Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Chemically Self-Consistent Modeling of the Globular Cluster NGC 2808 and its Effects on the Inferred Helium Abundance of Multiple Stellar Populations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Chemically self-consistent stellar models of NGC 2808 still find a helium difference of $\Delta Y = 0.15 \pm 0.03$ between its first and second stellar populations, matching earlier non-self-consistent fits.

desk verdict First chemically self-consistent models of NGC 2808 and a solid new fitting tool, but the helium error bar is really the grid spacing and the best-fit Y values sit on grid edges. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17562 v1 pith:YYNGBYYJ submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Emily M. Boudreaux , Brian C. Chaboyer , Amanda Ash , Renata Edaes Hoh , Gregory Feiden This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords globularclustersmultiplestellarpopulationsheliumabundancechemicallyself-consistentmodelsisochronefittingNGC2808BayesianGaussianmixturemodeling
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 work asks whether stellar models that are chemically self-consistent, meaning they use the same element abundances for the atmosphere, the opacity tables, and the interior, change the helium abundances inferred for the multiple stellar populations of the globular cluster NGC 2808. The paper builds such models with MARCS model atmospheres, OPLIB high-temperature opacities, and AESOPUS low-temperature opacities, and fits them to Hubble UV photometry with a new automated fitting code called Fidanka. The best fit gives a first-population helium mass fraction of $Y=0.24$ and a second-population value of $Y=0.39$, a difference of $\Delta Y = 0.15 \pm 0.03$. Because this matches earlier fits that were not chemically self-consistent, the paper concludes that full chemical consistency does not significantly alter inferred helium abundances and may not be worth the extra computational cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of chemically self-consistent stellar models built with the DSEP stellar evolution code, using MARCS model atmospheres as surface boundary conditions, OPLIB high-temperature opacities, and AESOPUS low-temperature opacities, all computed with the same CNO-enhanced or CNO-depleted abundances adopted for each population. On top of these models, the new fitting code Fidanka automatically measures fiducial lines by estimating local number density and clustering with Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Modeling, then fits pairs of isochrones to the photometry. The helium mass fraction is the only abundance left free in the fit, so the inferred $\Delta Y$ directly reflects the color separation between the two sequences.

What would settle it

Refit the same HUGS photometry with the light-element abundances varied across the spectroscopic uncertainties of the two populations; if the best-fit helium difference moves outside $\Delta Y=0.15 \pm 0.03$, then the inferred helium jump is not robust to the adopted composition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that making globular cluster models chemically self-consistent, matching the abundances used in the stellar atmosphere, in the high- and low-temperature opacities, and in the interior structure, leaves the inferred helium enrichment of the second generation essentially unchanged. For NGC 2808 the best-fit chemically self-consistent isochrones give a helium mass fraction of $Y=0.24$ for the primordial population and $Y=0.39$ for the helium-enriched population, a difference of $\Delta Y=0.15\pm 0.03$ that agrees with previous non-self-consistent determinations. The paper also reports that the same photometric data, analyzed with its automated method, support only two distinct populations, consistent with recent spectroscopic analyses. Together with earlier self-consistent modeling of NGC 6752, the result implies that the extra effort of full chemical consistency changes inferred helium abundances by less than the uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred helium difference rests on the adopted C, N, O, and other light-element abundances for the two populations being correct, because helium is the only abundance left free in the fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NGC 2808's first and second populations have helium mass fractions $Y=0.24$ and $Y=0.39$, respectively.
  • The inferred helium difference agrees with earlier non-self-consistent fits within uncertainties, so the previous helium estimates for this cluster are not biased by their simpler chemistry.
  • Only two stellar populations are preferred in the F275W-F814W photometry, consistent with recent spectroscopic analyses of NGC 2808.
  • Fidanka provides an automated, uncertainty-aware path for fitting isochrones to multiple populations in other globular clusters.
  • Full chemical self-consistency changes inferred helium abundances by less than the current model grid spacing, making it unlikely to be worth the significant additional time investment for helium-inference studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conclusion generalizes, then helium abundances inferred for many globular clusters from simpler models are probably trustworthy, and the dominant systematic is the adopted light-element pattern rather than the consistency of the modeling.
  • The two-population result in this two-filter CMD does not rule out extra populations that appear only in chromosome maps built from additional filters; a natural test is to run the same fitting pipeline on chromosome-map variables once the uncertainty propagation is worked out.
  • A direct robustness check is to repeat the fit with the CNO abundances varied across the full spectroscopic uncertainty ranges; a stable $\Delta Y$ would strengthen the result, while a large shift would show the helium difference is partly an artifact of the assumed composition.
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. The paper presents chemically self-consistent stellar structure and evolutionary models of the globular cluster NGC 2808, constructed with DSEP using MARCS model atmospheres, OPLIB high-temperature opacities, and AESOPUS low-temperature opacities. The models are fit to HUGS F275W-F814W photometry with the new software package Fidanka, which the authors also introduce and validate with injection-recovery tests. Fitting two populations (P1 and P2) simultaneously, the authors report helium mass fractions Y=0.24 and Y=0.39, respectively, a difference of ΔY=0.15±0.03, which they state is consistent with previous non-self-consistent determinations. They conclude that chemically self-consistent modeling does not significantly change inferred helium abundances for multiple populations, echoing earlier work on NGC 6752 by Dotter et al. (2015). The paper also reports evidence from silhouette analysis that only two populations are present in the F275W-F814W CMD, in contrast to the five populations identified by Milone et al. (2015a).

