Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 112 references

Anchoring Stellar Age Indicators: A Cross-Calibration of [C/N] and Gyrochronology Ages via the Age-Velocity-Dispersion Relation

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 A single age–velocity–dispersion relation can place rotation-based and [C/N]-based stellar ages on the same scale.

desk verdict The applicability maps for gyrochronology and [C/N] are the real contribution; the cross-calibration agreement is weaker than claimed because both methods are anchored to the same locally-fit AVR and the fitted offsets absorb any common-mode error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24010 v1 pith:COOQAF5H submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Yuxi Lu , Marc H. Pinsonneault , Yuan-Sen Ting , Phil R. Van-Lane , John D Roberts , Jamie Tayar , Alexander Stone-Martinez This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords stellaragesgyrochronologyage–velocity–dispersionrelation[C/N]abundancesrotationkinematicsasteroseismologyGalacticdisk
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

Stellar ages are hard to compare because different dating methods rely on different physical processes and are calibrated in non-overlapping parts of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. This paper proposes the age–velocity–dispersion relation (AVR)—the observed fact that a population's vertical velocity spread grows with age—as a common physical anchor that can put gyrochronology (rotation-based ages) and [C/N] (giant-branch abundance-based ages) onto the same age scale. The authors fit the AVR to the asteroseismic APOKASC-3 sample, then calibrate both age relations to that same AVR using about 86,000 rotation-period stars and about 110,000 APOGEE giants with Gaia kinematics. They report that the two calibrated methods agree within uncertainty once small systematic offsets (0.64 Gyr for [C/N], −0.20 Gyr for gyrochronology) are applied, and that they reproduce asteroseismic, cluster, and wide-binary ages. If the claim holds, astronomers could assign reliable ages to huge numbers of field stars, including old slow-rotating dwarfs and low-metallicity giants, outside the domains covered by open clusters and asteroseismology.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the age–velocity–dispersion relation (AVR), a power-law relation between a stellar population's vertical velocity dispersion and its age, with a metallicity correction: $\sigma_{v_z}(\tau,[\mathrm{Fe/H}]) = a \tau^b (1+\gamma[\mathrm{Fe/H}])$. The paper treats the AVR as a universal property shared by all stars regardless of evolutionary stage, so it can serve as a coordinate transfer that converts an observed rotation period and color, or an observed [C/N] and metallicity, into an age on the same physical scale. The method models each star's vertical velocity as drawn from a Gaussian with zero mean and dispersion set by the AVR, then equates the dispersion predicted from the age indicator to the dispersion from the AVR to solve for age. The fitting is done separately: the AVR parameters are fit to the asteroseismic APOKASC-3 sample; gyrochronology is calibrated by binned $\sigma_{v_z}$–$P_{\mathrm{rot}}$ relations per color interval using Deming regression; and [C/N] is calibrated by fitting the $\sigma_{v_z}$–[C/N] relations in metallicity bins. These same relations, computed purely from observables, reveal the physical boundaries where each method stops working: weakened magnetic braking, the fully convective boundary, and the intermediate period gap.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is to measure vertical velocity dispersions for a large sample of stars with independent, precise asteroseismic ages at a range of Galactocentric radii and heights, and check whether the power-law $\sigma_{v_z}(\tau,[\mathrm{Fe/H}])$ fitted to APOKASC-3 still describes them; any significant dependence of the AVR on position, or a flattening for stars older than about 10 Gyr, would imprint a bias in every age derived through this anchor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the age–velocity–dispersion relation, $\sigma_{v_z}(\tau,[\mathrm{Fe/H}]) = a \tau^b (1+\gamma[\mathrm{Fe/H}])$ with best-fit $a=10.54$, $b=0.44$, $\gamma=-0.92$ from the APOKASC-3 sample, is a sufficient common anchor to cross-calibrate gyrochronology and [C/N] age dating. For