Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Deciphering the Milky Way's star formation at cosmic noon with high proper-motion stars: A precursor to the merger-driven starburst

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-alpha stars with GSE-like kinematics split into two chemical groups, revealing stars formed from merger gas at cosmic noon.

desk verdict A plausible but unproven new stellar population: the LAHN bimodality needs a formal test before the merger-driven starburst story can carry weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10203 v2 pith:3PJVFUAO submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.GA

Deokkeun An , Young Sun Lee , Yutaka Hirai , Timothy C. Beers This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Gaia-Sausage/EnceladusMilkyWayhalogalacticmergersmerger-triggeredstarformationstellarabundanceshighproper-motionstarsarchaeologycosmicnoon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the Milky Way's ancient collision with the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE) dwarf galaxy did not just scatter existing stars; it briefly formed new stars out of gas stripped from the dwarf. The authors study high proper-motion stars, which preferentially trace the phase-space volume affected by the merger, and find that low-$\alpha$ stars with GSE-like kinematics split into two chemical groups at $-1.0 \lesssim [\mathrm{Fe/H}] \lesssim -0.4$: the familiar GSE debris with low sodium and aluminium, and a subgroup with elevated sodium and aluminium, dubbed LAHN (low-$\alpha$, high-Na) stars. Their eccentric but inner-confined orbits, small abundance scatter, and modest population fraction point to rapid star formation in compact gas clouds supplied by the GSE progenitor rather than in an extended disc. The paper estimates about one LAHN star per ten GSE debris stars, or roughly 6% of local high proper-motion stars with GSE-like kinematics. If correct, these stars are a local fossil of clumpy, merger-triggered star formation at cosmic noon.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the high proper-motion sequence (HPMS): a coherent chain of stars in the $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ versus vertical angular momentum $L_Z$ plane that assembles GSE debris, dynamically heated disc stars (the Splash), and disc stars into one structure. Within that sequence, the decisive tool is a selection box in the $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$--$[\mathrm{Na/Fe}]$ plane, corroborated by $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$, that isolates the LAHN stars and separates them from the Na-poor GSE branch; the same box applied approximately to APOGEE's aluminium abundances yields a consistent though noisier split. The population ratio is then obtained by Gaussian decomposition of metallicity distributions in the low-$\alpha$ sequence, with a photometric sample used to fix the combined heated-disc plus LAHN fraction (25% $\pm$ 5%) and thereby rescale the raw fractions of each spectroscopic survey.

What would settle it

Measure stellar ages for a volume-complete sample of high proper-motion stars with $|L_Z| < 600\ \mathrm{kpc\,km\,s^{-1}}$: if the LAHN stars turn out to have a wide age spread straddling the GSE debris rather than a narrow burst coeval with the merger roughly 8--10 Gyr ago, the merger-starburst interpretation is falsified even if the chemical bimodality is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that low-$\alpha$ stars with GSE-like kinematics are chemically bimodal at $-1.0 \lesssim [\mathrm{Fe/H}] \lesssim -0.4$. One branch follows the low $[\mathrm{Na/Fe}]$ and $[\mathrm{Al/Fe}]$ of accreted GSE debris, while the other branch, the LAHN stars, shows elevated sodium and aluminium while remaining on the low-$\alpha$ sequence. The LAHN stars have orbital eccentricities comparable to the debris but are more confined to the inner Milky Way, and their chemical homogeneity (roughly 0.1 dex scatter in iron and sodium) argues for a compact, well-mixed formation site. The paper interprets them as stars formed in situ from gas that belonged to the GSE progenitor, compressed and shocked during the merger, and estimates a population ratio of about 1:10 relative to the GSE debris after correcting spectroscopic selection biases with photometric data. It also shows that the previously identified Eos population is the high-eccentricity subset of this broader LAHN population.

