Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 106 references

Inferring Galactic Parameters from Chemical Abundances: A Multi-Star Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Chemical abundances from many stars, each with an age estimate, can pin the Galaxy's high-mass IMF slope and Type Ia supernova rate to sub-percent precision, even when the true galaxy is far more complex than the fitted model.

desk verdict Solid, honest methods paper that builds a genuinely reusable multi-star abundance inference pipeline, but the abstract overclaims: yield systematics, not sampling or ISM physics, are the load-bearing uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00812 v2 pith:GRI34AMB submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Oliver Henry Edward Philcox , Jan Rybizki This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords astrochemistryISMabundancesandevolutiongalacticchemicalinitialmassfunctiontypeIasupernovaeBayesianinferenceHamiltonianMonteCarloneuralnetworkemulator
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

Two numbers that shape every galaxy simulation — the high-mass slope of the initial mass function and the rate of Type Ia supernovae — are currently poorly constrained. This paper argues that the chemical abundances of many individual stars, together with rough age estimates, contain enough information to fix both numbers precisely. The inference uses the simple one-zone chemical evolution model Chempy in a Bayesian framework, letting every star carry its own local interstellar-medium parameters and birth time, which are marginalized out, along with a per-element model error $\sigma^j_{\rm model}$. On mock data drawn from a Milky Way-like galaxy in the IllustrisTNG simulation, the pipeline recovers the true values of $\alpha_{\rm IMF}$ and $\log_{10}(N_{\rm Ia})$ to sub-percent accuracy with 100–200 stars, competitive with star-count constraints, though the authors caution that each scenario was tested with a single analysis run and that small biases are expected for very large samples; a separate yield-swap test exposes a systematic bias when the assumed nucleosynthetic yields are wrong. If the approach transfers to real data, large stellar abundance surveys could yield tight, independent bounds on these fundamental parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a neural-network emulator of Chempy, a one-zone “leaky-box” galactic chemical evolution model that predicts stellar birth abundances from six parameters: the global IMF slope and SN Ia normalization, three local ISM parameters (star-formation efficiency, star-formation-rate peak, and outflow feedback fraction), and the stellar birth time. A sparsely connected single-layer network (40 neurons per element, trained on $10^6$ Chempy runs) reproduces the model in about $5 \times 10^{-5}$ seconds with median error 0.005 dex, and its $\tanh$ structure makes the likelihood analytically differentiable. That differentiability is what enables Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling (No-U-Turn Sampler), making the high-dimensional multi-star posterior, with $4n_{\rm stars} + 10$ free parameters, tractable. The per-element model-error parameters carry the argument against systematic mismatch: they absorb yield-table inaccuracies, reduce the bias from wrong yields, and double as a diagnostic of which elements are badly predicted.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on a real stellar sample (for example APOGEE red giants with age estimates) and repeat the inference with two independent nucleosynthetic yield tables: if the recovered values of $\alpha_{\rm IMF}$ and $\log_{10}(N_{\rm Ia})$ differ by more than the quoted statistical errors, the yield systematic dominates and the claim that abundances alone give tight bounds is not yet established for real data. A cheaper version of the same test is the paper's own Section 6.2 exercise, regenerated with element-by-element yield perturbations at the 10–20 percent level to check whether the posterior bias exceeds the reported sub-percent precision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that global galactic parameters can be inferred precisely from the joint likelihood of many stellar abundance patterns rather than from binned chemical evolution tracks or star counts. Each star contributes eight metal ratios $[{\rm X/Fe}]$ plus $[{\rm Fe/H}]$, modeled by Chempy as a function of the global parameters $\Lambda = \{\alpha_{\rm IMF},\ \log_{10}(N_{\rm Ia})\}$, star-specific ISM parameters $\{\Theta_i\}$, and birth time $T_i$; the posterior marginalizes over all star-specific quantities and adds a per-element model