parametric SFH model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • outlier_fraction = 0.075 (assumed from F16)
    The hierarchical SFH model fixes the outlier fraction at 7.5%, following Feuillet et al. (2016). This hand-set value influences the fitted mean ages and dispersions, and the paper does not test sensitivity to it.
  • minimum_stars_per_bin = 15 stars (adaptive binning threshold)
    Abundance bins are sized by the mean measurement uncertainty, and if fewer than 15 stars fall in a bin, the width is increased until 15 stars are included. This condition is chosen by hand and affects the resolution and statistical power of the derived age-abundance relations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stellar ages can be inferred from isochrone matching of APOGEE DR14 parameters and Gaia DR2 distances using PARSEC models.
    Section 2.1 relies on the accuracy of PARSEC isochrones and the Bayesian isochrone matching method from Feuillet et al. (2016) to convert observed Teff, log g, [M/H], and K magnitude into age likelihoods. Systematic errors in the isochrones propagate directly into all age trends.
  • ad hoc to paper Within each abundance bin, the star formation history is well approximated by a single Gaussian plus a uniform outlier component.
    Section 2.1 states that the model SFH is 'a Gaussian function plus a uniform component allowing for outliers within a group of stars'. This parametric form is not derived from physical star formation theory, and mis-specification would bias the mean age estimates.
  • domain assumption The APOGEE DR14 calibrated abundances [M/H] and [alpha/M] are unbiased across the surveyed volume.
    The analysis bins stars in abundance and derives ages per bin. Any spatial or magnitude-dependent abundance calibration error would shift the derived age-abundance relations.
  • domain assumption The partially modeled selection function (APOGEE-1 color selection and Teff/log g cuts) is sufficient to correct the most important biases.
    Section 2 states that the full APOGEE-Gaia crossmatch selection function is not modeled. The paper assumes that the remaining biases are small enough not to change the conclusions, although it acknowledges they can reach ~0.15 dex in age in the most distant zones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatial variations in the Milky Way disc metallicity-age relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DLAYDYK

@misc{pith2026190802772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatial variations in the Milky Way disc metallicity-age relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DLAYDYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02772}
}
abstract

Stellar ages are a crucial component to studying the evolution of the Milky Way. Using Gaia DR2 distance estimates, it is now possible to estimate stellar ages for a larger volume of evolved stars through isochrone matching. This work presents [M/H]-age and [$\alpha$/M]-age relations derived for different spatial locations in the Milky Way disc. These relations are derived by hierarchically modelling the star formation history of stars within a given chemical abundance bin. For the first time, we directly observe that significant variation is apparent in the [M/H]-age relation as a function of both Galactocentric radius and distance from the disc mid-plane. The [M/H]-age relations support claims that radial migration has a significant effect in the plane of the disc. Using the [M/H] bin with the youngest mean age at each radial zone in the plane of the disc, the present-day metallicity gradient is measured to be $-0.059 \pm 0.010$ dex kpc$^{-1}$, in agreement with Cepheids and young field stars. We find a vertically flared distribution of young stars in the outer disc, confirming predictions of models and previous observations. The mean age of the [M/H]-[$\alpha$/M] distribution of the solar neighborhood suggests that the high-[M/H] stars are not an evolutionary extension of the low-$\alpha$ sequence. Our observational results are important constraints to Galactic simulations and models of chemical evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02772 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spectroscopic Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, or Kiel Diagram, for each of the 12 disc zones. The color indicates the metallicity ([M/H]). The RGal and |z | bin are identified in the bottom right corner of each zone. The absolute K magnitudes are calculated using the K-band magnitudes from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (Skrut￾skie et al. 2006), a distance, and an extinction. The distance value is taken from Bailer-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fraction of stars included in the sample as a func￾tion of log g as compared to the full sample without any restric￾tion on parallax uncertainty. top panel shows the log g distribution of the sample with no parallax uncertainty cut in black, and imposing a maximum of 20 % in parallax uncertainty in red. The bottom panel shows the fraction of stars recovered after imposing the 20 % cut as a function of log g. Whi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The metallicity-age relation in each of the 12 disc zones. The black points indicate the mean age of each [M/H] bin and the error bar shows the uncertainty. The blue shaded region designates the age dispersion of the [M/H] bin. Bins with only 15 stars are lighter in color than the other bins. The RGal and |z | bin is identified in the bottom left corner of each zone. The metallicity of the youngest bin in each zone … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The [α/M] vs [M/H] distributions for each of the 12 disc zones. Color indicates the logarithmic number density. The RGal and |z | bin are identified in the bottom left corner of each zone. solar neighborhood. Assuming an age of 4.66 Gyr (Dziem￾bowski et al. 1999) and […
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The |z | vs RGal distribution colored by the hierarchically modelled mean age (left) and logarithmic number density (right). The sample is binned by 200 pc in RGal and 100 pc in |z | . Only bins that contain at least 15 stars are shown. The young stars have a flared di…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The [α/M] vs [M/H] distribution for the 7 < RGal< 9, 0 <|z|< 0.5 zone colored by the hierarchically modelled mean age (left) and logarithmic number density (right). The sample is binned by 0.05 dex in [M/H] and 0.03 dex in [α/M]. Only bins that contain at least 15 star…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abolfathi B., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a , 235, 42

