Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 131 references

The Absolute Age of Milky Way Globular Clusters

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives absolute ages for eight Milky Way globular clusters—11.5 to 13.5 Gyr—by fitting Monte Carlo isochrone ensembles to space-based photometry, and reports a clear trend of older age at lower metallicity.

desk verdict Careful absolute-age pipeline for eight GCs; the 2D-KS assumption for five clusters needs testing before the 0.5–0.75 Gyr errors are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02969 v1 pith:NKJVFJU6 submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Jiaqi (Martin) Ying , Brian Chaboyer , Michael Boylan-Kolchin , Daniel Weisz , Rowan Goebel-Bain This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords globularclustersabsoluteagesstellarevolutionisochronefittingage-metallicityrelationMonteCarlomethodsmain-sequenceturn-offcolor-magnitudediagrams
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

Globular clusters are nearly coeval star groups, so their turn-off ages trace when the Milky Way's oldest stellar populations formed. This paper tries to turn that idea into absolute ages—not just relative rankings—by propagating uncertainties in stellar physics, distance, reddening, and photometry into the fit. Analyzing eight clusters with space-based photometry and Monte Carlo isochrones, it reports best ages of roughly 11.5 to 13.5 Gyr with typical errors of 0.5 to 0.75 Gyr, and finds the most metal-poor clusters are the oldest. If right, these clusters formed within a few billion years of the Big Bang, and the paper provides the first absolute age-metallicity relation for Milky Way globular clusters.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a Monte Carlo isochrone ensemble: for each of the eight clusters, 10,000 draws from 21 stellar-evolution parameters produce isochrone sets from 8 to 16 Gyr, and each isochrone is expanded into a synthetic color-magnitude diagram of 4 million stars using the cluster's mass function, binary fraction, and artificial-star-test photometric errors. Fitting compares the observed and synthetic cumulative distributions via the 2D Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic, calibrated by a bootstrap empirical null distribution, or via Voronoi-binned $\chi^2$ density comparisons for the crowded clusters. A calibration-star $\chi^2$ weight is multiplied into the CMD-fit weight, and Johnson indices decompose the age variance into per-parameter contributions. This machinery is what lets the paper report absolute ages with an explicit error budget rather than relative rankings.

What would settle it

Re-analyze M55 (or NGC 4147) with artificial star tests that include exposure-to-exposure PSF variations; if the best-fit age moves by more than about 0.5 Gyr or synthetic recovery tests show the 2D KS fit is biased when PSF scatter is underestimated, the quoted 0.5-0.75 Gyr uncertainties for the sparse clusters are too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is a Monte Carlo ensemble of stellar evolution models: for each cluster, 10,000 draws from 21 physics parameters (nuclear reaction rates, opacities, convective mixing, diffusion, boundary conditions, and more) yield isochrone sets spanning 8–16 Gyr. Each isochrone is converted into a synthetic color-magnitude diagram of 4 million stars that includes the cluster's mass function, binary fraction, and photometric scatter and completeness from artificial star tests. The observed CMD is then fit with two full-CMD methods—Voronoi binning for the crowded clusters M15, M30, and 47 Tuc, and a 2D Kolmogorov-Smirnov ECDF comparison for the sparser clusters—with bootstrap resampling defining the null distribution that assigns each isochrone its weight; calibration stars with precise parallaxes and, where available, detached eclipsing binaries provide independent checks. The claim is that the resulting absolute ages run from $11.61 \pm 0.98$ Gyr for NGC 6362 to $13.23 \pm 0.51$ Gyr for M15, that distance and reddening account for over half the age uncertainty, and that the combined sample yields the first absolute age-metallicity relation for Milky Way globular clusters, with older ages at lower metallicity.

