Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Rubidium Abundances in Cool Giants from High-Resolution H-band Spectra: A New Diagnostic for Galactic Chemical Evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Rb I line at 15289.48 Å is a reliable rubidium abundance indicator in M giants and the coolest K giants, and the resulting [Rb/Fe] trend requires both s- and r-process production.

desk verdict First credible Rb abundances from the near-IR λ15289 line in cool giants; the trend holds, but the 4.3-dex Fe blend calibration is the load-bearing step and needs scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21332 v1 pith:SGVFUSW4 submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Nils Ryde , Jess Kocher , Govind Nandakumar , Henrik Hartman , Marta Molero , Henrik Jönsson , Gregory Mace , Erica Sawczynec
show 1 more author
Kyle F. Kaplan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords rubidiumabundancescoolgiantsH-bandspectroscopyneutron-captureelementsGalacticchemicalevolutions-processr-processspectralsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the Rb I line at 15289.48 Å in the H band is a reliable abundance indicator for rubidium in M giants and the coolest K giants. Using high-resolution (R ≈ 45,000) spectra of 40 solar-neighborhood M giants, the authors derive [Rb/Fe] ratios and find a trend that decreases with metallicity, matching optical resonance-line studies and the behavior of ytterbium, another element produced by both the s- and r-processes. They show that chemical evolution models with only an s-process source underproduce the observed Rb, while adding r-process contributions from neutron star mergers and magneto-rotational supernovae brings the models into agreement. If correct, this adds rubidium to the set of neutron-capture elements measurable in the near-infrared, enabling nucleosynthesis studies of dust-obscured regions such as the Galactic Center and inner disk.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Rb I line at 15289.48 Å, the strongest member of the 5p–4d multiplet, together with the Fe I line at 15289.468 Å that blends it. The machinery is spectral synthesis of a roughly 30 Å window around the line, using model atmospheres and an adjusted line list. The Fe I line's $\log(gf)$ value is raised from −5.176 to −0.876, an astrophysical calibration obtained from the solar spectrum where the Rb contribution is negligible, while the Rb lines use new theoretical oscillator strengths. A temperature–line-strength analysis shows that the Rb contribution to the blended feature grows as stars cool, exceeding half of the feature for stars below roughly 3400 K at [Fe/H] > −0.5, which is why the diagnostic works in M giants but not in warmer stars.

