Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Chasing the formation history of the Galactic metal-poor disc

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's metal-poor disc contains a primordial disc older than 12 Gyr, with [Fe/H] > -1.5, plus debris from the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) merger and metal-poor extensions of both the high-α and low-α discs, according to a…

desk verdict A bold, honestly-hedged four-population story for the metal-poor disc, with released catalogues and a load-bearing two-component decomposition that needs independent chemistry before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15794 v1 pith:KTXBOQT6 submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.GA

Xiaokun Hou , Ruizhi Zhang , Haining Li , Gang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galacticdiscmetal-poorstarsprimordialGaia-Sausage-EnceladusLAMOSTstellarabundancesarchaeologymergerremnants
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 the Milky Way's metal-poor disc ([Fe/H] < -1.0) is not a single stellar population but a mix of four components: a primordial disc older than 12 Gyr with [Fe/H] > -1.5, debris from the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) merger now on disc-like orbits, and metal-poor tails of the high-α and low-α discs reaching [Fe/H] = -2.0 and -1.8 respectively. Using about 46,000 stars with abundances from LAMOST spectra, Gaia astrometry, and isochrone ages, the paper infers that the GSE merger contaminated the primordial disc and triggered a starburst that built the high-α disc. If correct, the early Milky Way had a rotating, metal-enriched disc before the major merger, and the thin disc began forming from much more metal-poor gas than previously believed. The paper also concludes that Wukong had a separate origin from GSE and reports three new kinematic substructures, one of which encompasses the previously known Nyx and Nyx-2.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a kinematic classification scheme that separates stars into cold disc, hot disc, and GSE (e > 0.7, |Vϕ| < 100 km $s^{-1}$), followed by HDBSCAN clustering in action space to define dynamically tagged groups for robust membership. Chemical abundances come from a neural network trained on high-resolution reference stars and validated by independent template fitting; ages come from isochrone fitting of subgiants. The key quantitative identity is the mixture model f_hot = β f_cold + (1-β) f_GSE applied to the >12 Gyr kinematically hot disc, which lets the paper isolate the primordial disc and estimate the fraction of GSE debris that settled into the disc.

What would settle it

Measure [Al/Fe] or another chemical tag for the 114 kinematically hot disc stars older than 12 Gyr. If their abundance distribution is not bimodal (for example, shows a third population with intermediate [Al/Fe], or a continuum), the two-population mixture in Eq. 10 collapses, taking the 14.3% GSE disc fraction and the inferred primordial-disc metallicity with it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to have established, from chemo-dynamical modeling of about 46,000 metal-poor stars, that the Galactic disc assembled in four stages: a primordial phase more than 12 Gyr ago with a metal-enriched disc ([Fe/H] > -1.5); a merger phase 10-12 Gyr ago when the GSE progenitor deposited both stars and metal-poor gas into the disc; a quiescent phase 8-10 Gyr ago; and a final phase within the last 8 Gyr forming the low-α disc from gas starting at [Fe/H] ≈ -1.8. Its central quantitative result is a two-population decomposition of the kinematically hot disc older than 12 Gyr using the mixture f_hot = β f_cold + (1-β) f_GSE, yielding β = 0.39, meaning 39% of those stars are primordial and 61% are GSE debris. From this the paper infers that about 14.3% of the GSE progenitor's stars now reside in the disc, corresponding to roughly 2.42 × $10^{7}$ solar masses. It also lowers the metallicity floors of the high-α and low-α discs to [Fe/H] ≈ -2.0 and -1.8, respectively, and identifies Wukong as a distinct merger remnant rather than part of GSE.

