arxiv: 2605.10596 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Co-evolution of the Milky Way high- and low-{α} sequences with chemical evolution models

E. Spitoni, F. Matteucci, V. Grisoni

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords Milky Way discchemical evolutionalpha elementsinfall episodesstellar agesAPOGEE surveythick discthin disc

0 comments

The pith

A revised chemical evolution model with a pre-enriched delayed second gas infall reproduces the Milky Way high- and low-alpha sequences together with their stellar age distributions.

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

The paper revises the standard parallel-formation picture for the Milky Way thick and thin discs by replacing two fully independent star-formation histories with two distinct infall episodes of extragalactic gas. The second episode arrives roughly one billion years after the first, carries slight pre-enrichment from an earlier dwarf-galaxy merger, and has its star formation triggered by Sagittarius passages. This single change lets the model match both the observed [alpha/Fe] versus [Fe/H] dichotomy from APOGEE DR17 data and the age distributions of kinematically selected stars, including the presence of very old low-alpha objects. A reader would care because the revision turns a long-standing chemical puzzle into a coherent chronological sequence with a brief interval of co-evolution between the two discs.

Core claim

The authors show that the high-alpha and low-alpha sequences arise from two successive infall episodes of slightly pre-enriched gas, the second delayed by about 1 Gyr. When the model is run with observationally derived star-formation histories triggered by Sagittarius passages, it reproduces the full [alpha/Fe]–[Fe/H] diagram of APOGEE DR17 stars, the age distributions of thick- and thin-disc samples, and the existence of old low-alpha stars, while predicting only a short period of co-evolution between the two sequences.

What carries the argument

The revised parallel scenario of two distinct infall episodes of slightly pre-enriched extragalactic gas, with the second episode delayed by roughly 1 Gyr and its star formation triggered by Sagittarius passages.

If this is right

The model simultaneously fits the [alpha/Fe] versus [Fe/H] diagram from APOGEE DR17 and the age distributions of kinematically selected thick- and thin-disc stars.
It predicts only a short co-evolution phase between the two sequences.
It accounts for the observed old low-alpha stars without requiring separate formation channels.
The chemical and chronological data are linked through a single delayed-infall timeline rather than two fully independent histories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The pre-enrichment level required by the model offers a potential chemical signature of the Gaia-Enceladus merger that could be searched for in other thin-disc stars.
Future Gaia or ground-based surveys with better age precision could tighten the allowed range for the delay time and enrichment of the second infall.
The same two-infall framework with a brief co-evolution window may be testable in other disc galaxies that experienced comparable late mergers.

Load-bearing premise

The second infall gas must arrive already slightly pre-enriched by a prior massive dwarf-galaxy merger and star formation must be triggered by Sagittarius passages, with the exact delay and enrichment level chosen to match the data.

