Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Abundances of alpha-Process Elements in Thin-Disk, Thick-Disk, and Halo Stars of the Galaxy: Non-LTE Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ratios [Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], [Ca/Fe], and [Ti/Fe] stay constant at about 0.3 in thick-disk and halo stars of low metallicity, then fall in the thick disk as Type Ia supernovae add iron.

desk verdict A valuable, carefully assembled NLTE abundance sample, but the headline claims of a universal 0.3 alpha plateau and halo distance-independence depend on cross-sample comparisons that lack a zero-point calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03370 v1 pith:EVEHO5AC submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Lyudmila Mashonkina , Maria Neretina , Tatyana Sitnova , Yuri Pakhomov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords alpha-processelementsnon-LTEanalysisthickdiskthingalactichalochemicalevolutionstellarabundancesTypeIasupernovae
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to answer whether the four alpha-process elements—magnesium, silicon, calcium, and titanium—enriched the Galaxy in lockstep from the earliest epochs. Combining 20 new stars with earlier measurements into a uniform sample of 94, the authors compute non-LTE abundances and find that in thick-disk stars with [Fe/H] ≤ −0.4 all four ratios sit at the same plateau of about 0.3 dex above iron. In the halo, the same 0.3 dex excess appears in both nearby dwarfs and giants out to roughly 8 kpc, implying a spatially uniform early enrichment. The thick disk's plateau falls away only above [Fe/H] ∼ −0.4, which the authors tie to the delayed appearance of iron from Type Ia supernovae. A sympathetic reader would care because these flat, common plateaus give nucleosynthesis models a sharply defined target: all four elements must be produced in the same relative amounts at early times.

What carries the argument

The central object is the [α/Fe]–versus–[Fe/H] plane for Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti across the thin-disk, thick-disk, and halo populations. The argument is carried by a non-LTE line-formation analysis on classical one-dimensional model atmospheres, with surface gravities checked against astrometric parallaxes, and by population assignments that combine kinematic probabilities with stellar ages from evolutionary tracks. The plateau values and the metallicity at which the thick disk departs from them are the concrete quantities that the conclusions rest on.