Load-bearing premise

The whole decomposition rests on the assumption that stars older than 12 Gyr in the kinematically hot disc contain exactly two populations—primordial disc stars and GSE debris—with no third component, and this is untested chemically because [Al/Fe] cannot be measured from the LAMOST spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The early Milky Way possessed a rotating, metal-enriched disc at least 12 Gyr ago, before the GSE merger.
  • The GSE merger contributed roughly 2.42 × 10^7 solar masses of stars to the present-day disc, not just to the halo.
  • The high-α (thick) disc formed from metal-poor gas mixed during the merger, with metallicities extending down to -2.0.
  • The low-α (thin) disc began with metal-poor gas ([Fe/H] ≈ -1.8) rather than inheriting the high-α disc's enriched gas.
  • Wukong is a distinct merger remnant, not a fragment of GSE, and three new substructures (ShangGu-1, ShangGu-2, ShangGu-3) await confirmation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed with high-resolution spectroscopy, the young (<8 Gyr), metal-poor, high-α stars would imply a formation channel that standard chemical-evolution models do not produce, possibly requiring a local α-enrichment event or revised age dating.
  • The ShangGu-3 structure, if it contains Nyx and Nyx-2 as subcomponents, would mean Nyx is not a single coherent dwarf-galaxy stream but part of a broader kinematic complex, a claim testable with larger Gaia samples.
  • The mixture-model approach could be applied to other age slices of the hot disc to search for additional merger components beyond GSE, providing a template for galactic archaeology with low-resolution surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a chemo-dynamical analysis of approximately 46,000 metal-poor stars from LAMOST with Gaia astrometry, supplemented by ages from Xiang & Rix (2022). The authors derive abundances with two independent methods (a Bayesian neural network and template fitting), validate them against reference sets and an external catalogue, and classify stars into kinematically cold/hot discs and several merger remnants. On this basis they argue that the Galactic metal-poor disc contains four populations: a >12 Gyr primordial disc with [Fe/H] > -1.5, disc-residing debris from the GSE progenitor, a metal-poor extension of the high-alpha disc down to [Fe/H] = -2.0, and a metal-poor extension of the low-alpha disc down to [Fe/H] = -1.8. They further report that 14.3% of GSE progenitor stars were deposited into the disc, and they identify three new substructures (ShangGu-1, ShangGu-2, ShangGu-3). The central quantitative step is the two-component fit of Eq. (10) to the metallicity distribution of the >12 Gyr kinematically hot disc.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this paper would provide rare, large-sample evidence that a metal-bearing disc existed in the Milky Way before the GSE merger, and it would revise the metallicity floors of the canonical high-alpha and low-alpha discs. The study's strengths are the large spectroscopic sample, the independent machine-learning and template-fitting abundance pipelines with internal and external consistency checks, and the public catalogue of abundances and kinematics. The main astrophysical claims are, however, contingent on a population decomposition that the authors themselves note cannot be verified at LAMOST resolution with [Al/Fe]; a proper uncertainty treatment and tests against alternative decompositions are required before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1.3, Eq. (10)] The statement that the >12 Gyr kinematically hot disc 'is composed exclusively of two components' is the load-bearing assumption for beta = 0.39, the 61% GSE fraction, and the 14.3% disc-deposition estimate. The manuscript concedes in the same section that LAMOST resolution prevents measuring [Al/Fe], so no independent chemical tag verifies that the metal-poor wing of the hot-disc MDF is GSE debris rather than a metal-weak thick disc, an in-situ halo tail, or an old low-alpha component. Because the same data used to define the cold disc and GSE samples are used to test the mixture, a three-component model could reproduce the observed MDF with a different beta. This should be reframed as an assumption and tested with a third component or with priors from simulations.
  2. [Section 4.1.3] The best-fit value beta = 0.39 is quoted without any uncertainty, despite being fit to only 114 hot-disc stars. The derived numbers of about 70 GSE-origin stars in the hot disc and 14.3% deposition into the disc therefore carry an unquantified, likely large, statistical error, and the subsequent estimate of ~2.42 x 10^7 M_sun of GSE-origin stellar mass in the disc inherits this uncertainty. A bootstrap or Poisson uncertainty on beta, or a sensitivity test varying the age cut and the MDF bandwidths, is needed before these quantitative claims can be evaluated.
  3. [Section 4.1.3, Eq. (10)] The fit uses the high-eccentricity GSE sample's MDF as f_GSE for stars that now reside on disc-like orbits. This equality is questionable in light of the paper's own scenario in Section 4.1.1, which invokes merger-triggered star formation from mixed gas to explain the more metal-rich 10-12 Gyr GSE stars; if some disc-residing GSE-origin stars formed from this mixed gas, their MDF would be more metal-rich than the halo GSE sample, biasing beta and the 14.3% estimate. The robustness of the decomposition to a shifted, broader, or chemically different f_GSE should be quantified.
  4. [Section 4.3] The identification of ShangGu-3 as a structure that contains Nyx and Nyx-2 as subcomponents is based on kinematic cuts (Vphi, Vr, Vz, z, E) chosen to recover the previously known members and on a sample of 106 stars; the paper does not quantify the expected contamination from the kinematically cold disc and GSE in this phase-space volume. Without a contamination estimate, the conclusion that Nyx and Nyx-2 are not a coherent stream is stronger than the evidence supports.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The terms 'kinematically cold disc' and 'kinematically hot disc' are sometimes abbreviated inconsistently (for example, 'kinematically disc' appears in Section 3.1); please unify the terminology.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'soame' in Section 4.1.1, 'kinematcially' in Section 3, and 'ore' in the Fig. 9 caption; the manuscript needs a careful proofreading pass.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 3.3] Table 1 uses units of 1.66 x 10^3 kpc km s^-1 for Jphi, while Section 3.3 quotes 'Jphi > 1660 kpc km s^-1'; please make the unit convention uniform.
  4. [Fig. 12] The caption says 'As in Fig. 5', but the referenced panel structure does not map cleanly to the rows and columns of Fig. 12; please clarify which panels correspond to each remnant.
  5. [Table 2] The p-values in Table 2 are computed from different numbers of velocity measurements, but the degrees of freedom are not listed; please add them to the table or its caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Eq. 10's fitted β is repackaged as the 70 GSE-origin hot-disc stars and the 14.3% disc-deposition estimate; the four-population claim itself rests on independent age-α-metallicity trends.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1.3, Eq. (10) and following text; see also Section 4.1.1 concession on [Al/Fe]]
    "fhot = β × fcold + (1 − β) × fGSE ... we derive a best-fit value of β = 0.39 ... Given that the kinemaically hot disc sample contains 114 stars, we estimate that approximately 70 of them originated from the progenitor of GSE. Assuming that these GSE-origin stars now residing in the disc share the same metallicity distribution function as the GSE-origin stars currently found in the Galactic halo, and noting that our GSE sample with age older than 12 Gyr has 420 stars, we infer that 14.3% of stars from the GSE progenitor were deposited into the disc"

