Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 93 references

Molybdenum and ruthenium in open clusters share the enrichment timeline of slow-neutron-capture elements, yet the slow process alone cannot explain their ratios.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:03 UTC pith:DC6BHTM7

load-bearing objection Useful new dataset — first Ru in a large open-cluster sample — with a robust correlation analysis and a central offset claim that depends on the absolute Ru scale; referee it, but ask for a quantitative blend/NLTE check. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26347 v1 pith:DC6BHTM7 submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Stellar Population Astrophysics (SPA) with the TNG. Beyond the iron peak: Galactic evolution of molybdenum, ruthenium and zirconium through open clusters

Natalia Alvarez-Baena , Valentina D'Orazi , Christopher Sneden , Athanasios Psaltis , Fr\'ed\'eric Th\'evenin , Angela Bragaglia , Tamara Mishenina , Shilpa Bijavara Seshashayana
show 6 more authors
Ricardo Carrera Laia Casamiquela Marina Dal Ponte Henrik J\"onsson Antonino Nunnari Marco Pignatari
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords open clustersmolybdenum abundanceruthenium abundancezirconium abundanceneutron-capture nucleosynthesiss-processr-processGalactic chemical evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper supplies new stellar abundances of molybdenum, ruthenium, and zirconium for 81 giant stars in 30 open clusters, and with it the first ruthenium measurements for a large open-cluster sample. Its central claim is that Mo and Ru track the classic slow-neutron-capture elements Sr, Y, and Zr with slopes close to unity, evidence that these elements were enriched on the same timescales. Against europium, the standard rapid-neutron-capture tracer, the slopes drop to roughly 0.4–0.5, so the r-process is only a minority contributor. Finally, in the ratio planes [Ru/Mo] versus [Zr/Mo], [Sr/Mo], and [Y/Mo], the cluster data sit systematically away from pure s-process predictions, which the paper reads as proof that the slow process alone cannot account for the observed Mo–Ru region. A sympathetic reader would care because open clusters carry known ages, turning these ratios into time-resolved constraints on which stellar sources build elements just beyond iron.

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that molybdenum and ruthenium behave as a coherent pair in the Galactic thin disc: a Bayesian fit to cluster-averaged absolute abundances gives an A(Ru)–A(Mo) slope of 0.97 ± 0.07, and Mo and Ru both correlate with Sr, Y, and Zr at slopes near unity (e.g., A(Y)–A(Mo) = 1.01 ± 0.09, A(Zr)–A(Ru) = 1.05 ± 0.07). By contrast, the slopes against europium are 0.50 ± 0.10 (Eu–Mo) and 0.39 ± 0.10 (Eu–Ru), consistent with the mixed s-, r-, and p-process isotopic composition of these elements. In the metallicity-independent chemical planes [Ru/Mo] versus [Zr/Mo], [Sr/Mo], and [Y/Mo], the open clusters show a systematic offset from the pure s-process track predicted by Gal

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the ratio plane built from [Ru/Mo] against [s/Mo] for each of the s-process elements Sr, Y, and Zr. Because Mo has s-, r-, and p-only isotopes, and Ru likewise has s-, r-, and p-only isotopes, the ratio [Ru/Mo] is sensitive to the mix of processes; the observed cluster ratios can then be compared directly with theoretical s-process yields, an r-process template star, and candidate extra components. The slopes from absolute abundances A(El) between element pairs serve as the supporting quantitative tool, fitted with a Bayesian mixture model that tolerates outliers.

Load-bearing premise

The entire ruthenium dataset rests on the assumption that the single Ru line at 4869.153 Å is unblended and LTE-reliable in these cool giants; if that line is affected by the nearby silicon blend or by non-LTE effects, all slopes and offsets built on Ru would shift.

