The temporal and spatial variations of lithium abundance in the Galactic disc

Hongliang Yan; Jianrong Shi; Ming-Yi Ding; Shaolan Bi; Tiancheng Sun; Xunzhou Chen; Yuqin Chen; Yuxi (Lucy) Lu; Zhishuai Ge

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

The temporal and spatial variations of lithium abundance in the Galactic disc

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that lithium in the Milky Way's disc rose from 14 to 6 billion years ago, dipped to a minimum near 4.5 billion years, then rose again sharply, with the youngest lithium-rich stars born in the outer disc and migrating…

desk verdict The age–lithium relation is a real empirical step forward, but the spatial story has an internal sign contradiction that undermines the migration and gradient claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13011 v1 pith:PS4AXTSK submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Tiancheng Sun , Shaolan Bi , Xunzhou Chen , Yuxi (Lucy) Lu , Yuqin Chen , Ming-Yi Ding , Jianrong Shi , Hongliang Yan

show 1 more author

Zhishuai Ge

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

keywords lithiumabundanceGalacticdiscradialmigrationbirthradiusstellaragesLidipGALAHsurveymain-sequenceturn-offstars

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 uses 22,034 main-sequence turn-off and subgiant stars with precise ages, 3D non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) lithium abundances, and reconstructed birth radii to argue that lithium in the Milky Way's disc did not grow smoothly. It finds three phases in $A(\mathrm{Li})$—the logarithmic lithium abundance relative to hydrogen: a gradual rise from 14 to 6 billion years ago, a decline to a minimum near 4.5 billion years, and a rapid rise after that, with stars younger than 4 billion years reaching values above the primordial prediction. The paper also argues that young lithium-rich stars ($A(\mathrm{Li}) > 2.7$ dex, age $<4$ Gyr) were mostly born in the outer disc and migrated radially inward, and that the radial lithium gradient flipped from positive to negative/broken to positive across these eras. A reader should care because this dates the long-known lithium dip to 4-5 Gyr and ties chemical enrichment to inside-out disc formation and radial migration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the birth radius $R_{\rm birth}$, assigned through Eq. (7): $R_{\rm birth} = ([\mathrm{Fe/H}] - [\mathrm{Fe/H}](0,\tau)) / \nabla[\mathrm{Fe/H}](\tau)$, where $\nabla[\mathrm{Fe/H}](\tau)$ is the interstellar metallicity gradient at lookback time $\tau$, taken from a linear relation calibrated by two sets of cosmological simulations and interpolated from a published table. This converts a present-day snapshot of stellar lithium into a time-resolved radial map of enrichment, and it is what lets the paper attribute young Li-rich stars to the outer disc. Supporting machinery includes the Bayesian stellar ages from matching Gaia luminosities with GALAH spectroscopic parameters, the 3D NLTE lithium catalogue, and LOESS local non-parametric regression used to extract trends from the age- and radius-binned scatter.