error $\sigma^j_{\rm model}$ that downweights elements the model reproduces poorly. Replacing Chempy with a trained neural network makes the likelihood differentiable and fast enough for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Tested on IllustrisTNG mock data with known parameter values, the method returns $\alpha_{\rm IMF} = -2.283 \pm 0.010$ (statistical) $\pm 0.006$ (sample) and $\log_{10}(N_{\rm Ia}) = -2.889 \pm 0.011$ (statistical) $\pm 0.004$ (sample) for 100 stars, against true values of $-2.3$ and $-2.89$, with the strongest constraints coming from metal ratios. A second test with an alternative set of nucleosynthetic yields shows that yield tables are the dominant systematic: the inferred parameters shift by roughly 3%, and the per-element model errors flag the elements whose yields differ most.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that carries the whole result is that the adopted nucleosynthetic yield tables are close to real stellar chemistry: the paper's own yield-swap test shows that switching to a plausible alternative table shifts the two inferred parameters by a few percent, so if true yields are wrong at the 10–20 percent level typical of current tables, the systematic bias would dominate the quoted statistical precision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 100–200 stars, the method recovers the true $\alpha_{\rm IMF}$ and $\log_{10}(N_{\rm Ia})$ on IllustrisTNG mock data to sub-percent precision, with constraints competitive with those from star counts and SN Ia surveys.
  • At $n_{\rm stars} = 1$, sample variance contributes roughly 4% of the total uncertainty, so single-star analyses can be substantially biased; the bias shrinks rapidly as the sample grows.
  • Free per-element model errors collapse toward zero when the model and data agree and grow for mismatched elements under wrong yields, reducing yield bias and providing a diagnostic for which elements to trust.
  • The identical machinery applied to observational surveys such as APOGEE would give tight bounds on the IMF slope and SN Ia rate from abundances alone, and approximate variational sampling could push the analysis to thousands of stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the per-element model errors double as a yield-table verification tool: on real data, elements whose posterior $\sigma^j_{\rm model}$ stays large are precisely the ones whose nucleosynthetic channels need improvement.
  • Because birth-time posteriors are barely narrower than their 20-percent priors, adding more elements — for instance neutron-capture species from neutron-star mergers — would likely tighten the local parameters and, through them, the global ones.
  • Treating the spread of results across candidate yield tables as a systematic error bar, a suggestion the paper makes in passing, would convert the main limitation into a calibration procedure for real surveys.
  • A hierarchical version of the model, with per-star ISM parameters drawn from a common distribution with free hyperparameters (a step the paper mentions but does not implement), may absorb part of the sample variance seen at small $n_{\rm stars}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a Bayesian framework for inferring global galactic parameters — the high-mass slope αIMF of the Chabrier (2003) IMF and the Type Ia supernova normalization log10(NIa) — from individual stellar chemical abundances together with age estimates. The one-zone chemical evolution model Chempy is emulated by a sparsely connected neural network (median emulation error 0.005 dex), and the posterior over the two global parameters, per-star local ISM parameters (log10(SFE), log10(SFRpeak), xout), stellar birth times Ti, and eight per-element model-error parameters is sampled with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (NUTS via PyMC3). The pipeline is validated on three mock data sets: (i) Chempy mocks generated with the same yield tables used to train the emulator; (ii) Chempy mocks generated with an alternative yield set (Thielemann et al. 2003; Nomoto et al. 2013; Karakas & Lugaro 2016); and (iii) 200 stellar particles from a Milky Way-mass galaxy in IllustrisTNG. In tests (i) and (iii) the inferred parameters are essentially unbiased and reach statistical uncertainties of about 0.01 dex at nstars = 100, i.e., sub-percent precision; in test (ii) biases of about 3% in αIMF and 2.4% in log10(NIa) remain even with model errors included, and grow to about 8% without them. The paper also quantifies the bias induced by analyzing only a few stars and shows that the per-element model errors act as a diagnostic of yield-table quality.