What would settle it

A laboratory measurement of the Fe I line at 15289.468 Å would settle the matter: if the true $\log(gf)$ is close to the original −5.176 rather than the calibrated −0.876, the derived Rb abundances are an artifact of the blend. Alternatively, a high-resolution spectrum of a cool giant with an independently known Fe abundance and negligible Rb contribution should leave a residual feature that the recalibrated Fe line alone can fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the near-infrared Rb I transition at 15289.48 Å, part of the 5p–4d multiplet, can be used to measure rubidium abundances in cool giants when the spectrum is modeled carefully. The key step is an astrophysical recalibration of the Fe I line at 15289.468 Å, which sits 0.01 Å from the Rb line and dominates the feature in warmer stars; its log(gf) value is raised from −5.176 to −0.876 by fitting the solar spectrum, where the Rb contribution is negligible. With this calibration and new theoretical oscillator strengths for the Rb lines, the authors fit the line in 40 M giants and derive [Rb/Fe] values whose mean trend passes through the solar value and declines with metallicity. The trend agrees with optical Rb studies and with the [Yb/Fe] trend, and it can only be reproduced by a chemical evolution model that includes both an early (prompt) r-process source and delayed s- and r-process sources. The authors conclude that the line is reliable in M giants and the coolest K giants but becomes too weak at higher temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dominant Fe I line blending the rubidium line is correctly identified and that its strength, raised by a factor of roughly $10^{4}$ in a single solar-spectrum fit, applies to all program stars; if this calibration is wrong, every derived Rb abundance is systematically biased, especially in stars where Rb contributes less than half of the blended feature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rubidium joins ytterbium, cerium, barium, and other neutron-capture elements as measurable from high-resolution H-band spectra of cool giants.
  • The [Rb/Fe] versus [Fe/H] trend can be extended to dust-obscured populations, including the Galactic Center and inner disk, where optical studies are impossible.
  • The agreement with optical resonance-line studies supports the assumption that non-LTE corrections for the 15289 Å line are small, at least for giants.
  • Chemical evolution models of the solar neighborhood must include both prompt and delayed r-process sources, not only the s-process, to match the observed Rb trend.
  • Rubidium can serve as a mixed s/r tracer alongside ytterbium, with the expectation that the two trends track each other in the same stellar populations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to calibrate the blending Fe I line using a sample of warm K giants rather than a single solar spectrum, isolating the Fe blend across a range of metallicities in stars where Rb is negligible.
  • If the calibration survives, large automated surveys of cool giants could extract Rb from existing H-band spectra without new observations, greatly increasing the number of Rb measurements.
  • The adopted solar Rb normalization carries up to roughly 0.25 dex of zero-point ambiguity between published solar values; a star-by-star non-LTE calculation for the 15289 Å line would decide whether the trend's zero point needs to shift.
  • Because Rb and Yb track each other in these stars, combining both elements in the same sample could separate the prompt and delayed nucleosynthesis channels more cleanly than either element alone.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first abundance determinations of rubidium from the near-infrared Rb I line at 15289.48 Å in high-resolution (R ≈ 45,000) IGRINS spectra of 40 M giants in the solar neighborhood. The analysis relies on spectral synthesis with new log(gf) values for the Rb multiplet and an astrophysical recalibration of the dominant blending Fe I line at 15289.468 Å, whose Kurucz log(gf) is increased by about 4.3 dex based on a single solar spectrum fit. The authors find that [Rb/Fe] decreases with metallicity, in agreement with optical studies of the Rb resonance lines, and that chemical evolution models require both s- and r-process contributions to reproduce the trend. They conclude that Rb is a reliable near-IR abundance diagnostic for cool giants, opening the possibility of measuring Rb in dust-obscured populations such as the Galactic Center.

