pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20487 · v1 · pith:KDNVP3JVnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Milky Way Mapper decoded abundances -- I. Shared disc enrichment patterns

Melissa K. Ness , Sarah Aquilina , Jennifer Mead , Emily Griffith , Catherine Manea , Jonathan Bird , Andrew R. Casey , Lucy (Yuxi) Lu
show 9 more authors
Kathryn V. Johnston Michael R. Blanton James W. Johnson Maja Jablonska Leticia Carigi Jos\'e G. Fern\'andez-Trincado Ricardo L\'opez Valdivia Ying-Yi Song Juna Kollmeier
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 06:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky Way discstellar abundancesnucleosynthetic patternschemical evolutioncore-collapse supernovaetype Ia supernovaeasymptotic giant branch starsMilky Way Mapper
0
0 comments X

The pith

Four latent patterns in stellar abundances trace distinct nucleosynthetic channels across the Milky Way disc.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a data-driven model that represents the abundances of red giant stars as linear combinations of four shared latent patterns. These patterns capture the contributions from different enrichment processes and fit the observations for the large majority of stars in the sample. A reader would care because this simplifies the interpretation of multi-element data from large surveys and connects observed patterns directly to sources like core-collapse supernovae and asymptotic giant branch stars, providing new insight into the Milky Way's chemical history.

Core claim

The abundances of 70,057 red giant stars from the Milky Way Mapper survey are expressed as linear combinations of four latent nucleosynthetic patterns shared across the population. The model reproduces the measured abundances with chi-squared less than 3 for about 80 percent of stars and less than 5 for 95 percent. The patterns are associated with early and late core-collapse supernovae, supernovae Type Ia, and asymptotic giant branch stars, with high precision of about 3 percent.

What carries the argument

A generative model decomposing each star's 16-element abundance vector into a linear combination of four shared latent nucleosynthetic patterns.

If this is right

  • The dominance of different enrichment channels varies with age, metallicity, and spatial position in the disc.
  • Enrichment patterns are tightly coupled to the orbital properties of stars.
  • Mean pattern fractions change smoothly with overall enrichment but shift rapidly between the high-alpha and low-alpha sequences.
  • Stars that cannot be fit by the model indicate accreted material or additional enrichment channels in the metal-poor disc.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This approach could be extended to other large spectroscopic surveys to map enrichment in different galactic environments.
  • The recovered patterns with 3 percent precision might help refine theoretical nucleosynthetic yield predictions when compared to simulations.
  • Identifying how pattern fractions evolve could lead to better age estimates or formation history reconstructions for individual stars.

Load-bearing premise

The four latent patterns correspond one-to-one with physically distinct nucleosynthetic channels from specific sources rather than being purely mathematical decompositions.

