Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

The Structure, Populations and Kinematics of the Milky Way central and inner Bulge with OGLE, APOGEE and Gaia data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way bulge splits into a slowly rotating central core and a bar-following inner bulge.

desk verdict Plausible, useful confirmation of the central/inner bulge split, but the boxy-vs-X-shape fit is a statistical tie and the potential robustness claim is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00752 v2 pith:ED7ULNBK submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.GA

Xiao Han , Hai-Feng Wang (MWLUDPSG) , Giovanni Carraro , Martín López-Corredoira , Yuan-Sen Ting , Yang-Ping Luo , Guan-Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords GalacticbulgeRRLyraestarsapocentricdistanceorbitaldynamicsbarboxystellarpopulationsAPOGEE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish that the Milky Way bulge is made of two dynamically distinct populations, separated not by metallicity but by how far their orbits reach. Using 1,879 ab-type RR Lyrae stars from OGLE-IV and 28,188 red giant stars from APOGEE, it classifies stars with apocenter below 1.8 kpc as central bulge, those between 1.8 and 3.5 kpc as inner bulge, and the rest as halo or disk interlopers. The inner bulge rotates with the Galactic bar while the central bulge shows slower rotation and lower velocity dispersion, and the same split appears in both old and young tracer populations. The paper further claims that orbital classification is more physically meaningful than metallicity cuts, and that the bulge density fits a boxy model better than an X-shaped one. These results matter because they say the bulge's dominant component is a bar-driven pseudo-bulge formed by secular disk evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the apocentric distance $r_{\rm apo}$ obtained from backward 5 Gyr orbital integrations in the MWPotential2014 gravitational potential, augmented by a Dehnen bar with pattern speed 52.25 km/s/kpc, angle 25 degrees, and radius 3.4 kpc. Apocenter thresholds at 1.8 kpc and 3.5 kpc divide stars into central bulge, inner bulge, and interlopers; this one-dimensional division is what creates the two populations whose rotation, dispersion, chemistry, and density are then compared. The thresholds come from prior work the paper adapts, and the alternative residence-time classification in the discussion gives the same kinematic result.

What would settle it

Recompute the same orbits with a different bar pattern speed or angle (for example 40 km/s/kpc or 35 degrees), or with spiral arms added to the potential, and test whether stars near the apocenter thresholds swap populations; if the low-rotation central bulge signature vanishes under a plausible alternative potential, the division is an artifact of the assumed model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the bulge should be divided into a central bulge ($r_{\rm apo}<1.8$ kpc) and an inner bulge ($1.8 \le r_{\rm apo}<3.5$ kpc), with everything beyond classified as halo or disk contamination. Both the ancient RR Lyrae population and the APOGEE red giants show the same pattern: inner bulge stars rotate coherently with the Galactic bar and display the quadrupole velocity signature of barred orbits, while central bulge stars rotate slowly, have lower velocity dispersion, and show no bar alignment. Apocenter-based classification also reveals that metal-poor and metal-rich bulge stars have nearly identical kinematics, so metallicity is not the right divider of bulge populations. The paper concludes that the inner bulge's bar-like, disk-like orbits support secular evolution as the primary origin of the bulge, and that the observed density of both tracers is better matched by a boxy bulge model than by an X-shaped one.