Significance. If the derived abundances are correct, the paper adds a genuinely new neutron-capture element to the near-infrared chemical toolbox, which would be valuable for studies of obscured stellar populations. The authors use high-quality IGRINS spectra, present a clear detection of the Rb line in M giants (Figure 6), validate the Fe blend calibration on K giants, and compare their results with optical studies and a state-of-the-art chemical evolution model. The main caveat is that the abundance scale rests on a large, single-spectrum astrophysical recalibration of the dominant Fe I blend, and the K-giant validation does not fully cover the temperature range of the program stars. The central claim is plausible but requires additional quantification of the systematic uncertainty introduced by the Fe blend calibration before it can be considered fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The dominant Fe I 15289.468 Å blend is calibrated by changing its log(gf) from -5.176 (Kurucz 2014) to -0.876, an increase of roughly 4.3 dex, using a single solar spectrum fit (Figure 2). Because the Rb I line at 15289.480 Å is only 0.012 Å away and unresolved at R = 45,000, the Rb abundance is essentially the residual after subtracting this Fe model. Any error in the Fe line's strength, excitation energy, or temperature/metallicity scaling propagates directly into every [Rb/Fe] value. The K-giant checks in Figures 3-5 cover T_eff ≈ 4300-4500 K, whereas the program stars are 3350-3900 K, so the Fe model is extrapolated into the regime where it matters most. I request a quantitative estimate of the systematic uncertainty, for example by varying the Fe gf within a plausible range and recomputing [Rb/Fe] for representative stars, or by validating the calibration on M giants with independent optical measurements.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 1, Figure 7] The lowest [Rb/Fe] point, 2M14322072-6215506 ([Rb/Fe] = -0.47), is explicitly stated to suffer from an overestimated redward Fe blend, which leads to an underestimated Rb abundance. This demonstrates that blend-calibration errors do reach the results. Since the weakest Rb lines are color-coded as the most uncertain, the apparent downward trend in [Rb/Fe] versus [Fe/H] could be partly driven by stars with small Rb residuals. I recommend showing the trend with such weak-line stars removed or down-weighted, and testing whether the slope and the s+r-process conclusion are robust to this exclusion.
  3. [Section 4, Section 5.3, Figure 11] The comparison with chemical evolution models is weakened by the free renormalization of +0.2 dex applied to make the model pass through the solar value. The claim that the s-process alone is insufficient rests on the relative offset between the dashed and solid model curves, but the absolute normalization is adjusted by hand. Please report the model predictions before renormalization, state the adopted solar Rb abundance and its uncertainty, and discuss how the conclusion would change if a different solar reference (e.g., the non-LTE value of 2.35 from Korotin 2020) were used. The non-LTE discussion in Section 4 is also qualitative; a quantitative estimate of the non-LTE correction for the 15289 Å line in M giants would strengthen the absolute scale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 10 caption] The caption states that symbol sizes indicate surface gravities 'according to a typical isochrone,' but the main text emphasizes that the Rb line strength is insensitive to log g; please clarify how the symbol sizes were chosen and whether they affect the plotted equivalent widths.
  2. [Table 1] The [Rb/Fe] column would benefit from explicit uncertainties per star, or at least a statement that the quoted values do not include the systematic Fe-blend uncertainty discussed in Section 5.1. The current single error bar in Figure 7 represents only a typical random uncertainty.
  3. [Section 3.1] The discussion of hyperfine structure is brief and does not cite a specific calculation for the 5p-4d transition. Since both stable isotopes have nonzero spin, a sentence with a quantitative estimate of the expected splitting would be useful, even if the effect is small for weak lines.
  4. [Section 5.2, Figure 8] The caption notes that the Yb and Ce trends have been shifted by -0.1 dex and +0.25 dex, respectively, to pass through the solar value. Please state whether similar shifts were applied to the Rb data, and make clear in the text that the comparison of trends is therefore qualitative.
  5. [References] The manuscript refers to 'Jönsson et al. (in prep)' for the K-giant parameters, but this work is not listed in the bibliography. Please provide a full citation or, if not yet available, state the source of the adopted parameters more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Rb abundances are derived from a solar-calibrated Fe blend with independent K-giant and optical validation; the s+r-process conclusion is a model-data comparison, not a self-referential fit.

full rationale

The central chain is not circular. In Section 3.2 the dominant Fe I 15289.468 Å blend is calibrated against the solar spectrum under the stated condition that Rb is negligible in the Sun ('With a solar Rb abundance, the Rb line is very weak, and its contribution to the spectral feature is negligible in the Sun... allowing us to derive an astrophysical log(gf) value for this Fe I line, independent of the uncertainties in the Rb line strength or the solar abundance of Rb'). The same blend is then verified on K giants with no measurable Rb line (Figures 3-5), and the residual Rb in M giants is compared with optical studies (Abia et al. 2021; Takeda 2021), providing external validation. The chemical-evolution conclusion (Section 5.3) is not a rename of the input: the comparison uses fixed yield prescriptions (e.g., Limongi & Chieffi 2018; Cristallo et al. 2015; Molero et al. 2025, model 7) and shows that an s-only model under-predicts the data, with a common +0.2 dex renormalization to the solar value; this is a model-data inference, not a parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper itself flags the largest blend-error case (2M14322072-6215506, Section 5.1), which is a stated limitation rather than a hidden circular step. Several supporting data sets are from the same group (Nandakumar et al. 2023a, 2024a,b; Montelius et al. 2022), but those are independent measurements, not load-bearing definitions of the Rb result.