Significance. The methods contribution is solid, transparently presented, and reproducible: the likelihood and posterior are fully specified (Eqs. 3–5 and Fig. 1); the neural-network emulator is characterized across parameter space (Appendix A, Figs. 7–8); and the code, mock data, and tutorials are publicly archived (ChempyMulti, Zenodo DOI). The three-tier validation design — same-physics closure, wrong-yield stress test, and external-simulation test with completely different ISM physics — is exactly the right structure for establishing where the method can be trusted. Two results are useful beyond this paper: the per-element model-error parameters correctly flag C, N, and Si in the wrong-yield experiment and [Fe/H] and [He/Fe] in the TNG experiment, providing a practical diagnostic for selecting yield tables for real data; and the quantification of sample variance shows that single-star analyses of this type carry roughly 0.05–0.1 dex scatter in the global parameters, a caution directly relevant to earlier work (R17). If confirmed, the method delivers constraints on the IMF slope and SN Ia rate that are competitive with star counts and scalable to APOGEE-sized samples.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.2; Abstract; Sec. 7] The abstract's closing claim that the method 'can be easily applied to observational data, giving tight bounds on key galactic parameters from chemical abundances alone' is conditioned on the adopted nucleosynthetic yield tables being approximately correct, and that condition is not met by the paper's own experiment. In Sec. 6.2, the alternative yield set of Table 5, which differs from the TNG yields at the ~10–20% level per channel (Fig. 4), produces biases of ΔαIMF ≈ 0.08 (~3%) and Δlog10(NIa) ≈ 0.07 (~2.4%) at nstars = 200, several times the quoted statistical errors even after the model-error parameters are included; without model errors the bias grows to ~8%. The IllustrisTNG test of Sec. 6.3 cannot certify yield correctness, because the same Tab. 2 yield tables are used in both Chempy and TNG by construction (Sec. 2.2), so it validates only the ISM-physics simplification. The paper itself flags this in Sec. 6.4 ('The largest obstacle arises from the uncertainties in the underlying nucleosynthetic yields'), but it does not propagate that caveat into the quantitative claims. I recommend that the abstract and conclusions state explicitly that real-data accuracy is expected to be systematics-limited at the level quantified in Sec. 6.2 unless yields are independently validated, and that the Sec. 6.2 bias be presented as the method's accuracy floor for observational applications.
  2. [Sec. 6.3; Table 3c; Sec. 7] The headline precision values for the IllustrisTNG validation are internally inconsistent. Sec. 6.3 reports 'best estimates of αIMF = −2.283 ± 0.007 and log10(NIa) = −2.889 ± 0.008 with 200 stars'; Table 3c reports for nstars = 100 statistical and sample uncertainties of ±0.01 and ±0.01 on αIMF; and Sec. 7 reports 'for nstars = 100... αIMF = −2.283 ± 0.010 (statistical) ± 0.006 (sample) and log10(NIa) = −2.889 ± 0.011 (statistical) ± 0.004 (sample)'. The Sec. 7 sample variances do not match the Table 3c nstars = 100 row, and the same best-fit value is attributed to both nstars = 100 and nstars = 200. Because these numbers carry the paper's central 'sub-percent agreement' claim, the authors should reconcile the table, the main text, and the conclusions, and report one traceable set of headline values with the exact subsample and run identified.
  3. [Fig. 2c; Sec. 6.3] The comparison with star-count and SN Ia rate measurements (Weisz et al. 2015; Hosek et al. 2019; Maoz et al. 2012; Maoz & Graur 2017) compares the widths of mock-inferred posteriors with those of real observational constraints, without including the systematic floor that Sec. 6.2 quantifies. As presented, a reader could conclude that the method already outperforms star counts, whereas the comparison is one of statistical power under an assumed and possibly incorrect yield set. I suggest overplotting the Sec. 6.2 bias (or a shaded systematic band of roughly 2–3%) in Fig. 2c and restating the Sec. 6.3 comparison accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 9; Appendix C] The αIMF axis labels and the quoted statistic ('IMF = 2.28') omit the minus sign; the main text and Table 3c report αIMF ≈ −2.28, so the corner plot should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 5] The abstract's 'up to 1600 individual stellar abundances' corresponds to nstars = 200 stars times 8 elements; since Sec. 5 restricts the HMC analysis to nstars ≲ 200, the abstract should state the number of stars explicitly to avoid implying that 1600 stars were analyzed.
  3. [Sec. 6.2; Table 3b] The text quotes results 'for nstars = 200' (αIMF = −2.22 ± 0.01, log10(NIa) = −2.96 ± 0.02), but Table 3b lists only nstars = 1, 10, and 100; add the nstars = 200 row or align the text with the table.
  4. [Sec. 4] The parameter count '2 + 4nstars + nel free parameters... given 6 + nstars individual prior distributions' is correct but terse; a one-line clarification that each star carries a three-dimensional ISM prior plus a one-dimensional age prior would help readers verify the scaling.
  5. [Sec. 6.3; Sec. 2.2] The age cut Ti ∈ [2, 12.8] Gyr is applied 'to ensure that the true times are well separated from our training age limits'; because true birth times are not available for real data, a sentence explaining how very young or old stars would be handled observationally would strengthen the claimed applicability to real surveys.