gyrochronology, the authors combine this AVR with a classical power-law rotation–age–color relation $P_{\mathrm{rot}} = c\,\tau^d((G_{\mathrm{BP}}-G_{\mathrm{RP}})-0.55)^f$, fit the resulting $\sigma_{v_z}$–$P_{\mathrm{rot}}$ relations per color bin, and invert to get age. For [C/N], they combine the AVR with a second-order polynomial in [C/N] and [Fe/H] and fit the parameters to the velocity dispersions of about 110,000 APOGEE giants. They find that after applying a $0.64$ Gyr additive offset to [C/N] ages and $-0.20$ Gyr to gyrochronology ages, the two methods recover the same ages for open clusters and agree with asteroseismic ages within the quoted uncertainties. They also map the valid parameter space: gyrochronology applies to partially convective stars that have converged onto the slow-rotating sequence before weakened magnetic braking, and [C/N] applies to giants with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] > -0.8$ and $[\mathrm{C/N}] < -0.05$ dex, extendable to $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1$ for low-$\alpha$ disk stars.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calibration rests on the premise that one and the same relation between stellar age and the spread of vertical motions, fitted to the nearby APOKASC-3 stars, holds for every other stellar population used in the paper, even though those populations are not all located in the same part of the Galaxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gyrochronology can be extended to all partially convective stars that have converged onto the slow-rotating sequence and have not yet reached the weakened-magnetic-braking threshold, including fully convective stars.
  • [C/N] can serve as an age indicator for giants with [Fe/H] above −0.8 and [C/N] below −0.05 dex, and down to [Fe/H] = −1 for low-α disk stars.
  • Using the same AVR anchor removes the need for each method to be calibrated against open clusters or asteroseismology directly; a single kinematic relation can serve as the common calibrator.
  • After applying the derived offsets, [C/N] and gyrochronology ages agree with asteroseismic, wide-binary, and open-cluster ages, indicating that the two methods are on a consistent physical scale.
  • The purely observational σᵥᵦ–Pᵣₒₜ and σᵥᵦ–[C/N] relations can be used to test stellar spin-down models and mixing or merger scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the AVR is indeed universal, the same anchoring approach could be applied to other age indicators such as lithium depletion or isochrone fitting, so that all stellar ages in a survey sit on one mutually consistent scale.
  • The kinematic detection of the intermediate period gap and weakened magnetic braking as bumps in the σᵥᵦ–Pᵣₒₜ plane suggests a direct observational test for angular-momentum transport models: matching the mass- and age-dependent stalling timescales implied by the bumps.
  • The claim that [C/N] flattens above −0.05 dex and that high-[C/N], super-solar metallicity giants are likely merger products is testable with radial-velocity monitoring or asteroseismic masses to confirm the merger interpretation.
  • The bias between [C/N] and gyrochronology ages, although corrected, might vary with metallicity and age; using co-moving pairs or clusters with a wider range of properties could map out that dependence and turn the calibration into a fully empirical scale.
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 proposes a common-anchor calibration of gyrochronology and [C/N]-based stellar ages using the age-velocity-dispersion relation (AVR). Section 3 fits a metallicity-dependent AVR, σ_vz(τ,[Fe/H]) = a τ^b (1 + γ[Fe/H]), to the APOKASC-3 asteroseismic sample; Section 3.2 calibrates gyrochronology by fitting Prot–σ_vz relations in color bins; Section 3.3 calibrates a [C/N]–age relation in metallicity bins. Section 4 uses these relations to map the parameter spaces where each method works, finding features associated with weakened magnetic braking, the fully convective boundary, the intermediate period gap, and [C/N] saturation at high [C/N] and low metallicity. Section 5 validates the calibrated ages by recovering the AVR, comparing with APOKASC-3 and LEGACY asteroseismic ages, wide binaries, and open clusters. The authors conclude that [C/N] and gyrochronology ages agree within uncertainty after accounting for systematic offsets of 0.64 Gyr and -0.20 Gyr.