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

The central abundance scale rests on five imported or fitted inputs: a solar-calibrated Fe blend oscillator strength adjusted by 4.3 dex, removal of one Fe line and adjustment of another, a chosen solar Rb reference with a 0.25 dex spread in the literature, and a +0.2 dex renormalization of the chemical evolution model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Astrophysical log(gf) of Fe I 15289.468 Å = -0.876 (Kurucz 2014 gives -5.176)
    Calibrated by matching the solar spectrum (Ceres) where Rb is negligible; this 4.3 dex adjustment dictates the strength of the dominant blend in all program stars.
  • Removal of Fe I 15289.653 Å line = Line removed (strength set to zero)
    Hand adjustment made to improve the fit; no physical justification is given beyond improving the synthetic match.
  • Astrophysical log(gf) of Fe I 15289.987 Å = -0.737 (Kurucz -0.837)
    Slight increase to match the solar spectrum.
  • Solar Rb reference log eps(Rb) = 2.60 (Grevesse & Sauval 1998)
    Adopted normalization; other published values (Asplund 2.52, Prantzos 2.45, Abia 2.35, meteoritic 2.36-2.41) imply a systematic zero-point shift of up to 0.25 dex in [Rb/Fe].
  • Chemical evolution model normalization shift = +0.2 dex
    Model was renormalized so that the thin disk prediction passes through the solar value; this added offset means the model comparison is not parameter-free.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MARCS 1D spherical LTE model atmospheres and PySME synthesis are adequate for M giant abundances.
    Section 3.2; all abundances rely on these models; no 3D or full NLTE modeling is performed.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], xi) from Nandakumar et al. (2023a) are accurate.
    Section 2; the synthesis uses these parameters; typical uncertainties are propagated but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Non-LTE corrections for the Rb I 15289 Å line are small in cool giants.
    Section 4; based on a rough estimate from Korotin (2020) departure coefficients; no star-by-star non-LTE calculations are performed.
  • domain assumption Line identification and excitation energy of the Fe I blend at 15289.468 Å are correct despite the unknown lower level.
    Section 3.2; the authors adopt Nave et al. (1994) wavelength and Kurucz energy levels and apply a 4.3 dex log(gf) boost; the identification remains uncertain.
  • domain assumption New log(gf) values from Migdalek (2016) for the Rb lines are accurate (no experimental data exist).
    Section 3.2; theoretical oscillator strengths with experimental tuning are adopted without laboratory measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rubidium Abundances in Cool Giants from High-Resolution H-band Spectra: A New Diagnostic for Galactic Chemical Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGVFUSW4

@misc{pith2026250621332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rubidium Abundances in Cool Giants from High-Resolution H-band Spectra: A New Diagnostic for Galactic Chemical Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGVFUSW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21332}
}
read the original abstract

