Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

Alien Type Ia supernovae from the Milky Way merger history and one possible candidate: Kepler's supernova

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 This paper argues that Kepler's supernova had an extragalactic progenitor, and that 'alien' Type Ia supernovae from Milky Way mergers occur at a detectable rate of 1.5e-5 to 5e-5 per year.

desk verdict Solid, honest rate estimate for 'alien' SNe Ia from known mergers; the Kepler candidate is suggestive but the proper-motion systematics keep it from being more than a candidate. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03085 v2 pith:FMHNTPTN submitted 2025-05-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Wenlang He , Ping Zhou , Eda Gjergo , Xiaoting Fu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIasupernovaesupernovaremnantsMilkyWaymergersgalacticchemicalevolutionstellarkinematicsKepler'sGaiaDR3delay-timedistribution
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 argues that some Type Ia supernovae in the Milky Way originate from stars that were born in dwarf galaxies later swallowed by our own, and it names these events 'alien SNe Ia.' Using Gaia DR3 data, the authors show that the progenitor of Kepler's supernova (SN 1604) has higher total energy and different angular momentum than its neighboring stars and known in-situ populations, suggesting it may be an immigrant from a disrupted satellite. They then estimate how often such alien supernovae occur today by combining the accretion times and stellar masses of seven known mergers with two independent methods, obtaining a recent rate of roughly $1.5\times10^{-5}$ to $5.0\times10^{-5}$ per year. If correct, this means roughly one to three of the supernova remnants currently visible in the Milky Way should be 'alien,' offering a new way to read the Galaxy's merger history from its explosive relics.

What carries the argument

The analysis runs on two pieces of machinery. First, orbit integration in the Galpy package, using two Milky Way potentials (MWPotential2014 and McMillan17), converts the position and velocity of Kepler's progenitor and of 3,507 nearby Gaia DR3 stars into integrals of motion: total energy $E$, angular momentum $L_z$, and actions $(j_r,j_p,j_z)$. Comparing these against the $(E,L_z)$ boxes that Malhan et al. (2022) assign to in-situ and accreted substructures is what produces the 'alien' kinematic signature. Second, the rate estimate combines the accretion time $z_{\rm acc}$ and stellar mass $M_{\rm acc}$ of each of the seven satellites with the delay-time distribution (DTD) of SNe Ia: method I uses the GalCEM one-zone chemical evolution code with two DTDs (Greggio 2005; Maoz & Graur 2017), while method II, introduced in this paper, is the delta-function approximation, which replaces the unknown star-formation history with a single 'harmonic' delay time $\Delta t_{\rm har}$ and a constant stellar mass loss of 40%, yielding $N \approx (M_{\rm acc}/0.6)\,{\rm DTD}(\Delta t_{\rm har})\,t_{\rm SNR}$. This machinery lets the authors estimate the alien SN Ia rate using only the mass and accretion time of each merger.