Significance. If the calibration is valid, the paper is a valuable contribution: it provides a large-sample, empirically grounded map of where gyrochronology and [C/N] dating break down, reports an interesting field-star kinematic signature of weakened magnetic braking, and produces calibrated relations usable beyond the open-cluster and asteroseismic calibrator domains. The gyrochronology checks against 417 wide binaries and 33 open clusters are genuinely external, and the authors are transparent about the core assumption that the AVR is the same for all samples. However, the central cross-calibration claim is weakened by a circularity concern: both indicators are inverted from the same locally fit AVR, and the quoted offsets are derived from the comparison to the same APOKASC-3 catalog used for the calibration. The direct cross-method evidence is also thin, resting on only 3 wide-binary pairs and 5 open clusters with both indicators.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Figure 8] The agreement with APOKASC-3 shown in Figure 8 is partly an in-sample consistency check: APOKASC-3 is the catalog used to fit the AVR in Eq. (4) and hence to calibrate both the gyrochronology and [C/N] relations. The offsets 0.64 Gyr ([C/N]) and -0.20 Gyr (gyro) are fitted to this same comparison and then subtracted in Figures 9 and 10, so the abstract's claim that the two age scales 'agree within uncertainty after accounting for systematic offsets' is not an independent validation of the common anchor. I request either a cross-validation split (fit the AVR on one APOKASC-3 subset and compare ages on a disjoint subset), a report of the agreement without any offset subtraction, or an external test whose offsets are not derived from the calibrator catalog.
  2. [§3 and §6] The paper's largest assumption is the universality of the APOKASC-3 AVR across Galactic location. Because the gyrochronology sample is local (<~0.5 kpc) while the [C/N] giant sample covers the full APOGEE disk, a radius- or height-dependent AVR would bias the [C/N] ages while leaving the gyro scale local, and the fitted offsets in §5.2 could absorb exactly this common-mode error. The authors acknowledge this in Sections 3 and 6, but the acknowledgment does not reduce the load that the assumption carries for the central claim. Please add a direct test, for example splitting the [C/N] sample by Galactocentric radius and/or |z| and showing that the recovered AVR or the inferred ages are stable, or restricting the cross-method comparison to the solar neighborhood and demonstrating agreement without offset subtraction.
  3. [§5.3 and §5.4, Figures 9–10] The direct evidence for cross-method age agreement is very limited: only 3 wide-binary pairs have both a [C/N] age and a gyrochronology age, and only 5 open clusters yield both age indicators. The cluster agreement in the right panel of Figure 10 is achieved only after subtracting offsets determined from the in-sample APOKASC-3 comparison. With this sample size, the categorical conclusion that '[C/N] and gyrochronology ages agree within uncertainty' overstates the empirical support; I recommend rephrasing the claim to describe consistency after applying offsets derived from the APOKASC-3 calibration, and explicitly reporting the precision of the direct cross-method comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The sentence 'We then fitted for a, b, and c' refers to parameters a, b, and γ in Eq. (4); please use consistent notation.
  2. [§2.2] The first selection bullet is missing its bullet marker and the second bullet begins with a stray period; please clean up the list formatting.
  3. [§3.2] The text says 'we divided the rotation period data into 8 bins in GBP−GRP', but the procedure is 8 color bins each subdivided into 49 period bins; please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§4.4.1 and §7] The reference to 'Figure 4 (d)' for the RC-versus-lower-RGB [C/N] difference appears to be a typo; the correct figure is Figure 6(d).
  5. [§6] The name 'Nancy Romen Space Telescope' should be 'Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope'.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Both age scales are inverted from the same APOKASC-3 AVR, and the 'recovered AVR' plus offset-corrected cross-agreement are largely built into the calibration.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Recovering the Age-Velocity-Dispersion Relations), Figure 7]
    "Since we calibrated the age methods using the AVR, we wanted to ensure we could reproduce the AVR from APOKASC–3 with our calibrated ages."

    Both calibrated age relations are explicit inversions of the same fitted AVR. Equation 7 sets ln(age) = (Intercept + Slope x ln(Prot) - ln a)/b, and Equation 10 sets age = [(s'0 + s'1[C/N] + s'2[C/N]^2 + s'3[C/N][Fe/H])(1 + s'4[Fe/H]) / (a(1 + gamma[Fe/H]))]^(1/b), where a, b, and gamma are the parameters of the AVR fitted to APOKASC-3 in Equation 4. Therefore the 'recovered' AVR in Figure 7 is the very same a*tau^b*(1+gamma[Fe/H]) used to define the ages; any monotone mapping from an observable to sigma_vz will reproduce the input AVR by construction. The agreement among the three curves is a tautological consistency check, not an independent validation of the anchor.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 and Section 5.2, Figure 8 (left panel)]
    "As we wanted to calibrate both [C/N] ages and gyrochronology to the APOKASC–3 sample, we first determined the vertical velocity dispersion relation ... For the [C/N] ages (left plot), we compared them with the APOKASC–3 sample."