What would settle it

A sample of stars with abundance vectors that require a fifth independent pattern to achieve a good fit, or detailed yield calculations that fail to match the recovered pattern compositions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20487 by Andrew R. Casey, Catherine Manea, Emily Griffith, James W. Johnson, Jennifer Mead, Jonathan Bird, Jos\'e G. Fern\'andez-Trincado, Juna Kollmeier, Kathryn V. Johnston, Leticia Carigi, Lucy (Yuxi) Lu, Maja Jablonska, Melissa K. Ness, Michael R. Blanton, Ricardo L\'opez Valdivia, Sarah Aquilina, Ying-Yi Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The spatial distribution across Rgal-z and the [Fe/H]-[Mg/Fe] dis￾tribution, for the 70,057 selected GG stars. 2025). SDSS-V utilises the Sloan Foundation Telescope at Apache Point Observatory (Gunn et al. 2006) and the du Pont Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory (Bowen & Vaughan 1973), both equipped with APOGEE spectrographs (Wilson et al. 2019). We select red giant stars observed at resolution 𝑅 = 22, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The median uncertainties for all 16 elements in the set of 70,057 Milky Way Mapper stars that meet quality cuts. All elements are with respect to H. reported as [X/H]. The median [X/H] uncertainties for the sample are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The mode of the distribution of per-star 𝜒 2 between the generated and ASTRA ASPCAP abundances for the 70,057 Milky Way Mapper disc stars, shown as a function of the number of latent components (pattern vectors) used in the model of the 16 element abundances.We adopt 𝑀 = 4 components for our analysis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Reduced 2 per star 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Number of stars 2 mode = 1.03 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of per-star reduced 𝜒 2 values for the sample of 70,057 stars, based on a latent variable model with 𝑀 = 4 components (patterns). Approximately 20% of stars have a reduced 𝜒 2 > 3 and ∼5% of stars have reduced 𝜒 2 > 5. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Elemental abundances predicted by the latent variable model for the Milky Way Mapper disc sample, using 𝑀 = 4 latent components. The measured ASTRA ASPCAP abundances are on the x-axis and the generated abundance using the NMF basis are shown on the y-axis. The bias, scatter and intrinsic scatter (subtracting the mean error in quadrature) are indicated in each sub-figure. The abundances are reconstructed fr… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of the reported DR19 ASTRA ASPCAP abundances for individual stars, versus the abundances generated with the latent vector model. Each panel shows a star that is randomly selected from the set of ∼40,660 stars with reduced 𝜒 2 < 2, from within narrow metallicity ranges in each sub-panel, to represent the full range of the sample across all panels. The stars are ordered from metal-poor to metal-ri… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The four latent pattern vectors, 𝑃, identified from data, showing the relative contribution of each element to each pattern. These patterns do not represent single yields, but rather integrated enrichment signatures. They each show distinct behaviour and can subsequently be associated with dominant enrichment channels or sources, as indicated in the legend. Their physical interpretation is guided by canoni… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of the goodness of the generated model fits com￾pared to the data, parameterised using a reduced 𝜒 2 metric. The y-axis reports the fraction of stars as a function of metallicity with a reduced 𝜒 2 < 3 and reduced 𝜒 2 < 5, respectively. The edges of the distribution are poorly fit by the model. Increasing the number of latent channels, 𝑀 broadens the distribution slightly, but the overall … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A two-dimensional hex-binned diagram of stars in orbital circu￾larity (𝜂 = 𝐿𝑧 /𝐿𝑐 (𝐸)) versus [Mg/Fe], coloured by the mean reduced chi-squared (𝜒 2 red) from the latent-abundance model (only bins with ≥ 3 stars are shown). Stars with high 𝜒 2 red are broadly distributed, but their average values are systematically higher in specific regions of parameter space. In particular, stars near 𝜂 ≈ 0 show elevated… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The figure reports the fraction of stars with 𝜒 2 red > 5 across angular momentum–eccentricity space (and in the central scatter plot these are the red points). This shows the regions in this plane where poor fits are most prevalent, also seen as groups of stars concentrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The median per-element 𝜒 2 for the 80% of stars that have a reduced 𝜒 2 < 3 (grey dashed line) compared to the small fraction (5%) of stars with reduced 𝜒 2 > 5 at [Fe/H] > 0.3 (≈ 30% of stars with [Fe/H] > 0.3) and [Fe/H] < -0.6 (≈ 30% of stars [Fe/H] < -0.6). Different elements are poorly fit at each metallicity end of the distribution. ical extent of the disc, but show highest concentration at high ecc… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mean per-star normalised pattern fractions, ⟨f𝑚⟩, shown as a func￾tion of five key parameters: metallicity ([Fe/H]), 𝛼-enhancement ([Mg/Fe]), vertical height from the Galactic plane (|𝑧 |), Galactocentric radius (𝑅gal), and stellar age. Stars are sorted by the relevant coordinate and grouped into bins containing an equal number of stars. All panels show smooth, system￾atic variations. Channel 1 (SN II) co… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The distinct spatial and chemical distributions of pattern fractions for the ∼90% of stars with reduced 𝜒 2 < 5. The top two rows show the distribution of stars for which each latent channel provides the dominant contribution. The third row shows a spatial map of stars in the 𝑅gal–𝑧 plane, coloured by the per-star normalised pattern fraction f𝑖𝑚 for the corresponding channel. The fourth row shows the dist… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The per-star normalised channel fractions f𝑖𝑚 shown on the y-axis for the 90% of stars with reduced 𝜒 2 < 5. Each panel shows how the fractional contribution of each enrichment channel (1–4) varies across stellar age, metallicity ([Fe/H]), and vertical velocity (𝑣𝑧 ). The distributions demonstrate that each channel exhibits a distinct dependence on chemical, temporal, and dynamical properties. temporal pr… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The bottom row shows the distribution of stars across the 𝑧 − 𝑣𝑧 plane for each latent channel, coloured by their pattern fractions ( 𝑓𝑐ℎ ). The location in the 𝑧 − 𝑣𝑧 plane is a proxy for vertical orbital energy, which increases with distance from the center of these coordinates. The fractional distributions of latent channel shows structure that varies between the channels with opposite contrast between… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The 𝑅gal − 𝑧 plane coloured by the mean residuals (model prediction - measurement) of the generated abundances - the measured abundances across the 𝑅 − 𝑧 plane for all 15 elements. The colourbar shows the residual amplitude and the element for which the residual is calculated is shown in each sub-panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The [Fe/H]-Mg plane coloured by the mean residuals (model prediction - measurement) of the generated abundances - the measured abundances across the 𝑅 − 𝑧 plane for all 15 elements. The colourbar shows the residual amplitude and the element for which the residual is calculated is shown in each sub-panel. MNRAS 000, 000–000 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The maps of non-abundance parameters not included in the model including 𝑇eff, SNR, heliocentric velocity, 𝑉rad, log 𝑔, which reveal some similarities to the residual structure shown in Figures 16 and 17. MNRAS 000, 000–000 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Elemental abundances in the Milky Way disc trace its star-formation and enrichment history, but predicting these abundances from theory is limited by uncertain nucleosynthetic yields and poorly constrained chemical evolution models. Large surveys provide many abundances that enable multi-dimensional insight. However, having so much data available complicates joint visualisation and physical interpretation. Here, we examine the element abundances of 70,057 red giant stars from the Milky Way Mapper survey ([Fe/H] $> -1$), using 16 elements (O,~Mg,~Al,~Si,~S,~K,~Ca,~Ti,~V, ~Cr, Mn,~Fe,~Co,~Ni,~Ce,~Nd). To tackle the challenges of joint-interpretation of these elements, we build a generative data-driven model, expressing each star's abundance vector as a linear combination of a few ($4$) latent nucleosynthetic patterns. These patterns are shared among the population but vary in fraction between stars. The model accurately generates the measured abundances, with $\chi^2 < 3$ (5) for $\sim$ 80\% (95\%) of stars. Model failures, where stars' abundances are not generated by the latent basis reveal accreted material and the role of multiple channels of metal-poor disk enrichment. We associate the recovered patterns, which represent high-precision ($\sigma_P \sim 3$\%) nucleosynthetic channels, with specific enrichment sources; (early and late) core-collapse supernovae, supernovae Type Ia, and asymptotic giant branch stars. We subsequently explore how the dominance of enrichment channels varies across age, metallicity and spatial extent of the disk, and show that enrichment patterns tightly couple to orbital properties. Mean pattern fractions vary smoothly with enrichment, and change rapidly across the valley between the high- and low-$\alpha$ sequences. Our results provide a framework for improving our understanding of Galactic evolution in the Milky Way.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper presents a data-driven generative model for the abundances of 16 elements in 70,057 red giant stars from the Milky Way Mapper survey with [Fe/H] > -1. Each star's abundance vector is modeled as a linear combination of four shared latent patterns, which the authors interpret as nucleosynthetic channels from early and late core-collapse supernovae, Type Ia supernovae, and asymptotic giant branch stars. The model achieves χ² < 3 for approximately 80% of stars and χ² < 5 for 95%, with failures linked to accreted material. The authors then examine how the fractional contributions of these patterns vary with stellar age, metallicity, and orbital properties, noting smooth variations and rapid changes across the high-α to low-α transition.

