Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Optical Spectroscopy Reveals Hidden Neutron-capture Elemental Abundance Differences among APOGEE-identified Chemical Doppelg\"angers

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read APOGEE-identified chemical twin stars carry hidden neutron-capture abundance differences, up to 0.38 dex, visible only in high-resolution optical spectra.

desk verdict A genuinely new result—APOGEE doppelgangers hide n-capture differences—but the paper needs a quantitative resolution of its own Teff-equilibrium caveat before I'd sign off. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16717 v1 pith:B2OEOJHH submitted 2025-08-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Catherine Manea , Melissa Ness , Keith Hawkins , Greg Zeimann , David W. Hogg , Carrie Filion , Emily J. Griffith , Kathryn Johnston
show 4 more authors
Andrew Casey Zoe Hackshaw Tyler Nelson Micah Marks
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords chemicaldoppelgängersneutron-captureelementsline-by-linedifferentialabundanceanalysisAPOGEEhigh-resolutionopticalspectroscopys-processtaggingMilkyWaydisk
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

The paper asks whether infrared survey abundances—specifically APOGEE DR17—are enough to find stars that share a true chemical composition. The authors selected 25 pairs of disk stars that APOGEE reports as chemical doppelgängers, as chemically alike as stars born in the same cluster, and re-observed them at high resolution in the optical, where strong neutron-capture lines are accessible. A line-by-line differential analysis shows that these pairs are indeed twins in the light, alpha, and iron-peak elements, but they differ measurably in the neutron-capture elements yttrium, zirconium, barium, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and sometimes europium, with differences up to 0.38 dex and typically 0.02–0.05 dex beyond what open-cluster pairs show. The conclusion is that APOGEE abundances, despite coming from very high signal-to-noise spectra, do not capture enough chemical dimensionality to guarantee true compositional similarity, and neutron-capture elements carry information about stellar birth environment that lighter elements miss. A reader should care because chemical grouping underpins attempts to reconstruct the Milky Way's formation history, and this result tells us where that method's resolution actually lies.

What carries the argument

The line-by-line differential abundance analysis: for every absorption line shared by the two members of a pair, an abundance difference is measured from the optical spectra, then combined with inverse-variance weighting across lines. This cancels line-list and continuum systematics that would otherwise inflate uncertainties. The analysis is anchored by two references: open-cluster pairs in M67 define the born-together abundance scatter, while random field pairs define the unrelated-star scatter. BACCHUS handles the line fitting, adopting APOGEE's Teff and logg while fitting microturbulence and spectral broadening from the optical data.

What would settle it

For the seven pairs that fail iron excitation balance, especially Pair 35 (which would need a ~130 K temperature shift), re-derive Teff and logg directly from the optical spectra and re-measure differential [La/Fe], [Ce/Fe], and [Ba/Fe]. If those differences collapse to the M67 scatter, the reported neutron-capture differences are artifacts of adopted parameters; if they persist, the result is a true composition difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central empirical claim is that chemical doppelgängers found with APOGEE are generally not doppelgängers in the neutron-capture elements. Using high-resolution optical spectra of 25 such pairs and 11 M67 giants as a conatal reference, the authors measure line-by-line differential abundances for 21 elements. All 25 pairs differ beyond open-cluster scatter in at least one neutron-capture element; the heavy s-process elements Ba, La, and Ce vary most (average 0.03–0.048 dex, up to 0.38 dex in La for Pair 47), light s-process Y and Zr and mixed-element Nd also distinguish many pairs, while r-process Eu distinguishes only one in five pairs. Even including APOGEE's own Ce measurement in the pa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that APOGEE's adopted effective temperatures and surface gravities are accurate enough that any parameter mismatch does not create the measured neutron-capture differences, yet 7 of 25 pairs fail iron excitation balance with the APOGEE temperatures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • APOGEE abundances, even from 17 elements and SNR>300 spectra, are not always sufficient for identifying truly chemically similar stars; neutron-capture elements carry independent information.
  • Optically measured neutron-capture abundances can separate doppelgängers that APOGEE and BAWLAS Ce measurements cannot, because their ~0.08–0.09 dex precision exceeds the typical 0.02–0.05 dex differences.
  • The heavy s-process elements Ba, La, and Ce are the most discriminating among otherwise chemically similar disk stars, while r-process Eu distinguishes only a minority of pairs.
  • The results imply neutron-capture elements evolve semi-independently from lighter elements, and if s-process ratios trace age, they may provide a more reliable chemical clock than [C/N] in some giants.
  • Combining APOGEE with optical surveys that measure s-process elements could improve chemical tagging and studies of disk birth radii and mixing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave open: if s-process differences mostly track age, then [s/alpha] or [s/Al] clocks could expose age differences among stars that [C/N] misses; this could be tested directly with asteroseismic ages for the same pairs.
  • The occasional large Eu differences (up to ~0.1 dex) in pairs with otherwise similar s-process elements suggest rare, spatially patchy r-process enrichment; a larger sample of doppelgänger pairs could map how often such patches appear in the local disk.
  • The 0.02–0.05 dex precision threshold this paper identifies is a practical benchmark: any survey or tagging pipeline that cannot reach it will unknowingly mix stars with different neutron-capture enrichment histories.
  • If birth radius is traced by age and metallicity, the s-process differences at fixed [Fe/H] and [C/N] imply neutron-capture radial gradients steeper than those of lighter elements; measuring s-process differences as a function of birth radius in a larger pair sample would test this.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper identifies 25 pairs of APOGEE DR17 'chemical doppelgängers' (field pairs with a chi^2 chemical-similarity metric below the median intra-cluster value), obtains high-resolution optical Tull spectra, and performs a line-by-line differential abundance analysis for 21 elements, focusing on neutron-capture elements (Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Eu) that APOGEE cannot measure precisely. The authors confirm that the pairs are generally indistinguishable in the light, alpha, odd-Z, and iron-peak elements used for selection, but find that most pairs differ by 0.02-0.05 dex in one or more s-process elements, with a few differences up to 0.38 dex, exceeding the scatter among M67 cluster pairs. They conclude that APOGEE abundances, even from SNR>300 spectra, are insufficient to establish full chemical similarity and that optical neutron-capture abundances add independent information.