Load-bearing premise

For the five less crowded clusters (M55, NGC 4147, NGC 5053, NGC 5466, NGC 6362), the 2D Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic is assumed to remain an unbiased age estimator even though the artificial-star tests underestimate photometric scatter from PSF modeling; the paper states this uncertainty cannot be quantified without redesigning the artificial-star test process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All eight clusters fall within about $1\sigma$ of the cosmic microwave background age of the universe, so globular clusters remain viable as independent lower bounds on cosmic age.
  • The discovered age-metallicity trend implies the most metal-poor clusters formed earliest, and the paper proposes extending the analysis to metal-rich clusters to map the full relation.
  • Since distance and reddening contribute over half the age uncertainty, better distances (for example from eclipsing binaries or improved parallaxes) would directly shrink age errors without changing the stellar models.
  • Multiple stellar populations do not disturb the age estimate: the two 47 Tuc subpopulations fit to the same age within uncertainties, so single-population models are adequate for the filters used.
  • Independent detached-eclipsing-binary fits for 47 Tuc and NGC 6362 give ages consistent with the CMD fits, cross-validating the method on different data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If distance really dominates the error budget, applying the same pipeline to clusters with detached-eclipsing-binary distances should cut age errors by roughly the square root of that share; the paper's own DEB age for 47 Tuc ($11.36 \pm 0.81$ Gyr) is already competitive, suggesting this is testable now.
  • The 2D KS method's claimed robustness to PSF scatter could be validated by injecting synthetic photometric errors with known PSF mismatch into a simulated CMD; if recovered ages stay unbiased, the five sparse-cluster ages rest on firmer ground.
  • The absolute age-metallicity relation, if extended toward $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] \approx -0.5$, could discriminate between in-situ disk formation and accretion scenarios, since the in-situ sequence is predicted to turn over at low metallicity.
  • Because the oldest and most metal-poor clusters sit near 13 Gyr, a plausible reading is that metal-poor globular cluster formation began within about a billion years of the Big Bang, tightening the timeline for early Milky Way assembly; the paper itself does not claim this explicitly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper determines absolute ages for eight Milky Way globular clusters by fitting HST ACS F606W/F814W color-magnitude diagrams with Monte Carlo isochrones from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Program. The isochrones sample 21 stellar evolution parameters, and the fitting uses synthetic CMDs with artificial-star-test photometric errors, a calibration-star prior on the stellar physics, and two full-CMD statistics: a Voronoi binning chi-square method for the crowded clusters M15, M30, and 47 Tuc, and a 2D Kolmogorov-Smirnov method for M55, NGC 4147, NGC 5053, NGC 5466, and NGC 6362. The paper reports ages of 11.5-13.5 Gyr with typical 0.5-0.75 Gyr uncertainties, finds distance and reddening to be the dominant error sources, and presents an age-metallicity relation for ten clusters when combined with earlier work.

Significance. If the results hold, this would be a valuable step toward absolute globular cluster ages with a quantified stellar-physics error budget, and the age-metallicity trend shown in Figure 11 would be an interesting constraint on early Milky Way assembly. The paper has real strengths: the Monte Carlo isochrone catalog is released on Zenodo, the pipeline is described in enough detail to be reproduced, the two fitting methods agree well for the three clusters where both are applied, and the detached-eclipsing-binary checks for 47 Tuc and NGC 6362 provide an independent consistency test. The main weakness is the unquantified PSF-related photometric scatter for the five less crowded clusters, whose ages come solely from the 2D KS method without a validation that the method is unbiased under this systematic mismatch.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, 4.2; Figs. 2, 3; Table 7] The ages of M55, NGC 4147, NGC 5053, NGC 5466, and NGC 6362 are derived exclusively from the 2D KS method, yet the paper states in Section 4.1 that for these clusters the artificial star tests underestimate photometric scatter because the PSF model cannot match the true PSF, and that 'it is impossible to quantify the uncertainty due to the PSF modeling without redesigning the AS test process'. Section 4.2 asserts that the cumulative nature of the 2D KS statistic attenuates this width mismatch, but no synthetic test or analytic argument is provided to show that the 2D KS age estimator remains unbiased under this mismatch. Since the missing PSF scatter can depend on stellar brightness and local crowding, the ECDF distortion is likely age-dependent: as the trial age moves the turn-off to different magnitudes, the effect of the width mismatch on the KS statistic changes. In addition, the bootstrap null distribution constructed in Section 4.2 (step 2) uses the same underestimated scatter, so both the central ages and the quoted 0.5-0.75 Gyr uncertainties for these five clusters omit an unquantified systematic. This directly affects the age-metallicity relation in Figure 11, which leans heavily on these five clusters. I request a quantitative robustness test, for example injecting an extra magnitude-dependent scatter comparable to the observed width mismatch into synthetic CMDs and checking that the input ages are recovered within the stated uncertainties, or an explicit systematic error term added to the affected ages.
  2. [Table 2; Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5)] Table 2 lists no calibration star for NGC 5053 or NGC 5466, yet Section 5.1 and Equation (5) combine a calibration weight w_Cali with the CMD weight for every cluster. If these two clusters lack suitable field-star calibrators, the absolute zero point of their ages is not anchored by the calibration-star procedure, and it is unclear what value of w_Cali was used. If they are intended to share calibrators from other clusters, the [Fe/H] and [alpha/Fe] matching should be stated explicitly. This is load-bearing for the absolute age scale of two of the eight clusters and needs to be clarified or corrected in the text and table.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The table lists only one star per cluster row while the text says M55 uses two calibration stars, HD103269 and HD108200; please make explicit which calibration stars are used for each cluster, since the current table layout is ambiguous and appears to use the same stars for M55 and NGC 4147.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 11] The claim to present the 'first absolute age-metallicity relation for Milky Way GCs' is too strong as stated, given that earlier works such as VandenBerg et al. (2013), which is cited in Table 7, provide absolute ages for many clusters; please either qualify the novelty (for example, as the first relation based on a full Monte Carlo stellar-parameter error budget) or soften the wording.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The description of the Gaussian-process optimization of distance and reddening is brief; please specify the kernel, the number of iterations, the convergence criterion, and how the boundary values from Table 4 are enforced, so that the procedure is fully reproducible.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The bootstrap null distribution is built from the single best-fitting base model selected using the same data; this selection can make the null distribution too narrow. A short discussion or test of this effect would strengthen the weight assignment.
  5. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (2)] In the chi-square metric, please clarify whether E_i is normalized to the total observed star count and how bins with zero expected counts are treated, since these choices affect the fitted weights.
  6. [Table 5] The present-day mass function and binary fraction are fixed to literature values without propagated uncertainties; the paper should state why these choices do not materially affect the turn-off age determination, or include them in the error budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: absolute ages are anchored by independent calibration stars and eclipsing binaries, and cross-checked against external literature ages.