What would settle it

A large sample of stars with precise ages showing either no old low-alpha objects or a gap much longer than 1 Gyr between the high-alpha and low-alpha age distributions would falsify the model's timing and enrichment assumptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10596 by E. Spitoni, F. Matteucci, V. Grisoni.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Observed [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] (left) and [α/Fe] vs. age (right) diagrams for the final sample from Borbolato et al. (2025) with chemical abundances from APOGEE DR17 and stellar ages from StarHorse. The colour-coding is presented on a logarithmic scale. The contour lines enclose fractions of 0.95, 0.88, 0.8, 0.60, 0.45, 0.30, 0.20 of the total number of observed stars. In the marginal panels, we report the cor… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Star formation histories (SFHs) for the chemical evolution models of the thick and thin discs considered in this work (the classical parallel on the left panel and the revised model on the right). The black bar is the present day star formation rate observed in the thin disc. for a discussion of this point), and although the most recent ones have improved, the Mg production is still underestimated and need… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Observed and predicted [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] diagram in the solar vicinity. Data are from the final sample of Borbolato et al. (2025) with chemical abundances from APOGEE DR17. The predictions are from our chemical evolution models, both the classical parallel model (left panel) and the revised one (right panel) for the Galactic thick disc (dashed black line) and thin disc (continuous line). On the sides of ea… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Observed and predicted [α/Fe] vs. age. Data are from the final sample of Borbolato et al. (2025) with chemical abundances from APOGEE DR17 and stellar ages from StarHorse. The predictions are from our chemical evolution models, both the classical parallel model (left panel) and the revised one (right panel) for the Galactic thick disc (dashed black line) and thin disc (continuous line). On the sides of eac… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Observed and predicted [α/Fe] vs. age (Gyr). Data are from the final sample of Borbolato et al. (2025, in grey) and the predictions are for the revised parallel model taking into account observational errors (blue dots correspond to the thin disc model, red dots to the thick discl). The size of the coloured points is proportional to the number of stars formed in the corresponding simple stellar population … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Upper panel: SFH for our parallel model with bursts compared to the SFHs of Ruiz-Lara et al. (2020) for the thick and thin discs. Lower panel: [α/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] (left) and vs. age (right). Data are from the final sample of Borbolato et al. (2025) with chemical abundances from APOGEE DR17 and stellar ages from StarHorse. On the sides of each panel, the observed (light blue shaded area) and predicted (dark g… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Observational data have revealed a clear dichotomy in the [{\alpha}/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] diagram of the Milky Way thick and thin disc stars. Many recent studies have shown evidences of a co-evolution phase between the high- and low-{\alpha} disc sequences as well as the presence of very old low-{\alpha} stars. We aim to revise the parallel chemical evolution model that assumes two parallel histories of star formation for the two discs, by considering a pre-enriched delayed second infall episode in our revised scenario. By means of our chemical evolution models, we aim to explore the effects of a phase of co-evolution and the presence of old low-{\alpha} stars, as recently observed. We consider a new version of the parallel scenario for the Milky Way thick and thin disc formation, which consists into two distinct infall episodes of slightly pre-enriched gas. The gas is considered to be extragalactic but possibly contaminated by chemically enriched gas of a massive dwarf galaxy as Gaia-Enceladus, which merged with the Milky Way at least 10 Gyrs ago. Moreover, we test in our model observationally derived star formation histories of kinematically selected thick and thin discs, suggesting that the star formation is triggered by the passages of the Sagittarius galaxy. Our models can well explain the [{\alpha}/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] diagram from APOGEE DR17. Our revised chemical evolution model with a pre-enriched and delayed (roughly 1 Gyr) second infall episode, explains not only the abundance patterns of high- and low-{\alpha} stars but also stellar age distributions for the selected observational sample. We predict a short co-evolution period in between the two phases and we can explain the observed old low-{\alpha} stars, but still further data for precise stellar ages would be needed to put more stringent constraints on their physical nature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The revised parallel model adds a ~1 Gyr delayed, slightly pre-enriched second infall to reproduce APOGEE abundances, ages, and old low-alpha stars, but the delay and enrichment level are tuned parameters.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper tweaks the parallel chemical evolution framework by delaying the second gas infall by roughly 1 Gyr and assuming mild pre-enrichment, probably from a Gaia-Enceladus-like event. With that change and a short co-evolution window, the model matches the high- and low-alpha sequences plus the age distribution, including old low-alpha stars, from APOGEE DR17 data on kinematically selected discs. They also link star formation to Sagittarius passages using observed histories. That combination is the concrete update over earlier parallel models. It does a reasonable job showing how these adjustments can cover both the abundance dichotomy and the old thin-disc population without dropping the two-infall setup. Tying the timing to external triggers gives the scenario a bit more physical grounding than pure parameter fitting. The soft spot is that the delay duration and pre-enrichment level are chosen to fit the data rather than calculated from independent merger timing or simulations. Once those are set, the match to old low-alpha stars follows by construction, and the abstract gives no details on the fitting method, uncertainties, or sensitivity to small shifts in those values. This limits how much is truly predicted versus adjusted. The work is for people who track Milky Way disc chemical evolution models and the thick-thin debate. Readers already using parallel or two-infall codes will see a useful incremental test against recent observations. It deserves a serious referee because it engages directly with APOGEE and Gaia-related constraints and offers a specific revision that can be checked. I would send it to peer review and ask the authors to spell out how the free parameters were selected and to show some robustness checks.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript revises the parallel chemical evolution model for the Milky Way thick and thin discs by introducing two distinct infall episodes of slightly pre-enriched gas, with the second infall delayed by roughly 1 Gyr and possibly contaminated by a Gaia-Enceladus-like merger. Star formation is assumed to be triggered by Sagittarius passages using observationally derived SFHs. The models are claimed to reproduce the [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] abundance patterns from APOGEE DR17, match stellar age distributions for the selected sample, predict a short co-evolution phase between the sequences, and explain the presence of old low-α stars.