Load-bearing premise

The population ratio rests on the assumption that the photometric sample gives an unbiased reference fraction (25% $\pm$ 5%) for the combined heated-disc plus LAHN population that can be applied to every spectroscopic survey; if that reference is biased, the reported 6% $\pm$ 3% LAHN fraction and the 1:10 ratio do not survive, even though the chemical bimodality could still be real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LAHN stars are merger-triggered, they provide a local, resolved population that preserves the chemistry of star formation at cosmic noon, complementing observations of clumpy star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 1$--$2$.
  • The estimated fractions (GSE debris about 75%, heated disc about 19%, LAHN about 6%) imply the GSE merger's direct star-forming product was modest, so the early Milky Way's assembly was not dominated by a merger-induced starburst.
  • The orbital confinement of LAHN stars (smaller apocentres and vertical excursions than GSE debris) implies that gas from the dwarf was funnelled into the inner Milky Way before forming stars, constraining the merger's geometry and gas content.
  • Because LAHN stars span a broader eccentricity range ($e$ roughly 0.35 to 1) than Eos ($e > 0.85$), the known Eos population is the high-eccentricity tail of a larger chemically distinct population, so eccentricity cuts will miss most of it.
  • The homogeneity of LAHN abundances (about 0.1 dex in $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ and $[\mathrm{Na/Fe}]$) implies formation in compact, well-mixed clouds, with a star-formation rate of order 0.1 solar masses per year and a total mass near $5\times 10^7$ solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: LAHN stars should be coeval; if so, asteroseismic and isochrone ages of a few dozen LAHN stars would give an independent date of the GSE merger, turning a chemical tag into a chronometer.
  • Editorial extension: The selection box in $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$--$[\mathrm{Na/Fe}]$ could be applied to future all-sky spectroscopic surveys to map the LAHN spatial distribution beyond the local volume and test whether the compact-cloud interpretation implies a localized, asymmetric distribution.
  • Editorial extension: The paper's 1:10 ratio applies only to high proper-motion stars with $|L_Z| < 600\ \mathrm{kpc\,km\,s^{-1}}$ and $Z_{\mathrm{max}} > 2\ \mathrm{kpc}$; integrating over the full orbital distribution could raise or lower the total LAHN mass, so the $5\times 10^7$ solar mass estimate is a lower bound to be tested with simulated surveys.
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 high proper-motion sequence (HPMS) in the [Fe/H]–LZ plane using GALAH, APOGEE, SDSS, LAMOST, and photometric samples to search for stars formed during the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE) merger. It reports that low-alpha stars with GSE-like kinematics at −1.0 ≲ [Fe/H] ≲ −0.4 split into two chemical groups: one with low Na and Al resembling GSE debris, and a second with elevated Na and Al (the LAHN population). The LAHN stars are found to be more centrally concentrated, to overlap with the Eos population in a subset of high-eccentricity orbits, and to have a population ratio of roughly 1:10 relative to GSE debris after correcting for selection effects. The paper interprets the LAHN population as the fossil record of a compact, merger-triggered starburst fueled by gas from the GSE progenitor, and supports this with a cosmological zoom-in simulation.