What would settle it

Take the same 22,034 stars and compute $R_{\rm birth}$ from a forward chemical-evolution model with explicit radial migration and a non-linear, time-dependent metallicity gradient, rather than the linear lookback-time gradient of Eq. (7). If the young Li-rich stars no longer cluster at $R_{\rm birth} > 10$ kpc, or the 6-4 Gyr gradient no longer turns negative and broken, the three-epoch lithium history is an artifact of the assumed linear gradient. Independently, measure lithium in young stars whose orbital actions indicate outer-disc birth and check whether their $A(\mathrm{Li})$ exceeds 2.7 dex.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the temporal evolution of disc lithium is non-monotonic and spatially structured. In the age-$A(\mathrm{Li})$ plane, the sample shows $A(\mathrm{Li})$ rising from about 1.5 dex at 14 Gyr to roughly 2.2 dex at 6 Gyr, slipping to about 2.1 dex at 4.5 Gyr, and then climbing past 2.7 dex by 2 Gyr. The downturn marks the Li dip, and the paper pins its age range to 4-5 Gyr, spanning main-sequence turn-off stars through subgiants, with most of these stars having $T_{\rm eff}$ below 6200 K. Binning by guiding-center radius and $z_{\rm max}$, the paper finds that young Li-rich stars (age $<4$ Gyr, $A(\mathrm{Li}) > 2.7$ dex) have birth radii mostly above 10 kpc in every spatial bin, indicating that they formed in the outer disc and migrated to the local and inner discs; stars born in the inner disc instead show a rapid lithium enrichment between 8 and 6 Gyr ago. The radial profile of lithium with respect to birth radius exhibits three epochs: a positive gradient at 14-6 Gyr ago, a negative and broken gradient at 6-4 Gyr ago driven by Li-dip stars, and a return to a positive gradient at 4-1 Gyr ago.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a star's birth radius can be recovered from its current [Fe/H] and age by assuming the interstellar metallicity gradient was always linear and is known from simulation calibration; if that linear relation or calibration is wrong, the claimed outer-disc origin of young Li-rich stars and the three gradient periods would be systematically shifted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Li dip becomes a dated phenomenon: field stars aged 4-5 Gyr at the turn-off should show depleted $A(\mathrm{Li})$, giving an independent age indicator for intermediate-age stellar populations.
Young Li-rich stars in the solar neighbourhood should not be read as local enrichment; they trace inward radial migration from the outer disc, so models of the local disc must include migration to reproduce the upper envelope of the $A(\mathrm{Li})$–metallicity relation.
The inner disc had a distinct lithium enrichment burst at 8-6 Gyr, separate from the outer disc's post-4 Gyr burst, implying that the dominant lithium sources or their efficiencies differed between regions and epochs.
Galactic chemical evolution models that predict $A(\mathrm{Li})$ as a function of radius and time should reproduce the positive–negative/broken–positive sequence of gradients; failure to do so would point to missing lithium sources or wrong migration prescriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the outer-disc origin claim can be checked kinematically: these young Li-rich stars should have orbital actions indicating inward migration, and their current guiding radii should be systematically smaller than their birth radii.
If the 4-5 Gyr age range is robust, it links the Li dip to a narrow mass range at the turn-off, providing an empirical mass-age-metallicity constraint that models of diffusion, rotation, and internal gravity waves must reproduce.
A natural extension would be to look for abundance ratios tied to specific lithium production sites (novae versus AGB stars) in stars formed during the inner-disc 8-6 Gyr burst versus the outer-disc post-4 Gyr burst, testing whether the two enrichment episodes have different nucleosynthetic origins.
The softest point is the linear-gradient birth radius; re-deriving $R_{\rm birth}$ with a non-linear or directly simulated metallicity-radius relation would show how much of the three-epoch gradient story survives a change in that assumption.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look for the temporal result, but the spatial half of the paper doesn't survive contact with its own assumptions.

What's new: they combine precise ages from their own earlier program with the external GALAH 3D NLTE Li catalogue and simulation-based birth radii for 22,000 MSTO/subgiant stars. That's a clean setup. The age–A(Li) trend—rise to ~6 Gyr, slight dip around 4.5 Gyr, then steep rise—is an independent empirical constraint, and the 4–5 Gyr age range for the Li dip is supported by a Kiel-diagram check using the Wang et al. catalogue. That part is worth taking seriously, and it does not depend on the birth-radius machinery.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test points: the birth radius. Equation 7 is a linear, lookback-time-dependent [Fe/H] gradient taken from Lu et al., and none of the relevant uncertainties are propagated. That would be a minor complaint if the spatial trends were robust to plausible shifts. But there is a sharper problem. For stars younger than 4 Gyr, the paper says A(Li) increases with [Fe/H]. With a negative ISM gradient, Eq. 7 makes Rbirth a strictly decreasing function of [Fe/H]. Therefore A(Li) should decrease with Rbirth in any given young age bin. The paper's Fig. 7 instead shows a positive A(Li)–Rbirth gradient for 1–3 Gyr stars. That is a direct sign contradiction, not a matter of error bars. It suggests either the mapping is misapplied or the interpretation of the radial profile is flawed. The '~70% of Li-rich stars have Rbirth>10 kpc' claim is also fragile: a 0.1 dex zero-point shift moves Rbirth by ~2 kpc, and there is no validation against open clusters or an alternative estimator.