What would settle it

Measure Ru abundances in a subset of the same stars from a different Ru line (e.g., 4757 or 5636 Å) or with higher signal-to-noise spectra, and check whether the A(Ru) vs A(Mo) slope and the [Ru/Mo] plane offsets survive; if the new Ru values scatter or shift systematically with temperature, the single-line assumption fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Open clusters and thin-disc field stars fall on the same Mo–Ru–Zr trends, so clusters can stand in for field stars in chemical-evolution studies of the Sr–Ru region.
  • Near-unity slopes among Mo, Ru, Sr, Y, and Zr imply a common enrichment timescale for these elements in the disc.
  • The shallow Eu slopes show that the r-process contributes only a fraction of Mo and Ru, and the residual must come from s-, p-, or intermediate processes.
  • The systematic offset in the [Ru/Mo] vs [s/Mo] planes means any Galactic chemical evolution model that uses only s-process yields will underproduce the observed Mo–Ru ratio.
  • The first large open-cluster Ru dataset provides a new reference for testing future nucleosynthesis models at known cluster ages.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the single Ru line harbours an unrecognized blend in cool giants, the near-unity Ru–Mo slopes could be partly an artefact; a multi-line Ru measurement on a subset would settle it.
  • Because the paper cannot uniquely decompose the extra component, the offset planes could be re-fitted to derive the required yield of, say, the i-process or neutrino-driven winds as a function of cluster age.
  • The clusters have known ages yet the paper does not bin by age; doing so could reveal whether the r-process contribution is delayed relative to the s-process, which the current slope analysis cannot see.
  • The old cluster Ruprecht 171's low [Zr/Fe] stands out; a dedicated orbital analysis could test whether it formed elsewhere and migrated, which would make age-trend interpretations more cautious.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents LTE spectral-synthesis abundances of Mo, Ru, and Zr for 81 evolved stars in 30 open clusters, using HARPS-N spectra from the SPA programme and combining them with previously published Sr, Y, and Eu abundances from DP25. The paper reports near-unity correlations between Mo, Ru, and s-process tracers Sr, Y, Zr; flatter correlations with Eu; and systematic offsets in the [Ru/Mo] versus [Zr/Mo], [Sr/Mo], and [Y/Mo] planes relative to Bisterzo et al. s-process GCE predictions. It interprets the offsets as evidence that the s-process alone cannot reproduce the Zr-Ru region, while conceding that the relative contributions of different production channels cannot be uniquely disentangled from the present data.