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    Anders F., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323038 , 564, A115

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323038 2014

  3. [3]

    Anders F., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 , 600, A70

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629363 2017

  4. [4]

    X., Matijevi c G., Queiroz A

    Anders F., Chiappini C., Santiago B. X., Matijevi c G., Queiroz A. B., Steinmetz M., Guiglion G., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833099 , 619, A125

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833099 2018

  5. [5]

    Baglin A., et al., 2006a, in 36th COSPAR Scientific Assembly

  6. [6]

    Baglin A., Michel E., Auvergne M., COROT Team 2006b, in Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun. p. 34

    2006

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 , 156, 58

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 2018

  8. [8]

    Barbuy B., Chiappini C., Gerhard O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..223B 56, 223

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826 2018

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Bedell M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad908 , 865, 68

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Yong D., Mel \' e ndez J., 2011, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L46 , 735

    Bensby T., Alves-Brito A., Oey M. S., Yong D., Mel \' e ndez J., 2011, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L46 , 735

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    S., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , 562, A71

    Bensby T., Feltzing S., Oey M. S., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , 562, A71

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Bensby T., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730560 , 605, A89

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Bergemann M., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423456 , 565, A89

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Bergemann M., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528010 , 594, A120

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D

    Bird J. C., Kazantzidis S., Weinberg D. H., Guedes J., Callegari S., Mayer L., Madau P., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/43 , 773, 43

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , 154, 28

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 , 154, 28

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Boeche C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..59B 559, A59

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Boeche C., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423974 , 568, A71

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    2010 doi

  12. [21]

    Buder S., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833218 , 624, A19

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    Casagrande L., Sch \" o nrich R., Asplund M., Cassisi S., Ram \' i rez I., Mel \' e ndez J., Bensby T., Feltzing S., 2011, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276 , 530, A138

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    Chabrier G., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321401 , 554, 1274

    2001 doi

  15. [24]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/1 , 210, 1

    Chaplin W. J., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/1 , 210, 1

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    Chiappini C., Matteucci F., Gratton R., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/303726 , 477, 765

    1997 doi

  17. [26]

    Chiappini C., Matteucci F., Romano D., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321427 , 554, 1044

    2001 doi

  18. [27]

    W., Ritter C., Herwig F., Venn K

    C \^ o t \' e B., O'Shea B. W., Ritter C., Herwig F., Venn K. A., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/128 , 835, 128

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    J., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508913 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..941D 658, 941

    Dalcanton J. J., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508913 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..941D 658, 941

    2007 doi

  20. [29]

    Donor J., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad635 , 156, 142

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Dotter A., Conroy C., Cargile P., Asplund M., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 , 840, 99

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    A., Fiorentini G., Ricci B., Sienkiewicz R., 1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    Dziembowski W. A., Fiorentini G., Ricci B., Sienkiewicz R., 1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  23. [32]