    The absolute age scale of the [C/N] calibration is fixed by fitting a, b, and gamma in Equation 4 to APOKASC-3 ages, and those same values are injected into Equation 10. The subsequent claim in Section 5.2 that the calibrated [C/N] ages 'agree well' with APOKASC-3 is therefore a comparison against the same catalog that set the zero-point and slope of the anchor. The remaining s' coefficients are fitted to sigma_vz as a function of [C/N] in the same local APOGEE/APOKASC population, so the left panel of Figure 8 measures the internal consistency of two fits sharing a common anchor rather than providing an independent asteroseismic test of the [C/N] age scale.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3, Figure 9 caption; abstract]
    "However, correcting for the bias where we subtracted 0.64 Gyr for [C/N] ages and -0.20 Gyr for gyrochronology ages, as determined in Figure 8, seems to achieve a better agreement between [C/N] and gyrochronology ages."

    The abstract's central claim is that 'ages obtained from [C/N] and gyrochronology agree within uncertainty after accounting for systematic offsets.' The offsets are not predicted from first principles; they are fitted from the same APOKASC-3 comparison that anchors both methods. Subtracting these fitted constants before assessing cross-method agreement means the 'agreement' is partly a fitted residual. The 5-cluster comparison in Figure 10 also requires the same bias correction before it shows agreement, so the cross-calibration conclusion depends on offsets that were measured, not derived, and that absorb exactly the common-mode error one would expect if both methods were anchored to the same imperfect AVR.

full rationale

The paper's own equations demonstrate the partial circularity. Both age relations are constructed by inverting the same fitted AVR (Eq. 4: sigma_vz = a*tau^b*(1+gamma[Fe/H])), with a = 10.54, b = 0.44, gamma = -0.92 fit to APOKASC-3. Equation 7 and Equation 10 then solve for age from sigma_vz using those same a, b, gamma. Consequently, Section 5.1's 'recovery' of the AVR is the calibration identity, not a test, and the [C/N]-age comparison against APOKASC-3 in Figure 8 is not an independent zero-point check because the same catalog fixed the anchor. The final cross-method agreement additionally relies on subtracting offsets (0.64 Gyr and -0.20 Gyr) fitted from that same asteroseismic comparison, so the abstract's 'agree within uncertainty after accounting for systematic offsets' is partly a fitted outcome. There are, however, genuinely external validations in the paper: the LEGACY and Li et al. asteroseismic samples for gyrochronology, roughly 417 wide-binary pairs, and 43 open clusters, none of which are part of the training set. These independent checks keep the paper from being wholly tautological and justify a score of 6 rather than 8-10. The paper also honestly flags its own load-bearing assumption in Section 3: 'the biggest underlying assumption is that all our datasets covers similar Galactic region where the averaged AVR produced with these different datasets are similar,' and in Section 6 it concedes that a location-dependent AVR could bias the full-disk [C/N] ages while leaving the local gyro scale unaffected. That limitation is a correctness risk, but the construction problem is real: the shared AVR anchor plus fitted offsets guarantee much of the reported consistency. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is invoked, so the circularity score is driven by the built-in inversion and fitted offsets rather than by citation practice.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of calibration assumptions: a universal power-law AVR, classical functional forms for both age relations, uniqueness of the mappings, and solar metallicity for the gyro sample. These are not derived from first principles; they are adopted from prior literature or fitted to data. The paper discloses the most important caveats (intrinsic scatter, AVR spatial dependence) in Section 6.