Significance. If correct, this result is significant for chemical tagging, Galactic chemical evolution, and ISM mixing studies. The paper has notable strengths: the line-by-line differential method is standard and well suited to the question; the M67 open cluster provides an external homogeneity benchmark; the sample is drawn from high-SNR APOGEE spectra; and the comparison of optical Ce with APOGEE/BAWLAS Ce directly quantifies why APOGEE Ce is insufficient. The central conclusion is plausible and interesting. However, the analysis rests on adopting APOGEE Teff/logg without re-derivation, and the appendix itself flags a subset of pairs for which those parameters fail Fe excitation balance, with no quantitative test that this does not drive the claimed neutron-capture differences. That gap is load-bearing and needs to be closed before the headline result is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix / §3.1] The appendix reports that 7/25 pairs require Teff shifts >25 K to satisfy Fe excitation balance, including ~130 K for Pair 35, yet the claim that 'we see no correlation between a lack of spectroscopic equilibrium satisfaction and the presence of significant s-process abundance differences' is unsupported by any test. Using Table 3's Ce II 4773.9 Å sensitivity (0.03 dex per 100 K in Teff), a 130 K shift changes Ce by ~0.04 dex, comparable to the average doppelgänger-vs-M67 excess (0.02–0.05 dex) and to typical element uncertainties. A quantitative test (e.g., correlation statistic, or re-derivation of Teff for affected pairs) is required to show the n-capture differences are not artifacts of adopted parameter mismatch.
  2. [§4.2 / Table 4] The paper does not tabulate the individual pair-by-pair abundance differences and their uncertainties. The central claims that 'none of the 25 pairs can be considered doppelgänger in all neutron-capture elements' and that 15, 19, 11, 12, 10 pairs differ in Y/Zr, Ba, La, Ce, and Nd, respectively, rely on per-pair values shown only in Figure 4. This is not reproducible or auditable. A machine-readable table with each pair's Δ[X/Fe], uncertainty, and number of lines should be provided.
  3. [§4.2.2 / §4.3 / Figure 6] The 'random chemically unrelated field pairs' comparison sample is constructed by recycling the doppelgänger sample and excluding doppelgänger combinations, and it does not impose the strict ΔTeff < 50 K and Δlogg < 0.1 dex cuts used for the doppelgängers. This makes the baseline dependent on the very sample it is meant to contrast and can bias the quoted 'distinguishing power' of each element. An independent field-pair sample with matched parameter cuts should be used.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / §1] The phrase 'APOGEE lacks access to strong lines of neutron-capture elements' is slightly misleading; APOGEE does have weak Ce, Nd, Rb, and Yb lines, but they are weak and imprecisely measured. Consider rewording to 'APOGEE has access to few, weak lines.'
  2. [Figure 4 / Table 4] Notation is inconsistent: Figure 4 uses 'M67 Doppelgangers' while Table 4 and the text use 'M67 pairs.' Unify the terminology. Also, the truncated rows in Table 2 (indicated by '..') must be fully expanded in the published version.
  3. [§5.3.1] The statement that '[C/N] and [α/Fe] ... are not as effective as [s/α or Al] at identifying coeval stars' is presented as a possibility, but the paper does not directly compare age estimates from [C/N] with those from s-process elements for these pairs. Soften the language or add a direct comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: optical neutron-capture abundances are new independent measurements benchmarked against M67; the APOGEE Teff caveat is a systematic-risk caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central measurement—optical line-by-line differential abundances of Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, and Eu—is independent of the APOGEE values used to select the doppelgängers. The Tull spectra are new data reduced with TSDRP, and abundances are fit with BACCHUS; the M67 cluster pairs provide an external homogeneity benchmark obtained with the same instrument and pipeline. The only APOGEE quantities entering the differential analysis are adopted Teff and logg (Section 3), which are not re-derived. The Appendix explicitly flags that 7/25 pairs require >25 K Teff shifts to satisfy Fe excitation balance and states without a quantitative test that this does not correlate with s-process differences; that is an unresolved systematic/correctness caveat, not a case of a prediction being equal to its input by construction. Including APOGEE Ce in the selection does not make the finding circular: the result is that optically measured Ce differences appear despite small APOGEE Ce differences, and the comparison of APOGEE/BAWLAS Ce precision (0.08–0.09 dex) to the measured optical differences (0.02–0.05 dex) is an independent empirical statement. The N18 doppelgänger definition is a self-cited convention, but it is only a sample-selection tool and is benchmarked against cluster pairs; the central claim does not rest on an unverified uniqueness theorem from the same authors. No equation equates the output to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard stellar atmosphere models, adopted APOGEE stellar parameters, reference open clusters, and a calibrated sensitivity transfer from five representative pairs. None of these are fitted to force the central result; they are the standard machinery of differential abundance analysis.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 1D LTE MARCS model atmospheres and TURBOSPECTRUM synthesis are adequate for differential abundance analysis of red giants
    Section 3.1: BACCHUS synthesizes spectra using MARCS grids and TURBOSPECTRUM, assuming 1D LTE; if NLTE effects differ between pair members, differential abundances could be biased.
  • domain assumption APOGEE DR17 ASPCAP Teff and logg values and uncertainties are accurate enough as inputs to the differential analysis
    Section 3 and Appendix; the Appendix shows 7/25 pairs fail Fe excitation balance with APOGEE Teff, so this assumption is partially violated.
  • domain assumption Gaia-ESO linelist v5 atomic line data are sufficiently accurate for line-by-line differential analysis
    Section 3.1: abundances computed with Gaia-ESO linelist v5; line-by-line analysis cancels static log gf errors, assuming line data errors are smooth across lines.
  • domain assumption M67 and NGC 6819 open clusters are representative of the chemical homogeneity of conatal stars
    Section 2.1: intra-cluster pairs from these clusters define the reference scatter for what 'chemically similar' means; if these clusters are atypically homogeneous, the doppelganger threshold is too strict.
  • ad hoc to paper The sensitivity of line abundances to stellar parameter perturbations estimated from five representative pairs (Pairs 1, 13, 29, 49, 52) applies to all pairs
    Section 3.1.1: differential abundance uncertainties are derived by applying empirical sensitivity relationships from five pairs to all pairs; this is an ad hoc transfer assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Spectroscopy Reveals Hidden Neutron-capture Elemental Abundance Differences among APOGEE-identified Chemical Doppelg\"angers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2OEOJHH