Significance. Should the mapping of latent patterns to physical nucleosynthetic sources prove robust, the work would offer a valuable framework for interpreting large-scale abundance data in the Milky Way disk. The reported high fit quality (χ² < 3 for ~80% of stars) and the linkage between enrichment patterns and orbital dynamics represent potential advances in connecting chemical and dynamical evolution. The approach of using shared patterns with varying fractions is a strength for population-level insights, and the identification of model failures as accreted material is a useful byproduct.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the recovered patterns 'represent high-precision (σ_P ∼3%) nucleosynthetic channels' associated with specific sources requires justification. The abstract asserts the association with early and late core-collapse supernovae, supernovae Type Ia, and asymptotic giant branch stars, but provides no description of the mapping procedure, such as comparison to theoretical yield tables or quantitative matching of element ratios. This assumption is load-bearing for the interpretations of enrichment dominance and coupling to orbital properties.
  2. [Pattern identification and interpretation] Pattern identification and interpretation: If the four latent patterns are obtained via an unconstrained decomposition optimized only for reconstruction error, alternative bases could achieve similar χ² values without corresponding to the claimed physical channels. A quantitative test, such as direct matching to specific yield models or element-ratio diagnostics, is needed to establish the one-to-one correspondence rather than leaving it as an unstated criterion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Data selection] Clarify the exact criteria for selecting the 70,057 stars beyond [Fe/H] > -1, including any quality cuts on abundances or orbits, to allow reproducibility.
  2. [Notation] Define σ_P explicitly when first introduced, as it is used to claim the precision of the channels.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the justification for our pattern associations. We have revised the manuscript to include explicit descriptions of the mapping procedure and quantitative comparisons to yield models. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the recovered patterns 'represent high-precision (σ_P ∼3%) nucleosynthetic channels' associated with specific sources requires justification. The abstract asserts the association with early and late core-collapse supernovae, supernovae Type Ia, and asymptotic giant branch stars, but provides no description of the mapping procedure, such as comparison to theoretical yield tables or quantitative matching of element ratios. This assumption is load-bearing for the interpretations of enrichment dominance and coupling to orbital properties.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract and early sections would benefit from a clearer description of how the associations were made. In the revised manuscript we have updated the abstract to qualify the claim and added a new subsection in the Methods that details the mapping procedure. This includes qualitative identification via expected abundance signatures (high [α/Fe] for CCSNe, elevated [Mn/Fe] and low [α/Fe] for SNIa, and s-process enhancements for AGB) together with quantitative element-ratio comparisons against published yield tables. These additions directly support the load-bearing interpretations of enrichment dominance and orbital coupling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Pattern identification and interpretation] Pattern identification and interpretation: If the four latent patterns are obtained via an unconstrained decomposition optimized only for reconstruction error, alternative bases could achieve similar χ² values without corresponding to the claimed physical channels. A quantitative test, such as direct matching to specific yield models or element-ratio diagnostics, is needed to establish the one-to-one correspondence rather than leaving it as an unstated criterion.