What would settle it

Measure the proper motion of Kepler's optical knots with sub-milliarcsecond precision using astrometric monitoring over a decade; if the resulting space motion places the progenitor inside the (E, Lz) region that Malhan et al. (2022) assign to in-situ disk or bulge populations, the claim that Kepler is an alien SN Ia would be falsified. Detecting a surviving companion star with velocity consistent with in-situ populations would likewise contradict the accreted-origin scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Kepler's supernova progenitor is kinematically and dynamically distinct from the in-situ Milky Way stellar population: in $(E,L_z)$ space it lies far from the disk and bulge regions identified by Malhan et al. (2022), and in action space it has larger radial and vertical actions than its surrounding stars. The authors interpret this as evidence that the progenitor was accreted into the Milky Way from a disrupted satellite galaxy, making SN 1604 a candidate 'alien' Type Ia supernova. They further claim that alien SNe Ia from seven known accreted galaxies (Kraken, Gaia-Enceladus-Sausage, the Helmi streams, Sequoia, Sagittarius, Wukong/LMS-1, and Cetus) should occur at a present-day rate of $1.5\times 10^{-5}$ to $5.0\times 10^{-5}$ yr$^{-1}$ by galactic chemical evolution modeling, or $3.1^{+1.8}_{-1.1}\times 10^{-5}$ yr$^{-1}$ by a new delta-function approximation, corresponding to 0.9 to 3.0 events over the last 60 kyr. These are lower bounds because the models assume dry mergers with no post-merger star formation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dense, nitrogen-rich optical knots in Kepler's remnant trace the motion of the progenitor star itself—not shocked ejecta or circumstellar material—and the two published proper-motion measurements of those knots disagree, so the 'alien' kinematic signature is fragile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Roughly one to three of the supernova remnants visible today should be 'alien' within the canonical 60 kyr SNR lifetime, so remnant surveys can expect to find a few kinematic outliers like Kepler.
  • Kepler's unusual high-velocity, plane-escaping motion and its asymmetric shell are naturally explained if its progenitor was accreted, without invoking special binary evolution.
  • The delta-function approximation gives a quick estimate of recent SN Ia rates for any accreted galaxy from just its stellar mass and accretion time, usable beyond the Milky Way.
  • Because the estimates assume dry mergers with no post-merger star formation, the true alien SN Ia rate is likely higher, strengthening the case that a detectable fraction of SNe Ia are extragalactic in origin.
  • The Milky Way's merger history should leave observable traces not only in stars but also in the remnants of thermonuclear supernovae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's logic would be to apply the same $(E,L_z)$ and action-space comparison to other historical Type Ia remnants, such as Tycho's SNR, whose in-situ association is usually assumed; an unexpected outlier there would suggest that alien progenitors are common enough to be found among the small set of historical supernovae.
  • If Kepler were ever confirmed as alien (for example, through the kinematics of a surviving companion star), its known age and the host merger's accretion time would pin down a single delay time for one SN Ia, providing an individual anchor for the delay-time distribution of accreted stellar populations.
  • The delta-function approximation could be turned into a forecasting tool for other galaxies: given a measured merger history from stellar halos, one could predict the present-day fraction of 'alien' SNe Ia in external galaxies and compare with resolved stellar-population studies.
  • A chemical follow-up prediction follows from the paper's own logic: an alien SNR should show nucleosynthetic or circumstellar abundance patterns reflecting the lower metallicity of its dwarf-galaxy origin, distinguishing it from in-situ remnants of similar age.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the notion of 'alien SNe Ia' produced by stars that were accreted into the Milky Way through dry mergers, and it presents two main results. First, using Gaia DR3 data for stars around Kepler's supernova remnant, the authors compare the progenitor's kinematics and dynamics in (E, Lz) and action space with nearby stars and with known substructures, concluding that the progenitor is kinematically and dynamically anomalous and may not belong to the in-situ Milky Way population, thus proposing it as a possible alien SN Ia candidate. Second, the paper estimates the recent rate of alien SNe Ia from seven known merger remnants (Kraken, Gaia-Enceladus-Sausage, Helmi streams, Sequoia, Sagittarius, Wukong/LMS-1, and Cetus) using two methods: a galactic chemical evolution calculation with GalCEM, and a newly introduced delta-function approximation (DFA). The GalCEM method gives 1.5e-5 to 5.0e-5 yr^-1 (0.9 to 3.0 events in the past 60 kyr), while the DFA gives 3.1e-5 yr^-1 with 1.84 events; both are honestly labeled lower bounds under the assumption of no post-merger star formation.