    The '61% aligns with our GSE sample' is literally the fitted quantity (1 − β), and 70 = (1 − β) × 114 is its rescaling; the '14.3%' is then 70/(420+70). These numbers are arithmetic transforms of the same fit and the same assumed two-component decomposition, so they are not independent inferences from the data. The fit itself presupposes that the >12 Gyr hot disc is composed exclusively of primordial-disc and GSE stars, and that disc-residing GSE stars have exactly the halo GSE MDF, assumptions the paper cannot test because 'due to the limited spectral resolution of LAMOST, we are unable to measure [Al/Fe]'. A third component (e.g., an old metal-weak thick disc or an in-situ halo tail) could be absorbed into β.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained and data-driven: abundances are measured from LAMOST spectra with two independent methods (neural network and template fitting), and the four main populations are primarily identified from observed age, metallicity, and [Mg/Fe]/[Ca/Fe] trends (Figs. 7–11), not from the Eq. 10 mixture fit. The primordial disc is identified from kinematically cold stars older than 12 Gyr with [Fe/H] > −1.5 and no α-knee, which does not reduce to the mixture fit. The metal-poor tails of the high-α and low-α discs are inferred from age and α-abundance behavior independent of Eq. 10. The one partially circular step is in Section 4.1.3: β in Eq. 10 is fitted to the >12 Gyr hot-disc metallicity distribution, and the subsequent '70 GSE-origin stars' and '14.3% deposited into the disc' are arithmetic restatements of (1−β) and the sample counts. This is a model-dependent inference rather than an independent measurement; the paper honestly concedes that LAMOST resolution prevents measuring [Al/Fe], so the two-component decomposition cannot be chemically verified. That concession is a robustness risk, but not itself circular. Because the headline four-population claim does not depend on the 14.3% estimate, the circularity is partial and secondary, and no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper's central scenario depends on several chosen thresholds, one fitted mixing fraction, a two-component decomposition assumption for the old hot disc, and the reliability of external age estimates. These are the quantities that, if changed, would alter the claimed four-population structure and the inferred GSE contribution to the disc.