Load-bearing premise

The two-population picture rests on apocentric distances computed in one fixed, idealized Milky Way potential with a rigid bar of assumed pattern speed, angle, and radius; if the true bar differs, stars near the 1.8 kpc and 3.5 kpc boundaries would be reassigned and the kinematic dichotomy could weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bulge surveys that mix central and inner stars will dilute bar rotation signals, so apocenter-based cleaning should be applied before measuring bulge kinematics.
  • The inner bulge's majority share and bar-like, disk-like orbits support a pseudo-bulge formed by disk instability rather than a merger-built classical bulge.
  • Metallicity alone cannot define bulge populations; orbital parameters separate them more accurately.
  • Both ancient RR Lyrae stars and younger giants favor a boxy/peanut bulge over an X-shaped bulge in the adopted density fits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: if the central bulge's low rotation and low dispersion are real, it may be an older spheroidal component that predates or coexists with the bar, not merely the bar's center; direct age dating of stars in each apocenter class could test this.
  • Our inference: the boxy-versus-X-shape comparison fixes all model parameters except amplitude, so the preference could shift if bar angle or axis ratios were also fitted; the boxy conclusion should be read as provisional.
  • Our inference: because interlopers dominate the high-dispersion tail, bulge samples lacking full 3D velocities will systematically overestimate velocity dispersion; applying the same cleaning to future catalogs should sharpen the kinematic split.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the structure, populations, and kinematics of the Milky Way bulge using 1,879 OGLE-IV RRab stars with Gaia EDR3 proper motions and Kunder et al. (2020) line-of-sight velocities, plus 28,188 APOGEE DR17 red giants and red clump stars with Gaia DR3 proper motions and StarHorse distances. Orbits are integrated in a fixed Milky Way potential (MWPotential2014 plus a Dehnen bar with pattern speed 52.25 km/s/kpc, angle 25 degrees, radius 3.4 kpc), and stars are classified by apocentric distance as central bulge (r_apo < 1.8 kpc), inner bulge (1.8 <= r_apo < 3.5 kpc), or halo/disk interlopers (r_apo >= 3.5 kpc). The central claim is that inner-bulge stars rotate and trace the bar, while central-bulge stars show lower rotation and lower velocity dispersion and do not trace the bar. The paper also argues that metallicity is not a good separator of bulge populations, that orbital classification is preferable, that chemical abundance maps show bimodal distributions in all three populations, and that the observed density is better fit by a boxy bulge model than by an X-shaped model. The conclusions support a secular-evolution, pseudo-bulge origin for the Milky Way bulge.