Significance. If the LAHN population is real, it would provide a rare observational fossil of merger-triggered star formation at cosmic noon and would sharpen the connection between the GSE merger, the Splash, and populations such as Eos. The paper's strengths include the use of multiple independent surveys, the explicit attempt to correct for survey selection using photometric metallicities, the search for a chemically distinct component in a physically motivated phase-space region, and the inclusion of a numerical simulation that qualitatively reproduces a compact, metal-rich, low-LZ starburst population. The central chemical bimodality is visually clear in GALAH and, at least qualitatively, hinted at in APOGEE; however, the current evidence falls short of establishing the claimed dichotomy because the selection box is defined a posteriori on the same data and the statistical and systematic uncertainties are not fully quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The claimed bimodality in [Na/Fe] among low-alpha stars is asserted rather than demonstrated. The LAHN selection box is drawn after inspecting the same GALAH data, and the statement that 48 of 69 low-alpha stars fall inside it does not establish a two-component distribution. A formal statistical test is needed, e.g., a Gaussian mixture with BIC or a dip test on the [Na/Fe] distribution of low-alpha stars in the restricted metallicity range, together with a false-positive estimate or an independent definition of the selection box (for instance, using the APOGEE/Eos abundances or a training set). Because the existence of the LAHN population is the load-bearing result of the paper, this missing test is a major gap.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 5] The APOGEE cross-check does not currently provide independent confirmation of a clean bimodality. APOGEE lacks [Na/Fe], the Al selection box is calibrated to the GALAH sample, and the text itself states that there is 'substantial overlap between LAHN stars and GSE debris.' The paper should quantify the overlap, test whether the apparent Al enhancement is significant after accounting for the many upper limits, and assess how GALAH/APOGEE zero-point and scale differences affect the comparison.
  3. [§3.2, Figs. 4–5] The analysis is based on LTE or survey-pipeline [Na/Fe] and [Al/Fe] abundances, and the text does not assess the impact of NLTE corrections. For the relevant Teff, log g, and metallicity ranges, NLTE corrections can shift [Na/Fe] by roughly 0.1–0.2 dex, which is comparable to the separation between the two claimed groups and to the width of the adopted selection box. Since the LAHN definition is a hard cut in [Na/Fe], the bimodality could be created or erased by such corrections. The authors should show that their conclusions are robust to published NLTE correction grids, or at minimum quantify the number of stars that move across the selection boundary.
  4. [§4, Table 1, Fig. 11] The reported 6%±3% LAHN fraction and the 1:10 ratio depend on normalizing the raw spectroscopic fractions to the photometric reference of 25%±5% for the combined heated-plus-LAHN population. This procedure assumes that the photometric sample provides an unbiased reference for this combined fraction and that the internal heated/LAHN ratio derived from spectroscopy can be transferred to the photometric sample. Neither assumption is demonstrated, and the raw LAHN fractions vary from 7% to 19% across surveys (Table 1). A more rigorous treatment of survey selection functions, or at least a sensitivity analysis varying the 25% reference within its uncertainty, is required before the population ratio can be claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'Eos' is used without definition; it should be introduced as the population identified by Myeong et al. (2022) at first occurrence, and the sentence 'Eos overlaps with a high-eccentricity subset of these stars' should clarify whether the overlap is in abundance space, orbit space, or both.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'Same as Fig. 4' even though APOGEE does not provide [Na/Fe]; the caption should explicitly note that the middle [Na/Fe] panel is omitted and that the Al box is only a GALAH-calibrated reference.
  3. [Fig. 6] The grey crosses representing LAHN-like stars with LZ > 1000 km/s are described in the text but are not labeled directly in the figure; adding a legend entry would improve readability.
  4. [§5 and Conclusions] The phrase 'ratio of approximately 1:10 between the LAHN stars and the GSE debris' is derived from 6% versus 75%, which is closer to 1:12.5 than 1:10; the rounding should be checked or the ratio quoted with its uncertainty.
  5. [§3.2] The statement 'more than half of them (48 out of 69)' understates the actual fraction (about 70%) and the sentence should report the number of stars in the comparison group as well, since the small sample size is an important caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LAHN chemical claim rests on observed GALAH/APOGEE abundances, not on the authors' prior HPMS construct; the fraction estimate is a bias-corrected fit rather than a self-defined prediction.

full rationale

The central claim—that low-α stars with GSE-like kinematics split into Na/Al-poor GSE debris and Na/Al-enhanced LAHN stars—is based on high-resolution abundance measurements from GALAH DR4 and APOGEE DR17, which are external spectroscopic datasets. The HPMS selection region is adopted from An et al. (2023), but its reality is cross-checked against four independent spectroscopic surveys in Fig. 1, so this self-citation is not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified premise. The LAHN selection box in Fig. 4 is drawn a posteriori in the [Fe/H]–[Na/Fe] plane, and the bimodality is asserted without a formal statistical test; this is a robustness/correctness weakness, not circularity, because the conclusion is not algebraically identical to the selection—the paper reports 48 of 69 stars and an independent, albeit weaker, [Al/Fe] contrast. The 6% LAHN fraction and the roughly 1:10 ratio in Section 4 are obtained by Gaussian decomposition of [Fe/H] distributions followed by rescaling the heated+LAHN sum to the 25%±5% photometric reference. This is a normalization/bias correction rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction: the LAHN-to-heated split comes from each survey's spectroscopic fit and varies from 4% to 10% in the normalized column, so the final 6% is not forced by the 25% input alone. The simulations of Hirai et al. (2022) are cited as supporting evidence but do not define the observed population. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a hand-drawn chemical selection box, an empirical alpha division, Gaussian decomposition of metallicity histograms, and a single photometric normalization. These are not independent anchors; they are fitting and selection choices made within the paper. The external anchors are the public survey abundances and the existing GSE and Eos classifications.