Significance. If the reproduction holds with parameters independently constrained rather than tuned, the work would advance models of Milky Way disc formation by linking chemical patterns, ages, and external perturbations in a unified way. The incorporation of observationally motivated SFHs and the attempt to address old low-α stars are strengths. However, the overall significance is limited by the reliance on adjustable parameters for the delay and enrichment level, which reduces the predictive power for the co-evolution phase and old low-α population.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and model setup] Abstract and model description: The delay time (~1 Gyr) and pre-enrichment level of the second infall are treated as free parameters adjusted to reproduce the APOGEE DR17 [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] locus and age distributions. This renders the claimed prediction of a short co-evolution period and the explanation of old low-α stars a fitted outcome by construction, rather than an emergent feature from independent constraints on merger timing or Sagittarius-induced triggers. An a-priori calculation or external justification for these values is required to support the central claim.
[Results section] Results and discussion: No quantitative details are provided on the fitting procedure (e.g., χ² minimization, handling of observational errors, or parameter optimization), sensitivity tests to variations in the delay time or pre-enrichment, or direct comparisons with error bars on the observed age distributions. This absence makes it impossible to evaluate the robustness of the claimed reproduction of abundance patterns and ages.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more clearly distinguish between fitted parameters and genuine predictions to avoid potential misinterpretation by readers.
[Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for the [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] diagrams should explicitly state the model parameters used and any observational selection criteria applied to the APOGEE sample.
[Discussion] A brief discussion of how the model compares to alternative scenarios (e.g., radial migration or single-infall models) would strengthen the context, even if not central to the claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment in detail below. Revisions have been made to the manuscript to provide additional justification, quantitative details, and sensitivity tests as requested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and model setup] Abstract and model description: The delay time (~1 Gyr) and pre-enrichment level of the second infall are treated as free parameters adjusted to reproduce the APOGEE DR17 [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] locus and age distributions. This renders the claimed prediction of a short co-evolution period and the explanation of old low-α stars a fitted outcome by construction, rather than an emergent feature from independent constraints on merger timing or Sagittarius-induced triggers. An a-priori calculation or external justification for these values is required to support the central claim.

Authors: We agree that the specific numerical values for the delay (~1 Gyr) and pre-enrichment were adjusted to reproduce the observed abundance locus and age distributions. However, these choices are not arbitrary but are guided by independent observational constraints. The second infall is physically linked to the Gaia-Enceladus merger, which literature dates to at least 10 Gyr ago, providing a natural timescale; the delay is consistent with dynamical timescales for gas accretion following such an event. The star formation histories are taken directly from observationally derived SFHs that associate triggers with Sagittarius passages. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the model description section with explicit references to merger timing studies and dynamical simulations to provide this external justification. We have also added a sensitivity analysis varying the delay by ±0.5 Gyr and pre-enrichment by ±0.1 dex, demonstrating that the short co-evolution phase and old low-α population remain robust within the observationally allowed range. We have revised the abstract and discussion to describe these outcomes as consistent with the model rather than strict a-priori predictions. revision: yes
Referee: [Results section] Results and discussion: No quantitative details are provided on the fitting procedure (e.g., χ² minimization, handling of observational errors, or parameter optimization), sensitivity tests to variations in the delay time or pre-enrichment, or direct comparisons with error bars on the observed age distributions. This absence makes it impossible to evaluate the robustness of the claimed reproduction of abundance patterns and ages.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not include sufficient quantitative information on the fitting process or robustness checks. In the revised version we have added a dedicated subsection describing the parameter selection: values were iteratively adjusted within ranges motivated by the Gaia-Enceladus timing and Sagittarius SFH constraints, with the final choice providing the best visual match to the APOGEE DR17 locus. We now present sensitivity tests for the delay time and pre-enrichment level, showing their effects on both the [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] plane and the age distributions. Direct comparisons of model age histograms with the observational sample now include error bars derived from the APOGEE age uncertainties. A formal χ² minimization was not performed because the chemical evolution code is not optimized for statistical fitting and the goal is to reproduce the overall bimodal structure and trends rather than individual data points; we have clarified this methodological choice and its limitations in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Tuned 1 Gyr delay and pre-enrichment level make co-evolution and old low-α stars outputs by construction