Significance. If the Kepler association were secure, this would be the first identified candidate for a supernova progenitor of extragalactic origin in the Milky Way, and the paper would open a new observational window on accreted stellar populations. The rate calculation is a transparent forward estimate that uses literature values for Macc and zacc, a plausible DTD family, and public, reproducible code; the lower-bound character is clearly stated. The new DFA method is clearly derived and its approximations are enumerated, which is useful even if the method is approximate. However, the Kepler candidate claim rests on the assumption that optical knots trace the progenitor's space motion, and the two available proper-motion catalogs are mutually inconsistent at about 3.3 sigma, flipping the substructure association. The rate methods are also not fully independent because they share the same satellite masses, accretion times, and DTD inputs, so their consistency should not be overinterpreted as independent validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.2] The kinematic case for Kepler's progenitor being an alien SN Ia depends entirely on the assumption that the optical knots' proper motions trace the progenitor's space motion. The two published measurements disagree strongly: van den Bergh & Kamper (1977) give pmDE = 10.9 +/- 1.8 mas/yr while Bandiera & van den Bergh (1991) give pmDE = 4.84 +/- 0.49 mas/yr, a difference of roughly 3.3 sigma. As the paper itself shows in Section 3.2, adopting the vK77 values places Kepler's progenitor in or near several accretion-event boxes (Sagittarius, Cetus, G-E, L/W, Helmi), whereas adopting the Bv91 values places it in none of the accretion boxes. Since the knots could in principle be shocked ejecta or circumstellar material rather than unshocked progenitor material, the conclusion that the progenitor is not in-situ is not secured. The paper should either provide independent evidence for the knot-progenitor connection or explicitly frame the entire Kepler analysis as conditional on a still-unresolved systematic choice, with the abstract and title adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Figure 1] The claim that Kepler's progenitor is 'not in situ' is weakened by the lack of a statistical control sample of halo stars. Showing that the progenitor lies outside the Malhan et al. (2022) in-situ boxes is not by itself evidence for an accreted origin, because an ordinary high-energy halo star with a large vertical excursion would also fall outside those boxes. The nearby-star comparison in Figure 1 is dominated by disk stars, so a clean separation from them is expected for any halo-like orbit. To make the 'alien' classification load-bearing, the authors should quantify how often field halo stars occupy the same (E, Lz) region, for example by drawing a matched control sample from Gaia and computing the probability that an in-situ star would appear as anomalous as Kepler's progenitor under the same selection and orbit-integration pipeline.
  3. [Section 4.2] The statement that 'Methods I and II are relatively independent, so we consider our results to be reliable' is not justified. Method II uses the same Macc and zacc values for the same seven satellites and adopts the same power-law DTD family from Maoz & Graur (2017) that is used in one branch of Method I; both methods also assume dry mergers with no post-merger star formation. Given these shared inputs, the consistency of the two rate estimates is largely a check on the algebraic approximations of the DFA, not an independent confirmation of the astrophysical result. The paper should soften this claim and present the two methods as complementary estimates sharing common systematic uncertainties, with the dominant uncertainty being the satellite masses and DTD normalization.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'Kranken' in the discussion of Malhan et al. (2022) (should be 'Kraken'), the inline notation 'd4.5' in the Introduction, and inconsistent use of 'top/bottom panels' in the Figure 3 caption when the figure appears to be arranged in rows; these should be cleaned up before publication.
  2. [Section 4.1.2 and Appendix B] In the DFA derivation, the choice of the harmonic mean for DTD(Delta t_har) is reasonable, but the associated error budget in Appendix B would benefit from being stated more concretely; for instance, the claim that the '1 sigma dynamic range of Macc is about 5' should be reconciled with the quoted 0.3 dex systematic uncertainty, which corresponds to a factor of about 2, so that the reader can verify the relative sizes of the systematic terms.
  3. [Section 5] The discussion correctly acknowledges that the substructure association is inconclusive, but this caveat appears only after the abstract and Section 3.2 have already stated the 'alien' hypothesis in stronger terms; the authors should ensure the abstract matches the level of certainty expressed in the conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the alien-SN rate is a forward convolution of external Macc/zacc/DTD inputs, and the Kepler candidacy is an observationally hedged comparison, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

