Cited by 168Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reverse engineering the Milky Way

Open access
Forbes, Duncan A·2020·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

The ages, metallicities, alpha-elements, and integrals of motion of globular clusters (GCs) accreted by the Milky Way from disrupted satellites remain largely unchanged over time. Here we have used these conserved properties in combination to assign 76 GCs to five progenitor satellite galaxies – one of which we dub the Koala dwarf galaxy. We fit a leaky-box chemical enrichment model to the age–metallicity distribution of GCs, deriving the effective yield and the formation epoch of each satellite. Based on scaling relations of GC counts we estimate the original halo mass, stellar mass, and mean metallicity of each satellite. The total stellar mass of the five accreted satellites contributed around 109 M⊙ in stars to the growth of the Milky Way but over 50 per cent of the Milky Way’s GC system. The five satellites formed at very early times and were likely accreted 8–11 Gyr ago, indicating rapid growth for the Milky Way in its early evolution. We suggest that at least three satellites were originally nucleated, with the remnant nucleus now a GC of the Milky Way. 11 GCs are also identified as having formed ex situ but could not be assigned to a single progenitor satellite.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/staa245

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Forbes, D. A.
Affiliations
Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Forbes, Duncan A
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2020-01-29
Volume
493
Issue
1
Pages
847-854
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W3004510381
Cited by
168
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 20
FWCI
10.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
ARC (DP160101608)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Keywords
globular clusters, Milky Way accretion history, age-metallicity relation, first integrals, alpha elements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review