full rationale

The paper's absolute ages are derived by fitting Monte Carlo isochrone sets to HST photometry, with stellar physics parameters sampled from literature-based distributions (Tables 1 and 4). The calibration-star weights (Section 5.1) come from field main-sequence stars with Gaia EDR3 parallaxes and HST photometry, not from cluster members, so they constrain model physics without encoding the cluster age. Detached eclipsing binaries (Table 3) are independent data (masses, luminosities, radii) from published light-curve analyses, not from the CMD fit. The 2D KS and Voronoi methods were developed in the authors' prior papers (Ying et al. 2023, 2024), but they are statistical tools applied to new cluster data rather than results assumed as input; the paper also compares against external literature ages (Table 7), and the DEB-based ages for 47 Tuc and NGC 6362 agree with the CMD-based ages. The admitted PSF scatter underestimation in the AS tests (Section 4.1) and the unvalidated robustness of the 2D KS method to that mismatch are validity and robustness concerns, not circularity: the paper does not define the age in terms of the fit statistic, and no fitted target result is reused as a 'prediction' by construction. No equation or fitted parameter in the derivation chain reduces to an assumed output, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 25 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimates depend on the completeness of the 21-parameter prior set, the reliability of the artificial-star-test error model, the effective single-population assumption in F606W and F814W, the calibration-star parallax zero-point choice, and the fidelity of the DSEP plus PHOENIX model grid. These are input assumptions, distinct from the measured ages.

