Paper detail

Ages and kinematics of chemically selected, accreted Milky Way halo stars

We exploit the [Mg/Mn]-[Al/Fe] chemical abundance plane to help identify nearby halo stars in the 14th data release from the APOGEE survey that have been accreted on to the Milky Way. Applying a Gaussian Mixture Model, we find a `blob' of 856 likely accreted stars, with a low disc contamination rate of ~7%. Cross-matching the sample with the second data release from Gaia gives us access to parallaxes and apparent magnitudes, which place constraints on distances and intrinsic luminosities. Using a Bayesian isochrone pipeline, this enables us to estimate new ages for the accreted stars, with typical uncertainties of ~20%. Our new catalogue is further supplemented with estimates of orbital parameters. The blob stars span a metallicities between -0.5 to -2.5, and [Mg/Fe] between -0.1 to 0.5. They constitute ~30% of the metal-poor ([Fe/H] < -0.8) halo at metallicities of ~-1.4. Our new ages are mainly range between 8 to 13 Gyr, with the oldest stars the metal-poorest, and with the highest [Mg/Fe] abundance. If the blob stars are assumed to belong to a single progenitor, the ages imply that the system merged with our Milky Way around 8 Gyr ago and that star formation proceeded for ~5 Gyr. Dynamical arguments suggest that such a single progenitor would have a total mass of ~1011Msun, similar to that found by other authors using chemical evolution models and simulations. Comparing the scatter in the [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane of the blob stars to that measured for stars belonging to the Large Magellanic Cloud suggests that the blob does indeed contain stars from only one progenitor.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.