Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 111 references

Main-sequence Turnoff Stars as Probes of the Ancient Galactic Relic: Chemo-dynamical Analysis of a Pilot Sample

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that main-sequence turnoff stars reveal distinct chemical histories for the accreted GSE galaxy and the Milky Way's in situ population, with GSE showing an alpha-knee in Mg at [Fe/H] = -1.60 ± 0.06 and the first…

desk verdict New MSTO-based GSE chemistry with a genuinely new r-process pattern, but membership bookkeeping keeps it conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07758 v1 pith:LZUU6IUT submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Renjing Xie , Haining Li , Ruizhi Zhang , Yin Wu , Xiang-Xiang Xue , Gang Zhao , Shi-Lin Zhang , Xiao-Jin Xie This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords main-sequenceturnoffstarsGaia-Sausage-Enceladusalpha-kneechemokinematicsr-processMilkyWaystellarhalochemicalabundancesaction-anglespace
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

Using main-sequence turnoff (MSTO) stars — old, unmixed stellar surfaces that preserve the chemistry of their birth gas — the paper argues that the Milky Way's most massive ancient merger, Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE), had a chemical evolution history distinct from the stars born in the Milky Way. Combining four new high-resolution CFHT spectra with 163 literature stars from the SAGA database, the authors separate GSE from in situ stars in action-angle space and compare abundances over -2.0 < [Fe/H] < -1.0. They find a clear alpha-knee in [Mg/Fe] for GSE at [Fe/H] = -1.60 ± 0.06, with [Mg/Fe] declining at higher metallicity, while in situ stars keep nearly constant alpha-element ratios across the whole range. They also report, for the first time, a full r-process abundance pattern for an r-II GSE star (J0722) that matches the solar r-process pattern except for a >3 sigma excess of Pr. The paper reads this as evidence that the GSE progenitor reached type Ia supernova enrichment at lower metallicity than the Milky Way and that r-process yields were broadly similar in both systems.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three working pieces. The first is the main-sequence turnoff (MSTO) star itself: because these stars have not yet undergone the first dredge-up, their surface abundances record the composition of the gas from which they formed, making them clean chemical fossils. The second is the action-angle classification: using a model Milky Way potential, the authors compute radial action JR and z-angular momentum Lz, then assign stars to GSE (JR > 30 kpc km/s, |Lz| < 500 kpc km/s) or in situ (JR < 15 kpc km/s, Lz > 0) following prior work, isolating the two populations whose element ratios are then compared. The third is the alpha-knee itself — the metallicity at which [alpha/Fe] begins to fall as type Ia supernovae begin contributing iron — which serves as a clock for the star-formation history of the GSE progenitor. For the r-process claim, the load-bearing object is the abundance pattern of the r-II star J0722 compared against the solar r-process residual pattern, with the >3 sigma Pr deviation flagged as the notable anomaly.