free parameters (25)
  • Distance modulus mu, M15 (NGC 7078) = 15.45 +/- 0.03
    Uniform prior 15.3 to 15.6; fitted to CMD in Voronoi and 2D KS fits; distance plus reddening is the dominant age uncertainty source.
  • Reddening E(V-I), M15 (NGC 7078) = 0.08 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.08 to 0.15; fitted jointly with distance in the CMD fits.
  • Distance modulus mu, M30 (NGC 7099) = 14.82 +/- 0.05
    Uniform prior 14.6 to 14.9; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), M30 (NGC 7099) = 0.03 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.0 to 0.10; fitted to CMD.
  • Distance modulus mu, M55 (NGC 6809) = 14.03 +/- 0.05
    Uniform prior 13.8 to 14.1; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), M55 (NGC 6809) = 0.10 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.08 to 0.15; fitted to CMD.
  • Distance modulus mu, NGC 4147 = 16.48 +/- 0.03
    Uniform prior 16.2 to 16.5 from Harris (1996) and related references; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), NGC 4147 = 0.01 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.0 to 0.03; fitted to CMD.
  • Distance modulus mu, NGC 5053 = 16.25 +/- 0.04
    Uniform prior 16.1 to 16.4; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), NGC 5053 = 0.01 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.0 to 0.03; fitted to CMD.
  • Distance modulus mu, NGC 5466 = 16.14 +/- 0.06
    Uniform prior 15.95 to 16.25; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), NGC 5466 = 0.02 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.0 to 0.03; fitted to CMD.
  • Distance modulus mu, 47 Tuc (NGC 104) = 13.37 +/- 0.05
    Uniform prior 13.15 to 13.45; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), 47 Tuc (NGC 104) = 0.02 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.0 to 0.05; fitted to CMD.
  • Distance modulus mu, NGC 6362 = 14.69 +/- 0.06
    Uniform prior 14.40 to 14.80; fitted to CMD.
  • Reddening E(V-I), NGC 6362 = 0.06 +/- 0.01
    Uniform prior 0.05 to 0.10; fitted to CMD.
  • [Fe/H] (sampled per cluster with Gaussian priors, marginalised) = Posterior means: M15 -2.31, M30 -2.23, M55 -1.77, NGC4147 -1.74, NGC5053 -2.31, NGC5466 -1.93, 47Tuc -0.78, NGC6362…
    Spectroscopic priors from Table 4; posterior updated by CMD fit. Metallicity is one of the top stellar-physics contributors to age error.
  • [alpha/Fe] (sampled per cluster, marginalised)
    Gaussian priors from Table 4; posterior not tabulated. For 47 Tuc and NGC 6362, the posterior splits between adjacent PHOENIX [alpha/Fe] grid points, inflating age uncertainty.
  • Gaia EDR3 parallax zero-point correction factor (calibration stars) = 0.5 (half of Lindegren et al. 2021 correction)
    Section 2.1 hand-chosen compromise between full and no correction; uncertainty of this choice is not propagated into the age posteriors.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha_MLT = uniform 1.0 to 2.5
    Hand-chosen range, source listed as N/A in Table 1; calibration of alpha_MLT is empirical.
  • Convective core overshoot = uniform 0 to 0.2
    Hand-chosen range, source N/A in Table 1; affects the structure of evolved models.
  • Convective envelope overshoot = uniform 0 to 0.2
    Hand-chosen range, source N/A in Table 1.
  • Helium diffusion coefficient scaling = uniform 0.5 to 1.3
    Sampled around Thoul et al. (1994) value; M30 and M55 show posterior preference for enhanced helium diffusion.
  • Heavy element diffusion scaling = uniform 0.5 to 1.3
    Sampled around Thoul et al. (1994) value.
  • Delta Y / Delta Z enrichment ratio = uniform 1.75 to 2.5
    From Peimbert et al. (2016); sets initial helium abundance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption MC parameter ranges in Table 1 bracket the true physics of low-mass stellar evolution
    Central to absolute ages; mixing length and overshoot ranges are listed with source 'N/A' in Table 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The calibrated isochrone luminosity scale is correctly anchored by the two field calibration stars and the Gaia EDR3 parallax zero-point treatment
    Section 2.1: the half zero-point correction choice affects the absolute scale and is not propagated as a systematic.
  • domain assumption The 2D KS statistic remains an unbiased age estimator despite the AS-test width mismatch for less crowded clusters
    Sections 4.1 to 4.2: PSF-related photometric uncertainty is unquantified; robustness is asserted but not validated.
  • domain assumption Multiple stellar populations do not significantly affect the F606W and F814W CMD morphology used for age fitting
    Section 4.3: verified for 47 Tuc with BGMM and silhouette analysis; assumed for the other clusters based on VandenBerg et al. (2022).
  • domain assumption The adopted PDMF and binary fraction in Table 5 describe the observed populations
    Taken from literature per cluster; used to build synthetic CMDs.
  • domain assumption DSEP stellar models and PHOENIX bolometric corrections are accurate representations of real stars
    Single stellar evolution code is used; no cross-code comparison is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Absolute Age of Milky Way Globular Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKJVFJU6

@misc{pith2026250502969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Absolute Age of Milky Way Globular Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKJVFJU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02969}
}
abstract