The authors owe the reader a resolution of that sign issue, at minimum. If the birth radii are wrong, the outer-origin and migration narrative collapses, and the three gradient epochs become an artifact of the assumed calibration. The temporal claims can be salvaged, but the spatial claims need either a corrected analysis or explicit retraction.

I'd send this to a serious referee—the sample and the temporal result justify the time—but the referee should demand an explanation of the sign inconsistency and a proper validation of the birth radii before any spatial conclusions are accepted. As it stands, the paper is not coherent on its own terms in the spatial half.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses 22,034 GALAH DR3 main-sequence turn-off and subgiant stars with ages from Sun et al. (2023a), 3D NLTE Li abundances from Wang et al. (2024), and birth radii computed from the Lu et al. (2022) method to study temporal and spatial variations of Li in the Milky Way disc. It reports a non-monotonic age--A(Li) relation: a gradual rise from 14 to 6 Gyr, a decline to about 4.5 Gyr, and a rapid rise thereafter. It further claims that most young Li-rich stars (age < 4 Gyr, A(Li) > 2.7 dex) have large birth radii and migrated inward, that Li-dip stars occupy ages 4--5 Gyr, and that the radial A(Li) gradient with respect to birth radius has three distinct epochs (14--6, 6--4, and 4--1 Gyr ago).

Significance. If the results hold, this would be one of the first large-sample studies connecting precise MSTO/subgiant ages, 3D NLTE Li abundances, and birth radii, providing new constraints on Li enrichment and radial migration in the Galactic disc. A particular strength is the use of external catalogs for ages and Li abundances, which limits circularity. However, the current support for the main claims is incomplete: the central temporal trend is shown without uncertainty bands, the birth-radius calibration is not error-propagated or independently validated, and there is an internal sign inconsistency between the [Fe/H]--A(Li) and Rbirth--A(Li) relations for young stars. These issues must be addressed before the paper's quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Fig. 1(a)] The central temporal trend is derived from LOESS smoothing with frac=0.15 and is plotted without confidence intervals, so the reported decline from about 2.2 dex at 6 Gyr to about 2.1 dex at 4.5 Gyr is not shown to be statistically significant relative to the large scatter in the age--A(Li) plane. Because the median age uncertainty is about 10%, a 1--1.5 Gyr feature can be smeared by age errors. Please provide bootstrap confidence bands for the LOESS fits in Figs. 1 and 4, demonstrate sensitivity to the smoothing fraction used (0.15 vs 0.4), and report a quantitative significance estimate for the 6--4.5 Gyr decline.
[§2.2, Eq. (7)] Birth radii are derived from a linear ISM metallicity-gradient calibration without propagating age and [Fe/H] uncertainties and without treating the systematic difference between the two Lu et al. (2022) simulation calibrations. With a gradient near -0.05 dex/kpc, a 0.1 dex systematic in [Fe/H] or in the gradient zero-point shifts Rbirth by about 2 kpc, which is large enough to affect the '~70% have Rbirth > 10 kpc' statement and the inferred gradient signs. Please add error propagation, a sensitivity analysis over the Lu et al. calibrations, and an external validation of the derived birth radii against open clusters or an alternative birth-radius estimator.
[§3.1 and §3.3, Figs. 2 and 7] There is an internal sign inconsistency between the [Fe/H]--A(Li) and Rbirth--A(Li) relations for young stars. Equation (7) with a negative ISM metallicity gradient makes Rbirth decrease with [Fe/H] at fixed age, yet Fig. 2(a) shows A(Li) increasing with [Fe/H] for age < 4 Gyr while Fig. 7 shows a positive A(Li)--Rbirth gradient in the 1--3 and 3--4 Gyr bins. These two relations cannot both hold if Eq. (7) maps [Fe/H] to Rbirth monotonically. Please check the sign of the adopted gradient, reconcile the two figures, or explicitly explain why the sign reversal is physically expected.