free parameters (8)
  • a (AVR normalization) = 10.54 (+0.42/-0.41)
    Fitted to APOKASC-3 ages and velocities in Eq 4; sets the overall age scale for both indicators.
  • b (AVR age exponent) = 0.44 (+0.02/-0.02)
    Fitted in Eq 4; converts velocity dispersion to age in Eq 7 and Eq 10.
  • gamma (AVR metallicity coefficient) = -0.92 (+0.04/-0.04)
    Fitted in Eq 4; controls the metallicity correction in both age formulas.
  • gyro slope and intercept per color bin (8 bins) = Table 1 values (e.g., bin 0.72: slope 1.08, intercept -0.04; bin 0.88: 0.77, 0.56; bin 2.80: 0.91, -0.91)
    Fitted to Prot-sigma_vz relations in each of 8 GBP-GRP bins; define the gyrochronology age mapping in Eq 7.
  • s'_0, s'_1, s'_2, s'_3, s'_4 ([C/N]-age parameters) = 34.59, 59.31, 28.07, 0.75, -0.675
    Fitted to [C/N]-sigma_vz in 16 metallicity bins; used in Eq 10 to convert [C/N] and [Fe/H] into age.
  • sigma_f (extra variance) = MCMC posterior, not quoted in text
    Accounts for underestimated variance in the [C/N] likelihood (Section 3.3).
  • [C/N] age offset = 0.64 Gyr
    Fitted from [C/N] vs APOKASC-3 comparison in Figure 8; subtracted to align cluster ages.
  • gyro age offset = -0.20 Gyr
    Fitted from gyro vs asteroseismic comparison in Figure 8; added to align cluster ages.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Vertical velocity for a star is drawn from a Gaussian with mean 0 and standard deviation sigma_vz(tau, [Fe/H]).
    Used in Eq 1 to build the likelihood; ignores non-Gaussian tails and asymmetric heating.
  • domain assumption The AVR is a pure power law in age with a linear metallicity term, sigma_vz = a tau^b (1 + gamma[Fe/H]), and is identical for all stellar populations used.
    Eq 4 fitted to APOKASC-3 and then applied to the gyro and [C/N] samples without including Galactic radius or height; authors note evidence of flattening at old ages in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Gyrochronology has the classical functional form Prot = c tau^d ((BP-RP)-0.55)^f and the mapping Prot/color to age is unique.
    Eq 5 assumed from Angus et al. (2015); used to derive the age equation (7).
  • domain assumption [C/N]-age relation has the polynomial form tau = s0 + s1[C/N] + s2[C/N]^2 + s3[C/N][Fe/H] and the mapping is unique.
    Eq 8 adopted from Roberts et al. (2024) after dropping small terms; used to derive Eq 10.
  • ad hoc to paper All rotation-period stars are assumed to have solar metallicity in the main fit.
    Section 3.2 states most period stars lack APOGEE metallicities, so the metallicity term in the AVR is dropped, despite the fitted gamma=-0.92 implying a strong metallicity dependence.
  • domain assumption Gyrochronology is applicable only for Prot > 10 days and Rossby number < 1.866, and these cutoffs mark physical regimes.
    Section 3.2 excludes synchronized binaries and weakened magnetic braking stars using cutoff values from prior literature (Saunders et al. 2024); the wings of this assumption affect parameter-space claims.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic scatter around the Prot-age and [C/N]-age relations is negligible.
    Stated as the biggest caveat in Section 6; if scatter is non-constant, the age posteriors are biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anchoring Stellar Age Indicators: A Cross-Calibration of [C/N] and Gyrochronology Ages via the Age-Velocity-Dispersion Relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COOQAF5H

@misc{pith2026250624010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anchoring Stellar Age Indicators: A Cross-Calibration of [C/N] and Gyrochronology Ages via the Age-Velocity-Dispersion Relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COOQAF5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24010}
}
abstract