Significance. If the central quantitative claim were robust, the paper would provide a valuable validation that chemical self-consistency in globular cluster isochrones does not materially alter inferred helium spreads, and the open-source Fidanka package with its injection-recovery tests would be a useful community resource. The authors also release their isochrone grid on Zenodo, which is a reproducibility strength. However, the main result, ΔY=0.15±0.03, is currently weakened by the fact that both fitted helium values sit at the boundaries of the computed grid and by the lack of any likelihood-based uncertainty estimate. The negative result (self-consistency does not change the helium difference) is plausible and interesting, but it needs firmer statistical support before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 4] The best-fit values Y_P1=0.24 and Y_P2=0.39 lie exactly at the lower and upper edges of the helium grid (Y=0.24, 0.27, 0.30, 0.33, 0.36, 0.39), and α_ML(P1)=2.050 lies outside the tabulated α_ML range of 1.0–2.0. The quoted ΔY=0.15 is therefore the full span of the helium grid, and the ±0.03 uncertainty is the grid spacing, not a likelihood-based confidence interval. The manuscript presents no χ² profile or marginal likelihood for Y or α_ML, so it is impossible to determine whether the true optimum is interior to the grid or beyond its boundaries. This is load-bearing because the paper's central claim of ΔY=0.15±0.03 rests on these boundary values. Please extend the grid (e.g., Y below 0.24 and above 0.39, α_ML above 2.0) and report confidence regions from the likelihood surface or a bootstrap, or demonstrate explicitly that the χ² surface is flat beyond the current boundaries.
  2. [§5, Table 4] Only the ages have quoted 1σ uncertainties in Table 4; there are no uncertainties reported for Y, α_ML, distance modulus, or extinction, and no covariance analysis for the six simultaneously fitted parameters (μ_P1, μ_P2, E(B-V)_P1, E(B-V)_P2, Age_P1, Age_P2) or between those parameters and the discrete grid parameters Y and α_ML. The abstract's '15±3%' therefore does not follow from any error propagation shown in the paper; the text itself notes that the helium grid spacing prevents resolution of values such as 0.37 vs. 0.39. Please provide a joint confidence region or, at minimum, a χ² map over the Y–α_ML plane for each population, and give the statistical definition of the quoted uncertainty.
  3. [§3, Tables 1 and 2] The helium inference is made with all light-element abundances (C, N, O, Na, etc.) fixed to the values adopted from Milone et al. (2015a) for populations A and E. Since Y is the only free abundance in the isochrone fitting, any error in the adopted CNO pattern, in the α-element enhancement, or in the measured population separation will be absorbed into the fitted helium and bias the derived ΔY. The paper does not propagate uncertainties from the adopted spectroscopic abundances into the helium result. Please include a sensitivity study—for example, recomputing the fit with C, N, O, and α abundances shifted by their reported uncertainties—to bound the systematic contribution to ΔY.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, Table 2] Table 2 lists Y=0.2700 for population A(1) and Y=0.2400 for population E(2), which is opposite to the expected helium enrichment of population E/P2 and inconsistent with the best-fit values in Table 4 (Y_P1=0.24, Y_P2=0.39). Please clarify what the X, Y, and Z columns in Table 2 represent and reconcile this apparent typographical or labeling error, as it affects the reproducibility of the model grid.
  2. [§3] The text refers to 'see Tables 3 and 2' when describing the chemical compositions, but no Table 3 exists in the manuscript; the intended reference is presumably Table 1 and/or Table 2. Please correct this citation.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'isochohrones', 'Magellenic', 'Retrival', 'temperautre', 'consistant', 'preform', 'NCG 2808', 'we useis', and 'esimate'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [§5.1, Figure 8] The silhouette analysis is described as an average over magnitude bins, but the paper does not specify how the silhouette scores are normalized or how bin-to-bin variation is treated statistically; a brief clarification of the averaging and normalization procedure would help the reader judge the robustness of the two-population conclusion.
  5. [§4.4, Figure 6] The percent error distribution for Av in Figure 6 shows values around -90% to -98%; since Av is a small quantity, this may be a large relative error, but the axis labeling should clarify whether the plotted quantity is a fractional error or a percent error relative to the true Av, and the text should explain why the recovery is so biased in this parameter.
  6. [Table 4] The table reports χ²/ν values without defining ν (the number of degrees of freedom). Please state how ν is computed for the fiducial-line fits, since the quoted goodness-of-fit values cannot be interpreted otherwise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inferred helium difference is a data-driven grid search, not a quantity built into the inputs.