@misc{pith2026250816717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Spectroscopy Reveals Hidden Neutron-capture Elemental Abundance Differences among APOGEE-identified Chemical Doppelg\"angers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2OEOJHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16717}
}
abstract

Grouping stars by chemical similarity has the potential to reveal the Milky Way's evolutionary history. The APOGEE stellar spectroscopic survey has the resolution and sensitivity for this task. However, APOGEE lacks access to strong lines of neutron-capture elements ($Z > 28$) which have nucleosynthetic origins that are distinct from those of the lighter elements. We assess whether APOGEE abundances are sufficient for selecting chemically similar disk stars by identifying 25 pairs of chemical ``doppelgangers'' in APOGEE DR17 and following them up with the Tull spectrograph, an optical, $R \sim 60{,}000$ echelle on the McDonald Observatory 2.7-m telescope. Line-by-line differential analyses of pairs' optical spectra reveals neutron-capture (Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, and Eu) elemental abundance differences of $\Delta$[X/Fe] $\rm \sim 0.020 \pm 0.015$ to $0.380 \pm 0.15$ dex (4--140%), and up to 0.05 dex (12%) on average, a factor of 1--2 times higher than intra-cluster pairs. This is despite the pairs sharing nearly identical APOGEE-reported abundances and [C/N] ratios, a tracer of giant-star age. This work illustrates that even when APOGEE abundances derived from SNR $> 300$ spectra are available, optically-measured neutron-capture element abundances contain critical information about composition similarity. These results hold implications for the chemical dimensionality of the disk, mixing within the interstellar medium, and chemical tagging with the neutron-capture elements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The right ascension vs. declination distribution of our observed sample of APOGEE-identified doppelgängers. Doppel￾gängers are connected with a line and colored by their Gaia DR3 parallax. The Galactic plane is marked in gray and the Galactic anti￾center is marked by a red plus. Doppelgängers span a range of on-sky positions, parallaxes, and on-sky separations and do not appear to be kinematically related. cluster t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Kiel diagram of our sample. Doppelgängers are rep￾resented by circles connected with a line and colored by APOGEE DR17-reported [Fe/H]. Squares represent the observed reference M 67 stars. The background presents field stars from the APOGEE DR17 survey colored by number density. Pairs that lie at the edges of the distribution are labeled for interest. Doppelgängers span the red giant branch with the majority occup… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our measurement of the APOGEE DR17 doppelgänger rate, defined as the rate at which randomly drawn pairs of field stars are as chemically similar as stars born together. This measurement is conducted by identifying the rate at which field stars possess 𝜒 2 values (a metric of chemical similarity, see Equation 1) less than or equal to the median 𝜒 2 value of stellar pairs drawn from within open clusters. The solid bla… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differences in [X/Fe] (or, for Fe, [Fe/H]) for each APOGEE-identified chemical doppelgänger pair (filled circles) determined from our optical Tull spectra. Open circles indicate the equivalent APOGEE DR17-reported values where available. Orange fill indicates the stand…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tull spectra of the a (red) and b (blue) components of Pair 123. This pair differs detectably in [La/Fe] and [Ce/Fe] but not [Nd, Y, or Eu/Fe], and signs of this can be seen in the spectral zoom-ins at the top. Beside these differences, doppelgängers generally share re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average uncertainty-corrected abundance differences among all doppelgängers (filled dark green squares) and just those with Solar metallicity (open green squares). For comparison, we include the equivalent for M 67 pairs (orange squares) and random, chemically unrelate…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison of doppelgängers’ abundance difference (Δ[X/Fe]) in all combinations of elements measured in the optical spectra. In each panel, each pairs’ abundance difference is reflected (shown twice) to illustrate the arbitrary ordering of the two stars. Lines repres…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A comparison of this work’s Δ [Ce/Fe] and those re￾ported by APOGEE DR17 (navy circles) and BAWLAS (red trian￾gles) for chemical doppelgängers in this sample. The one-to-one line is included in solid black. Our results generally agree within mea￾surement uncertainties …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Line-by-line [Fe/H] differences among stars in each doppelganger pair as a function of excitation potential determined from Fe I (black points) Fe II (red circles) absorption lines. The orange line and shaded region represents the best fit line through the black points…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Milky Way Mapper decoded abundances -- I. Shared disc enrichment patterns