Determining stellar ages is challenging, as it depends on other stellar parameters in a non-linear way and often relies on stellar evolution models to infer the underlying relation between these parameters and age. This complexity increases when comparing different age-dating methods, as they rely on distinct indicators and are often applicable to non-overlapping regions of the color-magnitude diagram. Moreover, many empirical calibration methods rely on pre-determined ages, often from open clusters or asteroseismology, which only cover a limited parameter space. Fortunately, the age-velocity-dispersion relation (AVR), in which the velocity dispersion increases with age, is a universal feature among stars of all evolutionary stages. In this paper, we 1) explore the parameter space in which [C/N] and gyrochronology are applicable, extending beyond the domains probed by asteroseismology and open clusters, and 2) assess whether the traditionally assumed [C/N] and gyrochronology relations yield ages on a consistent physical scale, after calibrating both using the same AVR. We find gyrochronology can be applied to all partially convective stars after they have converged onto the slow rotating sequence and before they experience weakened magnetic braking; [C/N] can be used to infer ages for all giants with metallicity > -0.8 dex and [C/N] < -0.05 dex, and can be used as an age-indicator down to [Fe/H] of -1 dex if only selecting the low-$\alpha$ disk. Lastly, ages obtained from [C/N] and gyrochronology agree within uncertainty after accounting for systematic offsets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.24010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top row shows the slopes and intercepts for the fit to the σvz-Prot relations in logarithmic space for each GBP − GRP bin. Bottom row shows the physical parameters associated with the spin-down law in Equation 5, derived from the slopes and intercepts. The red solid line shows the classic “Skumanich” spin-down, where d = 0.5, and the blue solid line shows the deming regression result for partially convective stars w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): GBP − GRP-Prot histogram of the full sample of rotation periods obtained from Kepler, ZTF, and TESS. The red dashed line shows the bin edges used to obtain the Prot-σvz relations. The red point shows the example star to infer age. (b): the Prot-vz scatter plot for the color bin the example star is in. The red lines show the bin edges used to obtain the Prot-σvz relation for this color bin. The blue points with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The posterior distribution for the optimized parameters in Equation 9 used to obtain the [C/N]-age relations. σf is a parameter that accounts for the underestimated variance fraction in the likelihood. The data we performed the fitting to can also be visualized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a): Prot–σvz relations for individual GBP − GRP bins using the method described in Section 3.2. (b): Ro–σvz relations, where Ro:=Protτc. Ro is converted from Prot in (a) using the convective turnover time, τc, calculated with a relation described in See et al. (2024).…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The difference in σvz in various color bins between the σvz-age relation determined from our gyrochronology ages in this work and that from APOKASC–3. This is similar to first getting ages with the steps described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: [C/N]-σvz relations in metallicity bins for all giants in plot (a), RC in plot (b), and lower RGB in plot (c). The y-axises are normalized by the metallicity dependence of the AVR to separate the metallicity effect of the [C/N] relations. Plot (d) shows the difference …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: AVRs for stars with solar metallicity (-0.2 dex < [Fe/H] < 0.2 dex) using individual ages obtained using our method. Disagreements could exist where the assumption that there exists an unique age with unique [C/N] and [Fe/H] measurements or unique GBP − GRP and P…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [C/N] (left) and gyrochronology (right) ages calibrated in this work compared to asteroseismic ages (Silva Aguirre et al. 2017; Pinsonneault et al. 2025; Li et al. 2025). The grey points in the right plot show the same points as those in the left for better comparison.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Age validation with wide-binaries from El-Badry & Rix (2018) and Gruner et al. (2023). The gyrochronology ages inferred from our method for the wide-binary pairs agree well with minimal bias and a variance of ∼ 1 Gyr, independent of the differences in GBP − GRP between…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: Recovery of the cluster samples obtained from the literature (Cantat-Gaudin et al. 2020; Hunt & Reffert 2023; Cavallo et al. 2024; Van-Lane et al. 2024). Middle: Same as left but in logarithmic scale. Right: Ages obtained from [C/N] compared to those from rotati…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Summary plots for the tested areas (left column) and limitations (right column) for gyrochronology (top row) and [C/N] ages (bottom row) obtained from this work. The background histograms are the full sample of Kepler+TESS+ZTF periods and APOGEE DR17 selection of gian…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Steinmetz, M., & Eke, V. R. 2003, ApJ, 591, 499, doi: 10.1086/375512 Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.1086/375512 2003

  2. [2]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  3. [3]

    2019, A&A, 631, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935160

    Amard, L., Palacios, A., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935160

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935160 2019

  4. [4]

    Amard, L., Roquette, J., & Matt, S. P. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3038

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3038 2020

  5. [5]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 22

    Andrae, R., Rix, H.-W., & Chandra, V. 2023, ApJS, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 22

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 2023

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    Angus, R., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & McQuillan, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv423 2015

  7. [7]

    D., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al

    Angus, R., Morton, T. D., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3c53