minor comments (5)

[§3.2, text near Fig. 4] The text says the decreasing trend from ~6 to ~4 Gyr appears in 'nearly all' subsamples except Fig. 4(a), but then states the Li-dip age range is 'irrespective of positions in the Milky Way'; these statements should be reconciled.
[§3.2] There is a typo: 'subginat' should be 'subgiant'.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption phrase 'no weighting function adjustment (delta = 0)' is unclear in the context of the statsmodels LOESS implementation; please rephrase to describe what delta=0 means.
[Data Availability] The data availability statement only offers data 'on reasonable request'; making the sample table and derived Rbirth values publicly available would improve reproducibility.
[References] The Lu et al. (2022) reference is cited as an arXiv e-print; please update to the published version if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central age–A(Li) relation combines external Li abundances with independent prior ages, and the Rbirth-based spatial claims use an explicitly stated, non-Li simulation calibration.

full rationale

The paper's central temporal result, the A(Li)-age relation, is built from two independent inputs: 3D NLTE Li abundances from Wang et al. (2024), an external catalogue, and stellar ages from the authors' prior Papers I/II, which were derived from Gaia luminosities, GALAH spectroscopic parameters, and oxygen-enhanced stellar models. Neither input is fitted to lithium, so the 14-to-6 Gyr rise, the 6-to-4.5 Gyr decline, the 4-5 Gyr Li-dip age, and the later rise are not equivalent to the inputs by construction. The spatial and migration claims use Rbirth from Eq. 7, which maps stellar [Fe/H] and age to birth radius through the ISM metallicity-gradient calibration of Lu et al. (2022). That calibration is explicitly attributed and simulation-based; it does not incorporate A(Li). A wrong or imprecise Rbirth calibration would be a systematic/robustness concern and could change the inferred outer-disc origins or gradient periods, but it is not a tautological reduction of output to input. The A(Li)-Rbirth profiles are the A(Li)-[Fe/H] relation viewed through a physically motivated coordinate transformation with externally supplied gradient parameters, not a pure renaming of a fitted quantity. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-definitional equation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no hidden ansatz smuggled in by self-citation. The self-citations to the age and birth-radius methodology are load-bearing but not circular, because the cited derivations do not contain the lithium-dependent target result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on external data products from overlapping-author papers (Paper II ages, Lu et al. birth radii) and on Wang et al. 3D NLTE lithium abundances. No free parameters are fitted to lithium abundances themselves, but LOESS smoothing fractions, bin boundaries, and period boundaries are chosen by hand and affect the reported trends.

free parameters (4)

