Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Signatures of simulated spiral arms on radial actions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-radial-action stars trace spiral arms in most simulated disc galaxies.

desk verdict Useful simulation-side confirmation of the Gaia low-JR/spiral-arm correlation, with loose ends on the success-rate counting and on validating actions in non-axisymmetric systems. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17515 v3 pith:IIA2MM3P submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.GA

P. A. Palicio , A. Recio-Blanco , T. Tepper-Garcia , E. Poggio , S. Peirani , Y. Dubois , P. J. McMillan , J. Bland-Hawthorn
show 2 more authors
K. Kraljic M. Barbillon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radialactionsStäckelfudgespiralarmsgalacticdynamicsGaiaDR3simulatedgalaxiesdischeatingstellarpopulations
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

Radial action measures how far a star's orbit departs from a circular orbit, with low values marking dynamically cold, nearly circular motion. This paper tests whether the low-radial-action patches seen in Gaia DR3 maps of the Milky Way are really spiral arms by computing radial actions for stellar particles in 23 simulated Milky Way-like galaxies and comparing them with spiral arms traced by surface-density overdensities. In 18 of 23 galaxies the low-$J_R$ regions coincide with the arms, and with a looser good-or-fair criterion the paper counts 20 of 23; the five exceptions are systems out of equilibrium, such as galaxies recently hit by a companion or with arms still winding up. If the result holds, radial-action maps become a tracer of spiral structure that works even for old stellar populations, and every mismatch between an action feature and an overdensity arm becomes a possible fingerprint of a recent disturbance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radial action $J_R$, an adiabatic invariant that measures the amplitude of a star's radial oscillation around its guiding circle; low $J_R$ means a nearly circular orbit. The paper estimates $J_R$ with the Stäckel fudge, an approximation that treats the fitted axisymmetric potential as if it were separable in spheroidal coordinates, converting each particle's position and velocity into an action value. Spiral arms are defined independently as overdensities in the stellar surface density using an Epanechnikov-kernel estimator $\delta\Sigma$, and the two maps are compared by placing nodes every 2 kpc along visually traced arm tracks and classifying each node as good, fair, or bad. The machinery closes with a linear fit of $J_{R,w}$ against the vertical scale length $h_Z$, connecting the action maps to disc-heating physics.