full rationale

The helium inference is a standard model-fitting exercise, not a derivation that assumes its conclusion. The helium grid Y=0.24--0.39 is scanned as a free parameter; DSEP models and MARCS atmospheres are generated for each Y, and Fidanka minimizes chi2 between isochrones and the observed F275W-F814W fiducial lines. The final Y values are therefore data-determined outputs. The adopted CNO abundances are external inputs from Milone et al. (2015a), and the comparison with previous inferred Y values is an external benchmark, not a constraint fed into the fit. The use of DSEP/Dotter isochrone tools (co-developed by one of the present authors) is a code dependency, not a circularity, because the fitted parameters are not encoded in the code; Fidanka's own injection-recovery tests demonstrate that the fitting pipeline recovers known inputs. The boundary-location of the best-fit Y values and the grid-spacing-sized quoted uncertainty are legitimate methodological limitations (the true optimum may lie outside the tested grid), but they are not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. No step of the chain defines Y in terms of the reported ΔY, nor does any fitted parameter get renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the adopted chemical abundances, the reliability of the stellar evolution code and atmosphere/opacity tables, and the assumption that the two-filter CMD separation is dominated by helium. No new physical entities are introduced; Fidanka is software, not an entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Helium mass fraction Y for P1 and P2 = 0.24 and 0.39
    Fit on a grid spaced 0.03; the reported uncertainty equals the grid step.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha_ML for P1 and P2 = 2.05 and 1.60
    Fit on a grid; the P1 best fit lies outside the stated 1.0 to 2.0 grid.
  • Distance modulus mu for P1 and P2 = 15.021 and 15.007 mag
    Fit to the photometry.
  • Extinction E(B-V) for P1 and P2 = 0.54 and 0.537 mag
    Fit to the photometry; values are much higher than the commonly adopted 0.22 for NGC 2808 and are not discussed.
  • Age for P1 and P2 = 12.996 and 13.061 Gyr
    Fit with uncertainties from the 16th and 84th percentiles of the best-fit age distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard stellar evolution physics in DSEP is reliable.
    Used to generate all stellar models in Section 3.
  • domain assumption MARCS atmospheres and OPLIB/AESOPUS opacities with the same abundances provide accurate boundary conditions and opacities.
    Invoked in Section 2 as the basis for chemical self-consistency.
  • domain assumption The abundance pattern for populations A and E from Milone et al. (2015a) is correct.
    Adopted in Section 3 and Tables 1 and 2; helium is the only free abundance in the fit.
  • domain assumption The color-magnitude separation between the two populations in F275W-F814W is primarily due to helium.
    Fundamental to attributing the fitted Y difference to helium rather than to other abundance differences or reddening.
  • domain assumption The Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model with Dirichlet process correctly identifies the number of populations in the data.
    Underpins the two-population decomposition in Section 4.1 and Section 5.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemically Self-Consistent Modeling of the Globular Cluster NGC 2808 and its Effects on the Inferred Helium Abundance of Multiple Stellar Populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYNGBYYJ

@misc{pith2026241117562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemically Self-Consistent Modeling of the Globular Cluster NGC 2808 and its Effects on the Inferred Helium Abundance of Multiple Stellar Populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYNGBYYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17562}
}
abstract

The helium abundances in the multiple populations that are now known to comprise all closely studied Milky Way globular clusters are often inferred by fitting isochrones generated from stellar evolutionary models to globular cluster photometry. It is therefore important to build stellar models that are chemically self-consistent in terms of their structure, atmosphere, and opacity. In this work we present the first chemically self-consistent stellar models of the Milky Way globular cluster NGC 2808 using MARCS model atmospheres, OPLIB high-temperature radiative opacities, and AESOPUS low-temperature radiative opacities. These stellar models were fit to the NGC 2808 photometry using Fidanka , a new software tool that was developed to optimally fit cluster photometry to isochrones and for population synthesis. Fidanka can determine, in a relatively unbiased way, the ideal number of distinct populations that exist within a dataset and then fit isochrones to each population. We achieve this outcome through a combination of Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Modeling and a novel number density estimation algorithm. Using Fidanka and F275W-F814W photometry from the Hubble UV Globular Cluster Survey we find that the helium abundance of the second generation of stars in NGC 2808 is higher than the first generation by $15\pm3\%$. This is in agreement with previous studies of NGC 2808. This work, along with previous work by Dotter et al. (2015) focused on NGC 6752, demonstrates that chemically self-consistent models of globular clusters do not significantly alter inferred helium abundances, and are therefore unlikely to be worth the significant additional time investment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figures in the top row are the raw CMD, while figures in the bottom row are colored by the density map. Density map demo showing density estimate over different parts of the evolutionary sequence. The left panel shows the density map over the entire evolutionary sequence, while the middle panel shows the density map over the main sequence and the right panel shows the density map over the RGB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CMD where point brightness is determined by local density. Lines show the density-color profile in each magnitude bin. In this figure adaptive binning targeted 1000 stars per bin visible populations overlap due to their similar ages (i.e. Jord´an et al. 2002). The Dirichlet process allows for the BGMM method to infer a single population in these re￾gions, while inferring two populations in regions where they are cle… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of BGMM fit to a magnitude bin. The grey line shows the underlying color-density profile, while the black dashed line shows the joint distribution of each BGMM component. The solid black lines show the two selected components. to other work in the literature where evidence for up to five distinct populations has been found, we only find evidence for two stellar populations. This method of fiducial line extra… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic population generated by Fidanka at 10000pc with E(B-V) = 0, and an age of 12 Gyr along with the best fitting isochrone. The best fit paremeters are derived to be µ = 15.13, E(B-V)=0.001, and an age of 12.33 Gyr. page2 Finally, each synthetic population was ge…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Verticalized CMD (where the color of each data point is subtracted from the color of the fiducial line at that magnitude) where point brightness is determined by density (top). CMD where point brightness is determined by density, calculated fiducial lines are shown (bo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percent error distribution for each of the three deriver parameters. Note that these values will be sensitive to the magnitude uncertainties of the photometry. Here we made use of the ACS artificial star tests to estimate the un￾certanties. over, we constrain the mixin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best fit isochrone results for NGC 2808. The best fit P1 and P2 models are shown as black lines. The following 50 best fit models are presented as grey lines. The dashed black line is fit to P1, while the solid black line is fit to P2. Population Age Distance Modulus E…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Silhouette analysis for NGC 2808 F275W-F814W (top) and F336W-F438W (bottom) photometry. The Sil￾houette scores are an average of score for each magnitude bin. Scores have been normalized to indicate the most well￾distinguished (+1) to least well-distinguished (-1) hypo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1975, A&AS, 21, 15