  6. [Sec. 2.2; footnote 3] The phrase 'in contrary to P18' should read 'in contrast to P18'; the footnote's caution about relaxing the SFR constraint for old-star samples is relevant to the observational extension and could be moved into the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: target parameters are inferred, not fed; yield-sharing in the TNG test is an external-validity caveat, not a constructional identity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The forward model Chempy (Sec. 2.2) maps global parameters, local ISM parameters, and birth times to abundances; the neural network (Sec. 3) is an emulator of that forward model, not of the target parameters. The likelihood (Eqs. 3-5) treats alpha_IMF and log10(NIa) as free variables and compares predicted abundances against independently generated mock data. The true values enter only as generator settings for the mock data (Secs. 6.1 and 6.3) and are not supplied to the sampler; the priors are broad and centered near but not identical to the truth. The shared yield tables between Chempy and IllustrisTNG (Sec. 2.2) limit the TNG test as a check on yield correctness, but this is not circular: the target SSP parameters are distinct from the yield tables and are recovered from abundance ratios. The paper explicitly tests yield sensitivity in Sec. 6.2, where an alternative yield set produces a 2-3% bias, and flags nucleosynthetic yields as 'the largest obstacle' in Sec. 6.4. That is a systematics and external-validity caveat, not an instance of a prediction reducing to its inputs. Self-citations to R17 and P18 provide model context and code ancestry but are not load-bearing for the central inference claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on the fidelity of Chempy as a GCE model, the correctness of the adopted yield tables, and the fixed, non-hierarchical priors on per-star ISM parameters. The global parameters and model errors are inferred, not assumed; the yield tables are the main externally supplied physical input and are shown in Sec. 6.2 to cause ~3% bias when varied at the 20% level. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • αIMF (Chabrier IMF high-mass slope) = -2.283 ± 0.007 for TNG n=200; true value -2.3
    Target global parameter inferred from abundances; the central claim is that it is recovered to sub-percent precision.
  • log10(NIa) (SN Ia normalization) = -2.889 ± 0.008 for TNG n=200; true value -2.89
    Target global parameter inferred from abundances; the central claim is that it is recovered to sub-percent precision.
  • Per-star local parameters Θi = {log10(SFE), log10(SFRpeak), xout} and birth time Ti = 4 x nstars values; Ti posterior medians reported in Secs. 6.1-6.3
    Marginalized nuisance parameters, each constrained by only 8 abundances per star; their priors are inputs drawn from literature-based values.
  • Per-element model errors σj_model = e.g. [Fe/H] 0.217 ± 0.022, [He/Fe] 0.21 ± 0.01 for TNG n=200 (Fig. 3c)
    Free latent variance terms fit to data; they downweight poorly reproduced elements and are central to the bias-reduction claim in Sec. 6.2.
  • Neural network weights (361 per element network, 8 networks) = not itemized; trained on 10^6 Chempy runs
    Emulator parameters fitted to Chempy-generated training data; the emulator accuracy of 0.005 dex is reported but its error is not propagated.
  • Half-Cauchy scale βmodel for model errors = 0.01 dex (chosen, not fitted)
    Chosen by hand to allow both vanishingly small and large model errors; affects how aggressively elements are downweighted.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Universal Approximation Theorem: a single-hidden-layer feed-forward network can approximate the Chempy function to arbitrary accuracy (Csáji 2001).
    Invoked in Sec. 3 to justify replacing Chempy with a neural network; standard theorem, not independently proved here.
  • domain assumption Chempy's one-zone 'leaky-box' parametrization adequately captures the galactic chemical evolution needed to infer global parameters.
    Core modeling assumption stated in Sec. 2.2; tested indirectly against IllustrisTNG in Sec. 6.3.
  • domain assumption The adopted nucleosynthetic yield tables (Tab. 2, matching TNG) are accurate enough for unbiased inference.
    Adopted in Sec. 2.2; the paper itself shows in Sec. 6.2 that a ~20% yield change causes ~3% bias, so this assumption is the main external fragility.
  • domain assumption The IMF high-mass slope and SN Ia normalization are constant across the galaxy and over cosmic time.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2 as an assumption of the analysis; the paper cites evidence that αIMF may vary with metallicity.
  • domain assumption Proto-stellar abundances match the local ISM abundances at the stellar birth time Ti.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2; required to relate Chempy outputs to observed stellar abundances.
  • domain assumption Per-star ISM parameters Θi are drawn from fixed, star-independent priors (Tab. 1), without a hierarchical level.
    Entered in Eq. 5; footnote 6 explicitly notes a full hierarchical treatment is not explored, making the fixed priors load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Abundance measurements have independent Gaussian errors of 0.05 dex, and age estimates have 20% Gaussian errors.
    Set in Sec. 6 to build mock data; correlated errors from shared Fe normalization are ignored.
  • domain assumption The NUTS/HMC sampler converges to the target posterior in the 810-dimensional space used for nstars=200.
    Standard sampler convergence assumption; no convergence diagnostics beyond trace plots are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring Galactic Parameters from Chemical Abundances: A Multi-Star Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRI34AMB