What would settle it

Compute the [Mg/Fe] trend for the same stars after reclassifying them with a simulation-calibrated membership model or an updated Milky Way potential; if the downturn at [Fe/H] ~ -1.6 vanishes or shifts by more than ~0.1 dex, the claimed GSE alpha-knee is an artifact of the adopted action-space cuts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the accreted GSE population and the Milky Way's in situ population differ systematically in their chemical evolution, and that these differences are readable in MSTO stars. Specifically, GSE stars show a pronounced downturn ('alpha-knee') in [Mg/Fe] beginning at [Fe/H] = -1.60 ± 0.06, with a fitted slope of -0.280 ± 0.013 above that metallicity, whereas the alpha-element abundances of in situ stars remain almost constant through [Fe/H] = -1.0. The paper further reports tentative downturns in [Si/Fe] and [Ti/Fe] for GSE at the same metallicity, a drop in [Zn/Fe] and [Ni/Fe] for GSE above [Fe/H] ≈ -1.6 with no such drop in situ, an overall enhancement of [Eu/Fe] in GSE with a median of 0.55, and a [Ba/Eu] ratio that rises with metallicity in GSE while staying nearly constant for in situ stars. In addition, the paper presents the first r-process abundance pattern for an r-II GSE star, J0722, which is consistent with the solar r-process pattern for elements from Sr through Gd except for Pr, which is enhanced by over 3 sigma. The Li plateau, however, is the same for both populations (A(Li) ≈ 2.17), indicating that the star formation environment does not set the Spite plateau.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of stars as GSE versus in situ rests on adopted cuts in radial action and angular momentum (JR > 30 kpc km/s and |Lz| < 500 for GSE; JR < 15, Lz > 0 for in situ) applied to orbits in a chosen Milky Way potential, so the chemical differences reported between the two populations depend on those membership boundaries being correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the alpha-knee at [Fe/H] = -1.60 ± 0.06 holds, the GSE progenitor experienced type Ia supernova enrichment at lower metallicity than the Milky Way, implying a less massive or more slowly star-forming galaxy.
  • The constant in situ [Mg/Fe] across -2.0 < [Fe/H] < -1.0 shows that the Milky Way's own star formation had not yet reached the alpha-knee in this metallicity range.
  • The rising [Ba/Eu] with metallicity in GSE, but not in situ, implies that a delayed s-process source contributed progressively more barium in the GSE progenitor.
  • The Li plateau being identical in GSE and in situ stars supports the view that the Spite plateau is independent of the galactic birth environment.
  • The r-process pattern of J0722 matching the solar r-process pattern (except Pr) suggests that r-process nucleosynthesis operates similarly in the GSE progenitor and the Milky Way.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the same MSTO chemo-dynamical approach to Thamnos, Sequoia, and Helmi stream stars, once larger samples exist, could reveal whether each accreted system had a distinct alpha-knee metallicity and hence a different star-formation timescale.
  • The >3 sigma Pr deviation in J0722 could be a real nucleosynthetic difference in the r-process site of the GSE progenitor or an atomic-data artifact; measuring Pr in additional GSE r-II stars with high-resolution spectra would tell which.
  • The sharp action-space cuts used here may misclassify stars near the boundaries, so future work with simulation-calibrated membership probabilities could sharpen the alpha-knee measurement and possibly move its position by more than the quoted error.
  • The decreases in [Zn/Fe] and [Ni/Fe] in GSE at [Fe/H] > -1.6, coincident with the Mg knee, provide a testable prediction that chemical evolution models should reproduce the same three elements turning over at the same metallicity.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a chemo-dynamical analysis of 167 main-sequence turnoff stars (four new CFHT/ESPaDOnS targets and 163 SAGA literature stars) in the range -2.0 < [Fe/H] < -1.0. Using actions computed in the McMillan (2017) potential, the authors assign stars to GSE, in situ, and other substructures, then compare abundance ratios between GSE and in situ populations. The main results are: a Mg alpha-knee in GSE at [Fe/H] ~ -1.60 +/- 0.06 with slope -0.280 +/- 0.013 while in situ Mg remains flat; a similar Li plateau A(Li) ~ 2.17 for both populations; lower Zn and Ni in GSE at [Fe/H] > -1.6; Eu enhancement and an increasing [Ba/Eu] trend in GSE; and the first reported full r-process pattern for a GSE r-II star (J0722), consistent with the solar r-process pattern except for Pr.