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3c53 2019

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Angus, R., Beane, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab91b2 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab91b2 2020

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Barnes, S. A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 222, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/222

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Casey, A

    Behmard, A., Ness, M. K., Casey, A. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaf1f

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Weiss, L. M. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.14671. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14671

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C., & White, R

    Beyer, A. C., & White, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b0d

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D

    Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/43

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    G., Hillenbrand, L

    Bouma, L. G., Hillenbrand, L. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad855f

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Palumbo, E

    Bouma, L. G., Palumbo, E. K., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2023, ApJL, 947, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc589

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B

    Brook, C. B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B. K., & Freeman, K. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, 894, doi: 10.1086/422709

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    V., et al

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3241

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7093

    Byrom, S., & Tayar, J. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7093

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    H., & van Saders, J

    Cao, L., Pinsonneault, M. H., & van Saders, J. L. 2023, ApJL, 951, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd780

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Langer, G

    Carbon, D. F., Langer, G. E., Butler, D., et al. 1982, ApJS, 49, 207, doi: 10.1086/190796

    1982 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, A&A, 629, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935282

    Casali, G., Magrini, L., Tognelli, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935282

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, AJ, 167, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad07e5

    Cavallo, L., Spina, L., Carraro, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad07e5

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al

    Chaplin, W. J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/1

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Heintz, T

    Chiti, F., van Saders, J. L., Heintz, T. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad856c

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Santos, ˆA. R. G., et al. 2020, Astrophysical Journal, 888, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c24

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Angus, R., David, T., et al

    Colman, I. L., Angus, R., David, T., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2c86 Cort´ es-Contreras, M., Caballero, J. A., Montes, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A206, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451585

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    R., & Pinsonneault, M

    Epstein, C. R., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2014, ApJ, 780, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/159

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023,...

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Gaidos, E., Claytor, Z., Dungee, R., Ali, A., & Feiden, G. A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad343

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.20000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20000

    Gossage, S., Kiman, R., Monsch, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.20000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20000

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grand, R. J. J., Springel, V., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw601

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

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

    Gratton, R. G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2000, A&A, 354, 169

    2000

  32. [40]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1008

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    A., & Janes, K

    Gruner, D., Barnes, S. A., & Janes, K. A. 2023, A&A, 675, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346590

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Hekker, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1554 23

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Robertson, P., Hartigan, P., Oelkers, R

    Holcomb, R. J., Robertson, P., Hartigan, P., Oelkers, R. J., & Robinson, C. 2022, ApJ, 936, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8990

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    Darragh-Ford, E. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab005 IRSA

    Iorio, G., & Belokurov, V. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab005 IRSA. 2022a, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA539 —. 2022b, Time Series Tool, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA538

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    K., Burke, C

    Irwin, J., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/56 Jofr´ e, P., Jorissen, A., Aguilera-G´ omez, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244524

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236, doi: 10.1086/166740

    1988 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03234

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Kordopatis, G., Schultheis, M., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244283

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551, doi: 10.1086/149359 —. 1994, PASP, 106, 553, doi: 10.1086/133416

    1967 doi

  48. [56]

    Lacey, C. G. 1984, MNRAS, 208, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/208.4.687

    1984 doi

  49. [57]

    Li, Y., Huber, D., Ong, J. M. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00971, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.00971

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    R., Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V

    Loebman, S. R., Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/8 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201. https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0201

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.14990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.14990

    Lu, Y., Angus, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hattori, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.14990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.14990

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    2021a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.12003

    Lu, Y., Ness, M., Buck, T., & Zinn, J. 2021a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.12003. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12003

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    L., Sayeed, M., et al

    Lu, Y., Colman, I. L., Sayeed, M., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02962, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02962

    doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    L., Angus, R., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y. L., Angus, R., Curtis, J. L., David, T. J., & Kiman, R. 2021b, AJ, 161, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe4d6

    doi

  55. [63]

    L., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y. L., Curtis, J. L., Angus, R., David, T. J., & Hattori, S. 2022, AJ, 164, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9bee

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    L., See, V., Amard, L., Angus, R., & Matt, S

    Lu, Y. L., See, V., Amard, L., Angus, R., & Matt, S. P. 2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02126-2

    doi

  57. [65]