What would settle it

Recompute radial actions for the discrepant and barred systems, including Illustris 456326, the NEXUS runs, and Auriga 23, using a non-axisymmetric action solver such as torus construction or spectral orbital analysis on the live simulated potential; if the low-$J_R$ patches no longer align with the overdensity arms once non-axisymmetric forces are included, the disturbance interpretation collapses into an artifact of the axisymmetric Stäckel fudge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the correlation between low radial action and spiral arms previously reported for the Milky Way from Gaia DR3 is a general property of disc galaxies, not a quirk of the Solar neighbourhood. For 18 of 23 simulated galaxies the regions of low $J_R$, computed with the Stäckel fudge in an axisymmetric fit to each simulation's potential, fall on the spiral arms identified as stellar surface-density overdensities; averaged over the 21 galaxies in the node-by-node comparison, 62.6% of arm-track nodes match well and 80.2% match when fair cases are included. The remaining systems fail predictably: NEXUS A-D and Illustris 456326 are strongly perturbed or still winding up, and Auriga 23, a strongly barred case, shows bar-induced rearrangement of the action map in its central regions, a caveat for the axisymmetric assumption. The paper also finds that arms are traced by populations up to at least 3 Gyr old with no significant age-dependent shift, and that the limiting radial action of the arm features, $J_{R,w}$, grows linearly with the vertical scale length $h_Z$, a relation the Milky Way also satisfies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Stäckel-fudge radial actions computed in an axisymmetric fit to each simulated potential remain reliable in exactly the systems where bars or recent interactions break the axisymmetry; if those actions are wrong, the mismatches the paper attributes to physics would be numerical artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gaia DR3 low-$J_R$ maps can be used as a dynamical tracer of Milky Way spiral structure that keeps working for stellar populations too old for maser or Cepheid tracers.
  • A mismatch between a low-$J_R$ feature and a stellar overdensity is evidence of a recent disturbance, such as an interaction, a winding-up arm, or a bar, rather than a failure of the action tracer.
  • Spiral arms are supported by stars of all ages up to at least 3 Gyr, with no significant misalignment across age bins, so arm maps built from giant stars are not simply polluted by young contaminants.
  • The linear $J_{R,w}$-$h_Z$ relation connects the action-space width of spiral arms to vertical disc heating and places the Milky Way on the same scaling as the simulations.
  • Strongly barred galaxies require non-axisymmetric action estimation before conclusions about arm-action alignment are drawn from such maps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the correlation is physical, the arm stars should show age or chemo-dynamical gradients across the arm width left by their trapping history; this can be measured in the simulations and then searched for in Gaia DR3.
  • The G/F/B node fractions could be converted into a quantitative disturbance index: a low good-node fraction in an otherwise undisturbed galaxy would flag recent interaction or ongoing winding, giving a quick metric for classifying external galaxies from IFU data.
  • The $J_{R,w}$-$h_Z$ scaling predicts that thicker discs should have wider low-action arm features; checking this with edge-on scale-height measurements and face-on kinematic maps of external galaxies would test the relation beyond the Milky Way.
  • Because the axisymmetric Stäckel fudge is the weakest step, rerunning the comparison with a non-axisymmetric action solver on the five discrepant systems would separate genuine out-of-equilibrium physics from coordinate-system artifacts.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether regions of low radial action (JR) are spatially correlated with spiral arms in a sample of 23 simulated disc galaxies drawn from the Auriga, Illustris-TNG, NewHorizon, NIHAO-UHD, and NEXUS suites. The authors fit an axisymmetric potential to each simulation, compute radial actions for stellar particles using the Stäckel fudge, and compare maps of the mass-weighted median JR with spiral arms identified as overdensities in the stellar surface density via a kernel density estimator. They report a positive correlation in the majority of galaxies, with the main exceptions being out-of-equilibrium or strongly barred systems. They also find that stellar populations in the age bins up to 3 Gyr trace the spiral arms with no significant misalignment, and they report a linear relation between the radial action threshold JR,w and the vertical scale-length hZ, which the Milky Way appears to satisfy.