The Galactic Center and inner disk of the Milky Way contain complex stellar populations obscured by heavy dust extinction. To study their chemical composition, high-resolution near-infrared (near-IR) spectroscopy is necessary. Expanding the set of elements measurable in the near-IR, especially neutron-capture elements, improves our ability to trace nucleosynthesis and Galactic chemical evolution. This work aims to identify and characterize a spectral line suitable for determining rubidium (Rb) abundances. Rb is produced in roughly equal parts by the r- and s-processes. We analyze high-resolution (R = 45,000) IGRINS near-IR spectra of 40 M giants in the solar neighborhood, most observed with Gemini South. We perform spectral synthesis of the Rb I line at 15289.48 A, using new log(gf) values and including an astrophysical calibration of the blending Fe I lines. The resulting [Rb/Fe] ratios are compared to other neutron-capture elements and interpreted with chemical evolution models. We demonstrate that the used Rb line is a reliable abundance indicator in M giants and the coolest K giants, but becomes too weak at higher temperatures. [Rb/Fe] shows a decreasing trend with metallicity, mirroring that of ytterbium (Yb), another mixed r-/s-process element. Our results agree with optical studies, validating the use of this near-IR line. Comparisons with chemical evolution models confirm that both s- and r-process sources are needed to explain the Rb trend. This work adds Rb to the list of elements measurable in high-resolution H- and K-band spectra, enabling studies of one more neutron-capture element in dust-obscured regions like the Galactic Center and inner disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21332 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Partial term diagram for Rb I showing the first energy levels of the lowers terms. The two resonance lines are marked in blue and the three lines in the H-band multiplet are marked in red. It is the λ15289 (5p 2P ◦ 3/2 → 4d 2D5/2) transition that is analyzed here. ing the spectral synthesis code Spectroscopy Made Easy (SME; Valenti & Piskunov 1996, 2012) in combination with MARCS 1D spherical model atmospheres (Gust… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solar spectrum (black) observed as a flux spectrum off the asteroid Ceres, and synthetic spectra using line data from Kurucz (2014) (blue) versus using our adjusted log gf values (red). To verify our adjustments, we considered a number of K giants with parameters determined from optical spectra by Jonsson et al. (in prep). Due to the very low ionization en- ¨ ergy of Rb, the Rb line is essentially non-existent in st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed (black dots) and synthetic (red line) spectra for the Sun (Teff = 5777 K, [Fe/H] = 0.0 dex). The synthetic spectrum shown in green omits the Rb I line, only modeling blends; since it (approximately) overlaps with the red (fully modeled) spectrum, we can assume the Rb line to be insignificant in the Sun. The blue spectrum further omits any Fe I lines, confirming that iron is by far the most prominent of the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed (black dots) and synthetic (red line) spectra for Arcturus (Teff = 4308 K, [Fe/H] = −0.55 dex). The green synthetic spectrum excludes the Rb I line and models only blends; its overlap with the full (red) model suggests Rb is negligible in Arcturus. The blue sp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [Rb/Fe] versus [Fe/H] determined from the Rb I line at λ15289. The blue-green-red color-coding indicates the strength of the line, with the blue ones being the weakest and red the strongest. The diamonds mark the thick-disk stars. the spectra, resulting from residuals …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Determined [Rb/Fe] values (red circles and yellow diamonds) compared with the other s-process elements (open circles and dia￾monds) for the same set of stars from Nandakumar et al. (2024a) for Yb, Ce, and Nd, and from Nandakumar et al. (2024b) for Ba. The [Yb/Fe] trend…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Our data set in red filled circles for the thin-disk stars and yellow diamonds for the thick-disk stars. The gray squares are from the study by Abia et al. (2021) and the gray triangles are from the study by Takeda (2021) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Our data plotted together with the results of our chemical evolution model under two scenarios: one in which Rb is synthe￾sized exclusively through the s-process (dashed line), and another in which the contributions from both the s- and the r-process are in￾cluded (fu…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    2021, A&A, 648, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040250 Afs ¸ar, M., Sneden, C., Frebel, A., et al

    Abia, C., de Laverny, P., Korotin, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040250 Afs ¸ar, M., Sneden, C., Frebel, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 103, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/103 Afs ¸ar, M., Sneden, C., Wood, M. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada0c

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040250 2021

  3. [3]

    M., Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Nissen, P. E., & Sk´ulad´ottir, ´A. 2019, A&A, 630, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936265

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936265 2019

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/10 B¨ocek Topcu, G., Afs ¸ar, M., Sneden, C., et al

    Bisterzo, S., Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Wiescher, M., & K¨appeler, F. 2014, ApJ, 787, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/10 B¨ocek Topcu, G., Afs ¸ar, M., Sneden, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz727 —. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3008

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/10 2014

  6. [6]

    E., Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C

    Brady, K. E., Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf2f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf2f3 2023

  7. [7]

    Cox, N. L. J., Cami, J., Kaper, L., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323061

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323061 2014

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 40, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/40

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Piersanti, L., & Gobrecht, D. 2015, ApJS, 219, 40, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/40

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/40 2015

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y .-C., & Yi, S. K. 2004, ApJS, 155, 667, doi: 10.1086/424966

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 662, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142990

    Ebenbichler, A., Postel, A., Przybilla, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142990

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Cox, N. L. J. 2017, A&A, 600, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630088

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Feinberg, L., Ziemer, J., Ansdell, M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2024

  5. [13]

    13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024:

    Series, V ol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024:

    2024

  6. [14]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 130921N, doi: 10.1117/12.3018328

    doi

  7. [15]

    A., Lee, J.-J., Han, I., et al

    Galazutdinov, G. A., Lee, J.-J., Han, I., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx330 12 Garc´ıa-Hern´andez, D. A., Rao, N. K., Lambert, D. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc574

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Geballe, T. R. 2016, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 728, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 062005, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/728/6/062005

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Najarro, F., Figer, D

    Geballe, T. R., Najarro, F., Figer, D. F., Schlegelmilch, B. W., & de La Fuente, D. 2011, Nature, 479, 200, doi: 10.1038/nature10527

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 18, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5196

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    G., & Sneden, C

    Gratton, R. G., & Sneden, C. 1994, A&A, 287, 927

    1994

  12. [20]

    Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161, doi: 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2316

    Grisoni, V ., Romano, D., Spitoni, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2316

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Gully-Santiago, M., Wang, W., Deen, C., & Jaffe, D. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation II, ed. R. Navarro, C. R. Cunningham, & E. Prieto...