    C., Vyhmeister, K., Hawley, S

    Lurie, J. C., Vyhmeister, K., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa974d

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Bovy, J., Leung, H

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 489, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1521

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    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

  60. [68]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2830

    Martig, M., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2830

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 3021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2632

    Gilmore, G. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2632

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol

    McKinney, W., et al. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol. 445, Austin, TX, 51–56

    2010

  63. [71]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    S., Strassmeier, K

    Metcalfe, T. S., Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I. V., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0a95

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Petit, P., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., Petit, P., van Saders, J. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.19169

    2025 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    T., et al

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038307

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    2014, ApJL, 781, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L20

    Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., Martig, M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 781, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L20

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    W., Rix, H

    Ness, M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H. W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 114, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/114

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169

    2000 doi

  70. [78]

    H., Elsworth, Y

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y. P., Tayar, J., et al. 2018, Astrophysical Journals, 239, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaebfd

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    H., Zinn, J

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Zinn, J. C., Tayar, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 388, doi: 10.21105/joss.00388

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., G¨ unther, H. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.09926, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.09926

    2023 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D

    Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D. P. 1993, ApJ, 403, 74, doi: 10.1086/172184

    1993 doi

  76. [84]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 24

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    D., Pinsonneault, M

    Roberts, J. D., Pinsonneault, M. H., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae820

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    M., Ballard, S., et al

    Sagear, S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Ballard, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b26

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    Santos, A. R. G., Breton, S. N., Mathur, S., & Garc ´ ıa, R. A. 2021, ApJS, 255, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac033f

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    L., Lyttle, A

    Saunders, N., van Saders, J. L., Lyttle, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1516

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    C., Stassun, K

    Schonhut-Stasik, J., Zinn, J. C., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b13

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    L., Amard, L., & Roquette, J

    See, V., Lu, Y. L., Amard, L., & Roquette, J. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1828

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    Sellwood, J. A. 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.1

    2014 doi

  84. [92]

    R., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al

    Sharma, S., Hayden, M. R., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1086

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    A., et al

    Shetrone, M., Tayar, J., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff66 Silva Aguirre, V., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, Astrophysical Journal, 835, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173 Silva Aguirre, V., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Cassisi...

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  87. [95]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    1951, ApJ, 114, 385, doi: 10.1086/145478

    Spitzer, Lyman, J., & Schwarzschild, M. 1951, ApJ, 114, 385, doi: 10.1086/145478

    1951 doi

  89. [97]

    M., et al

    Spoo, T., Tayar, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5d53

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    A., Imig, J., et al

    Stone-Martinez, A., Holtzman, J. A., Imig, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad12a6

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    A., Yuxi, et al

    Stone-Martinez, A., Holtzman, J. A., Yuxi, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03138

    2025 doi arXiv

  92. [100]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad06ad

    Sun, W., Huang, Y., Shen, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad06ad

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    2025, ApJL, 984, L56, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcd6f

    Tayar, J., & Joyce, M. 2025, ApJL, 984, L56, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcd6f

    2025 doi

  94. [102]

    H., et al

    Tayar, J., Somers, G., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1e

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12230

    Ting, Y.-S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12230

    2025 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea5

    Ting, Y.-S., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, ApJ, 878, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea5

    2019 doi

  97. [105]

    Townsend, R. H. D., & Teitler, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1533

    2013 doi

  98. [106]

    R., Speagle, J

    Van-Lane, P. R., Speagle, J. S., Eadie, G. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12244, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12244 van Saders, J. L., Ceillier, T., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 181, doi: 10.1038/nature16168

    2024 doi arXiv

  99. [107]

    T., Zinn, J

    Warfield, J. T., Zinn, J. C., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd39d

    2021 doi

  100. [108]

    J., Downing, N

    Weiss, T. J., Downing, N. J., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04999, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04999

    2025 doi arXiv

  101. [109]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  102. [110]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599–603

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

    2022

  103. [111]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 1093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3204

    Yu, J., & Liu, C. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3204

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22a5

    Zhang, M., Xiang, M., Zhang, H.-W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22a5

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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