    Alcaino, G. 1975, A&AS, 21, 15

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    R., et al

    Anderson, J., Sarajedini, A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2055, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2055

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2055 2008

  3. [3]

    B., Dobkin, D

    Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., & Huhdanpaa, H. 1996, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 22, 469

    1996

  4. [4]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1661

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1661

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1661 2015

  5. [5]

    2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 83

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 83

    2018

  6. [6]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 566, 245, doi: 10.1086/337984 12 Boudreaux et al

    Bekki, K., & Chiba, M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 566, 245, doi: 10.1086/337984 12 Boudreaux et al

    work page doi:10.1086/337984 2002

  7. [7]

    M., & Chaboyer, B

    Boudreaux, E. M., & Chaboyer, B. C. 2023, ApJ, 944, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb685

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb685 2023

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 1423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1490

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2018, MNRAS, 1423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1490

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1490 2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    P., & Strader, J

    Brodie, J. P., & Strader, J. 2006, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 44, 193

    2006

  2. [10]

    H., Burkert, A., & Truran, J

    Brown, J. H., Burkert, A., & Truran, J. W. 1991, ApJ, 376, 115, doi: 10.1086/170260 —. 1995, ApJ, 440, 666, doi: 10.1086/175304

    1991 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac424a

    Cadelano, M., Dalessandro, E., Salaris, M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac424a

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2006, AJ, 131, 1766, doi: 10.1086/499565 —

    Carretta, E. 2006, AJ, 131, 1766, doi: 10.1086/499565 —. 2013, A&A, 557, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322103 —. 2015, ApJ, 810, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/148

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    2004, ApJL, 610, L25, doi: 10.1086/423034

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., & Cacciari, C. 2004, ApJL, 610, L25, doi: 10.1086/423034

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 516, A55

    2010

  7. [15]

    P., Magee, N

    Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2016, APS Division of

    2016

  8. [16]

    E., Pols, O

    Abstracts, D1.008 de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., Langer, N., & Izzard, R. G. 2009, A&A, 507, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913205

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    2007, A&A, 464, 1029, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066013

    Decressin, T., Meynet, G., Charbonnel, C., Prantzos, N., & Ekstr¨ om, S. 2007, A&A, 464, 1029, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066013

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    A., & Hartwick, F

    Denissenkov, P. A., & Hartwick, F. D. A. 2014, MNRAS, 437, L21, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt133 D’Ercole, A., D’Antona, F., Ventura, P., Vesperini, E., &

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    McMillan, S. L. W. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 854, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16996.x D’Ercole, A., Vesperini, E., D’Antona, F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Recchi, S. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13915.x

    2010

  12. [20]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 89

    2008

  14. [22]

    W., Conroy, C., et al

    Dotter, A., Ferguson, J. W., Conroy, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2170

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Ferguson, T. S. 1973, The annals of statistics, 209

    1973

  16. [24]

    2004, ARA&A, 42, 385, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.133945

    Gratton, R., Sneden, C., & Carretta, E. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 385, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.133945

    2004

  17. [25]

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

    Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews, 20, 50, doi: 10.1007/s00159-012-0050-3

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Lucatello, S., Carretta, E., et al

    Gratton, R. G., Lucatello, S., Carretta, E., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117690

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, SSRv, 130, 105, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, AJ, 162, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0ce6

    Hong, S., Lim, D., Chung, C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0ce6

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Robison, B

    Hudson, M. J., & Robison, B. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty844

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 Jord´ an, A., Cˆ ot´ e, P., West, M. J., & Marzke, R. O. 2002, ApJL, 576, L113, doi: 10.1086/343759