Globular clusters (GCs) provide statistically significant coeval populations of stars spanning various evolutionary stages, allowing robust constraints on stellar evolution model parameters and ages. We analyze eight old Milky Way GCs with metallicities between [Fe/H] $=-2.31$ and $-0.77$ by comparing theoretical isochrone sets from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Program to HST observations. The theoretical isochrones include uncertainties introduced by $21$ stellar evolution parameters such as convective mixing, opacity, diffusion, and nuclear reactions, capturing much of the quantifiable physics used in our code. For each isochrone, we construct synthetic color-magnitude diagrams (CMD) near the main-sequence turn-off region and apply two full-CMD-fitting methods to fit HST ACS data across a range of distance and reddening and measure the absolute age of each GC from the resulting posterior distribution, which accounts for uncertainties in the stellar models, observations, and fitting method. The resulting best-fitting absolute ages range from $\approx 11.5$ to $13.5$ Gyr, with a typical error of $0.5-0.75$ Gyr; the data show a clear trend toward older ages at lower metallicities. Notably, distance and reddening account for over $50\%$ of the uncertainty in age determination in each case, with metallicity, $\alpha$ abundance, mixing length, and helium diffusion being the most important stellar physics parameters for the error budget. We also provide an absolute age-metallicity relation for Milky Way GCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparing two theoretical isochrones we con￾structed with different ages, MC parameters, distance, and reddening. The observational data for M15 is plotted in the background, with photometric uncertainty estimated from the AS test plotted on the right. Luminosity functions (LF) can also be used to deter￾mine the age of the GC. The distribution of the num￾ber of stars in luminosity bins will change as more mas￾sive s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparing the CMD generated using HST ACS data for M55 (left) with the sCMD generated using pho￾tometric uncertainty estimated from the AS test for M55 (right). method such as the Voronoi binning method, as the in￾trinsic χ 2 caused by photometric uncertainty may domi￾nate the χ 2 metric, and parametric bootstrapping meth￾ods will be unable to quantify it with inaccurate photo￾metric uncertainty. We test several oth… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Examples of color-density profiles for three differ￾ent evolution stages: Main Sequence (top), Main Sequence Turn Off (mid), and Giant Branch (bottom) on the CMD. The X-axis is the difference in color from the median ridge￾line. scale, will combine to form a distribution nearly indis￾tinguishable from a single Gaussian. Thus, observing such a shape is not, by itself, strong evidence for two underlying populations. B… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sihouette analysis for 47 Tuc. The Silhouette scores represent the average score within each magnitude bin. Scores have been normalized, with values ranging from +1 (well-separated hypotheses) to −1 (poorly separated hy￾potheses). clusters, we determine the average sil…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left (a): An example of the Calibration star test on CMD for M55. 2 calibration stars are shown in red with uncertainties. The MC parameters used to generate the set of blue isochrones are also considered calibrated by those two stars, but the MC parameters used to gen…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the 2D-KS statistics obtained through bootstrap resampling for M55 (in red), which serves as the reference probability distribution. Each of the 10, 000 sets of isochrones (in total of 420, 000 isochrones) is tested, and the distribution of results is shown in bl…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing a set of theoretical isochrones with different ages from 8 Gyr to 16 Gyr on the Mass-Luminosity￾Radius space to the DEB in M55. Blue points are the observational data with corresponding uncertainties. Top: isochrones and DEBs on mass vs radius plane. Bottom: …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distribution of age for M55 results for all GCs studied in this paper are summa￾rized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparing contributions to the variability of the estimated absolute age of 8 GCs from each of the Monte Carlo stellar evolution parameters as well as distance modulus and reddening. % of age error is determined by the Johnson indices multiplied by the coefficient of …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The relation between best-fit αMLT for two dif￾ferent surface boundary conditions for 8 GCs (in blue). The red dot is the solar-calibrated mixing length for DSEP(Joyce & Chaboyer 2018). fusion from calculating the Coulomb collision integrals. Proffitt & Michaud (1991)…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of [Fe/H], helium diffusion coefficient, and helium abundance for M30 (top panels) and M55 (bottom panels). Orange histograms represent the input distribution, and blue histograms show the weighted distribution of correspond￾ing MC parameters from best-fi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, Physics Letters B, 760, 584, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032

    Platter, L. 2016, Physics Letters B, 760, 584, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032 2016

  2. [2]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, The Discovery of Bound Star Clusters 460 Myr after the Big Bang, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03224

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.03224 2024

  3. [3]

    G., Garc´ ıa, A., Robertson, R

    Adelberger, E. G., Garc´ ıa, A., Robertson, R. G. H., et al. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 195, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.195 Alvarez Garay, D. A., Mucciarelli, A., Lardo, C., Bellazzini, M., & Merle, T. 2022, ApJL, 928, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5ccf

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.195 2011

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJL, 697, L58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L58

    Guhathakurta, P. 2009, ApJL, 697, L58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L58

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/l58 2009

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    A., Romanowsky, A

    Arnold, J. A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2011, ApJL, 736, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/736/2/L26

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/736/2/l26 2011

  7. [7]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Aver, E., Olive, K. A., & Skillman, E. D. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011 2015

  8. [8]

    J., & Feigelson, E

    Babu, G. J., & Feigelson, E. D. 2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, Vol. 351, 127

    2006

Show all 131 references
  1. [9]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    Baumgardt, H., & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Bentley, J. L. 1980, Communications of the ACM, 23, 214, doi: 10.1145/358841.358850

    1980

  4. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac214d

    Yang, S.-C. 2021, ApJ, 922, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac214d

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    1986, ˚ ap, 162, 21

    Bica, E., & Alloin, D. 1986, ˚ ap, 162, 21

    1986

  6. [14]

    M., Friel, E

    Boberg, O. M., Friel, E. D., & Vesperini, E. 2015, ApJ, 804, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/109

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Basu, S., et al

    Bonaca, A., Tanner, J. D., Basu, S., et al. 2012, ApJL, 755, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/L12