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"Our revised chemical evolution model with a pre-enriched and delayed (roughly 1 Gyr) second infall episode, explains not only the abundance patterns of high- and low-α stars but also stellar age distributions for the selected observational sample. We predict a short co-evolution period in between the two phases and we can explain the observed old low-α stars"

The delay duration and pre-enrichment level are free parameters adjusted to match the data; once set, the short co-evolution interval and the existence of old low-α stars are automatic consequences of those choices rather than independent predictions from first principles or external constraints.

full rationale

The paper's revised parallel model introduces a delayed, pre-enriched second infall whose timing (~1 Gyr) and enrichment level are explicitly chosen to reproduce the APOGEE [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] locus and the observed age distribution of the sample. Once these parameters are fixed by hand, the short co-evolution phase and the presence of old low-α stars follow directly from the input choices rather than from any independent dynamical calculation of merger timing or Sagittarius-triggered star formation. The abstract and model description present these outcomes as predictions, but they reduce to the fitted inputs. No self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is required for the circularity; the reduction is internal to the parameter adjustment described in the text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard chemical evolution assumptions plus fitted parameters for infall timing and enrichment; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

second infall delay time = roughly 1 Gyr
Set to roughly 1 Gyr to reproduce observed stellar age distributions and abundance patterns
pre-enrichment level of second infall gas
Chosen to account for possible chemical contamination from Gaia-Enceladus-like merger

axioms (2)

domain assumption Two distinct infall episodes of slightly pre-enriched gas for thick and thin discs
Core premise of the revised parallel chemical evolution scenario
domain assumption Star formation triggered by Sagittarius galaxy passages
Incorporated from observationally derived star formation histories of kinematically selected discs

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5664 in / 1472 out tokens · 52436 ms · 2026-05-12T04:34:37.399180+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
Our revised chemical evolution model with a pre-enriched and delayed (roughly 1 Gyr) second infall episode... the delay time and enrichment level chosen to fit observations.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
We consider a new version of the parallel scenario... two distinct infall episodes of slightly pre-enriched gas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages

[1]

2022, ApJS, 259, 35

Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

work page 2022
[2]

Z., Sousa, S

Adibekyan, V . Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A32

work page 2012
[3]

2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

work page 2021
[4]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.10092

Alinder, S., Bensby, T., & McMillan, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.10092

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

Ardern-Arentsen, A., Monari, G., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391

work page 2024
[6]

E., & Thielemann, F.-K

Argast, D., Samland, M., Gerhard, O. E., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2000, A&A, 356, 873 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V . P., Nidever, D., Amarante, J. A. S., & Garver, B. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 260

work page 2000
[7]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15812

Bergemann, M., Kordopatis, G., Casali, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15812

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

F., Fabrizio, M., et al

Bono, G., Braga, V . F., Fabrizio, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16523

work page arXiv 2026
[9]

D., et al

Borbolato, L., Rossi, S., Perottoni, H. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 126

work page 2025
[10]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435

Buck, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5435

work page 2020
[11]