    Authors: We agree that the decomposition is unconstrained and reconstruction-driven, which leaves open the possibility of alternative bases. To address this we have added a dedicated analysis subsection that performs direct quantitative matching of each recovered pattern to specific nucleosynthetic yield models from the literature. We report element-ratio diagnostics (e.g., [O/Mg], [Mn/Fe], [Ce/Fe]) and similarity metrics between the latent vectors and theoretical yields. While we recognize that other bases could achieve comparable χ², the consistency of our associations with multiple independent astrophysical diagnostics supports the adopted one-to-one mapping. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: data-driven decomposition with post-hoc physical interpretation

full rationale

The paper constructs a linear generative model that decomposes observed abundance vectors of 70k stars into 4 shared latent patterns, then reports reconstruction fidelity (χ²) and interprets the patterns as corresponding to known nucleosynthetic channels. The low χ² is a direct consequence of fitting the basis to the same data, but this is standard for dimensionality reduction and does not constitute a self-referential loop because the physical mapping is presented as an interpretive association rather than a mathematical derivation. No equations reduce the claimed channels to the fitted coefficients by construction, no self-citation chain supplies the uniqueness of the 4-pattern basis, and the subsequent correlations with age, [Fe/H], and orbits are measured on the fitted fractions independently of the initial decomposition. The derivation remains self-contained against the input catalog.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; full model specification, parameter selection procedure, and any external validation are unavailable.

free parameters (1)
  • number of latent patterns
    Set to four; choice appears driven by model fit quality on the survey data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar abundance vectors can be expressed as linear combinations of a small number of shared latent nucleosynthetic patterns
    Central modeling assumption stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5960 in / 1288 out tokens · 43243 ms · 2026-05-21T06:30:55.326050+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Agertz O., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5826A 503, 5826

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab322 2021

  2. [2]

    Antoja T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.561..360A 561, 360

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2018

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    W., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01740-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..911B 6, 911

    Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01740-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..911B 6, 911

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01740-w 2022

  5. [5]

    L., Fattahi A., Smith M

    Belokurov V., Sanders J. L., Fattahi A., Smith M. C., Deason A. J., Evans N. W., Grand R. J. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3880B 494, 3880

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  6. [6]

    V., Rybizki J., Bedell M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883...34B 883, 34

    Blancato K., Ness M., Johnston K. V., Rybizki J., Bedell M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883...34B 883, 34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e5 2019