What would settle it

A reclassification of the few old, kinematically thin-disk stars into the thin disk—based on independent age or chemical-tagging evidence—would break the thick-disk plateau and its claimed uniformity; alternatively, thick-disk stars with [Fe/H] < −0.4 whose [Si/Fe] or [Ca/Fe] falls clearly below 0.2 would disprove the claim that all four elements plateau at the same level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the abundance ratios [Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], [Ca/Fe], and [Ti/Fe] are constant and mutually similar at the level of about 0.3 dex in thick-disk stars when [Fe/H] ≤ −0.4, and that halo stars show the same ∼0.3 dex excess whether they lie in the solar neighborhood or up to ∼8 kpc away. At higher metallicities the thick disk's ratios fall off, which the authors attribute to the onset of iron production in Type Ia supernovae. The paper also finds that for [Fe/H] ≤ −2.6 the star-to-star scatter of each alpha element relative to iron increases while the scatter among the alpha elements themselves stays small, a pattern they interpret as incomplete mixing of nucleosynthesis products in the earliest stellar generations. Along the way, the paper demonstrates that spectroscopically determined surface gravities from a non-LTE iron ionization balance agree with parallax-based gravities, validating the spectroscopic approach for stars beyond the reach of current astrometry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that stars can be reliably assigned to the thin disk, thick disk, or halo using kinematic probabilities combined with ages from evolutionary tracks, and specifically that old stars with high thin-disk probabilities actually belong to the thick disk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thick-disk stars with [Fe/H] ≤ −0.4 require nucleosynthesis models to produce Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti in identical relative amounts, all at about 0.3 dex above iron.
  • The onset of the thick disk's alpha decline near [Fe/H] ∼ −0.4 dates the arrival of Type Ia supernova iron to this metallicity, constraining the timescale of thick-disk formation.
  • Halo stars out to ∼8 kpc share the same alpha enhancement as nearby halo dwarfs, implying that the early Galaxy's enrichment was uniform over this volume.
  • The growing scatter in [α/Fe] at [Fe/H] ≤ −2.6, with small inter-alpha scatter, points to incomplete mixing of supernova ejecta during the formation of the most metal-poor stars.
  • Spectroscopic non-LTE gravities from iron ionization balance are reliable for distant stars, where parallax data are not yet accurate enough.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the identical ∼0.3 dex plateaus survive larger samples, they would provide a sharper test of supernova yield calculations than the current qualitative agreement between models and data.
  • The paper's age-based reassignment of a few kinematically thin-disk stars to the thick disk suggests that kinematic-only membership in large spectroscopic surveys could systematically blur abundance trends near the thin/thick disk boundary.
  • A direct extension would be to measure [α/Fe] in thick-disk candidates with [Fe/H] between −0.6 and −0.2 to map how sharply the plateau breaks, pinning down the Type Ia supernova onset metallicity.
  • The universality claim could be stress-tested by observing halo giants at distances beyond 8 kpc with next-generation astrometry; a gradient there would overturn the constant-halo picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper determines non-LTE abundances of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti for 20 previously unanalyzed stars using Gaia DR2 parallaxes and FOCES spectra, and combines these with 74 stars from the authors' earlier studies (51 nearby dwarfs/subdwarfs from Sitnova et al. 2015 and Zhao et al. 2016, and 23 halo giants from Mashonkina et al. 2017) to form a sample of 94 stars spanning [Fe/H] from -4 to +0.3. The authors verify spectroscopic surface gravities against Gaia DR2 astrometry and find good agreement. On this basis they claim three new results: (1) in the thick disk, [Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], [Ca/Fe], and [Ti/Fe] are constant and similar to each other at about 0.3 dex for [Fe/H] ≤ -0.4 and decline for higher metallicities, indicating the onset of Type Ia supernova iron production; (2) halo stars have the same α/Fe enhancement independent of distance out to ~8 kpc; (3) for [Fe/H] ≤ -2.6, the star-to-star scatter in [α/Fe] increases while the scatter among different α-elements remains small.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a valuable homogeneous non-LTE abundance dataset for three Galactic populations and confirms a single α-element plateau near 0.3 dex for the thick disk and halo, which would be an important constraint for models of Galactic chemical evolution. The Gaia-based verification of spectroscopic gravities is a useful methodological check. The main strengths are the consistent non-LTE treatment across elements, the differential line-by-line abundance method, and the explicit comparison with literature results and chemical evolution models. However, the two new headline conclusions depend on several fragile steps: population assignments based partly on age estimates with limited precision, and the combination of subsamples analyzed with different spectra, line sets, and signal-to-noise without a common-star zero-point calibration. These issues are not fatal in themselves but require additional robustness analysis before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The assignment of HD 112758, HD 144579, and HD 32923 to the thick disk is based exclusively on age estimates (10, 13.5, and 11 Gyr) despite kinematic thin-disk probabilities of 88%, 83%, and 97%, respectively. The paper itself notes that ages for some stars have large uncertainties (e.g., HD 40397 and HD 135204, whose ages are described as uncertain because they are far from leaving the main sequence). Since these stars lie exactly in the metallicity range that defines the thick-disk plateau and its falloff, the population classification is load-bearing. The authors should test the robustness of the plateau and of the decline at [Fe/H] > -0.4 by recomputing the thick-disk mean values with these borderline stars removed or moved to the thin disk, and by specifying the age-uncertainty effect on each assignment.
  2. [§2.1, §4.2] The full 94-star sample combines 51 dwarfs/subdwarfs from Sitnova et al. (2015) and Zhao et al. (2016), 23 halo giants from Mashonkina et al. (2017), and 20 new FOCES stars, which were analyzed with different instruments, spectral ranges, line lists, and signal-to-noise ratios. No star is analyzed in more than one pipeline, so the zero points of [X/H] and [Fe/H] are not independently tied between subsamples. This matters directly for the 'halo stars have the same [α/Fe] independent of distance' conclusion, which is essentially a dwarf-giant comparison, and also for the thick-disk plateau, which mixes the new sample with previous data. An uncalibrated relative zero-point offset of ~0.1 dex in [X/H] or [Fe/H] between subsamples would shift the claimed universal level of ~0.3 and could create or erase the apparent distance independence. The authors should either calibrate subsample zero points using common stars or, if that is not feasible, provide a quantitative error budget that propagates intersample systematic uncertainties through the derived mean [α/Fe] values.