@misc{pith2026190900812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring Galactic Parameters from Chemical Abundances: A Multi-Star Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRI34AMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00812}
}
read the original abstract

Constraining parameters such as the initial mass function high-mass slope and the frequency of type Ia supernovae is of critical importance in the ongoing quest to understand galactic physics and create realistic hydrodynamical simulations. In this paper, we demonstrate a method to precisely determine these using individual chemical abundances from a large set of stars, coupled with some estimate of their ages. Inference is performed via the simple chemical evolution model Chempy in a Bayesian framework, marginalizing over each star's specific interstellar medium parameters, including an element-specific `model error' parameter to account for inadequacies in our model. Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) methods are used to sample the posterior function, made possible by replacing Chempy with a trained neural network at negligible error. The approach is tested using data from both Chempy and the IllustrisTNG simulation, showing sub-percent agreement between inferred and true parameters using data from up to 1600 individual stellar abundances. For IllustrisTNG, strongest constraints are obtained from metal ratios, competitive with those from other methods including star counts. Analysis using a different set of nucleosynthetic yields shows that incorrectly assumed yield models can give non-negligible bias in the derived parameters; this is reduced by our model errors, which further show how well the yield tables match data. We also find a significant bias from analyzing only a small set of stars, as is often done in current analyses. The method can be easily applied to observational data, giving tight bounds on key galactic parameters from chemical abundances alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Probabilistic Graphical Model for the statistical inference used in this paper. Unfilled circular nodes, filled circular nodes and diamond nodes represent random vari￾ables, observed data and deterministic calculations respec￾tively. Prior parameters (such as µΛ) are shown without nodes and the boxes indicate how many of each feature are present (e.g. there are nstars Θi realizations). Parameters outside the boxes h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior bounds on the global parameters αIMF (left) and log10(NIa) (right) for three mock data-sets as a function of the number of stars in the sample, nstars. Blue data-points represent the median parameter estimate for each disjoint subset of the full sample at fixed nstars, with a solid line giving the median value across all sub-samples. Dark (light) filled blue regions indicate the 1σ (2σ) statistical uncerta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of the model error parameters Σ ≡ {σ j model} obtained from HMC inference using nstars = 200 and the three data-sets described in Sec. 6. Individual histograms show the results for single elements, with a red dotted line indicating the Half-Cauchy prior assumed. Posterior predictions for the model errors for smaller nstars are given in Tab. 4. Note the significantly different x-axis ranges be… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass fraction returned to the ISM over 13.8 Gyr for a simple stellar population (SSP) formed at solar metallicity for the eight elements tracked by TNG as well as H (used for abundance normalization). Wide (narrow) bars show the results for TNG (alternative) yield tabl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the chemical evolution tracks in the [Mg/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] plane for the full set of TNG stel￾lar particles from the chosen galaxy. For comparison, we plot (black) contours obtained from a sample of 1000 Chempy mock data-points (cf. Sec. 6.1), with birth￾times drawn…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cartoon indicating the sparse neural network structure used in this analysis. We show a mock network with nin = 2 input nodes {xi} (representing Chempy param￾eters) and nout = 2 output nodes {yi} (representing element abundances). Although there appear to be six hidden…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean neural network error across all elements as a function of position in the six-dimensional Chempy parameter￾space. The histograms on the diagonal show the distribution of test data-points, with their colors indicating the mean error in each bin. Full (dashed) lines…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot illustrating part of the sampled posterior function using nstars = 200 mock IllustrisTNG mock data￾points, from 1.6 × 104 posterior samples obtained using HMC methods. We display only portions corresponding to the global SSP parameters, Λ = {αIMF, log10(NIa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    Close Binary Stellar Evolution and Supernovae