Significance. If correct, the Mg-knee metallicity and the [Ba/Eu] trend would support the picture that the GSE progenitor was less massive than the Milky Way and experienced SNe Ia at lower metallicity, and the J0722 pattern would argue for a broadly universal r-process. The paper's strengths include the use of MSTO stars (which avoid first dredge-up contamination), the careful line-by-line abundance analysis of the four CFHT stars, Monte Carlo propagation of action uncertainties, and an explicit acknowledgment in Section 4 that the substructure criteria are debated and that sample sizes are limited. These strengths are, however, offset by the conditional nature of the membership assignment, which underpins every chemical comparison, and by the heterogeneous literature abundances without homogenization. The results are plausible and broadly consistent with earlier work, but the paper's central claims are not yet demonstrated at the level of robustness claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2.3; Section 4] The number of GSE and in situ stars is inconsistent across the manuscript: the Abstract reports GSE=35 and in situ=31, while Section 2.3 and the Conclusions report GSE=31 and in situ=35. Because every abundance comparison is defined by these labels, this is not a cosmetic typo; the paper must state which counts are correct and rerun any affected statistics, or the labels cannot be considered reliable.
  2. [Section 2.3] Membership is assigned from hard cuts on actions calculated in a single axisymmetric potential, with no table of per-star actions or membership probabilities and no test of sensitivity to the adopted potential or thresholds. This is load-bearing because each chemical claim is defined by these labels. The concern is concrete: one program star with JR ~ 18 kpc km/s fails the in situ criterion but is assigned to in situ 'due to the planar orbital properties and the in situ chemical features'; using chemistry to assign the label and then comparing chemistry between the labeled groups is circular for that star. The authors should provide the action values for all stars, test alternative potentials and threshold choices, and show that the Mg-knee and [Ba/Eu] results survive when membership is treated probabilistically.
  3. [Section 2.2; Section 3.3; Figures 7-10] The literature sample is compiled from SAGA without homogenization of analysis methods, and the literature points in Figures 7-10 are plotted without error bars. The quoted Mg-knee parameters (knee at -1.60 +/- 0.06, slope -0.280 +/- 0.013) are therefore fitted to a dataset whose inter-study zero-point offsets are unquantified. The manuscript's assertion that these uncertainties 'do not significantly affect' the discussion is not demonstrated; at minimum, the fit should be repeated on a single-analysis subsample or with systematic offsets added in quadrature.
  4. [Section 3.7; Figure 12] The claim of the first GSE r-process pattern rests entirely on J0722's membership. If that star's classification is revised under the sensitivity tests requested above, the claim collapses; the paper should state J0722's actions, membership probability, and the robustness of its assignment to potential choice. Additionally, the comparison with the solar r-process pattern is made after shifting to match Eu, so the 'except Pr' statement needs a quantitative statement of which other elements are within their combined uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Abstract] The Abstract says 'the alpha-elements of in-situ stars remain nearly constant', while Section 3.3 reports a clear constant trend only for Mg and only 'tentative offsets' for Si and Ti; please restrict the claim to Mg or provide fitted trends for all alpha-elements.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says 'Symbols with and without error bars are stars from CFHT observation and the SAGA database, respectively'; this convention is not consistently stated in later figures and should be repeated or a legend added.
  3. [Section 2.1.3 and Table 3] The sentence about S/N contains a typo ('S /Ni s higher than 100'), and Table 3 uses 'L' and '...' for several elements without an explicit explanation of what these entries mean; please define all symbols in the table note.
  4. [Section 3.5] The number strings such as '10 (V),2 2 (Cr),1 8 (Mn)' appear to have spacing or formatting errors; please correct the typesetting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Classification is otherwise dynamical, but one in-situ star is assigned by its chemistry and then counted as chemical evidence, making that object's contribution to the in-situ chemical trends circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (in situ classification), feeding Sections 3.3 and Conclusions point 2]
    "We note that one star in the program sample has JR ~ 18 kpc km s^-1, which does not meet the criteria we adopted for in situ stars. However, due to the planar orbital properties (z_max ~ 0.5 kpc) and the in situ chemical features, we treat this star as in situ in this work."

    This star fails the adopted dynamical in-situ criterion (JR < 15) and is admitted into the in-situ sample on the basis of its 'in situ chemical features'. The in-situ chemical trends, including the flat [Mg/Fe] relation that is contrasted with the GSE alpha-knee, are then computed from the in-situ sample that contains this star. For this object, the chemical conclusion is therefore built into the membership definition: it is labeled in-situ because it looks chemically in-situ, and then counted as evidence that in-situ stars look chemically distinct. The paper does not identify the star or provide per-star actions, so the size of the induced bias in the [Mg/Fe], [Zn/Fe], and [Ba/Eu] comparisons cannot be audited.

full rationale

The paper's main chemical comparisons (Mg alpha-knee, Zn/Ni declines, Ba/Eu trends) are derived from GSE and in-situ samples that are, apart from one manually reassigned program star, defined by dynamical action cuts (JR, Lz, Jz) adopted from prior work. Those cuts are not fitted to the abundance differences being claimed, so the central results are not predictions of inputs by construction. The alpha-knee position and slope are fitted outputs, not assumed constraints, and the r-II pattern of J0722 is an observed abundance pattern for one dynamically classified member. The genuinely circular element is the single star in Section 2.3 that fails the in-situ action criterion yet is assigned to in-situ 'due to ... the in situ chemical features'; that star then contributes to the in-situ abundance trends, so for that object the chemical comparison is self-definitional. The paper also has an internal label-count inconsistency (abstract: GSE 35 / in situ 31; body and conclusions: GSE 31 / in situ 35), which is an audit/correctness concern rather than circularity, and the authors themselves note that the adopted substructure criteria are debated. Because the circular step involves only one star and the classification framework is otherwise independent of the abundance measurements, the appropriate score is low: 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The paper's central claims rest on the purity of the dynamical classification and on the comparability of heterogeneous literature abundances; these are domain assumptions rather than fitted constraints.