  3. [§4.2 and Table 4] The halo distance-independence claim is based on a restricted set of elements for the giant subsample: for halo giants, [Si/Fe] is not averaged because of large scatter (only the Si I 3905 line, low SNR, strong blending), and Table 4 lists no [Ti/Fe] for halo giants. Thus the conclusion that halo stars at distances up to ~8 kpc have the same [α/Fe] as nearby dwarfs rests on [Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] alone. The paper should explicitly state this elemental limitation, and, if available, present any Ti or additional Si measurements for the giants, or otherwise temper the claim to 'the available elements'.
  4. [§4.1] The claimed decline of [α/Fe] in the thick disk for [Fe/H] > -0.4 is based on only four stars, a point the text acknowledges. With such a small sample, the apparent steep falloff could reflect errors in a single object's classification or abundance rather than an astrophysical onset of Type Ia supernovae. The authors should mark this as tentative and compare with the larger literature samples (e.g., Bensby et al. 2014, Adibekyan et al. 2012, Buder et al. 2019) in a quantitative way, for example by overlaying their four stars on those samples and testing whether the decline is statistically significant when all samples are combined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The Si model atom used for the silicon abundances is described only as 'being prepared for publication,' which prevents readers from reproducing the [Si/Fe] results. A description or reference to an available source should be provided in the final version.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'substracted' should be 'subtracted,' 'parantheses' should be 'parentheses,' 'ageement' should be 'agreement,' and in Table 1 the column heading for microturbulence contains a stray 'Рљ' character.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states 'differences in the log g values... as a function of the distances from [5]' without defining reference [5] beyond the bibliography. Specify that the distances are from Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) and label the horizontal axis explicitly.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The dashed lines supposedly denote the mean values for halo giants, halo dwarfs, and thick-disk stars with [Fe/H] ≤ -0.4, but the caption does not identify which line style corresponds to which population. Add a legend or explicitly distinguish the line styles (e.g., short-dashed, long-dashed) for each subsample.
  5. [Abstract and §4.1] The abstract states 'when [Fe/H] < -0.4,' while the main text (e.g., the thick-disk definition and Table 4) uses '[Fe/H] ≤ -0.4.' Please reconcile this inequality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: abundances are measured from spectra and population conclusions are empirical averages, not derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Atmospheric parameters come from Gaia DR2 parallaxes, IRFM temperatures, and evolutionary-track masses; abundances of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti are obtained by fitting synthetic NLTE spectra to observed line profiles; iron abundances come from Fe II lines; and population membership is assigned from kinematics and ages, with the paper explicitly stating that chemical properties were not used in the assignment. The headline conclusions (thick-disk plateau near [alpha/Fe] ~ 0.3 for [Fe/H] <= -0.4, and similar halo [alpha/Fe] at different distances) are computed averages of measured ratios, not outputs of a model fitted to those claims. The numerous self-citations are to earlier method and data papers (model atoms, microturbulence formula, previously published abundance samples) rather than to the target result; none of these citations defines or forces the plateau or distance-independence conclusion. Possible systematic zero-point offsets between subsamples analyzed in different papers are a legitimate external-validity concern, but they are not circularity under the rules: no equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the adopted model atmospheres, the NLTE model atoms, the population classification, and the assumption that giants are unmixed. No new physical entities are introduced, and no numbers are fitted to the target abundance ratios in this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Adopted mass for halo giants = 0.8 M_sun
    Section 2.3: 'the mass M = 0.8 M_sun was adopted for halo giants'. This enters the log g computed from parallax for nearby giants and could affect abundances, though most giants use spectroscopic log g.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Classical 1D plane-parallel MARCS model atmospheres adequately represent the stellar photospheres of the sample stars.
    All abundance determinations interpolate the MARCS grid (Section 3, 'Model atmospheres were obtained by interpolating in the MARCS model grid').
  • domain assumption The non-LTE model atoms for Mg I, Si I-II, Ca I, and Fe I-II, including the quantum-mechanical Ca I+H I collision rates of Mitrushchenkov et al. (2017), are accurate.
    The Ca model atom was refined in Mashonkina et al. (2017) and used here (Section 3); the Mg and Si model atoms come from the authors' earlier work, with the Si model 'being prepared for publication'.
  • ad hoc to paper Kinematic probabilities from Mishenina et al. (2004) combined with evolutionary-track ages from Yi et al. (2004) can correctly classify stars by Galactic population, including several stars whose kinematics favor a different population.
    In Section 4.1, the authors override kinematic membership probabilities with age estimates for HD 112758, HD 144579, and HD 32923.
  • domain assumption The halo giants in the sample have not undergone internal mixing that changes their surface chemical abundances.
    Section 2.1 imposes the requirement that giants must not have passed through a stage that carries nucleosynthesis products to the atmosphere.
  • domain assumption The distance scale (Gaia DR2 parallaxes and Bailer-Jones et al. 2018 distances) is accurate for the verification of surface gravities.
    Section 2.3 uses log g from Gaia DR2 to validate spectroscopic gravities and flags several outliers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Abundances of alpha-Process Elements in Thin-Disk, Thick-Disk, and Halo Stars of the Galaxy: Non-LTE Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVEHO5AC