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    R., Izzard , R

    Abate , C., Pols , O. R., Izzard , R. G., & Karakas , A. I. 2015, , 581, A22

    2015

  5. [5]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, abs/1605.02688

    Al-Rfou, R., Alain, G., Almahairi, A., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, abs/1605.02688. http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02688

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    H., Weinberg , D

    Andrews , B. H., Weinberg , D. H., Johnson , J. A., Bensby , T., & Feltzing , S. 2012, , 62, 269

    2012

  7. [7]

    H., Weinberg , D

    Andrews , B. H., Weinberg , D. H., Sch \"o nrich , R., & Johnson , J. A. 2017, , 835, 224

    2017

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott , P

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

    2009

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, aap, 558, A33

    2013

  2. [10]

    G., & Bersten , M

    Benvenuto , O. G., & Bersten , M. C. 2017, Close Binary Stellar Evolution and Supernovae , 649

    2017

  3. [11]

    J., & Girolami , M

    Betancourt , M. J., & Girolami , M. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1312.0906

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2008, , 136, 2846

    Bigiel , F., Leroy , A., Walter , F., et al. 2008, , 136, 2846

    2008

  5. [13]

    Boesso , R., & Rocha-Pinto , H. J. 2018, , 474, 4010

    2018

  6. [14]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.09162

    Buck , T. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.09162

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  8. [16]

    2014, , 796, 75

    Chabrier , G., Hennebelle , P., & Charlot , S. 2014, , 796, 75

    2014

  9. [17]

    J., Debattista , V

    Clarke , A. J., Debattista , V. P., Nidever , D. L., et al. 2019, , 484, 3476

    2019

  10. [18]

    2016, , 462, 2832

    Clauwens , B., Schaye , J., & Franx , M. 2016, , 462, 2832

    2016

  11. [19]

    L., et al

    C \^o t \'e , B., Belczynski , K., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2017 a , , 836, 230

    2017

  12. [20]

    W., Ritter , C., Herwig , F., & Venn , K

    C \^o t \'e , B., O'Shea , B. W., Ritter , C., Herwig , F., & Venn , K. A. 2017 b , , 835, 128

    2017

  13. [21]

    W., et al

    C \^o t \'e , B., Ritter , C., O'Shea , B. W., et al. 2016, , 824, 82

    2016

  14. [22]

    Cs \'a ji, B. C. 2001, Master's thesis, Faculty of Sciences, Eotvos Loránd University, Budapest

    2001

  15. [23]

    L., Gil-Pons , P., Lau , H

    Doherty , C. L., Gil-Pons , P., Lau , H. H. B., Lattanzio , J. C., & Siess , L. 2014, , 437, 195

    2014

  16. [24]

    2017, , 840, 99

    Dotter , A., Conroy , C., Cargile , P., & Asplund , M. 2017, , 840, 99

    2017

  17. [25]

    K., Bovy , J., Holtzman , J., et al

    Feuillet , D. K., Bovy , J., Holtzman , J., et al. 2016, , 817, 40

    2016

  18. [26]

    2018, , 477, 2326

    ---. 2018, , 477, 2326

    2018

  19. [27]

    G., Gibson , B

    Few , C. G., Gibson , B. K., Courty , S., et al. 2012, , 547, A63

    2012

  20. [28]

    K., Karakas , A

    Fishlock , C. K., Karakas , A. I., Lugaro , M., & Yong , D. 2014, , 797, 44

    2014

  21. [29]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 24, doi:10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 24, doi:10.21105/joss.00024. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45906

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    2013

  23. [31]

    1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-6, 721

    Geman, S., & Geman, D. 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-6, 721

    1984

  24. [32]

    Grand , R. J. J., G \'o mez , F. A., Marinacci , F., et al. 2017, , 467, 179

    2017

  25. [33]

    Grand , R. J. J., Bustamante , S., G \'o mez , F. A., et al. 2018, , 474, 3629

    2018

  26. [34]

    G., Sneden , C., Carretta , E., & Bragaglia , A

    Gratton , R. G., Sneden , C., Carretta , E., & Bragaglia , A. 2000, , 354, 169

    2000

  27. [35]

    A., & Weinberg , D

    Griffith , E., Johnson , J. A., & Weinberg , D. H. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.06113

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A., & Springel , V

    Gutcke , T. A., & Springel , V. 2019, , 482, 118

    2019

  29. [37]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.1.97

    1970 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Di Matteo , P., et al

    Haywood , M., Lehnert , M. D., Di Matteo , P., et al. 2016, , 589, A66

    2016

  31. [39]