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    2008

  16. [24]

    R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al

    Hayes, C. R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00071. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00071

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P., Drake, N

    Holanda, N., Roriz, M. P., Drake, N. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3280

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Jeong, U., Chun, M.-Y ., Oh, J. S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2014

  20. [28]

    9154, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VI, ed

    Series, V ol. 9154, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VI, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 91541X, doi: 10.1117/12.2055589

    doi

  21. [29]

    1961, Ark

    Johansson, I. 1961, Ark. Fys., 20, 135

    1961

  22. [30]

    2024, igrins/plp, 3.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11080095

    Kaplan, K., Lee, J.-J., Sawczynec, E., & Kim, H.-J. 2024, igrins/plp, 3.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11080095

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Korotin, S. A. 2020, Astronomy Letters, 46, 541, doi: 10.1134/S1063773720080022

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available:https://physics.nist.gov/asd[2025, May 2]. National Institute of Standards and Technology,

    2024

  25. [33]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2014, Robert L. Kurucz on-line database of observed and predicted atomic transitions

    2014

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    T., et al

    Mace, G., Kim, H., Jaffe, D. T., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2016

  28. [36]

    9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed

    Series, V ol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99080C, doi: 10.1117/12.2232780

    doi

  29. [37]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Mace, G., Sokal, K., Lee, J.-J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2018

  30. [38]

    10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed

    Series, V ol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107020Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2312345

    doi

  31. [39]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    K., et al

    Manea, C., Hawkins, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58d9

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Marconi, A., Abreu, M., Adibekyan, V ., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2024

  34. [42]

    13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed

    Series, V ol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 1309613, doi: 10.1117/12.3017966

    doi

  35. [43]

    2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22491-1 —

    Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22491-1 —. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18532

    Mead, J., De La Garza, R., & Ness, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18532

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2016, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 49, 185004, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/49/18/185004

    Migdalek, J. 2016, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 49, 185004, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/49/18/185004

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Rich, R. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A268, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450418

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1429

    Molero, M., Romano, D., Reichert, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1429

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, A&A, 694, A274, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453466

    Molero, M., Magrini, L., Palla, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A274, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453466

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 665, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243140

    Montelius, M., Forsberg, R., Ryde, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243140

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Moon, B., Wang, W., Park, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2012

  43. [51]

    8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation II, ed

    Series, V ol. 8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation II, ed. R. Navarro, C. R. Cunningham, & E. Prieto, 845048, doi: 10.1117/12.925702 Mura-Guzm´an, A., Yong, D., Abate, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2610...

    doi

  44. [52]

    2023a, A&A, 675, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346149

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Casagrande, L., & Mace, G. 2023a, A&A, 675, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346149

    doi

  45. [53]

    2024a, A&A, 684, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348462 13

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Forsberg, R., et al. 2024a, A&A, 684, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348462 13

    doi

  46. [54]

    2024b, A&A, 690, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451255

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Hartman, H., & Mace, G. 2024b, A&A, 690, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451255

    doi

  47. [55]

    2023b, A&A, 676, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346875

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., & Mace, G. 2023b, A&A, 676, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346875

    doi

  48. [56]

    2022, A&A, 668, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244724

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Montelius, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244724

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbb6d

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbb6d

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Brault, J. W. 1994, ApJS, 94, 221, doi: 10.1086/192079

    1994 doi

  51. [59]

    Thielemann, F. K. 2017, ApJL, 836, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dee

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Oh, H., Park, C., Kim, S., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 1309608, doi: 10.1117/12.3017710