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    S., & Richer, H

    Kalirai, J. S., & Richer, H. B. 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 368, 755, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2009.0257

    2010

  25. [33]

    I., Witzke, V., et al

    Kostogryz, N., Shapiro, A. I., Witzke, V., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the AAS, 7, 39, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acc180

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    V., & Gnedin, O

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 650

    2005

  27. [35]

    1993, Kurucz CD-Rom, 13

    Kurucz, R.-L. 1993, Kurucz CD-Rom, 13

    1993

  28. [36]

    O., Giesers, B., et al

    Latour, M., Husser, T. O., Giesers, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936242

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2009, A&A, 508, 1539, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912598

    Marigo, P., & Aringer, B. 2009, A&A, 508, 1539, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912598

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b40

    Marigo, P., Aringer, B., Girardi, L., & Bressan, A. 2022, ApJ, 940, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b40

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv420

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1596

    Martocchia, S., Dalessandro, E., Lardo, C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1596

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/58

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Piotto, G., et al. 2015a, ApJ, 808, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/51 —. 2015b, MNRAS, 447, 927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2446

    doi

  35. [43]

    P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2531

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2573

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1906.04983

    Pasquato, M., & Milone, A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1906.04983

    2019 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    Peebles, P. J. E., & Dicke, R. H. 1968, ApJ, 154, 891, doi: 10.1086/149811 Self Consistently Modeling NGC 2808 13

    1968 doi

  40. [48]

    W., Ferguson, H

    Peng, E. W., Ferguson, H. C., Goudfrooij, P., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 23

    2011

  41. [49]

    2018, HST UV Globular Cluster Survey (”HUGS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9810F

    Piotto, G. 2018, HST UV Globular Cluster Survey (”HUGS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9810F

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 661, L53, doi: 10.1086/518503

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    P., Bedin, L

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/91

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    2008, Physica Scripta Volume T, 133, 014003, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T133/014003

    Plez, B. 2008, Physica Scripta Volume T, 133, 014003, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T133/014003

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    2007, A&A, 470, 179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077205

    Prantzos, N., Charbonnel, C., & Iliadis, C. 2007, A&A, 470, 179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077205

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 354, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13892.x

    Renzini, A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 354, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13892.x

    2008

  47. [55]

    B., Fahlman, G

    Richer, H. B., Fahlman, G. G., Buonanno, R., et al. 1991, ApJ, 381, 147, doi: 10.1086/170637

    1991 doi

  48. [56]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. 1987, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7

    1987 doi

  49. [57]

    2005, Evolution of stars and stellar populations (John Wiley & Sons)

    Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S. 2005, Evolution of stars and stellar populations (John Wiley & Sons)

    2005

  50. [58]

    Sandage, A. R. 1953, AJ, 58, 61, doi: 10.1086/106822

    1953 doi

  51. [59]

    R., & Nicholas, C

    Shahapure, K. R., & Nicholas, C. 2020, in 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), 747–748, doi: 10.1109/DSAA49011.2020.00096

    2020

  52. [60]

    Smith, G. H. 1987, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 99, 67, doi: 10.1086/131958

    1987 doi

  53. [61]

    P., Prosser, C

    Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Prosser, C. F., & Langer, G. 1992, The Astronomical Journal, 104, 2121

    1992

  54. [62]

    B., & Kraft, R

    Suntzeff, N. B., & Kraft, R. P. 1996, AJ, 111, 1913, doi: 10.1086/117930

    1996 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, A&A, 658, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142454 van den Bergh, S

    Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., & Tognelli, E. 2022, A&A, 658, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142454 van den Bergh, S. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1043, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/4/1043

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2009, A&A, 499, 835, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811139

    Ventura, P., & D’Antona, F. 2009, A&A, 499, 835, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811139

    2009 doi

  57. [65]

    2001, ApJL, 550, L65, doi: 10.1086/319496

    Ventura, P., D’Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., & Gratton, R. 2001, ApJL, 550, L65, doi: 10.1086/319496

    2001 doi

Pith tools

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