Significance. The central claim, if correct, would validate the use of Gaia DR3 low-JR maps as tracers of spiral arms and support the idea that old stellar populations contribute to spiral structure. The use of multiple independent simulation suites is a notable strength, as is the explicit attention to barred and interacting systems in Section 3.2. However, the quantitative support is weakened by the subjective visual classification of nodes and by the lack of validation of the axisymmetric action computation in non-axisymmetric potentials. The secondary results on the age stratification and the JR,w–hZ relation are interesting but less central to the main thesis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 3.1, Table 2, Section 4] The reported success rate is inconsistent across the paper. The abstract states '18 of 23', the conclusions state '20 of the 23', and Section 3.1 says '18 of the 21 galaxies have percentages for the 'G' sample ≳50%', while Table 2 in fact shows only 16 of 21 galaxies with G ≥ 50% (the footnote singling out NEXUS D at 49.3% does not resolve the discrepancy with Auriga 2 at 48.2%). The authors must define a single, reproducible criterion for a 'positive' correlation and apply it uniformly to all 23 galaxies.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Appendix C] The classification of nodes into G/F/B categories is based on visual inspection without any null hypothesis, inter-rater agreement check, or quantitative alternative. The anticorrelation diagrams in Appendix C show all slopes negative, but no uncertainties or significance levels are reported. A quantitative test—for example, comparing the mean JR at arm nodes with a distribution of random nodes, or a permutation test on the δΣ–JR slopes—is needed to support the claim of a strong correlation.
  3. [Sections 2.2, 2.5, and 4] The Stäckel-fudge actions assume an axisymmetric potential, but the paper does not validate the computed actions against the true non-axisymmetric potentials of the simulations. This is particularly pertinent for the strongly barred systems (Auriga 23, Auriga 24, Illustris 552414, with A2/A0 ~ 0.4–0.54) and the interacting systems (Illustris 456326, NEXUS A–D), for which the axisymmetric assumption is strongly violated. The paper's own Section 4 caveat that the methodology 'might result unrealistic if the bar contributes significantly' applies to a central part of the measurement; a direct test using the full potential or an alternative action estimator for a subset of galaxies would materially strengthen the main claim.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The abstract claims that 'populations at least as old as 3 Gyr trace the spiral arms', but the oldest age bin analysed is 2–3 Gyr (τ in [2,3) Gyr, as defined in Section 3.3). The statement should be corrected to 'populations in the range 2–3 Gyr' or the analysis extended to older populations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase '10% the the total (stars and gas) disc mass' contains a duplicated article; also the typographical spacing in 'A uriga', 'I llustris', and the spelling 'Staeckel' should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence '18 of the 21 galaxies have percentages for the 'G' sample ≳50%' conflicts with Table 2; the text, table, abstract (18/23), and conclusions (20/23) should be reconciled.
  3. [Section 3.4] The choice of JR,w is described as the limiting value separating high and low JR regions, but the per-simulation selection from the colour bars is not documented; a reproducible recipe or an explicit statement that the choice is visual would be helpful.
  4. [Appendix C] The slopes of the linear fits in the δΣ–JR diagrams are all negative, but no error bars or p-values are given; reporting these would help quantify the significance of the anticorrelation.
  5. [Section 3.4] The Milky Way point in the JR,w–hZ plane is taken from the authors' own Palicio et al. (2023) paper; this is not circular, but the potential dependence of the result on that specific measurement should be noted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an external test against independent simulations; the prior Milky Way value is a secondary comparison point, not a fit input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Spiral arms are identified independently of the actions via surface-density overdensities from a KDE (Eqs. 7-8), while radial actions are computed with the Stäckel fudge in an axisymmetric potential fit (Sections 2.2 and 2.5). The correlation between low-JR regions and arm overdensities is therefore a genuine comparison of two independently constructed maps, not a reduction of one into the other. The sample consists of 23 external simulations from Auriga, Illustris-TNG, NewHorizon, NIHAO-UHD, and the NEXUS controlled suite; the confirmation of the Palicio et al. (2023) Milky Way result rests on those independent systems. The only same-group input is the Milky Way value JR,w=(9.4±0.6)e-3 L_sun adopted from Palicio et al. (2023) in the JR,w-hZ diagram, but that point is explicitly excluded from the linear fit, so it cannot force the relation. The axisymmetric-potential caveat for barred systems (Section 4) and the visual node classification are validity/robustness concerns, not circularity; similarly, the inconsistent success counts (18/23 vs 20/23 vs Table 2) indicate internal reproducibility issues but do not make any quantity equal to its input by construction.

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

The analysis rests on standard simulation and action-estimation methodology rather than on a new theoretical construct. The main burden is the per-simulation choice of the JR,w threshold and the KDE bandwidths, plus the axisymmetric potential assumption; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • JR,w threshold per simulation = not tabulated; individual values from colour bars of Figs. 3 and B.1-B.4
    The limiting radial action separating low from high JR regions is chosen per galaxy from the median JR maps; this threshold defines the low-JR arcs compared with spiral arms and feeds the JR,w versus hZ relation.
  • KDE bandwidths h and H = per-simulation values in Table 1 (e.g., h=0.5 kpc, H=2.0 kpc)
    Chosen by hand to match spiral arm width and large-scale density variations; they set the scale of the overdensity map that defines the spiral arms.
  • Potential fit coefficients Anl, aij, Rc, q, gamma, cn = per simulation, not tabulated
    Least-squares fits to each simulation's reported potential or acceleration; used to compute actions under the Staeckel fudge.
  • Slope of the JR,w versus hZ linear fit = 3.69e-2 Lsun/kpc
    Fitted to the simulation data with sigma clipping; the Milky Way point is compared with this fit but was not included in the fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential of each simulated galaxy is adequately described by an axisymmetric model.
    Assumed in Section 2.2 and required by the Staeckel fudge; violated in barred and recently interacting galaxies, as acknowledged in Section 4.
  • standard math The Staeckel fudge yields radial actions accurate enough for the co-location analysis.
    Standard approximate method in galactic dynamics (Binney 2012; Sanders and Binney 2016), but no validation against true actions in these simulations is presented.
  • domain assumption Spiral arms can be identified as stellar surface density overdensities via KDE with the chosen bandwidths.
    Used in Section 2.4 to draw the dotted arm tracks; Appendix E shows the estimator is biased near density discontinuities.
  • domain assumption The 23 simulations with pronounced spiral arms are representative of Milky Way-like discs.
    Selection criterion stated in Section 2.1; this conditions the generality of the conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures of simulated spiral arms on radial actions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIA2MM3P