Neither rate estimate contains a fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction. Method I (Sec. 4.1.1) computes the SNe Ia rate as a convolution of SFH and DTD using Macc and zacc taken from Kruijssen et al. (2020) and Naidu et al. (2022), with DTDs from Greggio (2005) and Maoz & Graur (2017); no term is calibrated to any observed 'alien' SNe Ia population. Method II (Sec. 4.1.2) derives N_DFA ≈ Macc × DTD(Δthar) × tSNR / 0.6 directly from the definition of Macc and a power-law DTD (Eqs. 3-8), so the quoted rate is a transparent function of the external inputs, not an inverse fit. The two methods share Macc, zacc, and the DTD family, so their agreement is not an independent validation; the paper's statement that the methods are 'relatively independent' (Sec. 4.2) overstates the situation, but sharing inputs is not circular. For Kepler, the 'not in situ' claim is a classification against the Malhan et al. (2022) E-Lz boxes, and the paper explicitly concedes that association with specific accreted substructures is inconclusive and notes the disagreement between the two published proper-motion sets (Secs. 3.2 and 5); this is an observational systematic, not a construction. The only self-citation entering the calculation is GalCEM (Gjergo et al. 2023), a public code used as a tool with externally sourced DTDs; it is not load-bearing in a circular sense. Because no prediction reduces by definition to its input, the score is 2 rather than 0 only to acknowledge that minor self-citation and the partially shared inputs of the two methods.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimates stand on several adopted inputs: satellite accretion masses and redshifts from Kruijssen et al. (2020) and Naidu et al. (2022), a universal power-law DTD with R and alpha from Maoz & Graur (2017), a constant mass-loss fraction of 0.4, and a 60 kyr SNR visibility window. The candidate claim stands on the optical-knot proper motions tracing the progenitor. Most parameters are literature inputs rather than free fits; the main hand-chosen approximation is Loss=0.4. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • DTD normalization R = 0.21e-12 M_sun^-1 yr^-1 (Maoz & Graur 2017)
    Adopted from field-galaxy SNe Ia and used in both rate methods; the DFA result scales directly with R through DTD(Delta_thar).
  • DTD power-law slope alpha = -1.07 (Maoz & Graur 2017)
    Used in Equations 5 to 8; the DTD dynamic range and Delta_thar depend on alpha, so the rate estimate inherits its uncertainty.
  • Stellar mass loss fraction Loss(t) = 0.4
    Chosen as a constant from Bruzual & Charlot (2003) for t>1 Gyr and extended to t<=1 Gyr via Appendix A; Equation 4 divides by 0.6. This is a hand-picked approximation, not fitted to the target result.
  • GalCEM gas infall timescale = 7 Gyr
    Exponential gas formation timescale assumed for one-zone chemical evolution of each satellite; adopted from the GalCEM setup rather than derived from the satellites themselves.
  • Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation exponent = 1.4
    Assumed star formation law exponent in the GalCEM chemical evolution runs; standard for main-sequence galaxies but not fitted for the dwarf satellite progenitors.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Optical knots of Kepler's SNR trace the progenitor's space velocity
    Section 2.1: knots are dense and nitrogen-rich, and their motion is assumed to reflect the progenitor. If the knots are partly shocked or are a different population, the kinematic anomaly becomes unsupported.
  • domain assumption Mergers considered were dry, with no post-merger star formation
    Section 4.1.1 and the closing discussion assume star formation is truncated at tacc. The authors note this makes their rates lower bounds, but it also affects any age constraint on Kepler's progenitor.
  • domain assumption A power-law SNe Ia DTD with alpha about -1 and normalization R applies to accreted populations
    Equation 5 in Section 4.1.2 is used in both rate methods. The DTD parameters come from field-galaxy supernova surveys, not from stripped dwarf galaxies, and metallicity or binary environment differences are not modeled.
  • domain assumption Typical SNR radio lifetime is 60 kyr and is treated as a uniform visibility window
    The number of recent alien SNe Ia integrates Equation 1 or 8 over t_SNR=60 kyr from Frail et al. (1994), which the paper itself notes is highly uncertain and density dependent.
  • standard math Standard galactic dynamics background for orbits and actions
    Orbit integration, Staeckel Fudge actions, and the MWPotential2014 and McMillan17 potentials in Section 3.1 are standard tools in the field.
  • domain assumption Closed-box evolution of satellites before tacc, with no stellar mass inflow or outflow
    DFA method, near Equation 3, assumes no mass entered or exited each satellite before accretion; the paper supports this with Anglés-Alcázar et al. (2017) for low-mass dwarfs.
  • ad hoc to paper Adopted uncertainty widths for Wukong/LMS-1 and Cetus logM and zacc
    Section 2.3: Naidu et al. (2022) provide no uncertainties, so the authors assign 0.15 dex random and 0.3 dex systematic to logM, and 0.3 and 0.25 to zacc, following the Kruijssen et al. (2020) style.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alien Type Ia supernovae from the Milky Way merger history and one possible candidate: Kepler's supernova." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMHNTPTN

@misc{pith2026250503085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alien Type Ia supernovae from the Milky Way merger history and one possible candidate: Kepler's supernova},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMHNTPTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03085}
}
abstract