LOESS smoothing fraction frac = 0.15 in Fig 1; 0.4 in Figs 4/5/7
Chosen by hand; controls the shapes of all age-A(Li) trends and gradient curves. No robustness tests are shown for different smoothing fractions.
Rguide and zmax bin boundaries = Rguide 7 and 9 kpc; zmax 0.3 and 0.7 kpc
Divide the sample into inner, local, outer, and vertical bins; the derived spatial patterns depend on these arbitrary boundaries.
Age period boundaries for gradient epochs = 6 Gyr and 4 Gyr
Selected post hoc from the LOESS fits to define the three gradient periods; no formal breakpoint test is performed.
Li-rich selection thresholds = age < 4 Gyr, A(Li) > 2.7 dex
Define the young Li-rich population used for the migration claim; changing these thresholds alters the 70% outer-disc fraction.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Stellar ages from Paper II are accurate enough for age-stratified analysis.
Ages come from Bayesian matching to oxygen-enhanced stellar models with median uncertainty 9.8%, but uncertainties are not propagated into LOESS fits or the lithium-dip age boundaries.
domain assumption Birth radius formula Eq. 7 with a linear [Fe/H] gradient from Lu et al. (2022) is valid.
Assumes that stellar [Fe/H] maps uniquely to birth radius through a simulation-calibrated, time-dependent metallicity gradient; no uncertainty is propagated.
domain assumption 3D NLTE lithium abundances from Wang et al. (2024) are accurate for MSTO and subgiant stars.
The authors adopt the catalog at face value; systematic errors in the NLTE modeling would shift all A(Li) values and could change the amplitude of the reported trends.
ad hoc to paper LOESS local regression with the chosen smoothing fraction recovers the true underlying age-lithium relation.
The smoothing fraction and iteration count are not derived from data or theory; the inferred dip and rise depend on this choice.
domain assumption Sample MSTO and subgiant stars have not undergone first dredge-up, so surface lithium reflects the initial stellar composition.
Authors cite Boothroyd and Sackmann (1999) and check the log g-A(Li) distribution, but they do not model lithium depletion in detail.
domain assumption The GALAH sample is representative enough to infer Galactic disc trends without selection function corrections.
No selection function or completeness correction is applied; a magnitude-limited survey can bias the age and birth-radius distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The temporal and spatial variations of lithium abundance in the Galactic disc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PS4AXTSK

@misc{pith2026241113011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The temporal and spatial variations of lithium abundance in the Galactic disc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PS4AXTSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13011}
}

abstract

This study investigates the temporal and spatial variations in lithium abundance within the Milky Way using a sample of 22,034 main-sequence turn-off (MSTO) stars and subgiants, characterised by precise stellar ages, 3D NLTE (non-local thermodynamic equilibrium) lithium abundances, and birth radii. Our results reveal a complex variation in lithium abundance with stellar age: a gradual increase from 14 Gyr to 6 Gyr, followed by a decline between 6 Gyr and 4.5 Gyr, and a rapid increase thereafter. We find that young Li-rich stars (ages $<$ 4 Gyr, A(Li) $>$ 2.7 dex) predominantly originate from the outer disc. By binning the sample according to guiding center radius and z$_{\rm max}$, we observe that these young Li-rich stars migrate radially to the local and inner discs. In addition, the stars originating from the inner disc experienced a rapid Li enrichment process between 8 Gyr and 6 Gyr. Our analysis suggests that the age range of Li-dip stars is 4-5 Gyr, encompassing evolution stages from MSTO stars to subgiants. The Galactic radial profile of A(Li) (with respect to birth radius), as a function of age, reveals three distinct periods: 14-6 Gyr ago, 6-4 Gyr ago, and 4-1 Gyr ago. Initially, the lithium abundance gradient is positive, indicating increasing Li abundance with birth radius. During the second period, it transitions to a negative and broken gradient, mainly affected by Li-dip stars. In the final period, the gradient reverts to a positive trend.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13011 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** [Fe/H]-A(Li) distributions, colour-coded by the stellar age (a) and Rbirth (b). The [Fe/H]-A(Li) distribution of old stars with age > 8 Gyr is shown in Fig. B1 in the Appendix B. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rguide (kpc) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 z max (k p c) high-zmax intermediate-zmax low-zmax Inner Local Outer 10 1 10 2 N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Age-A(Li) distributions, colour-coded by the stellar number density (a), Rbirth (b) and 𝑇eff (c). The black lines represent the fitting results by local non-parametric regression. The fitting procedure is performed using the Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing (LOESS) model with the following parameters: a smoothing fraction (frac) of 0.15, 20 iterations (it), and no weighting function adjustment (delta = 0). The… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Age-A(Li) distributions in nine different bins of Rguide and zmax. (a-h): Colour-coded by the stellar number density. (i): Red dots represent the stars in the outer disc at low-zmax region. The numbers of stars in each bin are shown in the bottom-right corner of each panel. The panels are arranged according to the division in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Age-A(Li) distributions in nine different bins of Rguide and zmax, color-coded by the Rbirth. The panels are arranged according to the division in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Radial Li abundance profile in bins of age, with respect to Rbirth. Each line represents the local nonparametric regression fitting to the distribution of sample stars in this age bin. The shaded regions indicate the 95% confidence interval around the fitting result b…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Mean A(Li) binned in 𝑇eff and log 𝑔 for GALAH DR3 data (top), with the Li-dip stars (4-5 Gyr) found in our work overplotted (bottom). stars. Throughout other epochs, the Li abundance in the Galactic disc consistently rises. 4 CONCLUSIONS Utilising a sample of 22,034 ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...
[2]