    L., Nissen P

    Edvardsson B., Andersen J., Gustafsson B., Lambert D. L., Nissen P. E., Tomkin J., 1993, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 275

    1993

  24. [33]

    K., Bovy J., Holtzman J., Girardi L., MacDonald N., Majewski S

    Feuillet D. K., Bovy J., Holtzman J., Girardi L., MacDonald N., Majewski S. R., Nidever D. L., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/40 , 817, 40

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty779 , 477, 2326

    Feuillet D. K., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty779 , 477, 2326

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    Finlator K., Dav \'e R., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12991.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.2181F 385, 2181

    2008

  27. [36]

    W., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 , 865, 96

    Frankel N., Rix H.-W., Ting Y.-s., Ness M., Hogg D. W., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba5 , 865, 96

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L1 , 777, 6

    Frinchaboy P. M., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L1 , 777, 6

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    J., Elsworth Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/63 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...63G 730, 63

    Gai N., Basu S., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/63 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...63G 730, 63

    2011 doi

  30. [39]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    E., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , 151, 144

    Garc \' i a P \' e rez A. E., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , 151, 144

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    Genovali K., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323198 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  33. [42]

    Grieves N., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2431 , 481, 3244

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    E., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/500975 , 131, 2332

    Gunn J. E., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/500975 , 131, 2332

    2006 doi

  35. [44]

    Hasselquist S., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf859 , 871, 181

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/116 , 147, 116

    Hayden M. R., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/116 , 147, 116

    2014 doi

  37. [46]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , 808, 132

    Hayden M. R., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , 808, 132

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    D., Katz D., G \' o mez A., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321397 , 560, A109

    Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M. D., Katz D., G \' o mez A., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321397 , 560, A109

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    D., Snaith O., Lehnert M

    Haywood M., Matteo P. D., Snaith O., Lehnert M. D., 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    2015

  40. [49]

    Hill V., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833950 , 626, A15

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    Ho A. Y. Q., Rix H.-W., Ness M. K., Hogg D. W., Liu C., Ting Y.-S., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6db3 , 841, 40

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 , 156, 125

    Holtzman J. A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 , 156, 125

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/676406 , 126, 398

    Howell S. B., et al., 2014, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/676406 , 126, 398

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    Inno L., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2661 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482...83I 482, 83

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527654 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    Jacobson H. R., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527654 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    J \" o nsson H., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f5 , 156, 126

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    R., Lindegren L., 2005, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042185 , 436, 127

    J rgensen B. R., Lindegren L., 2005, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042185 , 436, 127

    2005 doi

  48. [57]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713L..79K 713, L79

    Koch D. G., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713L..79K 713, L79

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    Kubryk M., Prantzos N., Athanassoula E., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424171 , 580, A126

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    S., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/187 , 738, 187

    Lee Y. S., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/187 , 738, 187

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    Lemasle B., Fran c ois P., Bono G., Mottini M., Primas F., Romaniello M., 2007, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066375 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  52. [61]

    S., Asplund M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty709 , 477, 2966

    Lin J., Dotter A., Ting Y. S., Asplund M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty709 , 477, 2966

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    R., Ro s kar R., Debattista V

    Loebman S. R., Ro s kar R., Debattista V. P., Ivezi \' c Z ., Quinn T. R., Wadsley J., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/8 , 737, 8

    2011 doi

  54. [63]

    T., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1774 , 471, 3057

    Mackereth J. T., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1774 , 471, 3057

    2017 doi

  55. [64]

    T., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190104502M p

    Mackereth J. T., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190104502M p. arXiv:1901.04502

    2019 arXiv

  56. [65]

    R., Zasowski G., Nidever D

    Majewski S. R., Zasowski G., Nidever D. L., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/25 , 739, 25

    2011 doi

  57. [66]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , 154, 94

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    Martig M., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2830 , 456, 3655

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Masseron T., Gilmore G., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1731 , 453, 1855

    2015 doi

  60. [69]

    Matteucci F., Greggio L., 1986, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 154, 279

    1986

  61. [70]