free parameters (1)
  • GSE Mg alpha-knee metallicity and slope = -1.60 +/- 0.06, slope -0.280 +/- 0.013
    Obtained by fitting [Mg/Fe] versus [Fe/H] for GSE stars (Section 3.3). The uncertainties reflect the fit only and not systematic abundance errors from the heterogeneous SAGA data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The adopted GSE and in situ selection criteria in action-angle space cleanly separate the two populations.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 when assigning stars to GSE and in situ; the one manually reclassified star shows the boundaries are not strict.
  • domain assumption MSTO stars preserve their birth chemical abundances because they have not undergone first dredge-up.
    Stated in Section 1 as the rationale for using MSTO stars rather than giants.
  • domain assumption Abundances compiled in the SAGA database from different literature sources are comparable without homogenization.
    Section 2.2 argues that differences in analysis methods do not significantly affect the discussion because similar stars behave similarly.
  • domain assumption The adopted axisymmetric Milky Way potential and solar constants are adequate for computing actions and energies.
    Section 2.3 uses the McMillan (2017) potential and standard solar position/velocity values; systematic errors in the potential propagate into membership.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Main-sequence Turnoff Stars as Probes of the Ancient Galactic Relic: Chemo-dynamical Analysis of a Pilot Sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZUU6IUT

@misc{pith2026250607758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Main-sequence Turnoff Stars as Probes of the Ancient Galactic Relic: Chemo-dynamical Analysis of a Pilot Sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZUU6IUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07758}
}
abstract

The main-sequence turnoff (MSTO) stars well preserve the chemical properties where they were born, making them ideal tracers for studying the stellar population. We perform a detailed chemo-dynamical analysis on moderately metal-poor ($-2.0<\mathrm{[Fe/H]}<-1.0$) MSTO stars to explore the early accretion history of the Milky Way. Our sample includes four stars observed with high-resolution spectroscopy using CFHT/ESPaDOnS and 163 nearby MSTO stars selected from the SAGA database with high-resolution results. Within the action-angle spaces, we identified Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE, 35), stars born in the Milky Way (in situ, 31), and other substructures (21). We find that both GSE and in-situ stars present a similar Li plateau around $A(\mathrm{Li)}\sim 2.17$. GSE shows a clear $\alpha$-knee feature in Mg at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\sim-1.60\pm 0.06$, while the $\alpha$-elements of in-situ stars remain nearly constant within the metallicity range. The iron-peak elements show little difference between GSE and in-situ stars except for Zn and Ni, which decrease in GSE at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}>-1.6$, while they remain constant in in-situ stars. Among heavy elements, GSE shows overall enhancement in Eu, with [Ba/Eu] increasing with the metallicity, while this ratio remains almost constant for in-situ stars, suggesting the contribution of longer time-scale sources to the $s$-process in GSE. Moreover, for the first time, we present the $r$-process abundance pattern for an extremely $r$-process enhanced ($r$-II) GSE star, which appears consistent with the solar $r$-process pattern except for Pr. Further investigation of larger GSE samples using high-resolution spectra is required to explore the reason for the significantly higher Pr in the GSE r-II star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Hertzsprung–Russell diagram of selected and observed MSTO stars in LAMOST DR5. The orange dots are all moderately metal-poor stars with g-band S/N > 50 in LAMOST DR5. The brown open circles are MSTO candidates, and the brown stars represent five objects observed with CFHT. The dashed brown rectangle is the criteria we adopted to select MSTO stars. 3 https://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Spectroscopy/Espadons/ Es… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of EWs in this work with those in E. M. Holmbeck et al. (2020). 4 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:250 (14pp), 2025 June 1 Xie et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Example of spectral fitting of Ba 4554 Å line for J0722 under LTE models. The meanings of the dots and lines are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best fits (continuous curve) of the CH features near 4310 Å for J0722. The meanings of the dots and lines are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kinematics of the stars in our sample. Different colors represent different structures: GSE (red), Thamnos (orange), Sequoia (green), Helmi streams (purple), Wukong/LMS-1 (sky blue), and in situ components (blue). The gray symbols mark stars that are not associated wit…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Li abundance of stars as a function of [Fe/H]. Symbols with and without error bars are stars from CFHT observation and the SAGA database, respectively. Different colors represent different origins: GSE stars (red), in situ components (blue), and stars not assigned to G…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In general, the Mg, Si, and Ti abundances in GSE stars show differences compared to in situ stars, while Ca abundances are largely similar. For all four measured α￾elements, GSE and in situ stars show a similar enhancement of ∼0.3 at the lower metallicity region. Howev…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Abundance trend along metallicities for iron-group elements. The meanings of the symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Abundance trend along metallicities for heavy elements. The meanings of the other symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: [Ba/Y] and [Ba/Eu] as a function of [Fe/H] with the same symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Upper panel: The red dots are the abundances of neutron-capture elements of J0722 with the error bars. The gray dashed line is the r-pattern of the solar system. The solar r-process pattern is shifted to match the Eu abundance. Lower panel: Abundance offsets between J…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The spectral fitting result of Pr 4179 Å line for J0722 under LTE models. The meanings of the dots and lines are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Stancliffe, R

