Paper detail

Disc dichotomy signature in the vertical distribution of [Mg/Fe] and the delayed gas infall scenario

The analysis of the APOGEE data suggests the existence of a clear distinction between two sequences of disc stars in the [$α$/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] abundance ratio space. We aim to test if the two-infall chemical evolution models designed to reproduce these two sequences in the solar neighbourhood are also capable to predict the disc bimodality observed in the vertical distribution of [Mg/Fe] in APOGEE DR16 data. Along with the predicted chemical composition of SSPs born at different Galactic times in the solar vicinity, we provide their maximum vertical height |zmax| above the Galactic plane computed assuming the relation between the vertical action and stellar age in thin disc stars. The predicted vertical distribution of the [Mg/Fe] abundance ratio is in agreement with the one observed combining the APOGEE DR16 data and the astroNN catalogue (stellar ages, orbital parameters) for stars younger than 8 Gyr (only low-$α$ sequence stars). Including the high-$α$ disc component, the dichotomy in the vertical [Mg/Fe] abundance distribution is reproduced considering the observational cut in the Galactic height of |z| < 2 kpc. However, our model predicts a too flat growth of the |zmax| as a function of [Mg/Fe] for high-$α$ objects in contrast with the median values from APOGEE data. Possible explanations for such a tension are: i) the data sample with |z| < 2 kpc is more likely contaminated by halo stars, causing the median values to be kinematically hotter, ii) external perturbations such as minor mergers could have heated up the disc, and the heating of the orbits cannot be modelled by only scattering processes. Assuming for the data a disc dissection based on chemistry, the observed |zmax| distributions for high-$α$ and low-$α$ sequences are in good agreement with our model predictions if we consider in the calculation the errors in the vertical action estimates.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.