    D., & Gelman , A

    Hoffman , M. D., & Gelman , A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R., Anderson , J., et al

    Hosek , Matthew W., J., Lu , J. R., Anderson , J., et al. 2019, , 870, 44

    2019

  33. [41]

    B., & Matteucci , F

    Jim \'e nez , N., Tissera , P. B., & Matteucci , F. 2015, , 810, 137

    2015

  34. [42]

    2017, , 467, 1140

    Jofr \'e , P., Das , P., Bertranpetit , J., & Foley , R. 2017, , 467, 1140

    2017

  35. [43]

    Jorissen , A., Boffin , H. M. J., Karinkuzhi , D., et al. 2019, , 626, A127

    2019

  36. [44]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 880

    Just , A., & Rybizki , J. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 880

    2016

  37. [45]

    Karakas , A. I. 2010, , 403, 1413

    2010

  38. [46]

    I., & Lugaro , M

    Karakas , A. I., & Lugaro , M. 2016, , 825, 26

    2016

  39. [47]

    P., & Ba , J

    Kingma , D. P., & Ba , J. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P., & Welling , M

    Kingma , D. P., & Welling , M. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2011, , 729, 16

    Kobayashi , C., & Nakasato , N. 2011, , 729, 16

    2011

  42. [50]

    2006, , 653, 1145

    Kobayashi , C., Umeda , H., Nomoto , K., Tominaga , N., & Ohkubo , T. 2006, , 653, 1145

    2006

  43. [51]

    Kucukelbir , A., Tran , D., Ranganath , R., Gelman , A., & Blei , D. M. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.00788

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    C., et al

    Lagarde , N., Reyl \'e , C., Robin , A. C., et al. 2019, , 621, A24

    2019

  45. [53]

    T., Crain , R

    Mackereth , J. T., Crain , R. A., Schiavon , R. P., et al. 2018, , 477, 5072

    2018

  46. [54]

    R., APOGEE Team , & APOGEE-2 Team

    Majewski , S. R., APOGEE Team , & APOGEE-2 Team . 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 863

    2016

  47. [55]

    2017, , 848, 25

    Maoz , D., & Graur , O. 2017, , 848, 25

    2017

  48. [56]

    2012, , 29, 447

    Maoz , D., & Mannucci , F. 2012, , 29, 447

    2012

  49. [57]

    Maoz , D., Mannucci , F., & Brandt , T. D. 2012, , 426, 3282

    2012

  50. [58]

    2010, , 722, 1879

    Maoz , D., Sharon , K., & Gal-Yam , A. 2010, , 722, 1879

    2010

  51. [59]

    2018, , 480, 5113

    Marinacci , F., Vogelsberger , M., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 480, 5113

    2018

  52. [60]

    2016, , 456, 3655

    Martig , M., Fouesneau , M., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2016, , 456, 3655

    2016

  53. [61]

    2019, , 626, A124

    Mart \' n-Navarro , I., Lyubenova , M., van de Ven , G., et al. 2019, , 626, A124

    2019

  54. [62]

    2013, , 558, A9

    Minchev , I., Chiappini , C., & Martig , M. 2013, , 558, A9

    2013

  55. [63]

    Moll \'a , M., Cavichia , O., Gavil \'a n , M., & Gibson , B. K. 2015, , 451, 3693

    2015

  56. [64]

    P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al

    Naiman , J. P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 477, 1206

    2018

  57. [65]

    Neal , R. M. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1206.1901

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Genel , S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12

    2015

  59. [67]

    2018, , 475, 624

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 475, 624

    2018

  60. [68]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  61. [69]

    W., Rix , H

    Ness , M., Hogg , D. W., Rix , H. W., et al. 2016, , 823, 114

    2016

  62. [70]

    K., Johnston , K

    Ness , M. K., Johnston , K. V., Blancato , K., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.10606

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Nissen , P. E. 2016, , 593, A65

    2016

  64. [72]

    E., & Schuster , W

    Nissen , P. E., & Schuster , W. J. 2011, , 530, A15

    2011

  65. [73]

    1997, , 621, 467

    Nomoto , K., Iwamoto , K., Nakasato , N., et al. 1997, , 621, 467

    1997

  66. [74]

    2013, , 51, 457

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457

    2013

  67. [75]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  68. [76]