    Abate, C., Pols, O. R., Stancliffe, R. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A62

    2015

  2. [2]

    S., Belokurov, V., Myeong, G

    Aguado, D. S., Belokurov, V., Myeong, G. C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L8

    2021

  3. [3]

    M., Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Collet, R. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1518

    2016

  4. [4]

    M., Spite, M., Korotin, S

    Andrievsky, S. M., Spite, M., Korotin, S. A., et al. 2009, A&A, 494, 1083

    2009

  5. [5]

    C., Christlieb, N., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Christlieb, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 492

    2007

  6. [6]

    C., Lee, Y

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 13

    2013

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 146

    Aoki, W., Li, H., Matsuno, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 146

    2022

  8. [8]

    M., Lee, Y

    Arentsen, A., Placco, V. M., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4082

    2022

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Scott, P

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

    2009

  2. [10]

    L., Nissen, P

    Asplund, M., Lambert, D. L., Nissen, P. E., Primas, F., & Smith, V. V. 2006, ApJ, 644, 229

    2006

  3. [11]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

    2018

  4. [12]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    Belokurov, V., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    2020

  5. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417

    2019

  6. [14]

    Borghs, G., de Bisschop, P., van Hove, M., & Silverans, R. E. 1983, HyInt, 15, 177

    1983

  7. [15]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 33

    2001

  8. [16]

    J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

    Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165

    2024

  9. [17]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 1557

    Carrillo, A., Hawkins, K., Jofré, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1557

    2022

  10. [18]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in IAU Symp. 210, Modeling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), A20

    2003

  11. [19]

    2020, MmSAI, 91, 153 Chieffi, A., Limongi, M., & Straniero, O

    Cescutti, G., Molaro, P., & Fu, X. 2020, MmSAI, 91, 153 Chieffi, A., Limongi, M., & Straniero, O. 1998, ApJ, 502, 737

    2020

  12. [20]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168

    2000

  13. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 107

    Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., Cargile, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 107

    2019

  14. [22]

    2018, A&A, 620, A146 da Silva, L., Girardi, L., Pasquini, L., et al

    Cseh, B., Lugaro, M., D ’Orazi, V., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A146 da Silva, L., Girardi, L., Pasquini, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 609 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604

    2018

  15. [23]

    F., Catala, C., Landstreet, J

    Donati, J. F., Catala, C., Landstreet, J. D., & Petit, P. 2006, in ASP Conf. Ser. 358, Solar Polarization 4, ed. R. Casini & B. W. Lites (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 362

    2006

  16. [24]

    K., Feltzing, S., Sahlholdt, C

    Feuillet, D. K., Feltzing, S., Sahlholdt, C. L., & Casagrande, L. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 109 François, P., Depagne, E., Hill, V., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 935

    2020

  17. [25]

    2018, ARNPS, 68, 237

    Frebel, A. 2018, ARNPS, 68, 237

    2018

  18. [26]

    Frebel, A., & Ji, A. P. 2023, arXiv: 2302.09188

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R

    Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2016, ApJ, 826, 110 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2016

  20. [28]

    H., Kozhurina-Platais, V., & Chandar, R

    Goudfrooij, P., Puzia, T. H., Kozhurina-Platais, V., & Chandar, R. 2009, AJ, 137, 4988

    2009

  21. [29]