free parameters (4)
  • LAHN selection box in [Fe/H] and [Na/Fe] = [Fe/H] about -0.9 to -0.4, [Na/Fe] about -0.2 to +0.2
    Dashed blue box in Fig. 4, drawn by hand to isolate the high-Na group in the same data used for the analysis; this choice affects all subsequent LAHN statistics.
  • Alpha-sequence division offset = +/-0.02 dex for GALAH and APOGEE, +/-0.03 dex for SDSS and LAMOST
    Used in Appendix A to separate low- and high-alpha sequences; green uncertainty bands in Fig. 2 show the population fractions depend on this choice.
  • Gaussian mixture components for [Fe/H] distributions = Means and widths fitted separately per sample
    Two-Gaussian decomposition in Section 4 assigns stars to GSE, heated-disc, and LAHN; the fraction estimates come from these fits.
  • Photometric reference fraction of heated plus LAHN stars = 25% plus or minus 5%
    Adopted from the photometric sample in Section 4 and used to normalize all spectroscopic samples; this single number controls the final 6% LAHN fraction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Milky Way experienced a major merger with GSE around 8 to 10 Gyr ago and GSE debris is present in the halo.
    Invoked as established context in Section 1 and used throughout to assign low-alpha, low-LZ stars to GSE.
  • domain assumption [Na/Fe] and [Al/Fe] are primarily produced in core-collapse supernovae and therefore trace recent star formation.
    Used in Section 3.2 to interpret elevated Na and Al as evidence of an active starburst; this nucleosynthetic mapping is adopted from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The photometric HPMS sample can serve as an unbiased reference for correcting survey selection effects.
    Section 4 assumes the 25% combined heated plus LAHN fraction from photometry applies to all spectroscopic samples; the paper argues this is robust but does not demonstrate it with a complete selection model.
  • domain assumption The alpha-element division cleanly separates distinct stellar populations.
    Appendix A uses sparsely populated regions in [alpha/Fe] versus [Fe/H] to draw the division; if the division mislabels stars, the LAHN fractions and abundance comparisons shift.
invented entities (1)
  • Low-alpha, high-Na (LAHN) stellar population independent evidence
    purpose: A newly named category of stars proposed to have formed from GSE gas in a compact merger-triggered starburst.
    The paper gives falsifiable handles: restricted orbits with about 75% of members at Zmax < 6 kpc, GSE-like eccentricities, and a predicted modest star formation rate. Future spectroscopic surveys and stellar ages can test whether such stars form in a narrow age window. The evidence is partly the same data used to define the category, so this is not a strong external benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deciphering the Milky Way's star formation at cosmic noon with high proper-motion stars: A precursor to the merger-driven starburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PJVFUAO

@misc{pith2026250510203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deciphering the Milky Way's star formation at cosmic noon with high proper-motion stars: A precursor to the merger-driven starburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PJVFUAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10203}
}
abstract