Significance. If robust, this is the first sizable open-cluster sample of Ru abundances and a useful new probe of heavy-element enrichment timescales. The near-unity slope relations are largely robust to zero-point shifts, and the paper is transparent in using public codes, in presenting extensive sensitivity tables, and in comparing against external GCE models and an r-process template. The main caveat is that the absolute-ratio conclusion, i.e., the offset in Fig. 5, rests on a single Ru line and on assumed [O/Fe] for CN blending, so that conclusion is considerably less robust than the slope result. The paper also honestly states that the data cannot uniquely identify the nucleosynthetic channels responsible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4 (Ru determination) and Fig. 5] The central offset claim in Fig. 5 depends directly on absolute [Ru/Mo]. Ru is measured from one line, Ru I 4869.153 Angstrom, classified as Yes/Undecided. The only blend tested is Si II 4869.086 Angstrom with [Si/Fe] assumed to be +0.25; [Si/Fe] is not measured, no alternative Ru line is carried through the sample, and LTE is assumed because NLTE corrections are unavailable. A constant 0.1 dex systematic in A(Ru) would shift Fig. 5 vertically and move stars relative to the s-process band, while the Table 5 slopes would be unaffected. This needs a quantitative robustness test, e.g., benchmark stars, alternative lines, or an estimated Si abundance.
  2. [Sec. 4 (Mo lines) and Table D.1] Mo I 5570.444 Angstrom, used for many stars and often as the only Mo line in Table C.1, is strongly affected by CN blending. The CN modeling assumes [O/Fe]=0.0 because no telluric-free O I measurement was available. Oxygen affects the C/O/CN balance, but no [O/Fe] sensitivity is given in Table D.1, which lists only Teff, log g, vmic, [Fe/H], [C/Fe], and [N/Fe] sensitivities. If [O/Fe] deviates from zero in cool giants, the Mo scale, and therefore [Ru/Mo] and [s/Mo], shifts. The authors should either constrain [O/Fe] or provide and propagate an O sensitivity.
  3. [Sec. 5 (chemical planes) and Fig. 5] The planes combine Sr and Y from DP25, derived in NLTE, with Mo, Ru, and Zr from this work, derived in LTE, without a cross-analysis zero-point check. A systematic offset between the two abundance scales could masquerade as the claimed offset from s-process predictions. The statement that the discrepancy cannot be attributed to NLTE effects or analysis systematics is an assertion; it should be supported by quantifying the relative zero-point, for example with common benchmark stars, re-analysis of a subsample, or explicit propagation of line-formation uncertainties.
  4. [Table 5 and Sec. 5 (s-process slope comparison)] The text says that the s-process slopes agree with Mishenina et al. (2019, 2026), but Table 5 lists A(Sr) vs A(Mo) = 1.61 +/- 0.07 and A(Sr) vs A(Ru) = 1.28 +/- 0.06 for Mishenina et al. (2026), compared with 0.89 +/- 0.11 and 0.79 +/- 0.10 in this work. These are not consistent within uncertainties. The claimed agreement should be revisited or explained, for example in terms of sample differences rather than a simple offset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5 and Fig. 4] The symbol Q denotes the outlier mixing fraction in the likelihood model but is also called the quality factor in Fig. 4. Please rename one of them to avoid confusion and define the quality factor explicitly.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Table 3] Minor typographical issues: 'is a a pure s-isotope' should read 'is a pure s-isotope', and the species labels 'Moi', 'Rui', and 'Zri' should be formatted as Mo I, Ru I, and Zr I.
  3. [Tables 4, D.1-D.3] The meaning of the dash entries in the abundance and sensitivity tables should be stated explicitly, i.e., no measurement, failed fit, or not applicable.
  4. [Figs. 3 and 4] The multi-panel figures with many literature overplots are dense and difficult to read at journal page size. Consider larger panels or separating the literature comparisons into a supplementary figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: new Mo/Ru/Zr measurements are empirical and are compared against external GCE models and independent literature data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are: (i) first Ru abundances for a large open-cluster sample, plus Mo and Zr; (ii) near-unity slopes between Mo/Ru and s-process elements; and (iii) systematic offsets in [Ru/Mo]–[s/Mo] planes compared with theoretical s-process predictions. The abundances are derived by spectral synthesis (TSFitPy) from HARPS-N spectra — an observational measurement chain with no fitted parameter recycled as a prediction. The s-process comparison uses Bisterzo et al. (2014) GCE models, an external parameterized prediction not fitted to the present sample. Literature slopes are refit with the same Bayesian mixture model from published abundances and checked against Mishenina et al. (2019, 2026) and Forsberg et al. (2019, 2022), which are independent data sets, not outputs of this paper. The r-process reference is the external r-II star CS 22892-052 (Sneden et al. 2003). Self-citations to DP25 for Sr/Y/Eu and to Mishenina et al. (2026) for the plane methodology supply data and methods, but they are not load-bearing: the central offset claim is computed from the paper's own measured ratios versus an external model. The paper itself flags the relevant limits — Sect. 5: 'we cannot clearly distinguish whether the location of our thin disc stars ... might be reproduced by a simple mixture of s- and r-processes, or whether additional components would be required'; Sect. 6: 'the relative contributions of different channels cannot be uniquely disentangled from the present data' — which weighs against any hidden circular certainty. No equation defines a target quantity in terms of the input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus no circular step is identifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on externally calibrated atomic data, literature solar abundances, LTE/1D atmosphere assumptions, and external model benchmarks (Bisterzo 2014; CS 22892-052). No new physical entities are introduced. The hand-set [O/Fe]=0.0 and the Mo line-quality threshold are the main free choices.

free parameters (2)
  • [O/Fe] assumed value = 0.0 dex
    Assumed for all stars because no telluric spectra were available (Sect. 4). It affects CN molecular blends used for Mo and Zr, and no sensitivity to O abundance is reported.
  • Mo line EW threshold = >= 7 mÅ
    Mo lines were included only when relatively strong, unsaturated, and isolated (Sect. 4). This hand-set selection could bias the Mo abundance sample.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption LTE is valid for the weak Mo, Ru, and Zr lines used
    Invoked in Sect. 4; NLTE corrections are unavailable for these lines and departures are assumed negligible. If NLTE effects are significant, abundances shift.
  • domain assumption The adopted solar abundances (Asplund et al. 2009; Magg et al. 2022) and Gaia-ESO line-list atomic data are accurate
    Used to convert line fits to absolute abundances (Sect. 4, Table 3). Wrong gf values or solar scale would shift all ratios.
  • domain assumption Open cluster membership from Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2018, 2020) is correct
    Sample selection in Sect. 3 relies on these membership catalogs; a contaminating field star would bias cluster means.
  • domain assumption CS 22892-052 represents the r-process abundance pattern in the Zr–Ru region
    Used as the r-process benchmark in Fig. 5; the paper notes this match breaks down for lighter elements (Sect. 5).
  • domain assumption Bisterzo et al. (2014) GCE s-process predictions are the correct reference
    The central offset claim compares observed [Ru/Mo] and [s/Mo] to these models (Sect. 5, Fig. 5).
  • domain assumption 1D model atmospheres (Turbospectrum/MARCS) are adequate for these giants
    Spectral synthesis uses Turbospectrum with 1D models; 3D effects are not considered.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38315 in / 12901 out tokens · 125768 ms · 2026-08-01T00:03:45.456379+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar Population Astrophysics (SPA) with the TNG. Beyond the iron peak: Galactic evolution of molybdenum, ruthenium and zirconium through open clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DC6BHTM7