The Milky Way is a dynamic and evolving system shaped by numerous merger events throughout its history. These mergers bring stars with kinematic and dynamic properties differing from the main stellar population. However, it remains uncertain whether any of the Galactic supernova remnants can be attributed to such a merger origin. In this work, we compare the progenitor of Kepler's supernova to its nearby stars, ``alien'' stars, and in-situ Milky Way stellar populations. We uncover the abnormal kinematics and dynamics of Kepler's supernova and propose that its progenitor may have an extragalactic origin. We call the Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) produced by stars accreted into the Milky Way through merger events ``alien SNe Ia'' since they are cosmic immigrants. We estimate the rate of alien SNe Ia exploded recently using two methods: through galactic chemical evolution, and through a method without considering exact star formation history, introduced for the first time in this paper. We consider the past accretion of a few major satellite galaxies -- Kraken, Gaia-Enceladus-Sausage, the Helmi streams, Sequoia, Sagittarius, Wukong/LMS-1, and Cetus -- assuming these were dry mergers. The first method yields $1.5\times 10^{-5} - 5.0\times10^{-5}\rm\,yr^{-1}$, while the second method yields a comparable ${3.1}^{+1.8}_{-{1.1}}\times10^{-5}\rm\,yr^{-1}$ as the rate estimates for recent alien SNe Ia. These estimates represent lower bounds because we assumed no postmerger star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03085 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of Kepler’s progenitor, its surrounding stars, and some known accretion events onto the Milky Way along with in situ Milky Way populations from Malhan et al. (2022) in the (E, Lz) space. The left and right panels correspond to the proper motion of Kepler’s progenitor, from van den Bergh & Kamper (1977, vK77) and from Bandiera & van den Bergh (1991, Bv91), respectively. The red color represents Keple… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 1D distribution of Kepler’s progenitor and its surrounding stars in the (jr, jp, jz) space. Note that jp = Lz. The histplots are normalized such that bar heights sum to 1. The solid lines are kernel density estimates to smooth the distributions. The top and bottom panels correspond to the proper motion of Kepler’s progenitor, from van den Bergh & Kamper (1977, vK77) and from Bandiera & van den Bergh (1991, Bv91)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 2D distribution of Kepler’s progenitor and its surrounding stars in the (jr, jp, jz) space. Note that jp = Lz. The top and bottom panels correspond to the proper motion of Kepler’s progenitor, from van den Bergh & Kamper (1977, vK77) and from Bandiera & van den Bergh (1991, Bv91), respectively. The red color represents Kepler’s progenitor, while the blue color represents its surrounding stars. The scatter points… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the SNe Ia rates computed with GalCEM (Gjergo et al. 2023) for two SNe Ia DTDs: GalCEM’s fiducial DTD Greggio (2005, left panel) and the DTD from Maoz & Graur (2017, right panel). The evolution of the Milky Way Main Progenitor is shown in solid orange. The…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The N DFA SN−Ia calculated from Equation 8 for each satellite galaxy and in total. The combined result for all the satellite galaxies considered are shown in the first panel, with the subsequent panels sorted by the value of N DFA SN−Ia for each satellite galaxy. The b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1517 2017

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3244

    Annem, B., & Khoperskov, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3244

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3244 2024

  3. [3]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    1987, ApJ, 319, 885, doi: 10.1086/165505

    Bandiera, R. 1987, ApJ, 319, 885, doi: 10.1086/165505

    work page doi:10.1086/165505 1987

  5. [5]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 186, doi: 10.1086/170108

    Bandiera, R., & van den Bergh, S. 1991, ApJ, 374, 186, doi: 10.1086/170108

    work page doi:10.1086/170108 1991

  6. [6]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  7. [8]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  8. [9]

    P., Long, K

    Blair, W. P., Long, K. S., & Vancura, O. 1991, ApJ, 366, 484, doi: 10.1086/169583

    doi:10.1086/169583 1991

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Bonaca, A., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa9

    2021 doi

  2. [11]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

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

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  4. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  5. [14]

    M., & Vink, J

    Chiotellis, A., Schure, K. M., & Vink, J. 2012, A&A, 537, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014754

    2012 doi

  6. [15]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 14 Dynamic range is the ratio between the largest and smallest val- ues that a certain quantity can assume

    Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38b8 14 Dynamic range is the ratio between the largest and smallest val- ues that a certain quantity can assume

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 De Silva, G

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327 Di Matteo, P., Combes, F., Melchior...

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    2021, A&A, 649, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834

    Fabricius, C., Luri, X., Arenou, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004

    Ferrand, G., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    A., Goss, W

    Frail, D. A., Goss, W. M., & Whiteoak, J. B. Z. 1994, ApJ, 437, 781, doi: 10.1086/175038

    1994 doi

  12. [21]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab493

    Freundlich, J., & Maoz, D. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab493

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fu, X., Bragaglia, A., Liu, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 6...