Evidence suggests that the Milky Way (MW) underwent a major collision with the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE) dwarf galaxy around cosmic noon. While GSE has since been fully disrupted, it brought in ex situ stars and dynamically heated in situ stars into the halo. In addition, the gas-rich merger may have triggered a burst of in situ star formation, potentially giving rise to a chemically distinct stellar component. We investigated the region of phase space where stars formed during the GSE merger likely reside, and retain distinct chemical and dynamical signatures. Building on our previous investigation of metallicity ([Fe/H]) and vertical angular momentum ($L_Z$) distributions, we analysed spectroscopic samples from GALAH, APOGEE, SDSS, and LAMOST, combined with Gaia kinematics. We focused on high proper-motion stars as effective tracers of the phase-space volume likely influenced by the GSE merger. To correct for selection effects, we incorporated metallicity estimates derived from SDSS and SMSS photometry. Our analysis reveals that low-$\alpha$ stars with GSE-like kinematics exhibit bimodality in [Na/Fe] and [Al/Fe] at $-1.0 \lesssim {\rm [Fe/H]} \lesssim -0.4$. One group follows the low light-element abundances of GSE stars, while another exhibits enhanced values. These low-$\alpha$, high-Na stars have eccentric orbits but are more confined to the inner MW. Eos overlaps with a high-eccentricity subset of these stars, implying that it constitutes a smaller structure nested within the broader population. After correcting for sampling biases, we estimated a population ratio of approximately 1:10 between the low-$\alpha$, high-Na stars and the GSE debris. These results suggest that the low-$\alpha$, high-Na stars formed in a compact region, likely fuelled by gas from the GSE progenitor, analogous to clumpy star-forming clouds seen in high-redshift galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High proper-motion sequence (HPMS) in the [Fe/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Metallicity distributions of the HPMS samples (Fig. 1) binned by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Continued. Cols. (d) and (e) refer to the high-resolution samples from GALAH and APOGEE, respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of [α/Fe] for GALAH stars in the vertical segment of the HPMS (−1.0 < [Fe/H] < −0.5). The top and bottom panels show [α/Fe] as a function of LZ for stars in the in￾ner (rap < 10 kpc) and outer (rap > 12 kpc) regions, respectively. High-α stars are shown in…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Chemical abundances ([α/Fe], [Na/Fe], and [Al/Fe]) of the GALAH sample with |LZ| < 600 kpc km s−1 . In the top panels, the dashed blue line indicates the division based on [α/Fe], separating stars into low-α (left) and high-α (right) sequences. Red squares and triangle…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4, but displaying [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial and orbital properties of low-α stars with −0.9 < [Fe/H] < −0.4 in the GALAH sample. The stars were divided into two groups based on their [Na/Fe] abundances (see the middle left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cosmological zoom-in simulation of a MW-like galaxy. Only stars that formed within the main halo are shown, excluding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metallicity distributions of high-α stars with |LZ| < 600 kpc km s−1 , representing a predominantly heated population. The [Fe/H] distribution was modelled with a single Gaussian (solid line). Error bars reflect uncertainties arising from variations in the α-based divi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Metallicity distributions of low-α stars with |LZ| < 600 kpc km s−1 . Two Gaussian components were used to model the observed distribution: a broad one representing accreted stars from GSE (dashed line), and another capturing the secondary peak linked to the LAHN popul…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fractions of individual stellar populations identified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Decomposition of the metallicity distribution from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdurro'uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al.\ 2022, , 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al.\ 2018, , 235, 42

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al.\ 2018, , 235, 42

    2018

  3. [3]

    C., et al

    Allende Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2008, , 136, 2070

    2008

  4. [4]

    & Beers, T

    An, D. & Beers, T. C.\ 2020, , 897, 39

    2020

  5. [5]

    & Beers, T

    An, D. & Beers, T. C.\ 2021a, , 907, 101

  6. [6]

    & Beers, T

    An, D. & Beers, T. C.\ 2021b, , 918, 74

  7. [7]

    C., & Chiti, A.\ 2024, , 272, 20

    An, D., Beers, T. C., & Chiti, A.\ 2024, , 272, 20

    2024

  8. [8]

    C., Johnson, J

    An, D., Beers, T. C., Johnson, J. A., et al.\ 2013, , 763, 65

    2013

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    C., Lee, Y

    An, D., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al.\ 2023, , 952, 66

    2023

  2. [10]

    S., Jung, J

    An, D., Lee, Y. S., Jung, J. I., et al.\ 2017, , 154, 150

    2017

  3. [11]

    V., Sellgren, K., et al.\ 2011, , 736, 133

    An, D., Ram \' rez, S. V., Sellgren, K., et al.\ 2011, , 736, 133

    2011

  4. [12]

    E.\ 2002, , 333, 481

    Barnes, J. E.\ 2002, , 333, 481

    2002

  5. [13]

    Barnes, J. E. & Hernquist, L.\ 1996, , 471, 115

    1996

  6. [14]

    & Freeman, K

    Bekki, K. & Freeman, K. C.\ 2003, , 346, L11

    2003

  7. [15]

    W., et al.\ 2018, , 478, 611

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., et al.\ 2018, , 478, 611

    2018

  8. [16]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al.\ 2020, , 494, 3880

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al.\ 2020, , 494, 3880

    2020

  9. [17]

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

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

    2019

  10. [18]

    C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D

    Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D. H., et al.\ 2013, , 773, 43

    2013

  11. [19]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. \ 2017, , 154, 28

    2017

  12. [20]

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Wetzel, A., et al.\ 2017, , 845, 101

    2017

  13. [21]

    Bovy, J.\ 2015, , 216, 29

    2015

  14. [22]