@misc{pith2026190803370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Abundances of alpha-Process Elements in Thin-Disk, Thick-Disk, and Halo Stars of the Galaxy: Non-LTE Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVEHO5AC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03370}
}
read the original abstract

The atmospheric parameters and abundances of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti have been determined for 20 stars using the Gaia DR2 parallaxes, high-resolution spectra, and the non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) line formation modeling. A sample of stars with homogeneous data on the abundances of alpha-process elements has thus been increased to 94. It is shown that applying a non-LTE approach and classical 1D atmospheric models with spectroscopically determined surface gravities based on Fe~I and Fe~II lines yields reliable results. Analysis of the full sample confirms the conclusions of earlier studies indicating enhancements of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti relative to Fe for halo and thick-disk stars, and larger enhancements for the thick-disk stars compared to the thin-disk stars of similar metallicities. The following new results are obtained. The ratios [Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], [Ca/Fe], and [Ti/Fe] in the thick disk remain constant and similar to each other at the level 0.3 when [Fe/H] < -0.4, and fall off when the metallicity becomes higher, suggesting the onset of the production of iron in Type Ia supernovae. Halo stars have the same [alpha/Fe] values independent of their distance (within ~ 8 kpc of the Sun), providing evidence for a universal evolution of the abundances of alpha-process elements in different parts of the Galaxy. The enhancements relative to iron for halo stars are, on average, similar, at the level 0.3 dex, for Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti. These data are important for constraining the nucleosynthesis models. The star-to-star scatter of [alpha/Fe] increases for [Fe/H] < -2.6, while the scatter of the ratios between the different alpha-process elements remains small, possibly indicating incomplete mixing of nucleosynthesis products at the epoch of the formation of these stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03370 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Differences in the log g values determined spectroscopically and using the Gaia DR2 measurements as a function of the distances from [5]. The upper panel shows dwarfs and subgiants from [48], and the lower panel does halo giants from [36]. The uncertainties in log g correspond to the distance uncertainties presented in [5]. 2.2 Observations A list of the 20 added stars is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The LTE (upper row) and NLTE (lower row) abundance r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The NLTE abundance ratios of α-process elements to iron for stars of various Galactic populations. The symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed [α/Fe] ratios compared to the Galactic chemical evolution models K15 ([50], dashed curve) and R10 ([45], solid curve). Symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V. Z. Adibekyan, S. G. Sousa, N. C. Santos, E. Delgado Mena , J. I. Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, G. Israelian, M. Mayor, and G. Khachatryan, Ast ron. Astrophys. 545, A32 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Alonso, S