Significance. If the kinematic dichotomy between the central and inner bulge holds, the paper would strengthen the case that the Milky Way bulge is primarily a pseudo-bulge formed by disk/bar secular evolution, with a distinct old, pressure-supported central component. The use of two independent tracers (RR Lyrae and APOGEE giants) is a genuine strength, and the paper includes useful checks of distance/PLZ systematics (Fig. 2) and an alternative time-fraction classification (Section 5). However, the quantitative support currently lags behind the claims: there are no significance tests for the kinematic differences, no robustness analysis of the apocenter classification to the assumed potential, and no statistical basis for the claimed boxy-versus-X-shape preference. The paper is a reasonable confirmation and extension of Kunder (2022) and Olivares Carvajal et al. (2024), but the novel, load-bearing claims need stronger statistical backing before they can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1/§4.2, Figs. 7 and 11] The central claim that the central bulge has slower rotation and lower velocity dispersion than the inner bulge is not backed by any significance test. The paper reports binned means and bootstrap error bars, but it never quantifies whether the differences between the blue and orange curves are statistically significant, accounting for the correlated bins and the sample sizes (451 vs 859 RRabs, and 5709 vs 11102 APOGEE stars). Please provide a quantitative test, for example a permutation or bootstrap p-value for the difference in mean v_los or v_l* between the central and inner samples, and an F-test or similar for the dispersion ratio.
  2. [§3 and §5] The robustness of the apocenter-based classification to the assumed potential is load-bearing and is not tested. The statement in Section 3 that 'different potentials will not significantly change our main physical results' is asserted without a test, and Section 5 itself attributes the 75% versus 70% bulge-fraction difference between this work and Kunder et al. (2020) to 'differences in the gravitational potential models used for orbital integration.' Because stars near the 1.8 and 3.5 kpc thresholds can be reclassified under moderate changes in bar pattern speed, angle, or strength, the kinematic dichotomy in Figures 7 and 11 could change. Please rerun the classification under at least a few plausible potential variants (or a Monte Carlo over bar parameters) and show that the population labels and the central/inner kinematic differences are stable.
  3. [§4.3, Eqs. (13)–(14) and Abstract/Conclusions] The claimed 'preference for the boxy bulge' is not supported by the reported statistics. The reduced chi-square values are 0.99 versus 1.00 for RRabs and 0.99 versus 1.00 for APOGEE stars, with p-values 53% versus 47% and 55% versus 45%, respectively. These are statistically equivalent fits; a 6–8 percentage point difference in p-values does not demonstrate a preference. The authors should either perform a proper model comparison (e.g., delta chi-square with the same bins, AIC/BIC, or bootstrap selection probabilities) or weaken the conclusion to state that both models are consistent with the data and no significant preference is found.
  4. [§4.1–§4.2 and Conclusions] The statement that classification based on orbital parameters rather than metallicity provides a 'more accurate population separation' is not quantified. The paper shows that the metallicity distributions of the three orbital populations overlap (Fig. 9) and that metallicity-selected bulge samples show similar kinematics (Fig. 8), but it never defines or measures classification accuracy. Please provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., contamination rates, separation metrics, or a formal comparison of kinematic homogeneity after each classification) or soften the claim to one of being 'more directly linked to dynamics' rather than 'more accurate.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (14)] With one fitted amplitude, the number of degrees of freedom should be N - 2 rather than N - 1; although the effect is small for large N, the formula should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption says 'central bulge (left), inner bulge (right), and halo/disk interlopers (right)'; the three panels should be labeled '(left), (middle), (right).'
  3. [Conclusions, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'inner bugle' should be 'inner bulge.'
  4. [§2.1] Please clarify the Monte Carlo distance error of 0.006 kpc: does it include photometric and reddening uncertainties or only magnitude errors? The later statement that the total distance error does not exceed 6% seems inconsistent with a purely statistical error of 0.006 kpc at roughly 8 kpc.