@misc{pith2026241217515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures of simulated spiral arms on radial actions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIA2MM3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17515}
}
read the original abstract

Among the various implications of the spiral arms, it has been observed in the Milky Way disc that the distribution of radial actions from the Gaia Data Release 3 exhibits structures that may be related to the spiral arms. Our goal is to investigate the relationship between regions of low radial action identified in simulated discs and the location of the spiral arms, such as that suggested in Palicio et al. (2023) for the Galaxy. For a sample of 23 simulated spiral galaxies, we modelled the axisymmetric component of their gravitational potential to compute the radial action of their stellar particles using the Staeckel fudge. The spatial distribution of the radial action was then compared to the location of the spiral arms, identified as overdensities in the stellar surface density using a kernel density estimator. Our analysis reveals a strong correlation between the radial action distribution and the spiral arms in 18 of 23 simulated galaxies. However, notable discrepancies are observed in the remaining five, since they are profoundly out-of-equilibrium systems, such as galaxies influenced by external interactions or spiral arms still in the process of winding up. We have confirmed that, in general, there is a tendency of spatial correlation between spiral arms and stellar populations featuring low values of the radial action, as discussed in Palicio et al. (2023). However, discrepancies between features in the radial action distribution and the spiral structure can be interpreted as signatures of recent disturbances, a scenario applicable to the Milky Way. Furthermore, populations at least as old as 3 Gyr trace the spiral arms with no significant misalignment across age bins. A linear relation between the maximum value of the radial action of the spiral arms and the vertical scale-length is found, which is also satisfied by the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative residuals of the potential fits (in percentages) for one simulation from each group considered in this work. The cells show the most extreme relative discrepancy between the model and the nom￾inal potential reported in the simulation within the range |Z| < Zlim. The black cross in the lower-left corner indicates the scale of ±10 kpc. The corresponding maps for the other simulations can be found in Fig￾ure A… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maps of the density contrast (first column), its bidimensional Fourier approximation (second column), and mass-weighted median radial action (third column) for the Auriga 2 simulation. Open circles in second and third panels denote the inferred tracks for the spiral arms. The corresponding maps for the rest of simulations considered in this work can be found in Figs. B.1 to B.4. corotation overlap appears to have a … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Maps of the density contrast (upper panels) and mass-weighted median radial action (bottom panels) for the Auriga 23 barred simulation analysed in Section 3.2. Open circles denote the inferred tracks for the spiral arms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Absolute value of the dipolar-to-axisymmetric component of the density ratio, |A2/A0|, for all the simulations considered in this work. Large values of A2/A0 denote great contribution from elongated structures, like a bar, to the local density. For the sake of visualis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Location of the resonances created by the m = 2 and the m = 4 perturbers in the Auriga 24 and Illustris 552414 simulations. Blue (red) vertical lines refer to the m = 2 (m = 4) perturber; while the linestyle denotes the frequency ratio involved: corotation (solid lines…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maps of the density contrast (upper panels) and mass-weighted median radial action (bottom panels) for different snapshots of the Illustris 456326 simulation, which is affected by a recent merger, as analysed in Section 3.2. Open circles denote the inferred tracks of t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Density contrast maps of the Auriga 2 simulation for three distinct age intervals: stellar particles younger than 1 Gyr (left column), those aged between 1 and 2 Gyr (middle column), and those between 2 and 3 Gyr (right column). Open circles indicate the spiral arm tra…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dependence of JR,w with the structure and kinematic parameters of the simulations: radial scale-length (upper panel) and vertical scale￾length (lower panel). Coloured markers refer to simulation families: Au￾riga (blue circles), Illustris (orange triangles), NewHorizon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Unveiling the Milky Way with a Gaia DR3 census of OB-type stars within 2 kpc. I. Tracing local Galactic structure, massive star-forming regions and core-collapse supernova progenitors

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Gaia DR3-based census of 105,971 OB stars within 2 kpc maps local Galactic structure and identifies over 4,200 core-collapse supernova or black hole progenitor candidates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., & Romer, R

    Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I. A., & Romer, R. H. 1988, Am. J. Phys., 56, 958

    1988

  2. [2]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423

    Antoja, T., Figueras, F., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423

    2011

  3. [3]

    2018, Nature, 561, 360

    Antoja, T., Helmi, A., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 360

    2018

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 693, A3

    Barbillon, M., Recio-Blanco, A., Poggio, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A3

    2025

  5. [5]

    & Lin, C

    Bertin, G. & Lin, C. C. 1996, Spiral Structure in Galaxies: A Density Wave Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

    1996

  6. [6]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1324

    Binney, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1324

    2012

  7. [7]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  8. [8]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 1167

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sharma, S., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1167

    2019

  2. [10]

    & Tepper-García, T

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Tepper-García, T. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3168

    2021

  3. [11]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 86

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Tepper-Garcia, T., Agertz, O., & Federrath, C. 2024, ApJ, 968, 86

    2024

  4. [12]

    V ., et al

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Macciò, A. V ., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3461

    2020

  5. [13]

    P., Khachaturyants, T., Amarante, J

    Debattista, V . P., Khachaturyants, T., Amarante, J. A. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1620

    2025

  6. [14]

    & Binney, J

    Dehnen, W. & Binney, J. 1998, MNRAS, 294, 429

    1998

  7. [15]

    Dmytrenko, A. M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1472 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Combes, F., Semelin, B., & Snaith, O. N. 2013, A&A, 553, A102

    2024

  8. [16]

    & Baba, J

    Dobbs, C. & Baba, J. 2014, PASA, 31, e035

    2014

  9. [17]

    L., Theis, C., Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Theis, C., Pringle, J. E., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 625 D’Onghia, E., V ogelsberger, M., & Hernquist, L. 2013, ApJ, 766, 34

    2010

  10. [18]

    2000, A&A, 358, L13

    Drimmel, R. 2000, A&A, 358, L13

    2000

  11. [19]

    Drimmel, R., Khanna, S., Poggio, E., & Skowron, D. M. 2024, A&A, arXiv:2406.09127, submitted

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R., Widrow, L., & Nickerson, S

    Dubinski, J., Gauthier, J. R., Widrow, L., & Nickerson, S. 2008, in ASPC, V ol. 396, Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Disks, ed. J. G. Funes & E. M. Corsini, 321

    2008

  13. [21]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109

    Dubois, Y ., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109

    2021

  14. [22]

    Elmegreen, B. G. & Elmegreen, D. M. 1983, ApJ, 267, 31 Article number, page 11 of 23 A&A proofs: manuscript no. SpiralArmsSimulations

    1983

  15. [23]

    Elmegreen, D. M. & Elmegreen, B. G. 1982, MNRAS, 201, 1021

    1982

  16. [24]

    Elmegreen, D. M. & Elmegreen, B. G. 1984, ApJS, 54, 127

    1984

  17. [25]

    Epanechnikov, V . A. 1969, Theory Probab. Appl., 14, 153

    1969

  18. [26]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2002, ApJS, 143, 73

    2002

  19. [27]

    & Dejonghe, H

    Famaey, B. & Dejonghe, H. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 752

    2003

  20. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 15 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Ting, Y .-S., & Rix, H.-W. 2020, ApJ, 896, 15 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Drimmel, R., Romero-Gómez, M....

    2020

  21. [29]

    A., Li, J

    Ge, Q. A., Li, J. J., Hao, C. J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 25

    2024

  22. [30]

    & Reid, N

    Gilmore, G. & Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025

    1983

  23. [31]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 95

    Girardi, L. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 95

    2016

  24. [32]

    & Salaris, M

    Girardi, L. & Salaris, M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 109

    2001

  25. [33]

    & Lynden-Bell, D

    Goldreich, P. & Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 125

    1965

  26. [34]

    Grand, R. J. J., Fragkoudi, F., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1814

    2024

  27. [35]

    Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179

    2017

  28. [36]

    Grand, R. J. J., Kawata, D., & Cropper, M. 2013, A&A, 553, A77

    2013

  29. [37]

    Grand, R. J. J., Springel, V ., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 199

    2016

  30. [38]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 143

    Hackshaw, Z., Hawkins, K., Filion, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 143