& Menci, N

Calura, F. & Menci, N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1347

work page 2009
[12]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.06396

Casali, G., Grisoni, V ., Miglio, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.06396

work page arXiv 2023
[13]

2025, MNRAS, 541, 2631

Casali, G., Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2631

work page 2025
[14]

2023, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2306.03126

Cerqui, V ., Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Katz, D., & Royer, F. 2023, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2306.03126

work page arXiv 2023
[15]

2025, A&A, 699, A277

Cerqui, V ., Haywood, M., Snaith, O., Di Matteo, P., & Casamiquela, L. 2025, A&A, 699, A277

work page 2025
[16]

2008, A&A, 481, 691

Cescutti, G. 2008, A&A, 481, 691

work page 2008
[17]

2020, Mem

Cescutti, G., Molaro, P., & Fu, X. 2020, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 91, 153

work page 2020
[18]

R., Sharma, S., et al

Chen, B., Hayden, M. R., Sharma, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3791

work page 2023
[19]

& Prantzos, N

Chen, T. & Prantzos, N. 2025, A&A, 694, A120

work page 2025
[20]

2009, in The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, ed

Chiappini, C. 2009, in The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, ed. J. Ander- sen, Nordströara, B. m, & J. Bland-Hawthorn, V ol. 254, 191–196

work page 2009
[21]

S., et al

Chiappini, C., Anders, F., Rodrigues, T. S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, L12

work page 2015
[22]

1997, ApJ, 477, 765 Ciuc˘a, I., Kawata, D., Miglio, A., Davies, G

Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Gratton, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 765 Ciuc˘a, I., Kawata, D., Miglio, A., Davies, G. R., & Grand, R. J. J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2814

work page 1997
[23]

J., Debattista, V

Clarke, A. J., Debattista, V . P., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3476

work page 2019
[24]

F., Fabrizio, M., et al

Crestani, J., Braga, V . F., Fabrizio, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 10 D’Orazi, V ., Braga, V ., Bono, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A158

work page 2021
[25]

O., Johnson, J

Dubay, L. O., Johnson, J. A., Johnson, J. W., & Roberts, J. D. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2508.00988 Fernández-Alvar, E., Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A258

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

1992, ApJ, 387, 138 François, P., Matteucci, F., Cayrel, R., et al

Ferrini, F., Matteucci, F., Pardi, C., & Penco, U. 1992, ApJ, 387, 138 François, P., Matteucci, F., Cayrel, R., et al. 2004, A&A, 421, 613

work page 1992
[27]

2024, A&A, 687, A168 García Pérez, A

Gallart, C., Surot, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A168 García Pérez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144

work page 2024
[28]

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

Gent, M. R., Eitner, P., Serenelli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A74

work page 2024
[29]

& Reid, N

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

work page 1983
[30]

2021, A&A, 650, A203

Goswami, S., Slemer, A., Marigo, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A203

work page 2021
[31]

Grand, R. J. J., Bustamante, S., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3629

work page 2018
[32]

2024, in Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, V ol

Grisoni, V . 2024, in Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, V ol. 95, 41

work page 2024
[33]

2024, A&A, 683, A111

Grisoni, V ., Chiappini, C., Miglio, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A111

work page 2024
[34]

2021, MNRAS, 508, 719

Grisoni, V ., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 719

work page 2021
[35]

2019, MNRAS, 489, 3539

Grisoni, V ., Matteucci, F., Romano, D., & Fu, X. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3539

work page 2019
[36]

2025, A&A, 704, A45

Grisoni, V ., Rizzuti, F., & Cescutti, G. 2025, A&A, 704, A45

work page 2025
[37]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570

Grisoni, V ., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570

work page 2018
[38]

2017, MNRAS, 472, 3637

Grisoni, V ., Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3637

work page 2017
[39]

E., Siegmund, W

Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332

work page 2006
[40]

2008, A&A, 486, 951

Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

work page 2008
[41]

R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132

work page 2015
[42]

R., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C

Hayden, M. R., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C. C. 2017, A&A, 608, L1 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa

work page 2017
[43]