free parameters (5)
  • β (mixing fraction in Eq. 10) = 0.39
    Fitted to reproduce the >12 Gyr kinematically hot disc metallicity distribution as a mixture of cold disc and GSE; used to infer 14.3% of GSE stars in the disc.
  • Age boundary for young high-α population = 8 Gyr
    Chosen by hand to separate the 'young' metal-poor high-α stars from older populations; the interpretation of these stars as the metal-poor tail of the low-α disc depends on this cut.
  • Kinematically cold disc angular momentum threshold = 1.66 × 10^3 kpc km/s
    Adopted in Table 1 to define the cold disc; changes in this threshold alter the populations assigned to the primordial disc.
  • GSE eccentricity threshold = e > 0.7
    Adopted in Table 1 to define GSE; Cluster 1 stars with e < 0.7 are later re-assigned to GSE based on metallicity, revealing the boundary's arbitrariness.
  • HDBSCAN parameters = min_cluster_size=15, min_samples=6, metric=euclidean, leaf
    Selected so clusters are robust; parameter choices affect which DTGs are unclassified and hence the ShangGu substructures.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The >12 Gyr kinematically hot disc consists only of in-situ primordial disc stars and GSE-origin stars (Eq. 10).
    Section 4.1.3: the two-component decomposition is assumed and is load-bearing for the inferred GSE disc fraction; the paper admits 'This conclusion hinges on the population decomposition'.
  • domain assumption Stellar ages for LAMOST subgiants from Xiang & Rix (2022) are accurate enough to classify stars as younger or older than 8 Gyr.
    Section 2.3: ages are adopted for 2,517 subgiants; the young metal-poor high-α population and the claimed low-α disc metallicity floor rely on these ages.
  • domain assumption The axisymmetric Milky Way potential of McMillan (2017) is adequate for computing orbits and actions.
    Section 2.2: used to derive E, Jφ, Jr, Jz for all stars; systematic errors in the potential propagate into all kinematic classifications.
  • domain assumption Metal-poor stars with [Fe/H] < -1.0 currently near the Sun are representative of the Milky Way's early disc populations.
    Section 4.4 acknowledges the sample is limited to the solar vicinity; global metallicity floors are extrapolated from this local sample.
  • domain assumption The calibration of JINAbase abundances to the Li et al. (2022a) scale via linear fits is valid over the target metallicity range.
    Section 2.1.1 and Table A.1: cross-calibration used to homogenize reference labels; the small number of common stars makes this calibration uncertain for some elements.
invented entities (3)
  • ShangGu-1 (Cluster 4)
    purpose: Explains 24 unclassified stars with strong vertical motion and a positive [Fe/H]-eccentricity correlation; proposed as a new dwarf galaxy remnant.
    Identified within this paper's clustering; no external data or predictions yet.
  • ShangGu-2 (Cluster 5)
    purpose: Explains unclassified disc-like stars with high vertical velocities; proposed as kinematically heated metal-poor disc stars.
    Only two stars have age estimates; the two-branch [Mg/Fe] pattern is based on a handful of stars.
  • ShangGu-3 (Cluster 6)
    purpose: Explains old disc-like stars with high radial velocity; proposed to originate from the GSE progenitor and to include Nyx and Nyx-2 as subgroups.
    The connection to Nyx/Nyx-2 relies on kinematic selection criteria constructed for this paper; the four-subgroup split is based on 106 selected stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chasing the formation history of the Galactic metal-poor disc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTXBOQT6