    B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B

    Brook, C. B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B. K., et al.\ 2004, , 612, 894

    2004

  15. [23]

    B., Stinson, G., Gibson, B

    Brook, C. B., Stinson, G., Gibson, B. K., et al.\ 2012, , 419, 771

    2012

  16. [24]

    Buck, T.\ 2020, , 491, 5435

    2020

  17. [25]

    E., et al.\ 2025, , 42, e051

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, X. E., et al.\ 2025, , 42, e051

    2025

  18. [26]

    Chabrier, G.\ 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  19. [27]

    Ciuc a , I., Kawata, D., Ting, Y.-S., et al.\ 2024, , 528, L122

    2024

  20. [28]

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al.\ 2023, , 520, 2180

    2023

  21. [29]

    H., Naidu, R

    Conroy, C., Weinberg, D. H., Naidu, R. P., et al.\ 2022, submitted to OJAp (arXiv:2204.02989)

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Q., Zhao, Y

    Cui, X. Q., Zhao, Y. H., Chu, Y. Q., et al. \ 2012, RAA, 12, 1197

    2012

  23. [31]

    S., Schlegal, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegal, D. J., Ahn, C., et al. \ 2013, , 145, 10

    2013

  24. [32]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., et al.\ 2018, , 862, L1

    2018

  25. [33]

    D., et al.\ 2019, , 632, A4

    Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al.\ 2019, , 632, A4

    2019

  26. [34]

    N., et al.\ 2018, , 474, 2194

    Escala, I., Wetzel, A., Kirby, E. N., et al.\ 2018, , 474, 2194

    2018

  27. [35]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al.\ 2013, , 49, 137

    2013

  28. [36]

    M., Genzel, R., Bouch \'e , N., et al.\ 2009, , 706, 1364

    F \"o rster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch \'e , N., et al.\ 2009, , 706, 1364

    2009

  29. [37]

    S., Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., Hirai, Y., et al.\ 2021, , 73, 1074

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al.\ 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  31. [39]

    Grand, R. J. J., Kawata, D., Belokurov, V., et al.\ 2020, , 497, 1603

    2020

  32. [40]

    H., et al.\ 2018, , 563, 85

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

    2018

  33. [41]

    C., Chiba, M., et al.\ 2022, , 517, 4856

    Hirai, Y., Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., et al.\ 2022, , 517, 4856

    2022

  34. [42]

    S., & Saitoh, T

    Hirai, Y., Fujii, M. S., & Saitoh, T. R.\ 2021, , 73, 1036

    2021

  35. [43]

    N., Chiba, M., et al.\ 2024, , 970, 105

    Hirai, Y., Kirby, E. N., Chiba, M., et al.\ 2024, , 970, 105

    2024

  36. [44]

    & Saitoh, T

    Hirai, Y. & Saitoh, T. R.\ 2017, , 838, L23

    2017

  37. [45]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al.\ 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  38. [46]

    A.\ 2019, Science, 363, 474

    Johnson, J. A.\ 2019, Science, 363, 474

    2019

  39. [47]

    Johnson, C. I. & Pilachowski, C. A.\ 2010, , 722, 1373

    2010

  40. [48]

    C.\ 1998, , 36, 189

    Kennicutt, R. C.\ 1998, , 36, 189

    1998

  41. [49]

    Khoperskov, S., Minchev, I., Libeskind, N., et al.\ 2023, , 677, A89

    2023

  42. [50]

    S., Kim, Y

    Lee, A., Lee, Y. S., Kim, Y. K., et al.\ 2023, , 945, 56

    2023

  43. [51]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Allende Prieto, C., et al. \ 2011, , 141, 90

    2011

  44. [52]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Carlin, J. L., et al. \ 2015, , 150, 187

    2015

  45. [53]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Masseron, T., et al. \ 2013, , 146, 132

    2013

  46. [54]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. \ 2008a, , 136, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. \ 2008b, , 136, 2050

  48. [56]

    Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., et al.\ 1999, , 402, 55

    1999

  49. [57]

    \ 2015, RAA, 15, 1095

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. \ 2015, RAA, 15, 1095

    2015

  50. [58]

    & Luo, L.\ 2024, , 960, L10

    Lian, J. & Luo, L.\ 2024, , 960, L10

    2024

  51. [59]