    2018, ChempyScoring, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1247336

    Philcox , O., & Rybizki , J. 2018, ChempyScoring, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.1247336. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1247336

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    2019, ChempyMulti, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3463519

    ---. 2019, ChempyMulti, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3463519. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3463519

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    Philcox , O., Rybizki , J., & Gutcke , T. A. 2018, , 861, 40

    2018

  71. [79]

    2018 a , , 475, 648

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Hernquist , L., et al. 2018 a , , 475, 648

    2018

  72. [80]

    2018 b , , 473, 4077

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018 b , , 473, 4077

    2018

  73. [81]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  74. [82]

    1998 a , , 334, 505

    Portinari , L., Chiosi , C., & Bressan , A. 1998 a , , 334, 505

    1998

  75. [83]

    1998 b , , 334, 505

    ---. 1998 b , , 334, 505

    1998

  76. [84]

    2018, , 476, 3432

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Limongi , M., Chieffi , A., & Cristallo , S. 2018, , 476, 3432

    2018

  77. [85]

    2018, , 475, 1410

    Price-Jones , N., & Bovy , J. 2018, , 475, 1410

    2018

  78. [86]

    M., Sip ' o cz , B

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip ' o cz , B. M., G "u nther , H. M., et al. 2018, aj, 156, 123

    2018

  79. [87]

    2016, , 463, 4153

    Rauscher , T., Nishimura , N., Hirschi , R., et al. 2016, , 463, 4153

    2016

  80. [88]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1703.09194

    Roeder , G., Wu , Y., & Duvenaud , D. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1703.09194

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    2005, , 430, 491

    Romano , D., Chiappini , C., Matteucci , F., & Tosi , M. 2005, , 430, 491

    2005

  82. [90]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.08432

    Rybizki , J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.08432

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    2015, , 447, 3880

    Rybizki , J., & Just , A. 2015, , 447, 3880

    2015

  84. [92]

    2017 a , , 605, A59

    Rybizki , J., Just , A., & Rix , H.-W. 2017 a , , 605, A59

    2017

  85. [93]

    2017 b , Chempy: A flexible chemical evolution model for abundance fitting , Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1702.011

    Rybizki , J., Just , A., Rix , H.-W., & Fouesneau , M. 2017 b , Chempy: A flexible chemical evolution model for abundance fitting , Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1702.011

    2017

  86. [94]

    2016, doi:10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686

    Salvatier, J., V Wiecki, T., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, doi:10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686

    2016 doi

  87. [95]

    2009, , 396, 203

    Sch \"o nrich , R., & Binney , J. 2009, , 396, 203

    2009

  88. [96]

    J., Kasen , D., Miles , B

    Shen , K. J., Kasen , D., Miles , B. J., & Townsley , D. M. 2018, , 854, 52

    2018

  89. [97]

    I., et al

    Spina , L., Mel \'e ndez , J., Karakas , A. I., et al. 2018, , 474, 2580

    2018

  90. [98]

    2018, , 475, 676

    Springel , V., Pakmor , R., Pillepich , A., et al. 2018, , 475, 676

    2018

  91. [99]

    K., Argast , D., Brachwitz , F., et al

    Thielemann , F. K., Argast , D., Brachwitz , F., et al. 2003, , 718, 139

    2003

  92. [100]

    2019, , 622, A59

    Titarenko , A., Recio-Blanco , A., de Laverny , P., Hayden , M., & Guiglion , G. 2019, , 622, A59

    2019

  93. [101]

    G., Leja , J., Nelson , E

    van Dokkum , P. G., Leja , J., Nelson , E. J., et al. 2013, , 771, L35

    2013

  94. [102]

    2015, , 449, 1327

    Vincenzo , F., Matteucci , F., Recchi , S., et al. 2015, , 449, 1327

    2015

  95. [103]

    2014, , 509, 177

    Vogelsberger , M., Genel , S., Springel , V., et al. 2014, , 509, 177

    2014

  96. [104]

    H., Holtzman , J

    Weinberg , D. H., Holtzman , J. A., Hasselquist , S., et al. 2019, , 874, 102

    2019

  97. [105]

    R., Johnson , L

    Weisz , D. R., Johnson , L. C., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al. 2015, , 806, 198

    2015

  98. [106]

    E., & Kasen , D

    Woosley , S. E., & Kasen , D. 2011, , 734, 38

    2011

Pith tools

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