    C., et al

    Gudin, D., Shank, D., Beers, T. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 79

    2021

  22. [30]

    M., Grevesse, N., Biemont, E., & Whaling, W

    Hannaford, P., Lowe, R. M., Grevesse, N., Biemont, E., & Whaling, W. 1982, ApJ, 261, 736

    1982

  23. [31]

    T., Andersen, J., Nordström, B., et al

    Hansen, T. T., Andersen, J., Nordström, B., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A3

    2016

  24. [32]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113

    2018

  25. [33]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    2020

  26. [34]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Natur, 563, 85

    2018

  27. [35]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Natur, 402, 53

    1999

  28. [36]

    2014, CoSka, 43, 518

    Henden, A., & Munari, U. 2014, CoSka, 43, 518

    2014

  29. [37]

    M., Hansen, T

    Holmbeck, E. M., Hansen, T. T., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 30

    2020

  30. [38]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671

    2023

  31. [39]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Natur, 370, 194

    1994

  32. [40]

    N., Aoki, W., & Chiba, M

    Ishigaki, M. N., Aoki, W., & Chiba, M. 2013, ApJ, 771, 67

    2013

  33. [41]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439 13 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:250 (14pp), 2025 June 1 Xie et al

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439 13 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:250 (14pp), 2025 June 1 Xie et al

    1999

  34. [42]

    2017, A&A, 604, A106

    Jean-Baptiste, I., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A106

    2017

  35. [43]

    P., & Frebel, A

    Ji, A. P., & Frebel, A. 2018, ApJ, 856, 138

    2018

  36. [44]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 3162

    Kang, W., & Lee, S.-G. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3162

    2012

  37. [45]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5

    2023

  38. [46]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179

    2020

  39. [47]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 1145

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

    2006

  40. [48]

    J., Hansen, C

    Koch-Hansen, A. J., Hansen, C. J., & McWilliam, A. 2021, A&A, 653, A2

    2021

  41. [49]

    Starkenburg, T. K. 2019, A&A, 631, L9

    2019

  42. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 147

    Li, H., Aoki, W., Matsuno, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 147

    2022

  43. [51]

    P., Naidu, R

    Limberg, G., Ji, A. P., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2512

    2024

  44. [52]

    S., & Belyaev, A

    Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Belyaev, A. K. 2011,A&A, 528, A103

    2011

  45. [53]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4

    2021

  46. [54]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426

    2019

  47. [55]

    D., Broby Nielsen, P., Ferguson, A

    Mackey, A. D., Broby Nielsen, P., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Richardson, J. C. 2008, ApJL, 681, L17

    2008

  48. [56]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  49. [57]

    S., et al

    Mashonkina, L., Christlieb, N., Barklem, P. S., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A46

    2010

  50. [58]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L35

    Matsuno, T., Aoki, W., & Suda, T. 2019, ApJL, 874, L35

    2019

  51. [59]

    2021, A&A, 650, A110

    Matsuno, T., Hirai, Y., Tarumi, Y., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A110

    2021

  52. [60]

    2003, Ap&SS, 284, 539

    Matteucci, F. 2003, Ap&SS, 284, 539

    2003

  53. [61]

    1990, ApJ, 365, 539

    Matteucci, F., & Brocato, E. 1990, ApJ, 365, 539

    1990

  54. [62]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76

    2017

  55. [63]

    W., Sneden, C., & Searle, L

    McWilliam, A., Preston, G. W., Sneden, C., & Searle, L. 1995, AJ, 109, 2757 Meléndez, J., Casagrande, L., Ramírez, I., Asplund, M., & Schuster, W. J. 2010, A&A, 515, L3

    1995

  56. [64]

    1997, MNRAS, 292, L1

    Molaro, P., Bonifacio, P., & Pasquini, L. 1997, MNRAS, 292, L1

    1997

  57. [65]

    L., et al

    Monty, S., Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2420

    2024

  58. [66]

    A., Lane, J

    Monty, S., Venn, K. A., Lane, J. M. M., Lokhorst, D., & Yong, D. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1236

    2020

  59. [67]

    C., Belokurov, V., Aguado, D

    Myeong, G. C., Belokurov, V., Aguado, D. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 21

    2022

  60. [68]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, ApJL, 856, L26

    2018

  61. [69]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235

    2019

  62. [70]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48

    2020

  63. [71]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 92

    2021

  64. [72]