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al.\ 2021, , 649, A4

    2021

  52. [60]

    D., Daddi, E., et al.\ 2024, , 968, 15

    Liu, Z., Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., et al.\ 2024, , 968, 15

    2024

  53. [61]

    F., Wetzel, A

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A. R., et al.\ 2017, , 467, 2430

    2017

  54. [62]

    R., Schiavon, R

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

    2017

  55. [63]

    M., Carlos, M., et al.\ 2024, , 688, A72

    Matsuno, T., Amarsi, A. M., Carlos, M., et al.\ 2024, , 688, A72

    2024

  56. [64]

    R., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 6926

    McCluskey, F., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 6926

    2024

  57. [65]

    J.\ 2017, , 465, 76

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

    2017

  58. [66]

    Mihos, J. C. & Hernquist, L.\ 1996, , 464, 641

    1996

  59. [67]

    L., et al.\ 2015, , 448, 1107

    Moreno, J., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al.\ 2015, , 448, 1107

    2015

  60. [68]

    G., Desprez, G., et al.\ 2022, , 937, L35

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al.\ 2022, , 937, L35

    2022

  61. [69]

    C., Belokurov, V., Aguado, D

    Myeong, G. C., Belokurov, V., Aguado, D. S., et al.\ 2022, , 938, 21

    2022

  62. [70]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 92

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 92

    2021

  63. [71]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al.\ 2024, , 41, e061

    2024

  64. [72]

    R., Bellazzini, M., et al.\ 2000, , 534, L83

    Pancino, E., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., et al.\ 2000, , 534, L83

    2000

  65. [73]

    Papovich, C., Labb \'e , I., Quadri, R., et al.\ 2015, , 803, 26

    2015

  66. [74]

    S., Greaves, J

    Pierce-Price, D., Richer, J. S., Greaves, J. S., et al.\ 2000, , 545, L121

    2000

  67. [75]

    J., Menten, K

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

    2014

  68. [76]

    I., et al.\ 2021, , 503, 5846

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O., Read, J. I., et al.\ 2021, , 503, 5846

    2021

  69. [77]

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Kraljic, K., et al.\ 2014, , 442, L33

    2014

  70. [78]

    Renaud, F., Segovia Otero, \'A ., & Agertz, O.\ 2022, , 516, 4922

    2022

  71. [79]

    M., Sun Lee, Y., Morrison, H

    Rockosi, C. M., Sun Lee, Y., Morrison, H. L., et al. \ 2022, , 259, 60

    2022

  72. [80]

    R.\ 2017, , 153, 85

    Saitoh, T. R.\ 2017, , 153, 85

    2017

  73. [81]

    R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al.\ 2008, , 60, 667

    Saitoh, T. R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al.\ 2008, , 60, 667

    2008

  74. [82]

    R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al.\ 2009, , 61, 481

    Saitoh, T. R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al.\ 2009, , 61, 481

    2009

  75. [83]

    V., Helmi, A., Abadi, M

    Sales, L. V., Helmi, A., Abadi, M. G., et al.\ 2009, , 400, L61

    2009

  76. [84]

    Schmidt, M.\ 1959, , 129, 243

    1959

  77. [85]

    Sch \"o nrich, R.\ 2012, , 427, 274

    2012

  78. [86]

    Sch \"o nrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W.\ 2010, , 403, 1829

    2010

  79. [87]

    P., Lee, Y

    Smolinski, J. P., Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., et al. \ 2011, , 141, 89

    2011

  80. [88]

    C., Feldmann, R., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 88

    Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Feldmann, R., et al.\ 2017, , 466, 88

    2017

  81. [89]

    P., Swinbank, A

    Stott, J. P., Swinbank, A. M., Johnson, H. L., et al.\ 2016, , 457, 1888

    2016

  82. [90]

    Tsukui, T., Wisnioski, E., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al.\ 2025, , 540, 4, 3493

    2025

  83. [91]

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Yang, H., et al.\ 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 101

    2025

  84. [92]

    J., Johnson, J

    Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Johnson, J. A., et al. \ 2009, , 137, 4377

    2009

  85. [93]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., et al. \ 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

  86. [94]

    S., Klein, C., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 889

    Yu, S., Bullock, J. S., Klein, C., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 889

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.