    A. Alonso, S. Arribas, and C. Mart ´inez-Roger, Astron. Astrophys. 297, 197 (1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Alonso, S

    A. Alonso, S. Arribas, C. Mart ´inez-Roger, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 140, 261 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Alonso, S

    A. Alonso, S. Arribas, and C. Mart ´inez-Roger, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 139, 335 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    C. A. L. Bailer-Jones, J. Rybizki, M. Fouesneau, et al., A stron. J. 156, 58 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bensby, S

    T. Bensby, S. Feltzing, I. Lundstr¨ om, and I. Ilyin, Astr on. Astrophys. 433, 185 (2005). 6http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html 17

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Bensby, S

    T. Bensby, S. Feltzing, M. S. Oey, Astron.Astrophys. 562, A71 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Bergemann, R

    M. Bergemann, R. Collet, R. Sch¨ onrich, R. Andrae, M. Kov alev, G. Ruchti, C. J. Hansen, and Z. Magic, Astrophys. J. 847, 16 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Bonifacio, M

    P. Bonifacio, M. Spite, R. Cayrel, V. Hill, et al., Astron . Astrophys. 501, 519 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    A. G. A. Brown, A. Vallenari, T. Prusti, J. H. J. de Bruijn e, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 616, A1 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Buder, M

    S. Buder, M. Asplund, L. Duong, J. Kos, et al., Mon. Not. R . Astron. Soc. 478, 4513 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Buder, K

    S. Buder, K. Lind, M. K. Ness, M. Asplund, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 624, A19 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Butler, J

    K. Butler, J. Giddings, Newsletter on Analysis of Astro nomical Spectra 9, University of London 723 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    Casagrande, I

    L. Casagrande, I. Ram ´ ırez, J. Mel´ endez, M. Bessell, and M. Asplund, Astron. Astro- phys. 512, A54 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Casagrande, R

    L. Casagrande, R. Sch¨ onrich, M. Asplund, S. Cassisi, I . Ram ´ ırez, J. Mel´ endez, T. Bensby, and S. Feltzing, Astron. Astrophys. 530, A138 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Cayrel, E

    R. Cayrel, E. Depagne, M. Spite, V. Hill, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 416, 1117 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    J. G. Cohen, N. Christlieb, I. Thompson, A. McWilliam, S . Shectman, D. Reimers, L. Wisotzki, and E. Kirby, Astrophys. J. 778, 56 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Drawin, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 211, 404 (1968)

    H.-W. Drawin, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 211, 404 (1968)

    1968

  11. [19]

    Famaey, A

    B. Famaey, A. Jorissen, X. Luri, M. Mayor, S. Udry, H. Dej onghe, and C. Turon, Astron. Astrophys. 430, 165 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Fuhrmann, Astron

    K. Fuhrmann, Astron. Astrophys. 338, 161 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Fuhrmann, Astron

    K. Fuhrmann, Astron. Nachr. 325, 3 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Gilmore and N

    G. Gilmore and N. Reid, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 202, 1025 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    G. A. Gontcharov, Astron. Lett. 32, 759 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    J. I. Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez and P. Bonifacio, Astron. Astrophys. 497, 497 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Gratton, E

    R. Gratton, E. Carretta, F.Matteucci, and C. Sneden, in Formation of the Galactic Halo... Inside and Out, Ed. by H. L. Morrison and A. Sarajedin i, ASP Conf. Ser. 92, 307 (1996)

    1996

  18. [26]

    Gustafsson, B

    B. Gustafsson, B. Edvardsson, K. Eriksson et al., Astro n. Astrophys. 486, 951 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    M. N. Ishigaki, M. Chiba, and W. Aoki, Astrophys. J. 753, 64 (2012). 18

    2012

  20. [28]

