Phylogeny of the Milky Way’s inner disk and bulge populations: Implications for gas accretion, (the lack of) inside-out thick disk formation, and quenching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that the bulge and the disk of the Milky Way (MW) at R ≲ 7 kpc are well described by a unique chemical evolution and a two-phase star formation history (SFH). We argue that the populations within this inner disk, not the entire disk, are the same, and that the outer Lindblad resonance (OLR) of the bar plays a key role in explaining this uniformity. In our model of a two-phase SFH, the metallicity, [ α /Fe] and [ α /H] distributions, and age-metallicity relation are all compatible with the observations of both the inner disk and bulge. The dip at [Fe/H] ∼ 0 dex seen in the metallicity distributions of the bulge and inner disk reflects the quenching episode in the SFH of the inner MW at age ∼8 Gyr, and the common evolution of the bulge and inner disk stars. Our results for the inner region of the MW, R ≲ 7 kpc, are consistent with a rapid build-up of a large fraction of its total baryonic mass within a few billion years. We show that at z ≤ 1.5, when the MW was starting to quench, transitioning between the end of the α -enhanced thick disk formation to the start of the thin disk, and yet was still gas rich, the gas accretion rate could not have been significant. The [ α /Fe] abundance ratio before and after this quenching phase would be different, which is not observed. The decrease in the accretion rate and gas fraction at z ≤ 2 was necessary to stabilize the disk allowing the transition from thick to thin disks, and for beginning the secular phase of the MW’s evolution. This possibly permitted a stellar bar to develop which we hypothesize is responsible for quenching the star formation. The present analysis suggests that MW history, and in particular at the transition from the thick to the thin disk – the epoch of the quenching – must have been driven by a decrease of the star formation efficiency. We argue that the decline in the intensity of gas accretion, the formation of the bar, and the quenching of the star formation rate (SFR) at the same epoch may be causally connected thus explaining their temporal coincidence. Assuming that about 20% of the gas reservoir in which metals are diluted is molecular, we show that our model is well positioned on the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation at all times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".