  5. [§5, first limitation paragraph] The sentence beginning 'One such limitation is that RRab stars predominantly trace old and metal-poor stellar populations...' is a sentence fragment that should be joined properly to the following sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central/inner bulge split is set by external apocenter thresholds and then tested against observed kinematics; the main caveat is an untested potential-dependence claim, which is a robustness limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central dichotomy is not fitted into existence. Section 4.1 classifies stars by apocentric distance using thresholds taken from prior work (r_apo < 1.8 kpc, 1.8-3.5 kpc, >= 3.5 kpc, attributed to Kunder 2022), and the kinematic differences (rotation curves and dispersions in Figures 7 and 11) are measured on the resulting subsamples, not used to define the cuts. The same qualitative pattern survives an alternative time-fraction classification in Section 5, so the headline result does not reduce by construction to the chosen threshold. The boxy/X-shape comparison in Section 4.3 fixes all model parameters except one amplitude and fits observed densities to published forms (Lopez-Corredoira 2005; Wegg & Gerhard 2013); the self-citation involved (Lopez-Corredoira is a coauthor) is not load-bearing because the model is an external, parameterized hypothesis and the fit does not define the population split. The one genuine concern is model dependence of the orbital apocenters: Section 3 asserts 'different potentials will not significantly change our main physical results' without a test, and Section 5 later concedes that 'the inclusion of spiral arms could significantly alter the orbital properties of stars' and that a fixed pattern speed may be unrealistic. This is an acknowledged robustness/validity limitation, not a case where the predicted quantity equals the input by construction, so it does not constitute circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on three main inputs the paper does not derive: the apocenter thresholds, the barred gravitational potential, and the distance scale of RR Lyrae. These are all adopted from prior literature, not fitted here. The model comparison adds two fitted amplitudes, but the conclusion depends on fixed shape parameters.

free parameters (9)
  • Apocenter threshold for halo/disk interlopers = 3.5 kpc
    Adopted from Kunder et al. (2020) and Kunder (2022), not derived from the data. This cutoff defines which stars count as bulge vs interloper and directly shapes all population statistics.
  • Apocenter threshold separating central from inner bulge = 1.8 kpc
    Adopted from Kunder (2022). The central bulge sample is defined as rapo < 1.8 kpc; changing this boundary changes the kinematics assigned to each population.
  • Bar pattern speed = 52.25 km/s/kpc
    Fixed input from Dehnen (2000), used in DehnenBarPotential for orbit integration. Affects orbital parameters and thus classification.
  • Bar angle = 25 degrees
    Assumed orientation of the bar in the potential model; a different angle would alter orbit shapes and apocenters.
  • Bar strength = 1.1 x 10^6 (km/s)^2
    Fixed to the DehnenBarPotential; controls bar forcing on stellar orbits.
  • Bar radius = 3.4 kpc
    Adopted from Dehnen (2000) for the bar potential, affects which stars feel the bar.
  • Boxy bulge model amplitude = fitted via chi-square minimization
    The only free parameter in the boxy model fit; the shape parameters are fixed from Lopez-Corredoira et al. (2005).
  • X-shape model amplitude = fitted via chi-square minimization
    The only free parameter in the X-shape fit; shape parameters fixed from Wegg & Gerhard (2013).
  • Density error normalization rho_1 = 20 stars/kpc^3
    Ad hoc Poisson-like error floor used in the chi-square calculation (Section 4.3), chosen following Chrobakova et al. (2022).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 plus Dehnen bar is an adequate model of the Milky Way potential for computing stellar orbits.
    Invoked in Section 3 for all orbital integrations; the paper asserts robustness to potential choice without a quantitative test.
  • domain assumption Apocentric distance is a valid discriminant of bulge membership and central/inner structure.
    The entire population classification uses fixed cuts in rapo; no independent validation of the cuts is provided.
  • domain assumption The Catelan (2004) period-luminosity-metallicity relation and Smolec (2005) photometric metallicity provide accurate distances and metallicities for bulge RR Lyrae.
    Used in Section 2.1; the paper checks alternative PLZ relations and reddenings and finds small distance changes, but the adopted relation still sets the apocenters.
  • standard math The adopted Sun-Galactic center distance (8.277 kpc), circular velocity (220 km/s) and solar peculiar motion are correct.
    Assumed in the coordinate and velocity transformations (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Structure, Populations and Kinematics of the Milky Way central and inner Bulge with OGLE, APOGEE and Gaia data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ED7ULNBK