    R. L. Kurucz, I, Furenlid, J. Brault, L. Testerman, Sola r Flux Atlas from 296 to 1300 nm Nat. Solar Obs., Sunspot, New Mexico (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    S. R. Majewski, R. P. Schiavon, P. M. Frinchaboy, C. Alle nde Prieto, et al., Astron. J. 154, 94 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    D. Maoz, F. Mannucci, and T. D. Brandt, Mon. Not. R. Astro n. Soc. 426, 3282 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Masana, C

    E. Masana, C. Jordi, and I. Ribas, Astron. Astrophys. 450, 735 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Mashonkina, Astron

    L. Mashonkina, Astron. Astrophys. 550, A28 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Mashonkina, T

    L. Mashonkina, T. Gehren, C. Travaglio, & T. Borkova, As tron. Astrophys. 397, 275 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Mashonkina, T

    L. Mashonkina, T. Gehren, J.-R., Shi, et al., Astron. As trophys. 528, A87 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Mashonkina and T

    L. Mashonkina and T. Gehren, Astron. Astrophys. 364, 249 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Mashonkina, P

    L. Mashonkina, P. Jablonka, Y. Pakhomov, et al., Astron . Astrophys. 604, A129 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Mashonkina, P

    L. Mashonkina, P. Jablonka, T. Sitnova, Y. Pakhomov, an d P. North, Astron. As- trophys. 608, A89 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Mashonkina, T

    L. Mashonkina, T. Sitnova, and A. K. Belyaev, Astron. As trophys. 605, A53 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    T. V. Mishenina, C. Soubiran, V. V. Kovtyukh, and S. A. Ko rotin, Astron. Astrophys. 418, 551 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Mitrushchenkov, M

    A. Mitrushchenkov, M. Guitou, A. K. Belyaev, S. A. Yakov leva, A. Spielfiedel, and N. Feautrier, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 014304 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Prusti, J.H

    T. Prusti, J.H. J. de Bruijne,A.G. A. Brown, A. Vallenar i, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 595, A1 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Ram ´ ırez and J

    I. Ram ´ ırez and J. Mel´ endez, Astrophys. J.626, 446 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Randich, G

    S. Randich, G. Gilmore, and Gaia-ESO Consortium, The Me ssenger 154, 47 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Recio-Blanco, P

    A. Recio-Blanco, P. de Laverny, G. Kordopatis, A. Helmi , et al., Astron. Astrophys. 567, A5 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Romano, A

    D. Romano, A. I. Karakas, M. Tosi, and F. Matteucci, Astr on. Astrophys. 522, A32 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Ryabchikova, N

    T. Ryabchikova, N. Piskunov, R. L. Kurucz et al., Physic a Scripta, 90, 054005 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Sitnova, Astron

    T.M. Sitnova, Astron. Lett. 42, 734 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Sitnova, G

    T. Sitnova, G. Zhao, L. Mashonkina, Y. Chen, et al., Astr ophys. J. 808, 148 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Sitnova and L

    T.M. Sitnova and L. I. Mashonkina, Astron. Lett. 44, 411 (2018). 19

    2018

  42. [50]

    Sneden, J

    C. Sneden, J. J. Cowan, C. Kobayashi, M. Pignatari, J. E. Lawler, E. A. Den Hartog, and M. P. Wood, Astrophys. J. 817, 53 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Tsymbal, T

    V. Tsymbal, T. Ryabchikova, T. Sitnova, in Physics of Ma gnetic Stars. ASP Confer- ence Series 518, 247 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    J. A. Valenti and N. Piskunov, Astrophysics Source Code Library, 1202.013 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    van Leeuwen, Astron

    F. van Leeuwen, Astron. Astrophys. 474, 653 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    S. K. Yi, P. Demarque, and Y.-C. Kim, Astrophys. Space Sc i. 291, 261 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    D. Yong, J. E. Norris, M. S. Bessell, N. Christlieb, et al ., Astrophys. J. 762, 26 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    G. Zhao, L. Mashonkina, H. L. Yan, et al., Astrophys. J. 833, 225 (2016) 20

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.