@misc{pith2026250715794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chasing the formation history of the Galactic metal-poor disc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTXBOQT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15794}
}
abstract

In our previous work, we identified $\sim100,000$ metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] $<$ -1.0) from the LAMOST Survey. This work estimates their chemical abundances and explores the origin and evolution of the Galactic metal-poor disc. Our chemo-dynamical analysis reveals four main populations within the metal-poor disc: (1) a primordial disc older than 12 Gyr with [Fe/H] $>$ -1.5; (2) debris stars from the progenitor galaxy of Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE), but now residing in the Galactic disc; (3) the metal-poor tail of the metal-rich, high-$\alpha$ disc formed 10-12 Gyr ago, with metallicity lower limit extending to -2.0; (4) the metal-poor tail of the metal-rich, low-$\alpha$ disc younger than 8 Gyr, reaching a lower metallicity limit of -1.8. These results reveal the presence of a primordial disc and show that both high-$\alpha$ and low-$\alpha$ discs reach lower metallicities than previously thought. Analysis of merger debris reveals that Wukong, with extremely low metallicity, likely originate from merger events distinct from GSE. Additionally, three new substructures are identified: ShangGu-1, characterized by unusual [Fe/H]-eccentricity correlations; ShangGu-2, possibly heated disc stars; and ShangGu-3, which can be divided into four subgroups based on differing orbital directions, with two aligning with the previously known Nyx and Nyx-2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15794 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kiel diagram of the selected stars for studying the Milky Way, with grayscale indicating the star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panels (a) and (b) show the distributions of sample stars in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kinematic space distributions of sample stars, with colors indicating different structures or remnants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to Fig. 3, but for the DTGs. Circles represent a successfully associated DTGs, while other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As stated in Section 2.4, we adopted two strategies to select the kinematically cold disc, kinemat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The first row shows the normalized metallicity histograms of the kinematcially cold disc, hot disc, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two-dimensional density maps of the [Mg/Fe]–[Fe/H] distribution for GSE and the kinematically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar age-metallicity relation for the kinematcially cold disc, hot disc, and GSE, represented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalized metallicity histograms for the kinematically cold disc, hot disc, and GSE across four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: This enhancement is less pronounced in the other age groups. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] distributions for the kinematically cold disc, hot disc, and GSE (shown in top, mid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of [Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] for two stellar populations: high- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized histograms showing spatial and kinematic properties of high- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Normalized metallicity histograms of GSE, Pontus, Thamnos, Sequoia, Helmi Streams, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Comparison of normalized metallicity histograms between GSE, the kinematically hot disc, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Vϕ-Vr and Vϕ-Vz distributions of stars in Cluster 4, 5, and 6, represented by Hexagons, plus signs and crosses, respectively. The distributions of GSE, the kinematically hot disc, and the kinematically cold disc are shown by green, blue, and red circles, respectively.…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (a) Comparison of normalized metallicity histograms between GSE, the kinematically hot disc, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] distribution of stars in Cluster 5 and the kinematically cold disc, represented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (a) [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] distribution of Cluster 6 and GSE. (b) [Sc/Fe]-[Fe/H] distribution of Cluster 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Normalized [Fe/H] histograms for the kinematically hot disc and Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: KDE-fitted [Fe/H] distributions for the kinematically hot disc with ages 10–12 Gyr (left) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Solid lines show the normalized metallicity histograms for the kinematically cold disc (a), kinemat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_20.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: In the [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] distribution, Cluster 5 show two branches just like our kinematic cold disc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_16.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Velocities of ShangGu 3 stars in the Galactic x–y (a) and x–z (b) planes. The Galactic Centre is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Similar to Fig. 21, but for ShangGu-3 stars selected using kinematic criteria in Section 4.3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, Astrophys