    E., Chen, Y

    Nissen, P. E., Chen, Y. Q., Carigi, L., Schuster, W. J., & Zhao, G. 2014, A&A, 568, A25

    2014

  65. [73]

    E., & Schuster, W

    Nissen, P. E., & Schuster, W. J. 2010, A&A, 511, L10

    2010

  66. [74]

    E., & Schuster, W

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

    2011

  67. [75]

    E., & Schuster, W

    Nissen, P. E., & Schuster, W. J. 2012, A&A, 543, A28

    2012

  68. [76]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

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

    2013

  69. [77]

    P., Frebel, A., Naidu, R

    Ou, X., Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Naidu, R. P., & Limberg, G. 2024, ApJ, 974, 232

    2024

  70. [78]

    2023, A&A, 673, A86 Ramírez, I., & Meléndez, J

    Pagnini, G., Di Matteo, P., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A86 Ramírez, I., & Meléndez, J. 2005, ApJ, 626, 465

    2023

  71. [79]

    U., Lawler, J

    Roederer, I. U., Lawler, J. E., Den Hartog, E. A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 27

    2022

  72. [80]

    P., Lugaro, M., Pereira, C

    Roriz, M. P., Lugaro, M., Pereira, C. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1956

    2021

  73. [81]

    G., Norris, J

    Ryan, S. G., Norris, J. E., & Beers, T. C. 1999, ApJ, 523, 654

    1999

  74. [82]

    2010, A&A, 522, A26 Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W

    Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., & Caffau, E. 2010, A&A, 522, A26 Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829

    2010

  75. [83]

    D., Martell, S

    Simpson, J. D., Martell, S. L., Buder, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 43

    2021

  76. [84]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  77. [85]

    J., Lawler, J

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 936

    2003

  78. [86]

    Sneden, C. A. 1973, PhD thesis, Univ. Texas, Austin

    1973

  79. [87]

    S., Kraft, R

    Sobeck, J. S., Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 175

    2011

  80. [88]

    1982, A&A, 115, 357

    Spite, F., & Spite, M. 1982, A&A, 115, 357

    1982

  81. [89]

    G., & Torres, G

    Stassun, K. G., & Torres, G. 2021, ApJL, 907, L33

    2021

  82. [90]

    2006, AJ, 132, 1645

    Steinmetz, M., Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645

    2006

  83. [91]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 76

    Suda, T., Hidaka, J., Aoki, W., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 76

    2017

  84. [92]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1159

    Suda, T., Katsuta, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1159

    2008

  85. [93]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., Hartmann, D. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 449, 204

    1995

  86. [94]

    1993, in ASP Conf

    Tody, D. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes (San

    1993

  87. [95]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    2009

  88. [96]

    2004, ApJ, 601, 864

    Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Arnone, E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 864

    2004

  89. [97]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 945

    Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945

    1995

  90. [98]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    2019

  91. [99]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52

    1991

  92. [100]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

    1978

  93. [101]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181

    1995

  94. [102]

    2022, Natur, 603, 599

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Natur, 603, 599

    2022

  95. [103]

    Yamada, S., Suda, T., Komiya, Y., Aoki, W., & Fujimoto, M. Y. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1362

    2013

  96. [104]

    C., Placco, V

    Yoon, J., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 20

    2016

  97. [105]

    C., Tian, D., & Whitten, D

    Yoon, J., Beers, T. C., Tian, D., & Whitten, D. D. 2019, ApJ, 878, 97

    2019

  98. [106]

    C., & Huang, Y

    Yuan, Z., Chang, J., Beers, T. C., & Huang, Y. 2020, ApJL, 898, L37

    2020

  99. [107]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 174

    Zhang, R., Matsuno, T., Li, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 174

    2024

  100. [108]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 89

    Zhang, S., Li, H., Zhao, G., Aoki, W., & Matsuno, T. 2019, PASJ, 71, 89

    2019

  101. [109]

    2006, ChJAA, 6, 265

    Zhao, G., Chen, Y.-Q., Shi, J.-R., et al. 2006, ChJAA, 6, 265

    2006

  102. [110]

    2012, RAA, 12, 723

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, RAA, 12, 723

    2012

  103. [111]

    M., et al

    Zolotov, A., Willman, B., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1058 14 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:250 (14pp), 2025 June 1 Xie et al

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.