@misc{pith2026260726347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar Population Astrophysics (SPA) with the TNG. Beyond the iron peak: Galactic evolution of molybdenum, ruthenium and zirconium through open clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DC6BHTM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26347}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Context: Open clusters serve as key laboratories for studying the chemical evolution of the Milky Way. In particular, leveraging these coeval groups of stars to study elements beyond the iron peak provides insights into heavy-element nucleosynthesis, whose origins remain uncertain. Aims: This work aims to determine the Mo, Ru, and Zr abundances for 81 stars across 30 open clusters. We compare these new chemical patterns with those of key reference elements (Y, Sr, Eu), which were previously derived by our group. This comparison seeks to disentangle the distinct contributions from various nucleosynthetic processes. Methods: Using the high-resolution spectra acquired within the Stellar Population Astrophysics programme using the HARPS-N echelle spectrograph at the Telescopio Nazionale Galileo, we estimate chemical abundances through spectral synthesis with TSFitPy under local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) conditions. Results: This study provides the first Ru abundances for a large open cluster sample, alongside new measurements for Mo and Zr. We observe tight correlations between Mo, Ru, and other s-process elements (Sr, Y, Zr), with slopes near unity, suggesting common enrichment timescales. Conversely, relations with the r-process element Eu show significant deviations, implying additional nucleosynthetic contributions. Crucially, chemical planes involving [Mo/Ru] and [s/Mo] ratios suggest systematic offsets when compared to theoretical s-process predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26347 by Angela Bragaglia, Antonino Nunnari, Athanasios Psaltis, Christopher Sneden, Fr\'ed\'eric Th\'evenin, Henrik J\"onsson, Laia Casamiquela, Marco Pignatari, Marina Dal Ponte, Natalia Alvarez-Baena, Ricardo Carrera, Shilpa Bijavara Seshashayana, Tamara Mishenina, Valentina D'Orazi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Observed spectrum (black circles) for the star IC 4756 star #2. In each panel, the element under consideration (Mo, Ru or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the values of [Mo/H] (upper panel), [Zr/H] (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel) derived in this study (black circles) for the OCs in common with Casamiquela et al. (2021, C+2021), Overbeek et al. (2016, O+2016), and Van der Swaelmen et al. (2023, VDS+2023), rep￾resented by orange pentagons, teal squares, and light purple hexagons, respectively, with their corresponding errors. The [Fe/H]… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: [Mo/Fe] (upper panel), [Ru/Fe] (middle panel) and [Zr/Fe] (bottom panel) with respect to [Fe/H]. For each OC, our results are presented as circles, colour-coded by its age. The teal squares represent the OCs from Overbeek et al. (2016, O+2016), the upward cyan triangle and the downward green triangle rep￾resent the thin and thick disc stars from Mishenina et al. (2019, M+2019). The yellow stars are the OCs… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear trends between the absolute abundances A(El [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [Ru/Mo] for our sample of OCs with respect to [Zr/Mo], [Sr/Mo] and [Y/Mo] based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2021, A&A, 656, A149

    Alonso-Santiago, J., Frasca, A., Catanzaro, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A149

    2021

  2. [2]

    & Plez, B

    Alvarez, R. & Plez, B. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 330

    1998

  3. [3]

    2024, 687, A101

    Alvarez-Baena, N., Carrera, R., Thompson, H., et al. 2024, 687, A101

    2024

  4. [4]

    & Grevesse, N

    Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197

    1989

  5. [5]

    R., Hayes, C

    Anguiano, B., Majewski, S. R., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 43

    2020

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 8

    Aoki, M., Ishimaru, Y ., Aoki, W., & Wanajo, S. 2017, ApJ, 837, 8

    2017

  7. [7]

    & Montes, F

    Arcones, A. & Montes, F. 2011, ApJ, 731, 5

    2011

  8. [8]

    & Thielemann, F.-K

    Arcones, A. & Thielemann, F.-K. 2013, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 40, 013201

    2013

  9. [9]