D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A

Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109

work page 2013
[44]

D., Di Matteo, P., et al

Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A66

work page 2016
[45]

H., et al

Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

work page 2018
[46]

1999, ApJS, 125, 439

Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

work page 1999
[47]

W., Feuillet, D

Johnson, J. W., Feuillet, D. K., Bonaca, A., & de Brito Silva, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08688

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

W., Weinberg, D

Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Vincenzo, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4484 Jönsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 120

work page 2021
[49]

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

work page 2010
[50]

Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

work page 1998
[51]

2021, MNRAS, 501, 5176

Khoperskov, S., Haywood, M., Snaith, O., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5176

work page 2021
[52]

I., & Lugaro, M

Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179

work page 2020
[53]

2006, ApJ, 653, 1145

Kobayashi, C., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., & Ohkubo, T. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1145

work page 2006
[54]

A., & Gilmore, G

Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545

work page 1993
[55]

2013, MNRAS, 436, 1479

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

work page 2013
[56]

2015, A&A, 580, A126

Kubryk, M., Prantzos, N., & Athanassoula, E. 2015, A&A, 580, A126

work page 2015
[57]

Laporte, C. F. P., Belokurov, V ., Koposov, S. E., Smith, M. C., & Hill, V . 2020, MNRAS, 492, L61

work page 2020
[58]

T., Crain, R

Mackereth, J. T., Crain, R. A., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5072

work page 2018
[59]

Mainieri , R

Mainieri, V ., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398

work page arXiv 2024
[60]

R., Schiavon, R

Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

work page 2017
[61]

2015, MNRAS, 451, 2230

Martig, M., Rix, H.-W., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2230

work page 2015
[62]

2001, The chemical evolution of the Galaxy, V ol

Matteucci, F. 2001, The chemical evolution of the Galaxy, V ol. 253

work page 2001
[63]

2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

work page 2012
[64]

2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

work page 2021
[65]

& Francois, P

Matteucci, F. & Francois, P. 1989, MNRAS, 239, 885

work page 1989
[66]

& Greggio, L

Matteucci, F. & Greggio, L. 1986, A&A, 154, 279

work page 1986
[67]

2019, MNRAS, 487, 5363

Matteucci, F., Grisoni, V ., Spitoni, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5363

work page 2019
[68]

2013, MNRAS, 436, 1648

Micali, A., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1648

work page 2013
[69]

2021b, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 963 Mikolaitis, Š., de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., et al

Miglio, A., Girardi, L., Grundahl, F., et al. 2021b, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 963 Mikolaitis, Š., de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A22

work page 2017
[70]

2013, A&A, 558, A9 Montalbán, J., Mackereth, J

Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., & Martig, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A9 Montalbán, J., Mackereth, J. T., Miglio, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 640

work page 2013
[71]

B., et al

Nepal, S., Chiappini, C., Queiroz, A. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A167

work page 2024
[72]

& Salucci, P

Nesti, F. & Salucci, P. 2013, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2013, 016

work page 2013
[73]

Nykytyuk, T. V . & Mishenina, T. V . 2006, A&A, 456, 969

work page 2006
[74]

Orkney, M. D. A., Laporte, C. F. P., Grand, R. J. J., & Springel, V . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.07038

work page arXiv 2025
[75]

2020, MNRAS, 498, 1710

Palla, M., Matteucci, F., Spitoni, E., Vincenzo, F., & Grisoni, V . 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1710

work page 2020
[76]

2022, A&A, 663, A125

Palla, M., Santos-Peral, P., Recio-Blanco, A., & Matteucci, F. 2022, A&A, 663, A125

work page 2022
[77]

C., Ferrini, F., & Matteucci, F

Pardi, M. C., Ferrini, F., & Matteucci, F. 1995, ApJ, 444, 207

work page 1995
[78]

2023, MNRAS, 523, 2126

Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Chen, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2126

work page 2023
[79]

K., & Kunder, A

Prudil, Z., Dékány, I., Grebel, E. K., & Kunder, A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3408

work page 2020
[80]

Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155

work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.