    2024

  31. [39]

    2024, ApJ, arXiv:2411.08944, submit- ted

    Hamilton, C., Modak, S., & Tremaine, S. 2024, ApJ, arXiv:2411.08944, submit- ted

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J., Xu, Y ., Hou, L

    Hao, C. J., Xu, Y ., Hou, L. G., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A102

    2021

  33. [41]

    E., Bamford, S

    Hart, R. E., Bamford, S. P., Casteels, K. R. V ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1850

    2017

  34. [42]

    E., Bamford, S

    Hart, R. E., Bamford, S. P., Willett, K. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3663

    2016

  35. [43]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3318

    Hawkins, K. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3318

    2023

  36. [44]

    & Ostriker, J

    Hernquist, L. & Ostriker, J. P. 1992, ApJ, 386, 375

    1992

  37. [45]

    2011, A&A, 525, A157

    Almeida, J. 2011, A&A, 525, A157

    2011

  38. [46]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Bub, M. W., Bovy, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1026

    2019

  39. [47]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Kawata, D., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2132

    2015

  40. [48]

    2023, A&A, 669, A107

    Jia, Y ., Chen, Y ., Du, C., & Zhao, G. 2023, A&A, 669, A107

    2023

  41. [49]

    2024, A&A, 692, A167

    Jia, Y ., Yang, C., Chen, Y ., Du, C., & Zhao, G. 2024, A&A, 692, A167

    2024

  42. [50]

    Julian, W. H. & Toomre, A. 1966, ApJ, 146, 810 Juri´c, M., Ivezi´c, Ž., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864

    1966

  43. [51]

    S., Driver, S

    Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1245

    2014

  44. [52]

    R., Famaey, B., Monari, G., et al

    Khalil, Y . R., Famaey, B., Monari, G., et al. 2024, A&A, arXiv:2411.12800, submitted

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2024, A&A, arXiv:2410.22036, submitted

    Khanna, S., Yu, J., Drimmel, R., et al. 2024, A&A, arXiv:2410.22036, submitted

    2024

  46. [54]

    & Kennicutt, Robert C., J

    Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

    2004

  47. [55]

    & Dubinski, J

    Kuijken, K. & Dubinski, J. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1341

    1995

  48. [56]

    N., Kovtyukh, V ., et al

    Lemasle, B., Lala, H. N., Kovtyukh, V ., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A40

    2022

  49. [57]

    S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C

    Levine, E. S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C. 2006, Science, 312, 1773

    2006

  50. [58]

    Lin, C. C. & Shu, F. H. 1964, ApJ, 140, 646

    1964

  51. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 72

    Lin, Z., Xu, Y ., Hou, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 72

    2022

  52. [60]

    1963, Sto

    Lindblad, B. 1963, Sto. An., 5, 5

    1963

  53. [61]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 166

    Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 166

    2011

  54. [62]

    & Kalnajs, A

    Lynden-Bell, D. & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1

    1972

  55. [63]

    Mackereth, J. T. & Bovy, J. 2018, PASP, 130, 114501

    2018

  56. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 1574

    Martinez-Medina, L., Pérez-Villegas, A., & Peimbert, A. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1574

    2022

  57. [65]

    A., Pichardo, B., Pérez-Villegas, A., & Moreno, E

    Martinez-Medina, L. A., Pichardo, B., Pérez-Villegas, A., & Moreno, E. 2015, ApJ, 802, 109

    2015

  58. [66]

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Aguerri, J. A. L., González-García, A. C., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Stringer, M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1502

    2017

  59. [67]

    L., Lintott, C

    Masters, K. L., Lintott, C. J., Hart, R. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1808 Mata-Chávez, M. D., Velázquez, H., Pichardo, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 6

    2019

  60. [68]

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

    2017

  61. [69]

    J., Petersson, J., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al

    McMillan, P. J., Petersson, J., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4988

    2022

  62. [70]

    & Kokubo, E

    Michikoshi, S. & Kokubo, E. 2016, ApJ, 823, 121

    2016

  63. [71]

    & Famaey, B

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

    2010

  64. [72]

    2011, A&A, 527, A147

    Minchev, I., Famaey, B., Combes, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A147

    2011

  65. [73]