Abia C., Pavlenko Y., de Laverny P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...351..273A 351, 273

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9904420 1999
[3]

Aguilera-G \'o mez C., Ram \' rez I., Chanam \'e J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..55A 614, A55

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732209 2018
[4]

J., Deliyannis C

Anthony-Twarog B. J., Deliyannis C. P., Twarog B. A., Croxall K. V., Cummings J. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/4/1171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1171A 138, 1171

doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/4/1171 2009
[5]

Arnould M., Norgaard H., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....42...55A 42, 55

work page 1975
[6]

L., Nissen P

Asplund M., Lambert D. L., Nissen P. E., Primas F., Smith V. V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644..229A 644, 229

doi:10.1086/503538 2006
[7]

Balachandran S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...446..203B 446, 203

doi:10.1086/175779 1995
[8]

J., Elsworth Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1596B 710, 1596

Basu S., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1596B 710, 1596

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1596 2010

Show all 77 references

[9]

Bensby T., Lind K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A.151B 615, A151

2018 doi
[10]

C., Johnson J

Bensby T., Feltzing S., Yee J. C., Johnson J. A., Gould A., Asplund M., Mel \'e ndez J., Lucatello S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...634A.130B 634, A130

2020 doi
[11]

M., Tripicco M

Boesgaard A. M., Tripicco M. J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302L..49B 302, L49

1986 doi
[12]

M., Budge K

Boesgaard A. M., Budge K. G., Ramsay M. E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...327..389B 327, 389

1988 doi
[13]

M., Lum M

Boesgaard A. M., Lum M. G., Deliyannis C. P., King J. R., Pinsonneault M. H., Somers G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830...49B 830, 49

2016 doi
[14]

Bonifacio P., Molaro P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.4.847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..847B 285, 847

1997 doi
[15]

Bonifacio P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...462..851B 462, 851

2007 doi
[16]

I., Sackmann I

Boothroyd A. I., Sackmann I. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...510..232B 510, 232

1999 doi
[17]

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

2015 doi
[18]

Buder S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..150B 506, 150

2021 doi
[19]

F., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..216B 354, 216

Burkhart C., Coupry M. F., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..216B 354, 216

2000
[20]

Charbonnel C., Talon S., 2005, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1116849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Sci...309.2189C 309, 2189

2005 doi
[21]

Q., Nissen P

Chen Y. Q., Nissen P. E., Benoni T., Zhao G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...371..943C 371, 943

2001 doi
[22]

Coc A., Goriely S., Xu Y., Saimpert M., Vangioni E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744..158C 744, 158

2012 doi
[23]

1594, Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies 2013

Coc A., Uzan J.-P., Vangioni E., 2014a, in Jeong S., Imai N., Miyatake H., Kajino T., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1594, Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies 2013. AIP, pp 12--17, @doi 10.1063/1.4874037

2013 doi
[24]

Coc A., Uzan J.-P., Vangioni E., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014JCAP...10..050C 2014, 050