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, fidanka

    Boudreaux, E., & Ying, M. 2023, fidanka. https://github.com/tboudreaux/fidanka

    2023

  9. [17]

    M., Chaboyer, B

    Boudreaux, E. M., Chaboyer, B. C., Ash, A., Edaes Hoh, R., & Feiden, G. 2025, ApJ, 980, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9740

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., & Weisz, D. R. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2764, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1521

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Bedin, L

    Brogaard, K., VandenBerg, D. A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx378

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    1970, ApJ, 159, 641, doi: 10.1086/150338

    Canuto, V. 1970, ApJ, 159, 641, doi: 10.1086/150338

    1970 doi

  13. [21]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    2003

  14. [22]

    2009a, ˚ ap, 508, 695, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913003

    Lucatello, S. 2009a, ˚ ap, 508, 695, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913003

    doi

  15. [23]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2009b, A&A, 505, 117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912096

    doi

  16. [24]

    2008, ApJL, 672, L115, doi: 10.1086/527035

    Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., Pietrinferni, A., et al. 2008, ApJL, 672, L115, doi: 10.1086/527035

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Krauss, L

    Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., Kernan, P. J., Krauss, L. M., & Sarajedini, A. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.2.683

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    1995, ApJ, 454, 767, doi: 10.1086/176529

    Chaboyer, B., & Kim, Y.-C. 1995, ApJ, 454, 767, doi: 10.1086/176529

    1995 doi

  19. [27]

    E., O’Malley, E., et al

    Chaboyer, B., McArthur, B. E., O’Malley, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/152

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, PhRvC, 91, 045801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.045801

    Chakraborty, S., deBoer, R., Mukherjee, A., & Roy, S. 2015, PhRvC, 91, 045801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.045801

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba829

    Chun, S.-H., Lee, J.-J., & Lim, D. 2020, ApJ, 900, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba829

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Pilachowski, C

    Cordero, M. J., Pilachowski, C. A., Johnson, C. I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/94 deBoer, R. J., G¨ orres, J., Smith, K., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 035804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.035804 19

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Ferguson, J. W. 2017, ApJ, 849, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa92c9

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    2008, ApJ Supplement Series, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJ Supplement Series, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 698, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/698

    Dotter, A., Sarajedini, A., Anderson, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 698, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/698

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    1999, SIAM Review, 41, 637, doi: 10.1137/S0036144599352836

    Du, Q., Faber, V., & Gunzburger, M. 1999, SIAM Review, 41, 637, doi: 10.1137/S0036144599352836

    1999 doi

  30. [38]

    M., & Bica, E

    Dutra, C. M., & Bica, E. 2000, A&A, 359, 347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005108

    2000 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 4226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa969

    Hilker, M. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa969

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Eddington, A. S. 1926, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (Cambridge University Press)

    1926

  33. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3007

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3007

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    1987, MNRAS, 225, 155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.1.155

    Fasano, G., & Franceschini, A. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.1.155

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    Ferguson, T. S. 1973, The Annals of Statistics, 1, 209 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176342360

    1973

  37. [45]

    K., Paust, N

    Feuillet, D. K., Paust, N. E. Q., & Chaboyer, B. 2014, PASP, 126, 733, doi: 10.1086/677845 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, ˚ ap, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, A&A, 632, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936203

    Giesers, B., Kamann, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936203

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Khovritchev, M

    Gontcharov, G. A., Khovritchev, M. Y., Mosenkov, A. V., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3300

    doi

  41. [49]

    A., Bonatto, C

    Gontcharov, G. A., Bonatto, C. J., Ryutina, O. S., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 526, 5628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3134

    doi

  42. [50]

    A., Savchenko, S

    Gontcharov, G. A., Savchenko, S. S., Marchuk, A. A., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065014, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad420f H¨ aberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 631, 285, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    1994, ApJ, 425, 222, doi: 10.1086/173978

    Haft, M., Raffelt, G., & Weiss, A. 1994, ApJ, 425, 222, doi: 10.1086/173978

    1994 doi

  44. [52]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    1996 doi

  45. [53]

    H., Allard, F., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 377, doi: 10.1086/306745

    1999 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1f72

    Huang, Y., Chen, B.-Q., Yuan, H.-B., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1f72

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    B., & Lampe, M

    Hubbard, W. B., & Lampe, M. 1969, ApJ Supplement Series, 18, 297, doi: 10.1086/190192

    1969 doi

  48. [56]

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

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, ˚ ap, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    1983, ARA&A, 21, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.001415

    Iben, Jr., I., & Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.001415

    1983

  50. [58]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  51. [59]

    Irwin, A. W. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1211.002

    2012

  52. [60]