@misc{pith2026241200752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Structure, Populations and Kinematics of the Milky Way central and inner Bulge with OGLE, APOGEE and Gaia data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ED7ULNBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00752}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of the structure, kinematics, and chemo-dynamical properties of the Milky Way bulge using RR Lyrae stars from OGLE, and giant stars from APOGEE and Gaia that have distances placing them in the inner Galaxy. Firstly, using a sample of 1,879 ab-type RR Lyrae stars (RRabs) from OGLE-IV, we identified three populations: central bulge RRabs, the inner bulge RRabs, and halo or disk interlopers, based on their apocenters derived from orbital integration. Inner bulge RRabs kinematically align with the Galactic bar, while central bulge RRabs show slower rotation with lower velocity dispersion. Higher velocity dispersion stars were identified as halo/disk interlopers. Then, orbital analysis of 28,188 APOGEE Red Clump and Red Giant Branch stars revealed kinematic properties consistent with RRabs, and the chemical abundance distribution displayed a bimodal stellar density pattern, suggesting complex star evolution histories and slightly different star formation histories for the inner bulge and central bulge. The differences in the density distribution on the $|\mathrm{Z}|_{\text{max}}$-eccentricity plane for the central bulge, inner bulge, and interlopers are clearly detected. It is found that the classification of bulge stars based on orbital parameters, rather than solely on metallicity, provides a more accurate population separation. As the inner bulge, which contains the highest fraction of stars, traces the bar formed by the instability of the Galactic disk, our results support that pseudo-bulge is the primary origin of the bulge. Furthermore, fitting the observed data to both the boxy and X-shaped bulge models indicated a preference for the boxy bulge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Positions of 1,879 RRabs with orbits and 28,188 APOGEE stars in Galactic coordinates. RRab stars are represented in yellow, while APOGEE stars are shown in gray. Right: Histogram of distances to the Sun for the OGLE and APOGEE samples. The 17,817 RRLs before orbital analysis are shown in blue, the 1,879 RRLs after orbital analysis are shown in orange, and the 28,188 APOGEE stars are shown in green [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram of distances derived using different PLZ relations (left) and different reddenings (right). Left: The blue histogram corresponds to the PLZ relation from Catelan (2004), the orange from Marconi et al. (2015), and the green from Zoccali et al. (2024). Right: The blue histogram represents distances computed with reddening values E(J − Ks) from Surot et al. (2020), and the orange with those from Gonzalez et a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: X-Y density maps of RRab stars in a GC coordinate system for -2kpc < Z < 0kpc. Middle: X-Y pro￾jection of RRab density for stars with [Fe/H] < -1 dex. Bot￾tom: Same as the middle panel, but for stars with [Fe/H] > -1 dex. The black dots in each panel represent the Galactic center. The star counts are labeled in the upper-left corner of each panel. removed using a color-magnitude diagram, applying cri￾teria 1.1×… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of sample from APOGEE in Galactic coordinates, with the colour bar representing the abundance ratios of various elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density distribution of stars from APOGEE in the X−Y (left) and R−Z (right) planes in the GC coordinate system. The white dot in the left panel represents the Galactic center. In the right panel, the blue histogram corresponds to distances derived using the reddening v…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: The X-Y plane projections of the orbits of a central bulge RRL (left), an inner bulge RRL (middle), and a halo interloper (right). The color bar represents the orbital integration time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: The mean LOS velocity and velocity dispersion maps of different stellar populations as a function of Galactic longitude. Blue points represent central bulge RRabs (rapo < 1.8 kpc), orange points represent inner bulge RRabs (1.8 kpc ≤ rapo < 3.5 kpc), and green poi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The mean LOS velocity and velocity dispersion maps of bulge RRabs at different metallicities. The blue points represent metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] < −1 dex), while the red points represent metal-rich stars ([Fe/H] > −1 dex). Bottom: The mean v ∗ l and velocity dispe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Metallicities distribution of different stellar populations in the RRab samples from OGLE. The meanings represented by different colored points are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distribution plots of RGBs and RCs from APOGEE survey in the |Z|max-e plane for the central bulge (left), inner bulge (right), and halo/disk interlopers (right), respectively. The color bar represents the number of stars. mas yr−1 , dist is the distance in kpc, an…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: The mean LOS velocity and velocity dispersion maps of different stellar populations as a function of Galactic longitude. Blue points represent central bulge RGBs and RCs (rapo < 1.8 kpc), orange points represent inner bulge RGBs and RCs (1.8 kpc ≤ rapo < 3.5 kpc)…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The velocity distribution of RGBs and RCs in the central bulge, inner bulge, and halo/disk interlopers in the X-Y plane, with VR in the first row, Vϕ in the second row, and VZ in the third row. no significant differences in metallicity, with peak val￾ues around [Fe/H]…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The chemical abundance maps of APOGEE stars in the central bulge (first column), inner bulge (second column), and halo/disk interlopers (third column) in the X−Y plane, with [Fe/H] in the first row, [α/Fe] in the second row, [O/Fe] in the third row, [Mg/Fe] in the fou…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The chemical abundance maps of stars in the central bulge (first column), inner bulge (second column), and halo/disk interlopers (third column) in the R−Z plane, with [Fe/H] in the first row, [α/Fe] in the second row, [O/Fe] in the third row, [Mg/Fe] in the fourth row…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Two-dimensional chemical abundance plots of APOGEE RGBs and RCs in the central bulge (left), inner bulge (middle), and halo/disk interlopers (right). From top to bottom, respectively, are [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H], [Mg/Fe] vs. [Fe/H], [O/Fe] vs. [Fe/H], [Mn/O] vs. [O/H], and …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Density projection of the boxy bulge model (left) and the X-shaped bulge model (right) in the X-Y plane at Z=1 kpc, looks similar to L´opez-Corredoira (2016). σi = ρ1 (Chrob´akov´a et al. 2022). χ 2 and χ 2 r are com￾monly used in statistical goodness-of-fit tests to …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The variation of Vϕ with [Fe/H] bins for the central bulge stars, inner bulge stars, and disk/halo inter￾lopers from the APOGEE survey. 5. DISCUSSION It has been reported that not all stars observed in the region of the Galactic bulge are confined to the bulge. Theref…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    /;& W[ /Mv*r' =M l n ި - I/2ǸT z ;v_n fي=XOt23V