2014 doi
[25]

H., Fields B

Cyburt R. H., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., 2003, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.06.026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhLB..567..227C 567, 227

2003 doi
[26]

H., Fields B

Cyburt R. H., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/11/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JCAP...11..012C 2008, 012

2008 doi
[27]

H., Fields B

Cyburt R. H., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., Yeh T.-H., 2016, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RvMP...88a5004C 88, 015004

2016 doi
[28]

D'Antona F., Matteucci F., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...248...62D 248, 62

1991
[29]

Dantas M. L. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668L...7D 668, L7

2022 doi
[30]

Delgado Mena E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..69D 576, A69

2015 doi
[31]

Eggenberger P., Maeder A., Meynet G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...519L...2E 519, L2

2010 doi
[32]

D., Olive K

Fields B. D., Olive K. A., Yeh T.-H., Young C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...03..010F 2020, 010

2020 doi
[33]

Frankel N., Sanders J., Rix H.-W., Ting Y.-S., Ness M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...99F 884, 99

2019 doi
[34]

Fu X., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...610A..38F 610, A38

2018 doi
[35]

Gao X., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497L..30G 497, L30

2020 doi
[36]

Grisoni V., Matteucci F., Romano D., Fu X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3539G 489, 3539

2019 doi
[37]

C., De Pascale M., Masseron T., Prantzos N., Mikolaitis S ., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A..18G 595, A18

Guiglion G., de Laverny P., Recio-Blanco A., Worley C. C., De Pascale M., Masseron T., Prantzos N., Mikolaitis S ., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A..18G 595, A18

2016 doi
[38]

Guiglion G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..99G 623, A99

2019 doi
[39]

Hernanz M., Jose J., Coc A., Isern J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465L..27H 465, L27

1996 doi
[40]

M., Pilachowski C., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...309L..17H 309, L17

Hobbs L. M., Pilachowski C., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...309L..17H 309, L17

1986 doi
[41]

F., Fischer D., Shetrone M., Soderblom D

Jones B. F., Fischer D., Shetrone M., Soderblom D. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....114..352J 114, 352

1997 doi
[42]

637, Classical Nova Explosions

Jos \'e J., 2002, in Hernanz M., Jos \'e J., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 637, Classical Nova Explosions. pp 104--113 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209185 ), @doi 10.1063/1.1518186

2002 arXiv
[43]

Kusakabe M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafc35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..164K 872, 164

2019 doi
[44]

L., Reddy B

Lambert D. L., Reddy B. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07557.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349..757L 349, 757

2004
[45]

P., 2009, @doi [Landolt Börnstein] 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4_34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009LanB...4B..712L 4B, 712

Lodders K., Palme H., Gail H. P., 2009, @doi [Landolt Börnstein] 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4_34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009LanB...4B..712L 4B, 712

2009 doi
[46]

C., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221204515L p

Lu Y., Minchev I., Buck T., Khoperskov S., Steinmetz M., Libeskind N., Cescutti G., Freeman K. C., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221204515L p. arXiv:2212.04515

2022 doi arXiv
[47]

Michaud G., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..650M 302, 650

1986 doi
[48]

Minchev I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1645M 481, 1645

2018 doi
[49]

Montalb \'a n J., Schatzman E., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..943M 354, 943

2000
[50]

H., Deliyannis C

Pinsonneault M. H., Deliyannis C. P., Demarque P., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJS...78..179P 78, 179

1992 doi
[51]

Pitrou C., Coc A., Uzan J.-P., Vangioni E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.04.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhR...754....1P 754, 1

2018 doi
[52]

Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..13P 594, A13

2016 doi
[53]

Prantzos N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...542A..67P 542, A67

2012 doi
[54]

R., Lambert D

Ram \' rez I., Fish J. R., Lambert D. L., Allende Prieto C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756...46R 756, 46