    1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 13, doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.1.13

    Jimenez, R. 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 13, doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.1.13

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    1996, ApJ, 463, L17, doi: 10.1086/310053

    Jimenez, R., & Padoan, P. 1996, ApJ, 463, L17, doi: 10.1086/310053

    1996 doi

  54. [62]

    Johnson, J. W. 2000, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1, doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3501 1

    2000 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab200

    Joyce, M., & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab200

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    Joyce, M., & Tayar, J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Arellano Ferro, A., et al

    Kains, N., Bramich, D. M., Arellano Ferro, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321819

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    B., Dotter, A., et al

    Kaluzny, J., Thompson, I. B., Dotter, A., et al. 2014, Acta Astronomica, 64, 11, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1403.6325 —. 2015, AJ, 150, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/155

    2014 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    B., Krzeminski, W., et al

    Kaluzny, J., Thompson, I. B., Krzeminski, W., et al. 2005, in Stellar Astrophysics with the World’s Largest

    2005

  60. [68]

    N., Guhathakurta, P., & Sneden, C

    Kirby, E. N., Guhathakurta, P., & Sneden, C. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1217, doi: 10.1086/589627

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    2008, AJ, 135, 1551, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1551 Kov´ acs, G., & Walker, A

    Koch, A., & McWilliam, A. 2008, AJ, 135, 1551, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1551 Kov´ acs, G., & Walker, A. R. 2001, A&A, 371, 579, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010346

    2008 doi

  62. [70]

    M., & Chaboyer, B

    Krauss, L. M., & Chaboyer, B. 2003, Science, 299, 65, doi: 10.1126/science.1075631 Krishna Swamy, K. S. 1966, ApJ, 145, 174, doi: 10.1086/148752

    2003 doi

  63. [71]

    L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N

    Lallement, R., Vergely, J. L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 661, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142846

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    P., Venn, K

    Lamb, M. P., Venn, K. A., Shetrone, M. D., Sakari, C. M., & Pritzl, B. J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 42, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2674

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, A&A, 662, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243843 20

    Lardo, C., Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., & Bastian, N. 2022, A&A, 662, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243843 20

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/90

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    V., Milone, A

    Legnardi, M. V., Milone, A. P., Cordoni, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1056

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, ˚ ap, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, ˚ ap, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    H., Merenda, P

    Lindeman, R. H., Merenda, P. F., & Gold, R. Z. 1980, Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman)

    1980

  70. [78]

    E., Schiavilla, R., & Viviani, M

    Marcucci, L. E., Schiavilla, R., & Viviani, M. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 192503, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.192503 Mar´ ın-Franch, A., Aparicio, A., Piotto, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1498, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1498

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Dondoglio, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfca3

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2011, PhRvC, 83, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045804

    Marta, M., Formicola, A., Bemmerer, D., et al. 2011, PhRvC, 83, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045804

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 1249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx549

    Massari, D., Mucciarelli, A., Dalessandro, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx549

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    P., & Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., & Marino, A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359, doi: 10.3390/universe8070359

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384

    2012 doi

  76. [84]

    P., Marino, A

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

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bernizzoni, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19214

    2025 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    G., Desprez, G., et al

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ca

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/73

    Mucciarelli, A., Dalessandro, E., Massari, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/73

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    B., et al

    Olech, A., Kaluzny, J., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 421, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04010.x O’Malley, E. M., Gilligan, C., & Chaboyer, B. 2017a, ApJ, 838, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6574 O’Malley, E. M., McWilliam, A., Chaboyer, B., &

    2001

  81. [89]

    2017b, ApJ, 838, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a2

    Thompson, I. 2017b, ApJ, 838, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a2

    doi

  82. [90]

    Paust, N. E. Q., Chaboyer, B., & Sarajedini, A. 2007, AJ, 133, 2787, doi: 10.1086/513511

    2007 doi

  83. [91]

    Paust, N. E. Q., Reid, I. N., Piotto, G., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 476, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/2/476

    2010 doi

  84. [92]

    Peacock, J. A. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.3.615

    1983 doi

  85. [93]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    2011 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    2016, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 52, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.02062

    Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Luridiana, V. 2016, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 52, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1608.02062

    2016 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    1990, ApJ, 350, 662, doi: 10.1086/168418

    Djorgovski, S. 1990, ApJ, 350, 662, doi: 10.1086/168418

    1990 doi

  88. [96]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2007, ApJL, 661, L53, doi: 10.1086/518503 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2007 doi

  89. [97]

    R., & Michaud, G

    Proffitt, C. R., & Michaud, G. 1991, ApJ, 380, 238, doi: 10.1086/170580

    1991 doi

  90. [98]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3208

    Valenzuela-Calderon, C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3208

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    1999, A&A, 350, 476, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907200