    Abohalima, A., & Frebel, A. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 238, 36, aDS Bibcode: 2018ApJS..238...36A 3, 44, 45, 46

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    2025, Cluster Ages to Reconstruct the Milky Way Assembly (CARMA)

    Aguado-Agelet, F., Massari, D., Monelli, M., et al. 2025, Cluster Ages to Reconstruct the Milky Way Assembly (CARMA). II. The age-metallicity relation of Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus globular clusters, gSCC: 0000000 2025-07-14T09:51:09.544Z arXiv:2502.20436 [astro-ph] 32

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Amarante, J. A. S., Debattista, V . P., Beraldo e Silva, L., Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 12, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2022ApJ...937...12A 40

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A91 7

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B

    Baker, W. M., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 141 2

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2024, A&A, 683, A136 2, 8

    Bellazzini, M., Massari, D., Ceccarelli, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A136 2, 8

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 611 2, 32, 35, 37

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 689 30, 34

    Belokurov, V ., & Kravtsov, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 689 30, 34

    work page 2022

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V ., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 3880 34

    2020

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417 7

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417 7

    2019

  3. [11]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 562, A71, publisher: EDP ADS Bibcode: 2014A&A...562A..71B 10

    2014

  4. [12]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 529, aDS Bibcode: 2016ARA&A..54..529B 2

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 529, aDS Bibcode: 2016ARA&A..54..529B 2

    2016

  5. [13]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 148, publisher: The American Astronomical Society 9, 10

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Liu, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 148, publisher: The American Astronomical Society 9, 10

    2012

  6. [14]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., Zimek, A., & Sander, J. 2015, ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 10, 5:1 9

    2015

  7. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 208, gSCC: 0000030 2025-06-05T06:14:50.578Z Publisher: The American Astronomical Society 8

    Carter, C., Conroy, C., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 208, gSCC: 0000030 2025-06-05T06:14:50.578Z Publisher: The American Astronomical Society 8

    2021

  8. [16]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres, arXiv:astro-ph/0405087 6

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S., et al

    Chiappini, C., Anders, F., Rodrigues, T. S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, L12, gSCC: 0000190 2025-06- 12T06:17:24.861Z 23 Ciuc˘a, I., Kawata, D., Ting, Y .-S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 528, L122 32, 37

    2015

  10. [18]

    M., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N

    Dillamore, A. M., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N. W., & Davies, E. Y . 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3596 2 Fern´andez-Alvar, E., Kordopatis, G., Hill, V ., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 1509 8, 37 Fern´andez-Alvar, E., Kordopatis, G., Hill, V ., et al. 20...

    2023

  11. [19]

    K., Sahlholdt, C

    Feuillet, D. K., Sahlholdt, C. L., Feltzing, S., & Casagrande, L. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 1489, gSCC: 0000098 2025-06-12T06:16:56.222Z 30 The Galactic metal-poor disc 53

    2021

  12. [20]

    R., Spagna, A., Lattanzi, M

    Fiorentin, P. R., Spagna, A., Lattanzi, M. G., & Cignoni, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 907, L16, publisher: The American Astronomical Society 8, 38

    2021

  13. [21]

    2024, Primordial Rotating Disk Composed of $ \geq$15 Dense Star-Forming Clumps at Cosmic Dawn, arXiv:2402.18543 [astro-ph] 2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2024, Primordial Rotating Disk Composed of $ \geq$15 Dense Star-Forming Clumps at Cosmic Dawn, arXiv:2402.18543 [astro-ph] 2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1 7

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 34

    2019

  15. [23]

    1983, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 202, 1025, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 1983MNRAS.202.1025G 9

    Gilmore, G., & Reid, N. 1983, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 202, 1025, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 1983MNRAS.202.1025G 9

    1983

  16. [24]

    O., & Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, C. J. 1994, The Astronomical Journal, 107, 742 6