    Minchev I., Chiappini C., Martig M., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220189 , 558, A9

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    Minchev I., Chiappini C., Martig M., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423487 , 572, A92

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    S., Steinmetz M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L9 , 804, L9

    Minchev I., Martig M., Streich D., Scannapieco C., de Jong R. S., Steinmetz M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L9 , 804, L9

    2015 doi

  64. [73]

    Minchev I., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2033 , 481, 1645

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    Ness M., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts629 , 430, 836

    2013 doi

  66. [75]

    W., Rix H.-W., Martig M., Pinsonneault M

    Ness M., Hogg D. W., Rix H.-W., Martig M., Pinsonneault M. H., Ho A. Y. Q., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/114 , 823, 114

    2016 doi

  67. [76]

    L., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/38 , 796, 38

    Nidever D. L., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/38 , 796, 38

    2014 doi

  68. [77]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , 150, 173

    Nidever D. L., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , 150, 173

    2015 doi

  69. [78]

    Nieva M.-F., Przybilla N., 2012, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118158 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    E., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , 579, A52

    Nissen P. E., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , 579, A52

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Gustafsson B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0111-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&ARv..26....6N 26, 6

    Nissen P. E., Gustafsson B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-018-0111-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&ARv..26....6N 26, 6

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    Rahimi A., Carrell K., Kawata D., 2014, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/14/11/004 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014RAA....14.1406R 14, 1406

    2014 doi

  73. [82]

    Reddy A. B. S., Lambert D. L., Giridhar S., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2287 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4366R 463, 4366

    2016 doi

  74. [83]

    Rybizki J., Just A., Rix H.-W., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730522 , 605, A59

    2017 doi

  75. [84]

    Salaris M., Chieffi A., Straniero O., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/173105 , 414, 580

    1993 doi

  76. [85]

    Sch \" o nrich R., Binney J., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14750.x , 396, 203

    2009

  77. [86]

    A., Binney J

    Sellwood J. A., Binney J. J., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336..785S 336, 785

    2002

  78. [87]

    Shetrone M., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/24 , 221, 24

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty150 , 5500, 5487

    2018 doi

  80. [89]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/498708 , 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/498708 , 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  81. [90]

    N., Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M

    Snaith O. N., Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M. D., Combes F., Katz D., G \' o mez A., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L31 , 781, L31

    2014 doi

  82. [91]

    a., Sch \" o nrich R., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20712.x , 422, 1363

    Solway M., Sellwood J. a., Sch \" o nrich R., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20712.x , 422, 1363

    2012

  83. [92]

    Spitoni E., Silva Aguirre V., Matteucci F., Calura F., Grisoni V., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188 , 623, A60

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    arXiv:1905.04096

    Stanghellini L., Berg D., Bresolin F., Cunha K., Magrini L., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190504096S p. arXiv:1905.04096

    2019 arXiv

  85. [94]

    M., 1979, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/157039 , 229, 1046

    Tinsley B. M., 1979, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/157039 , 229, 1046

    1979 doi

  86. [95]

    Tolstoy E., Hill V., Tosi M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..371T 47, 371

    2009 doi

  87. [96]

    A., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/158460 , 242, 242

    Twarog B. A., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/158460 , 242, 242

    1980 doi

  88. [97]

    H., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7 , 874, 102

    Weinberg D. H., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7 , 874, 102

    2019 doi

  89. [98]

    Wielen R., Fuchs B., Dettbarn C., 1996, Astronomy & Astrophysics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  90. [99]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131e5001W 131, 055001

    Wilson J. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131e5001W 131, 055001

    2019 doi

  91. [100]

    Wu Y., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3296 , 475, 3633

    2018 doi

  92. [101]

    Xiang M., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa80e4 , 232, 2

    2017 doi

  93. [102]

    Zamora O., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/181 , 149, 181

    2015 doi

  94. [103]

    Zasowski G., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/81 , 146, 81

    2013 doi

  95. [104]

    Zasowski G., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9 , 154, 198

    2017 doi

  96. [105]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L..35V 771, L35

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L..35V 771, L35

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.