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro'uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al.\ 2022, , 259, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  3. [3]

    Z., Sousa, S

    Adibekyan, V. Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al.\ 2012, , 545, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219401

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219401 2012

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935765

    Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Chiappini, C., et al.\ 2019, , 628, A94. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935765

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935765 2019

  5. [5]

    Ardern-Arentsen, A., Monari, G., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al.\ 2024, , 530, 3391. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1049 2024

  6. [6]

    F., et al.\ 2020, , 491, L11

    Arentsen, A., Starkenburg, E., Martin, N. F., et al.\ 2020, , 491, L11. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz156

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz156 2020

  7. [7]

    & Kawata, D.\ 2020, , 492, 4500

    Baba, J. & Kawata, D.\ 2020, , 492, 4500. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa140

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa140 2020

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.1

    Babusiaux, C.\ 2016, , 33, e026. doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.1

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.1 2016

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826

    Barbuy, B., Chiappini, C., & Gerhard, O.\ 2018, , 56, 223. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    & Kravtsov, A.\ 2024, , 528, 3198

    Belokurov, V. & Kravtsov, A.\ 2024, , 528, 3198. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    & Bovy, J.\ 2019, , 482, 1417

    Bennett, M. & Bovy, J.\ 2019, , 482, 1417. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    C., et al.\ 2012, , 759, 131

    Bovy, J., Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., et al.\ 2012, , 759, 131. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/131

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J.\ 2015, , 216, 29. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    K., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 2407

    Buder, S., Lind, K., Ness, M. K., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 2407. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3504

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Whitelock, P

    Catchpole, R. M., Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., et al.\ 2016, , 455, 2216. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2372

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1086/379657

    Catelan, M.\ 2004, , 600, 409. doi:10.1086/379657

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244810

    Chrob \'a kov \'a , Z ., L \'o pez-Corredoira, M., & Garz \'o n, F.\ 2022, , 666, L13. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244810

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    I., Calamida, A., Sahu, K

    Clarkson, W. I., Calamida, A., Sahu, K. C., et al.\ 2018, , 858, 46. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaba7f

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1086/301226

    Dehnen, W.\ 2000, , 119, 800. doi:10.1086/301226

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L19

    D \'e k \'a ny, I., Minniti, D., Catelan, M., et al.\ 2013, , 776, L19. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L19

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2601

    Du, H., Mao, S., Athanassoula, E., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 5629. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2601

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., et al.\ 1993, , 275, 101

    1993

  15. [23]

    Fuhrmann, K.\ 1998, , 338, 161

    1998

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts305

    Freeman, K., Ness, M., Wylie-de-Boer, E., et al.\ 2013, , 428, 3660. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts305

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., et al.\ 2009, , 692, 1075. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al.\ 2012, , 543, A13

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al.\ 2012, , 543, A13. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219222

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    K., et al.\ 2016, , 591, A145

    Gran, F., Minniti, D., Saito, R. K., et al.\ 2016, , 591, A145. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527511

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142465

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al.\ 2022, , 657, L12. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142465

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

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

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Mao, S., et al.\ 2006, , 370, 435

    Koz owski, S., Wo \'z niak, P. R., Mao, S., et al.\ 2006, , 370, 435. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10487.x

    2006

  23. [31]

    M., et al.\ 2012, , 143, 57

    Kunder, A., Koch, A., Rich, R. M., et al.\ 2012, , 143, 57. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/57

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Koch, A., et al.\ 2016, , 821, L25

    Kunder, A., Rich, R. M., Koch, A., et al.\ 2016, , 821, L25. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/821/2/L25

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    M., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 270

    Kunder, A., P \'e rez-Villegas, A., Rich, R. M., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 270. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8d35

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    M.\ 2022, Universe, 8, 206

    Kunder, A. M.\ 2022, Universe, 8, 206. doi:10.3390/universe8040206

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.16711

    Liao, X., Li, Z., Simion, I., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2401.16711. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.16711

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    & Shen, J.\ 2012, , 757, L7

    Li, Z.-Y. & Shen, J.\ 2012, , 757, L7. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L7

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    E.\ 2005, , 439, 107

    L \'o pez-Corredoira, M., Cabrera-Lavers, A., & Gerhard, O. E.\ 2005, , 439, 107. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053075

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527074

    L \'o pez-Corredoira, M.\ 2016, , 593, A66. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527074

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/218

    L \'o pez-Corredoira, M.\ 2017, , 836, 218. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/218

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab003

    Lucey, M., Hawkins, K., Ness, M., et al.\ 2021, , 501, 5981. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab003

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al.\ 2017, , 154, 94. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/50

    Marconi, M., Coppola, G., Bono, G., et al.\ 2015, , 808, 50. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/50

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.1086/498338

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C.\ 2006, , 637, 214. doi:10.1086/498338

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    & Gilmore, G.\ 2015, , 453, 1855

    Masseron, T. & Gilmore, G.\ 2015, , 453, 1855. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1731

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    ISBN 978-3-642-22490-4

    Matteucci, F.\ 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies: , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library. ISBN 978-3-642-22490-4. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22491-1

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    & Nagai, R.\ 1975, , 27, 533

    Miyamoto, M. & Nagai, R.\ 1975, , 27, 533

    1975

  39. [47]