    1994

  17. [25]

    R., Lee, Y

    Han, D. R., Lee, Y . S., Kim, Y . K., & Beers, T. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, 14, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2020ApJ...896...14H 21, 22

    2020

  18. [26]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 132, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2015ApJ...808..132H 10

    2015

  19. [27]

    D., Lehnert, M

    Haywood, M., Matteo, P. D., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & G ´omez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109, publisher: EDP Sciences 37

    2013

  20. [28]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, aDS Bibcode: 2018Natur.563...85H 2, 29, 32, 35

    2018

  21. [29]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53, aDS Bibcode: 1999Natur.402...53H 2

    1999

  22. [30]

    C., Lee, Y

    Hong, J., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y . S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 273, 12, gSCC: 0000001 2025-06-05T06:13:11.231Z Publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2024ApJS..273...12H 8

    2024

  23. [31]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5671, aDS Bibcode: 2023MNRAS.520.5671H 2, 15, 38, 39, 40, 41

    2023

  24. [32]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1099 2, 3, 45

    Hou, X., Zhao, G., & Li, H. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1099 2, 3, 45

    2024

  25. [33]

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

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 2

    1994

  26. [34]

    H., Bos, R

    Koppelman, H. H., Bos, R. O. Y ., & Helmi, A. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 642, L18, aDS Bibcode: 2020A&A...642L..18K 35, 40

    2020

  27. [35]

    H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A

    Koppelman, H. H., Helmi, A., Massari, D., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Starkenburg, T. K. 2019, A&A, 631, L9, publisher: EDP Sciences 2

    2019

  28. [36]

    Lane, J. M. M., Bovy, J., & Mackereth, J. T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 1209, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MNRAS.526.1209L 36

    2023

  29. [37]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y . S., Beers, T. C., An, D., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 187, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2011ApJ...738..187L 22

    2011

  30. [38]

    W., & Bovy, J

    Leung, H. W., & Bovy, J. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 3255, aDS Bibcode: 2019MNRAS.483.3255L 3

    2019

  31. [39]

    2024, A&A, 690, A26, gSCC: 0000007 2025-06-12T06:17:39.999Z 2

    Li, C., Yuan, Z., Monari, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A26, gSCC: 0000007 2025-06-12T06:17:39.999Z 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    2018, Astrophys

    Li, H., Tan, K., & Zhao, G. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 238, 16, publisher: American Astronomical Society 2 54 X.-K. Hou et al

    2018

  33. [41]

    2025, ApJL, 984, L48, gSCC: 0000000 2025-06-12T06:17:36.061Z Publisher: The American Astronomical Society 10

    Lian, J., Du, M., Lu, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L48, gSCC: 0000000 2025-06-12T06:17:36.061Z Publisher: The American Astronomical Society 10

    2025

  34. [42]

    P., Naidu, R

    Limberg, G., Ji, A. P., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 2512 39

    2024

  35. [43]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4 7

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4 7

    2021

  36. [44]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, publisher: The American Astronomical Society 5

    2017

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 104 2, 8, 30, 38

    Malhan, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2024, ApJ, 964, 104 2, 8, 30, 38

    2024

  38. [46]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 107, publisher: The American Astronomical Society 39

    2022

  39. [47]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2230, gSCC: 0000198 2025-06-12T06:17:28.977Z Publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2015MNRAS.451.2230M 23

    Martig, M., Rix, H.-W., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2230, gSCC: 0000198 2025-06-12T06:17:28.977Z Publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2015MNRAS.451.2230M 23

    2015

  40. [48]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 3655, gSCC: 0000276 2025-06-12T06:17:32.321Z 10

    Martig, M., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 3655, gSCC: 0000276 2025-06-12T06:17:32.321Z 10

    2016

  41. [49]

    D., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M

    Matteo, P. D., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A4, publisher: EDP Sciences 34

    2019

  42. [50]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76 7

    2017

  43. [51]