    & Goriely, S

    Arnould, M. & Goriely, S. 2003, Phys. Rep., 384, 1

    2003

  10. [10]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  11. [11]

    2021, A&A, 653, A67

    Baratella, M., D’Orazi, V ., Sheminova, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A67

    2021

  12. [12]

    Biemont, E., Grevesse, N., Hannaford, P., & Lowe, R. M. 1981, ApJ, 248, 867, (BGHL) Bijavara Seshashayana, S., Jönsson, H., D’Orazi, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A220 Bijavara Seshashayana, S., Jönsson, H., D’Orazi, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A218

    1981

  13. [13]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 10

    Bisterzo, S., Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Wiescher, M., & Käppeler, F. 2014, ApJ, 787, 10

    2014

  14. [14]

    Bliss, J., Arcones, A., & Qian, Y . Z. 2018, ApJ, 866, 105

    2018

  15. [15]

    2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 623

    Bossini, D., Vallenari, A., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 623

    2019

  16. [16]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547

    1957

  17. [17]

    Busso, M., Gallino, R., & Wasserburg, G. J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 239

    1999

  18. [18]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1

    2020

  19. [19]

    2018, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 618

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Jordi, C., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 618

    2018

  20. [20]

    2024, 687, A239

    Carbajo-Hijarrubia, J., Casamiquela, L., Carrera, R., et al. 2024, 687, A239

    2024

  21. [21]

    2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 663

    Carrera, R., Casamiquela, L., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 663

    2022

  22. [22]

    2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 627

    Carrera, R., Pasquato, M., Vallenari, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 627

    2019

  23. [23]

    2020, A&A, 643, A12

    Casali, G., Magrini, L., Frasca, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A12

    2020

  24. [24]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458

    Casamiquela, L., Carrera, R., Jordi, C., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458

    2016

  25. [25]

    2021, A&A, 652, A25

    Casamiquela, L., Soubiran, C., Jofré, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A25

    2021

  26. [26]

    2021, A&A, 648, A119

    Choplin, A., Siess, L., & Goriely, S. 2021, A&A, 648, A119

    2021

  27. [27]

    2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , V ol

    Cirasuolo, M., Afonso, J., Carollo, M., et al. 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , V ol. 9147 Article number, page 12 N. Alvarez-Baena et al.: Stellar Population Astrophysics (SPA) with the TNG

    2014

  28. [28]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Cosentino, R., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461V Côté, B., Denissenkov, P., Herwig, F., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 854, 105 Côté, B., Fryer, C. L., Belczynski...

    2012

  29. [29]

    Cowan, J. J. & Rose, W. K. 1977, ApJ, 212, 149

    1977

  30. [30]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002 ´Curjuri´c, B., Drazdauskas, A., Tautvaišien˙e, G., et al. 2026, in press Dal Ponte, M., D’Orazi, V ., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A289 de Jong, R. S. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 574 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, ...

    2021

  31. [31]

    2010, ApJ, 712, 1359

    Farouqi, K., Kratz, K.-L., Pfeiffer, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1359

    2010

  32. [32]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  33. [33]

    W., & Morton, T

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., & Morton, T. D. 2014, ApJ, 795, 64

    2014

  34. [34]

    2019, A&A, 631, A113

    Forsberg, R., Jönsson, H., Ryde, N., & Matteucci, F. 2019, A&A, 631, A113

    2019

  35. [35]

    M., & Johansen, A

    Forsberg, R., Ryde, N., Jönsson, H., Rich, R. M., & Johansen, A. 2022, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 666

    2022

  36. [36]

    2019, A&A, 632, A16

    Frasca, A., Alonso-Santiago, J., Catanzaro, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A16

    2019

  37. [37]

    Friel, E. D. 2013, Open clusters and their role in the galaxy Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Recio-Blanco, A., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A38 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A1

    2013

  38. [38]

    1998, ApJ, 497, 388

    Gallino, R., Arlandini, C., Busso, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388

    1998

  39. [39]

    M., Magg, E., Plez, B., et al

    Gerber, J. M., Magg, E., Plez, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 669

    2023

  40. [40]

    2012, The Messenger, 147

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147

    2012

  41. [41]

    E., Magrini, L., Schiappacasse-Ulloa, J., Randich, S., & Merle, T

    Giribaldi, R. E., Magrini, L., Schiappacasse-Ulloa, J., Randich, S., & Merle, T. 2025, A&A, 702, A65

    2025

  42. [42]