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Oliva, E., Origlia, L., Baffa, C., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2006

  54. [62]

    6269, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed

    Series, V ol. 6269, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 626919, doi: 10.1117/12.670006

    doi

  55. [63]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Origlia, L., Oliva, E., Baffa, C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2014

  56. [64]

    9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed

    Series, V ol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471E, doi: 10.1117/12.2054743

    doi

  57. [65]

    T., Yuk, I.-S., et al

    Park, C., Jaffe, D. T., Yuk, I.-S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2014

  58. [66]

    9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed

    Series, V ol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471D, doi: 10.1117/12.2056431

    doi

  59. [67]

    2018, in (Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII), 3 – 11, doi: 10.1117/12.2313075

    Pasquini, L., & Hubin, N. 2018, in (Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII), 3 – 11, doi: 10.1117/12.2313075

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Jeffery, C. S. 1995, A\&AS, 112, 525

    1995

  61. [69]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3154

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3154

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty316

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., & Cristallo, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty316

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2505

    Rizzuti, F., Cescutti, G., Matteucci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2505

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    J., & Ventura, P

    Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Zhang, Z.-Y ., Ivison, R. J., & Ventura, P. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2741

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Piskunov, N

    Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., & Weiss, W. W. 1997, Baltic Astronomy, 6, 244

    1997

  66. [74]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb1

    Ryde, N., J¨onsson, H., Mace, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb1

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2b

    Ryde, N., Nandakumar, G., Schultheis, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b2b

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    Sansonetti, J. E. 2006, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 35, 301, doi: 10.1063/1.2035727

    2006 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Sawczynec, E., Mace, G., Gully-Santiago, M., & Jaffe, D. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 54, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 203.06

    2022

  70. [78]

    F., Mace, G

    Sawczynec, E., Kaplan, K. F., Mace, G. N., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 034505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adba89

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz991

    Simonetti, P., Matteucci, F., Greggio, L., & Cescutti, G. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz991

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    V ., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V . V ., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207

    2008

  74. [82]

    2019, A&A, 623, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188

    Spitoni, E., Silva Aguirre, V ., Matteucci, F., Calura, F., & Grisoni, V . 2019, A&A, 623, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 515, doi: 10.1002/asna.202123873

    Takeda, Y . 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 515, doi: 10.1002/asna.202123873

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  77. [85]

    P., Litzen, U., & Johansson, S

    Thorne, A. P., Litzen, U., & Johansson, S. 1999, Spectrophysics : principles and applications (Springer)

    1999

  78. [86]

    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, 173

    1993

  79. [87]

    Tomkin, J., & Lambert, D. L. 1999, ApJ, 523, 234, doi: 10.1086/307735

    1999 doi

  80. [88]

    A., & Piskunov, N

    Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 1996, A&AS, 118, 595 —. 2012, SME: Spectroscopy Made Easy. http://ascl.net/1202.013 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    1996 doi

  81. [89]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    J., & Jaffe, D

    Wang, W., Gully-Santiago, M., Deen, C., Mar, D. J., & Jaffe, D. T. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7739, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation, ed. E. Atad-Ettedgui & D. Lemke, ...

    2010 doi

  83. [91]

    1968, MNRAS, 139, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/139.1.115

    Warner, B. 1968, MNRAS, 139, 115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/139.1.115

    1968 doi

  84. [92]

    2023, A&A, 671, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244482

    Wehrhahn, A., Piskunov, N., & Ryabchikova, T. 2023, A&A, 671, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244482

    2023 doi

  85. [93]

    2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Wildi, F., Blind, N., Reshetov, V ., et al. 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2017

  86. [94]

    10400, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed

    Series, V ol. 10400, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. S. Shaklan, 1040018, doi: 10.1117/12.2275660 14

    doi

  87. [95]

    T., Barnes, S., et al

    Yuk, I.-S., Jaffe, D. T., Barnes, S., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2010

  88. [96]

    7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed

    Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77351M, doi: 10.1117/12.856864 ¨Ozdemir, S., Afs ¸ar, M., Sneden, C., et al. 2025

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.