    H., Kim, W.-T., Lee, H

    Oh, S. H., Kim, W.-T., Lee, H. M., & Kim, J. 2008, ApJ, 683, 94

    2008

  66. [74]

    Oort, J. H. 1970, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 38, The Spiral Structure of our Galaxy, ed. W. Becker & G. I. Kontopoulos, 1

    1970

  67. [75]

    A., Recio-Blanco, A., Poggio, E., et al

    Palicio, P. A., Recio-Blanco, A., Poggio, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L7 Pantaleoni González, M., Maíz Apellániz, J., Barbá, R. H., & Reed, B. C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2968

    2023

  68. [76]

    2023, A&A, 673, A36

    Pfenniger, D., Saha, K., & Wu, Y .-T. 2023, A&A, 673, A36

    2023

  69. [77]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

    2019

  70. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 1721

    Pillepich, A., Sotillo-Ramos, D., Ramesh, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1721

    2024

  71. [79]

    2021, A&A, 651, A104

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A104

    2021

  72. [80]

    2024, A&A, arXiv:2407.18659, sub- mitted

    Poggio, E., Khanna, S., Drimmel, R., et al. 2024, A&A, arXiv:2407.18659, sub- mitted

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A., et al

    Poggio, E., Recio-Blanco, A., Palicio, P. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L4

    2022

  74. [82]

    Quillen, A. C. 2003, AJ, 125, 785

    2003

  75. [83]

    C., Carrillo, I., Anders, F., et al

    Quillen, A. C., Carrillo, I., Anders, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3132

    2018

  76. [84]

    Rand, R. J. & Kulkarni, S. R. 1989, ApJ, 343, 760

    1989

  77. [85]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131

    2019

  78. [86]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130

    2014

  79. [87]

    K., Beuther, H., Benjamin, R

    Rezaei, S. K., Beuther, H., Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A255 Roškar, R., Debattista, V . P., & Loebman, S. R. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 976

    2024

  80. [88]

    Sanders, J. L. & Binney, J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2107

    2016

  81. [89]

    1976, ApJS, 31, 313

    Schweizer, F. 1976, ApJS, 31, 313

    1976

  82. [90]

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

    2002

  83. [91]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 2014, ApJ, 785, 137

    2014

  84. [92]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 116

    2019

  85. [93]

    A., Trick, W

    Sellwood, J. A., Trick, W. H., Carlberg, R. G., Coronado, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3154

    2019

  86. [94]

    Shu, F. H. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 667

    2016

  87. [95]

    2023, A&A, 680, A85 Tepper-García, T., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Freeman, K

    Spitoni, E., Cescutti, G., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A85 Tepper-García, T., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Freeman, K. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5951 Tepper-García, T., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Vasiliev, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS

    2023

  88. [96]

    F., Famaey, B., Monari, G., et al

    Thomas, G. F., Famaey, B., Monari, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A180

    2023

  89. [97]

    1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed

    Toomre, A. 1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S. M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell, 111–136

    1981

  90. [98]

    & Kalnajs, A

    Toomre, A. & Kalnajs, A. J. 1991, in Dynamics of Disc Galaxies, ed. B. Sun- delius, 341

    1991

  91. [99]

    & Toomre, J

    Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

    1972

  92. [100]

    H., Bovy, J., D’Onghia, E., & Rix, H.-W

    Trick, W. H., Bovy, J., D’Onghia, E., & Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 839, 61

    2017

  93. [101]

    Tully, R. B. 1974, ApJS, 27, 449

    1974

  94. [102]

    2023, A&A, 673, A99 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al

    Uppal, N., Ganesh, S., & Schultheis, M. 2023, A&A, 673, A99 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1518

    2023

  95. [103]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2835

    2013

  96. [104]

    B., Reid, M

    Xu, Y ., Bian, S. B., Reid, M. J., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L15

    2018

  97. [105]

    W., Frankel, N., et al

    Zari, E., Rix, H. W., Frankel, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A112

    2021

  98. [106]

    Zwicky, F. 1955, PASP, 67, 232 Article number, page 12 of 23 Palicio et al.: Signatures of simulated spiral arms on radial actions Appendix A: Maps of the potential fit As mentioned in Section 2.2, for each simulation we performed a fit of the gravitational potential assuming ...

    1955

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.