    Richter, P., Hilker, M., & Richtler, T. 1999, A&A, 350, 476, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907200

    1999 doi arXiv

  92. [100]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdbaf

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    Rodriguez, C. L. 2023, ApJ, 947, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc9b6

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    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

  95. [103]

    B., et al

    Rozyczka, M., Kaluzny, J., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2013, Acta Astronomica, 63, 67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1303.7345

    2013 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    L., Bolte, M., Langer, G

    Sandquist, E. L., Bolte, M., Langer, G. E., Hesser, J. E., & de Oliveira, C. M. 1999, ApJ, 518, 262, doi: 10.1086/307268

    1999 doi

  97. [105]

    2011, The ACS Survey of Galactic Globular Clusters (”ACSGGCT”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9TG65

    Sarajedini, A. 2011, The ACS Survey of Galactic Globular Clusters (”ACSGGCT”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9TG65. http://archive.stsci.edu/doi/ resolve/resolve.html?doi=10.17909/T9TG65

    2011 doi

  98. [106]

    1990, ApJ, 365, 219, doi: 10.1086/169472

    Sarajedini, A., & Demarque, P. 1990, ApJ, 365, 219, doi: 10.1086/169472

    1990 doi

  99. [107]

    R., Chaboyer, B., et al

    Sarajedini, A., Bedin, L. R., Chaboyer, B., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1658, doi: 10.1086/511979

    2007 doi

  100. [108]

    2015, A&A, 579, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425509

    Sbordone, L., Monaco, L., Moni Bidin, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425509

    2015 doi

  101. [109]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  102. [110]

    R., & Nicholas, C

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

    2020

  103. [111]

    H., Miller, B., et al

    Simunovic, M., Puzia, T. H., Miller, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acce3d

    2023 doi

  104. [112]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 3668, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1856

    Sollima, A., & Baumgardt, H. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3668, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1856

    2017 doi

  105. [113]

    B., Vandenberg, D

    Stetson, P. B., Vandenberg, D. A., & Bolte, M. 1996, PASP, 108, 560, doi: 10.1086/133766 21

    1996 doi

  106. [114]

    G., Geisler, D., et al

    Tang, B., Fern´ andez-Trincado, J. G., Geisler, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaaea

    2018 doi

  107. [115]

    D., Basu, S., & Demarque, P

    Tanner, J. D., Basu, S., & Demarque, P. 2014, ApJL, 785, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/1/L13

    2014 doi

  108. [116]

    B., Udalski, A., Dotter, A., et al

    Thompson, I. B., Udalski, A., Dotter, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa032

    2020 doi

  109. [117]

    A., Bahcall, J

    Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828, doi: 10.1086/173695

    1994 doi

  110. [118]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    Casagrande, L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    2013 doi

  111. [119]

    A., & Denissenkov, P

    VandenBerg, D. A., & Denissenkov, P. A. 2018, ApJ, 862, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca9b

    2018 doi

  112. [120]

    A., Denissenkov, P

    VandenBerg, D. A., Denissenkov, P. A., & Catelan, M. 2016, ApJ, 827, 2, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/2

    2016 doi

  113. [121]

    Ferguson, J. W. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2996

    2022 doi

  114. [122]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1475

    Vasiliev, E., & Baumgardt, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1475

    2021 doi

  115. [123]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1146

    Villanova, S., Monaco, L., Moni Bidin, C., & Assmann, P. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1146

    2016 doi

  116. [124]

    M., Villante, F

    Vinyoles, N., Serenelli, A. M., Villante, F. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/202

    2017 doi

  117. [125]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1068

    Vitral, E., Libralato, M., Kremer, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1068

    2023 doi

  118. [126]

    2017, A&A, 607, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730976

    Wang, Y., Primas, F., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730976

    2017 doi

  119. [127]

    2013, Nuclear Physics A, 918, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.09.007

    Xu, Y., Takahashi, K., Goriely, S., et al. 2013, Nuclear Physics A, 918, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.09.007

    2013 doi

  120. [128]

    M., Chaboyer, B., Boudreaux, E

    Ying, J. M., Chaboyer, B., Boudreaux, E. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd9b1

    2023 doi

  121. [129]

    M., Chaboyer, B., & Du, W

    Ying, J. M., Chaboyer, B., & Du, W. 2024, ApJ, 970, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59a9

    2024 doi

  122. [130]

    S., & Norris, J

    Yong, D., Da Costa, G. S., & Norris, J. E. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1091

    2016 doi

  123. [131]

    Zinn, J. C. 2021, AJ, 161, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe936

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.