    E., Vescovi, D., Magrini, L., et al

    Giribaldi, R. E., Vescovi, D., Magrini, L., et al. 2026, A&A, 711, A47

    2026

  43. [43]

    Grace, N. S. & More, K. R. 1934, Physical Review, 45, 166

    1934

  44. [44]

    J., Andersen, A

    Hansen, C. J., Andersen, A. C., & Christlieb, N. 2014, A&A, 568, A47

    2014

  45. [45]

    J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A31

    2012

  46. [46]

    2021, A&A, 645, A106

    Heiter, U., Lind, K., Bergemann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A106

    2021

  47. [47]

    W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D

    Hogg, D. W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1008.4686

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  48. [48]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1189

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y ., & Wanajo, S. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1189

    2007

  49. [49]

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., & Ryan, S. G. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1180

    2006

  50. [50]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1797

    Jian, M., Fu, X., D’Orazi, V ., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1797

    2026

  51. [51]

    2024, A&A, 687, A189

    Jian, M., Fu, X., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A189

    2024

  52. [52]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688 Jofré, P., Heiter, U., & Soubiran, C. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 571 Jofré, P., Heiter, U., Worley, C. C., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A38 Jönsson, H., Ryde, N., Nordlander, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A100 Käppeler, F., Gallino, R., Bisterzo, S., & Aoki, W. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 157

    2024

  53. [53]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030

    2014

  54. [54]

    & Ezzeddine, R

    Li, Y . & Ezzeddine, R. 2023, AJ, 165, 145

    2023

  55. [55]

    R., Davis, A

    Liu, N., Savina, M. R., Davis, A. M., et al. 2014, Astrophysical Journal, 786

    2014

  56. [56]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140

    2022

  57. [57]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.04916

    Magrini, L., Bensby, T., Randich, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.04916

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    2018, A&A, 617, A106

    Magrini, L., Spina, L., Randich, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A106

    2018

  59. [59]

    2022, Universe, 8, 64

    Magrini, L., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Casali, G., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 64

    2022

  60. [60]

    2023, A&A, 669, A119

    Magrini, L., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Spina, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A119

    2023

  61. [61]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, The Astronomi- cal Journal, 154

    2017

  62. [62]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.04629

    Mishenina, Tamara, Shereta, et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.04629

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    2026, A&A, 705, A38

    Mishenina, T., Kurtukian-Nieto, T., Gorbaneva, T., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A38

    2026

  64. [64]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3651

    Mishenina, T., Pignatari, M., Carraro, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3651

    2015

  65. [65]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489

    Mishenina, T., Pignatari, M., Gorbaneva, T., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489

    2019

  66. [66]

    C., Cowan, J., et al

    Montes, F., Beers, T. C., Cowan, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1685

    2007

  67. [67]

    1955, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 10, 919

    Murakawa, K. 1955, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 10, 919

    1955

  68. [68]

    2026, A&A, 708, A17

    Nunnari, A., D’Orazi, V ., Fiorentino, G., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A17

    2026

  69. [69]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629

    Origlia, L., Dalessandro, E., Sanna, N., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629

    2019

  70. [70]

    C., Friel, E

    Overbeek, J. C., Friel, E. D., & Jacobson, H. R. 2016, ApJ, 824, 75 Pehlivan Rhodin, A., Hartman, H., Nilsson, H., & Jönsson, P. 2024, A&A, 682, A184

    2016

  71. [71]

    2016, International Journal of Modern Physics E, 25, 1630003

    Pignatari, M., Göbel, K., Reifarth, R., & Travaglio, C. 2016, International Journal of Modern Physics E, 25, 1630003

    2016

  72. [72]

    2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Plez, B. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2012

  73. [73]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    2020

  74. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 11

    Psaltis, A., Jacobi, M., Montes, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 11

    2024

  75. [75]

    2022, A&A, 666, A121

    Randich, S., Gilmore, G., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A121

    2022

  76. [76]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 066201

    Rauscher, T., Dauphas, N., Dillmann, I., et al. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 066201

    2013

  77. [77]

    Á., & Arcones, A

    Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Eichler, M., Aloy, M. Á., & Arcones, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5733

    2021

  78. [78]

    P., Lugaro, M., Pereira, C

    Roriz, M. P., Lugaro, M., Pereira, C. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1956

    2021

  79. [79]

    V ., Daflon, S., Cunha, K., et al

    Sales-Silva, J. V ., Daflon, S., Cunha, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 154

    2022

  80. [80]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241

    2008

Showing first 80 references.