    M., Gould, A., Fouqu \'e , P., et al.\ 2013, , 769, 88

    Nataf, D. M., Gould, A., Fouqu \'e , P., et al.\ 2013, , 769, 88. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/88

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M.\ 1997, , 490, 493. doi:10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts629

    Ness, M., Freeman, K., Athanassoula, E., et al.\ 2013, , 430, 836. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts629

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    & Lang, D.\ 2016, , 152, 14

    Ness, M. & Lang, D.\ 2016, , 152, 14. doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/14

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, , 150, 173. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/26

    Obreja, A., Dom \' nguez-Tenreiro, R., Brook, C., et al.\ 2013, , 763, 26. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/26

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08990

    Olivares Carvajal, J., Zoccali, M., De Leo, M., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2405.08990. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08990

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw189

    P \'e rez-Villegas, A., Portail, M., & Gerhard, O.\ 2017, , 464, L80. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw189

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/113

    Pietrukowicz, P., Koz owski, S., Skowron, J., et al.\ 2015, , 811, 113. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/113

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    K., et al.\ 2019, , 487, 3270

    Prudil, Z., D \'e k \'a ny, I., Grebel, E. K., et al.\ 2019, , 487, 3270. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1484

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347338

    Prudil, Z., Kunder, A., D \'e k \'a ny, I., et al.\ 2024, , 684, A176. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347338

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Zakamska, N., et al.\ 2018, , 865, 47

    Qin, W., Nataf, D. M., Zakamska, N., et al.\ 2018, , 865, 47. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fb

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Santiago, B. X., et al.\ 2018, , 476, 2556. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty330

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al.\ 2020, , 638, A76. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937364

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Chiappini, C., Perez-Villegas, A., et al.\ 2021, , 656, A156. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039030

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A155. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245399

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Minchev, I., Sharma, S., et al.\ 2014, , 437, 1284

    Quillen, A. C., Minchev, I., Sharma, S., et al.\ 2014, , 437, 1284. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1972

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01

    Rix, H.-W., Chandra, V., Andrae, R., et al.\ 2022, , 941, 45. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e01

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424121

    Rojas-Arriagada, A., Recio-Blanco, A., Hill, V., et al.\ 2014, , 569, A103. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424121

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20307.x

    Saha, K., Martinez-Valpuesta, I., & Gerhard, O.\ 2012, , 421, 333. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20307.x

    2012

  59. [67]

    K., Olszewski, E

    Saha, A., Vivas, A. K., Olszewski, E. W., et al.\ 2019, , 874, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07ba

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al.\ 2024, , 530, 2972

    Sanders, J. L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al.\ 2024, , 530, 2972. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae711

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    X., Brauer, D

    Santiago, B. X., Brauer, D. E., Anders, F., et al.\ 2016, , 585, A42. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323177

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    Sch \"o nrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W.\ 2010, , 403, 1829. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2010

  63. [71]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3294

    Semczuk, M., Dehnen, W., Sch \"o nrich, R., et al.\ 2022, , 509, 4532. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3294

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3085

    Semczuk, M., Dehnen, W., Sch \"o nrich, R., et al.\ 2022, , 517, 6060. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3085

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    M., Kormendy, J., et al.\ 2010, , 720, L72

    Shen, J., Rich, R. M., Kormendy, J., et al.\ 2010, , 720, L72. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L72

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0503614

    Smolec, R.\ 2005, , 55, 59. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0503614

    2005 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    K., et al.\ 2014, , 64, 177

    Soszy \'n ski, I., Udalski, A., Szyma \'n ski, M. K., et al.\ 2014, , 64, 177. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.1542

    2014 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    A., et al.\ 2020, , 644, A140

    Surot, F., Valenti, E., Gonzalez, O. A., et al.\ 2020, , 644, A140. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038346

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261. doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    & Gerhard, O.\ 2013, , 435, 1874

    Wegg, C. & Gerhard, O.\ 2013, , 435, 1874. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1376

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809394

    Zoccali, M., Hill, V., Lecureur, A., et al.\ 2008, , 486, 177. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809394

    2008 doi

  72. [80]

    A., et al.\ 2017, , 599, A12

    Zoccali, M., Vasquez, S., Gonzalez, O. A., et al.\ 2017, , 599, A12. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629805

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450126

    Zoccali, M., Quezada, C., Contreras Ramos, R., et al.\ 2024, , 689, A240. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450126

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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