    2023, A&A, 674, A16, publisher: EDP Sciences 19

    Mowlavi, N., Holl, B., Lecoeur-Ta¨ıbi, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A16, publisher: EDP Sciences 19

    2023

  44. [52]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V . 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 1235 2, 40 M´esz´aros, S., & Prieto, C. A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 3285 6

    2019

  45. [53]

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

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48, publisher: The American Astronomical Society 2, 15, 38, 39, 40

    2020

  46. [54]

    2020, Nat Astron, 4, 1078, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 41

    Necib, L., Ostdiek, B., Lisanti, M., et al. 2020, Nat Astron, 4, 1078, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 41

    2020

  47. [55]

    B., et al

    Nepal, S., Chiappini, C., Queiroz, A. B., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A167, publisher: EDP Sciences 2, 38, 39

    2024

  48. [56]

    E., & Schuster, W

    Nissen, P. E., & Schuster, W. J. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 511, L10 14

    2010

  49. [57]

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2437, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2022MNRAS.513.2437P 18 Re Fiorentin, P., Spagna, A., Lattanzi, M. G., Cignoni, M., & Vitali, S. 2024, ApJ, 977, 278 8, 30, 38

    2022

  50. [58]

    E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al

    Rowland, L. E., Hodge, J., Bouwens, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 2068 2 Sch¨onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829 7 The Galactic metal-poor disc 55

    2024

  51. [59]

    F., Starkenburg, E., et al

    Sestito, F., Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, L7, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2020MNRAS.497L...7S 2, 8

    2020

  52. [60]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525 7

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525 7

    2019

  53. [61]

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 203, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2022ApJ...926..203V 35

    2022

  54. [62]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, L47, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2019MNRAS.487L..47V 32

    Vincenzo, F., Spitoni, E., Calura, F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, L47, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2019MNRAS.487L..47V 32

    2019

  55. [63]

    M., & Starkenburg, E

    Viswanathan, A., Horta, D., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Starkenburg, E. 2024, A slow spin to win – the gradual evolution of the proto-galaxy to the old disc, arXiv:2411.12165 34

    2024

  56. [64]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 3633, gSCC: 0000052 2025-06-12T06:17:21.881Z 23

    Wu, Y ., Xiang, M., Bi, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 3633, gSCC: 0000052 2025-06-12T06:17:21.881Z 23

    2018

  57. [65]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 8, 37

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 8, 37

    2022

  58. [66]

    2024, Nat Astron, 1, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 2, 33, 34

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Yang, H., et al. 2024, Nat Astron, 1, publisher: Nature Publishing Group 2, 33, 34

    2024

  59. [67]

    E., Bessell, M

    Yong, D., Norris, J. E., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2013, Apj, 762, 26, aDS Bibcode: 2013ApJ...762...26Y 6

    2013

  60. [68]

    1982, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 34, 365, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 1982PASJ...34..365Y 9

    Yoshii, Y . 1982, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 34, 365, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 1982PASJ...34..365Y 9

    1982

  61. [69]

    C., Beers, T

    Yuan, Z., Myeong, G. C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020b, The Astrophysical Journal, V olume 891, Issue 1, id.39, <NUMPAGES>17</NUMPAGES> pp. (2020), 891, 39 9

    2020

  62. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 174 15, 39

    Zhang, R., Matsuno, T., Li, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 174 15, 39

    2024

  63. [71]

    2006, ChjAA, 6, 265, aDS Bibcode: 2006ChJAA...6..265Z 1

    Zhao, G., Chen, Y .-Q., Shi, J.-R., et al. 2006, ChjAA, 6, 265, aDS Bibcode: 2006ChJAA...6..265Z 1

    2006

  64. [72]

    2012, RAA, 12, 723, aDS Bibcode: 2012RAA....12..723Z 1

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y .-H., Chu, Y .-Q., Jing, Y .-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, RAA, 12, 723, aDS Bibcode: 2012RAA....12..723Z 1

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.