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    C., et al

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Worley, C. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243134

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    G., Ruth, A., et al

    Gjergo, E., Sorokin, A. G., Ruth, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca7c7

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Green, D. A. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36, doi: 10.1007/s12036-019-9601-6

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    2005, A&A, 441, 1055, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052926

    Greggio, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 1055, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052926

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 15

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Helmi, A., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03895.x

    2000

  22. [31]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53, doi: 10.1038/46980

    1999 doi

  23. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  24. [33]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    1994 doi

  25. [34]

    Iben, Jr., I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335, doi: 10.1086/190932

    1984 doi

  26. [35]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19361.x

    Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19361.x

    2011

  27. [36]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  29. [38]

    2019, A&A, 625, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834769

    Bastian, U. 2019, A&A, 625, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834769

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  31. [40]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2452

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    A., & Matteucci, F

    Lanfranchi, G. A., & Matteucci, F. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1338, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07877.x —. 2007, A&A, 468, 927, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066576

    2004

  33. [42]

    Livio, M., & Riess, A. G. 2003, ApJL, 594, L93, doi: 10.1086/378765

    2003 doi

  34. [43]

    R., Schiavon, R

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

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d2a

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    Maoz, D., & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936135

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22491-1

    Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22491-1

    2012 doi

  39. [48]

    1986, A&A, 154, 279

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

    1986

  40. [49]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3092

    Meng, X., & Li, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3092

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2369

    Meng, X.-C., & Luo, Y.-P. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2369

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1994, ApJL, 425, L13, doi: 10.1086/187299

    1994 doi

  44. [53]

    J., Bhalerao, J., Park, S., et al

    Millard, M. J., Bhalerao, J., Park, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7db1

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts261

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, ApJL, 863, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7f7

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 —. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.09057, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.09057

    2020 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B. A. 2009, ApJL, 700, L61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L61

    2009 doi

  50. [59]

    Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 207, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20602.x

    2012

  51. [60]

    1982, ApJ, 257, 780, doi: 10.1086/160031

    Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 257, 780, doi: 10.1086/160031

    1982 doi

  52. [61]

    2014, A&A, 562, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322531 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Piffl, T., Scannapieco, C., Binney, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322531 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    1998, A&A, 334, 505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711337

    Portinari, L., Chiosi, C., & Bressan, A. 1998, A&A, 334, 505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711337

    1998 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    2022, A&A, 666, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243141

    Randich, S., Gilmore, G., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243141

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 4220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2427

    Romano, D., Bellazzini, M., Starkenburg, E., & Leaman, R. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2427

    2015 doi

  56. [65]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9c4

    Ruiz-Lapuente, P., Damiani, F., Bedin, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9c4

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    C., Blair, W

    Sankrit, R., Raymond, J. C., Blair, W. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/36 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2016

  58. [67]

    Sollerman, J., Ghavamian, P., Lundqvist, P., & Smith, R. C. 2003, A&A, 407, 249, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030839

    2003 doi

  59. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb73

    Sun, L., & Chen, Y. 2019, ApJ, 872, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb73

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Loeffler, W., & Schroeder, A

    Tammann, G. A., Loeffler, W., & Schroeder, A. 1994, ApJS, 92, 487, doi: 10.1086/192002 van den Bergh, S., & Kamper, K. W. 1977, ApJ, 218, 617, doi: 10.1086/155719

    1994 doi

  61. [70]

    Vincenzo, F., Matteucci, F., Vattakunnel, S., & Lanfranchi, G. A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu710

    2014 doi

  62. [71]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    Vincenzo, F., Spitoni, E., Calura, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

    2008, ApJ, 689, 231, doi: 10.1086/592375 16

    Vink, J. 2008, ApJ, 689, 231, doi: 10.1086/592375 16

    2008 doi

  64. [73]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  66. [75]

    1973, ApJ, 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565

    Whelan, J., & Iben, Jr., I. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565

    1973 doi

  67. [76]

    Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., Theuns, T., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Tornatore, L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 574, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x

    2009

  68. [77]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3330, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1943

    Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3330, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1943

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 9892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3860

    Ye, D., Du, C., Shi, J., & Ma, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3860

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    C., & Huang, Y

    Yuan, Z., Chang, J., Beers, T. C., & Huang, Y. 2020, ApJL, 898, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba49f

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Izzard, R

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Izzard, R. G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629685

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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