2012 doi
[55]

Randich S., Gratton R., Pallavicini R., Pasquini L., Carretta E., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...348..487R 348, 487

1999
[56]

A., Hoyle F., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1038/226727a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.226..727R 226, 727

Reeves H., Fowler W. A., Hoyle F., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1038/226727a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.226..727R 226, 727

1970 doi
[57]

Romano D., Matteucci F., Molaro P., Bonifacio P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9910151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...352..117R 352, 117

1999 doi arXiv
[58]

Romano D., Matteucci F., Ventura P., D'Antona F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...374..646R 374, 646

2001 doi
[59]

Romano D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A..72R 653, A72

2021 doi
[60]

Rybizki J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2597R 510, 2597

2022 doi
[61]

J., Boothroyd A

Sackmann I. J., Boothroyd A. I., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392L..71S 392, L71

1992 doi
[62]

J., Boothroyd A

Sackmann I. J., Boothroyd A. I., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...510..217S 510, 217

1999 doi
[63]

Seabold S., Perktold J., 2010, in 9th Python in Science Conference

2010
[64]

Sestito P., Randich S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...442..615S 442, 615

2005 doi
[65]

N., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..148..175S 148, 175

Spergel D. N., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..148..175S 148, 175

2003 doi
[66]

Spite F., Spite M., 1982, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A&A...115..357S 115, 357

1982
[67]

Spite M., Spite F., Bonifacio P., 2012, @doi [Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi] 10.48550/arXiv.1208.1190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MSAIS..22....9S 22, 9

2012 doi arXiv
[68]

e E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6a19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...90S 159, 90

Stonkut \. e E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6a19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...90S 159, 90

2020 doi
[70]

Sun T., Chen X., Bi S., Ge Z., Xiang M., Wu Y., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1199S 523, 1199

doi
[71]

Tajitsu A., Sadakane K., Naito H., Arai A., Aoki W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.518..381T 518, 381

2015 doi
[72]

Traven G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.145T 638, A145

2020 doi
[73]

H., Conti P

Wallerstein G., Herbig G. H., Conti P. S., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...141..610W 141, 610

1965 doi
[74]

X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5394W 528, 5394

Wang E. X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5394W 528, 5394

2024 doi
[75]

E., Hartmann D

Woosley S. E., Hartmann D. H., Hoffman R. D., Haxton W. C., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...356..272W 356, 272

1990 doi
[76]

Yu J., Khanna S., Themessl N., Hekker S., Dr \'e au G., Gizon L., Bi S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acabc8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..264...41Y 264, 41

2023 doi
[77]

Zhang H., Chen Y., Zhao G., Bi S., Zhang X., Xue X., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4815Z 520, 4815

2023 doi
[78]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.05815

Sun T., Bi S., Chen X., Chen Y., Liu C., Zhang X., Li T., et al., 2023, arXiv, arXiv:2311.05815. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.05815

2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

[2] [2]

Abia C., Pavlenko Y., de Laverny P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...351..273A 351, 273

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9904420 1999

[3] [3]

Aguilera-G \'o mez C., Ram \' rez I., Chanam \'e J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..55A 614, A55

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732209 2018

[4] [4]

J., Deliyannis C

Anthony-Twarog B. J., Deliyannis C. P., Twarog B. A., Croxall K. V., Cummings J. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/4/1171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1171A 138, 1171

doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/4/1171 2009

[5] [5]

Arnould M., Norgaard H., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....42...55A 42, 55

work page 1975

[6] [6]

L., Nissen P

Asplund M., Lambert D. L., Nissen P. E., Primas F., Smith V. V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644..229A 644, 229

doi:10.1086/503538 2006

[7] [7]

Balachandran S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...446..203B 446, 203

doi:10.1086/175779 1995

[8] [8]

J., Elsworth Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1596B 710, 1596

Basu S., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1596B 710, 1596

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1596 2010