  7. [7]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...29B 216, 29

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  8. [8]

    S., Vaughan Jr

    Bowen I. S., Vaughan Jr. A. H., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.12.001430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApOpt..12.1430B 12, 1430

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.12.001430 1973

  9. [9]

    R., Mesirov J

    Brunet J.-P., Tamayo P., Golub T. R., Mesirov J. P., 2004, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.0308531101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PNAS..101.4164B 101, 4164

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0308531101 2004

  10. [10]

    L., Proctor J

    Brunton S. L., Proctor J. L., Kutz J. N., 2016, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1517384113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PNAS..113.3932B 113, 3932

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1517384113 2016

  11. [11]

    Buck T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5435B 491, 5435

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3289 2020

  12. [12]

    Buder S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2025.26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASA...42...51B 42, e051

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.26 2025

  13. [13]

    R., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190204102C

    Casey A. R., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190204102C

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    arXiv:2310.13050

    Chandra V., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231013050C p. arXiv:2310.13050

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.13050 2023

  15. [15]

    Cirasuolo M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...10C 180, 10

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5195 2020

  16. [16]

    Ciuc a I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528L.122C 528, L122

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad033 2024

  17. [17]

    Cunha K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7beb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..145C 844, 145

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7beb 2017

  18. [18]

    Y., Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., Monty S., Myeong G., Evans N

    Davies E. Y., Belokurov V., Kravtsov A., Monty S., Myeong G., Evans N. W., Kane S. G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1201D 539, 1201

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf558 2025

  19. [19]

    K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C., Bensby T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...21F 934, 21

    Feuillet D. K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C., Bensby T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...21F 934, 21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac76ba 2022

  20. [20]

    W., Tremaine S., Price-Whelan A., Shen J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add5ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987...81F 987, 81

    Frankel N., Hogg D. W., Tremaine S., Price-Whelan A., Shen J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add5ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987...81F 987, 81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add5ea 2025

  21. [21]

    Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, , 40, 487

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  23. [23]

    E., Allende Prieto , C., Holtzman , J

    Garc \' a P \'e rez A. E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151..144G 151, 144

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144 2016

  24. [24]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...18G 180, 18

    Gonzalez O. A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Msngr.180...18G 180, 18

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5196 2020

  25. [25]

    Griffith E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909...77G 909, 77

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6be 2021

  26. [26]

    J., Hogg D

    Griffith E. J., Hogg D. W., Dalcanton J. J., Hasselquist S., Ratcliffe B., Ness M., Weinberg D. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167...98G 167, 98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad19c7 2024

  27. [27]

    J., Hogg, D

    Griffith E. J., Hogg D. W., Hasselquist S., Johnson J. W., Price-Whelan A., Sit T., Stone-Martinez A., Weinberg D. H., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/adc07f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..280G 169, 280

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc07f 2025

  28. [28]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn J. E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    work page doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  29. [29]

    Helmi A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..205H 58, 205

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  30. [30]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..125H 156, 125

    Holtzman J. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..125H 156, 125

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 2018

  31. [31]

    M., Hogg D

    Horta D., Price-Whelan A. M., Hogg D. W., Johnston K. V., Widrow L., Dalcanton J. J., Ness M. K., Hunt J. A. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16e8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..165H 962, 165

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad16e8 2024

  32. [32]

    Khoperskov S., Haywood M., Snaith O., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M., Vasiliev E., Naroenkov S., Berczik P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5176K 501, 5176

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3996 2021

  33. [34]

    I., Lugaro M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    Kobayashi C., Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

  34. [35]

    A., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250706989K p

    Kollmeier J. A., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250706989K p. arXiv:2507.06989

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06989 2025

  35. [36]

    S., 2000, in Leen T., Dietterich T., Tresp V., eds, Vol

    Lee D., Seung H. S., 2000, in Leen T., Dietterich T., Tresp V., eds, Vol. 13, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. MIT Press, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2000/file/f9d1152547c0bde01830b7e8bd60024c-Paper.pdf

    work page 2000

  36. [37]

    W., Bovy J., Mackereth J

    Leung H. W., Bovy J., Mackereth J. T., Miglio A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4577L 522, 4577

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1272 2023

  37. [38]

    L., Ness M

    Lu Y. L., Ness M. K., Buck T., Zinn J. C., Johnston K. V., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2890L 512, 2890

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac610 2022

  38. [39]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d 2017

  39. [40]

    arXiv:2508.16717

    Manea C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.16717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250816717M p. arXiv:2508.16717

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16717 2025

  40. [41]

    Martig M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3655M 456, 3655

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2830 2016

  41. [42]

    A., Ness M

    McKinnon K. A., Ness M. K., Rockosi C. M., Guhathakurta P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..120M 965, 120

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2859 2024

  42. [43]

    K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0b64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...994...52M 994, 52

    Mead J., De La Garza Evia R., Ness M. K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0b64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...994...52M 994, 52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0b64 2025

  43. [44]

    M \'e sz \'a ros S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ade4b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....170...96M 170, 96

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ade4b9 2025

  44. [45]

    P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B

    Naidu R. P., Conroy C., Bonaca A., Johnson B. D., Ting Y.-S., Caldwell N., Zaritsky D., Cargile P. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...48N 901, 48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 2020

  45. [46]

    W., Rix , H.-W., Ho , A

    Ness M., Hogg D. W., Rix H.-W., Ho A. Y. Q., Zasowski G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/16 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...16N 808, 16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/16 2015

  46. [47]

    W., Rix H.-W., Martig M., Pinsonneault M

    Ness M., Hogg D. W., Rix H.-W., Martig M., Pinsonneault M. H., Ho A. Y. Q., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..114N 823, 114

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/114 2016

  47. [48]

    K., Wheeler A

    Ness M. K., Wheeler A. J., McKinnon K., Horta D., Casey A. R., Cunningham E. C., Price-Whelan A. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..144N 926, 144

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4754 2022

  48. [49]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..173N 150, 173

    Nidever D. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..173N 150, 173

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173 2015

  49. [50]

    K., Brachwitz F., Tsujimoto T., Kubo Y., Kishimoto N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00291-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997NuPhA.621..467N 621, 467

    Nomoto K., Iwamoto K., Nakasato N., Thielemann F. K., Brachwitz F., Tsujimoto T., Kubo Y., Kishimoto N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00291-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997NuPhA.621..467N 621, 467

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(97)00291-1 1997

  50. [51]

    Nomoto K., Tominaga N., Umeda H., Kobayashi C., Maeda K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NuPhA.777..424N 777, 424

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008 2006

  51. [52]

    Nomoto K., Kobayashi C., Tominaga N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..457N 51, 457

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 2013

  52. [53]

    Ortigoza-Urdaneta M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.140O 676, A140

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346325 2023

  53. [54]

    R., Wetzel A., Barry M., Bhattarai B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.1571P 537, 1571

    Parul H., Bailin J., Loebman S. R., Wetzel A., Barry M., Bhattarai B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.1571P 537, 1571

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf137 2025

  54. [55]

    H., Zinn, J

    Pinsonneault M. H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..276...69P 276, 69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef 2025

  55. [56]

    I., Ryde N., Andersson E

    Renaud F., Agertz O., Read J. I., Ryde N., Andersson E. P., Bensby T., Rey M. P., Feuillet D. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5846R 503, 5846

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab250 2021

  56. [57]

    arXiv:2507.07093

    SDSS Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250707093S p. arXiv:2507.07093

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07093 2025

  57. [58]

    Sch \"o nrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1829S 403, 1829

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x 2010

  58. [59]

    V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..254S 161, 254

    Smith V. V., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..254S 161, 254

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc 2021

  59. [60]

    A., Yuxi Lu Imig S

    Stone-Martinez A., Holtzman J. A., Yuxi Lu Imig S. H. J., Griffith E. J., Bellinger E., Saydjari A. K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250303138S p. arXiv:2503.03138

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03138 2025

  60. [61]

    H., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210204992T p

    Ting Y.-S., Weinberg D. H., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210204992T p. arXiv:2102.04992

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [62]

    H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874..102W 874, 102

    Weinberg D. H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874..102W 874, 102

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab07c7 2019

  62. [63]

    H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260...32W 260, 32

    Weinberg D. H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260...32W 260, 32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6028 2022

  63. [64]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131e5001W 131, 055001

    Wilson J. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131e5001W 131, 055001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 2019

  64. [65]

    E., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS..101..181W 101, 181

    work page doi:10.1086/192237 1995

  65. [66]

    S., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI

    de Jong R. S., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI. p. 99081O, @doi 10.1117/12.2232832

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2232832 2016