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A data-driven decomposition of stellar abundance vectors into four latent patterns identifies distinct contributions from core-collapse supernovae, Type Ia supernovae, and AGB stars across the Milky Way disc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    adobe:ns:meta/

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  5. [5]

    Anders F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.115A 564, A115

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323038 2014

  6. [6]

    R., Fujimoto Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5000A 481, 5000

    Armillotta L., Krumholz M. R., Fujimoto Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5000A 481, 5000

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2625 2018

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Baratella M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A..67B 653, A67

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Bedell M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad908

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Erkal D., Evans N. W., Koposov S. E., Deason A. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty982 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..611B 478, 611

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Belokurov V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1922B 496, 1922

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Yong D., Mel \'e ndez J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735L..46B 735, L46

    Bensby T., Alves-Brito A., Oey M. S., Yong D., Mel \'e ndez J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735L..46B 735, L46

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Bisterzo S., Pompeia L., Gallino R., Pignatari M., Cunha K., Heger A., Smith V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005NuPhA.758..284B 758, 284

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Bisterzo S., Travaglio C., Gallino R., Wiescher M., K \"a ppeler F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...10B 787, 10

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Freeman K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713..166B 713, 166

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Krumholz M. R., Freeman K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713..166B 713, 166

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Bovy J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817...49B 817, 49

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Beers T

    Bovy J., Rix H.-W., Liu C., Hogg D. W., Beers T. C., Lee Y. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753..148B 753, 148

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Kallivayalil N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...31B 833, 31

    Bovy J., Bahmanyar A., Fritz T. K., Kallivayalil N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...31B 833, 31

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Buck T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5435B 491, 5435

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Buder S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4513B 478, 4513

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Buder S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..150B 506, 150

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    arXiv:2409.19858

    Buder S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919858B p. arXiv:2409.19858

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Caffau E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3796C 518, 3796

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Cantat-Gaudin T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..93C 618, A93

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    arXiv:2405.00110

    Carbajo-Hijarrubia J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.00110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240500110C p. arXiv:2405.00110

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Carrillo A., Hawkins K., Jofr \'e P., de Brito Silva D., Das P., Lucey M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1557C 513, 1557

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Fattahi A., Callingham T

    Carrillo A., Deason A. J., Fattahi A., Callingham T. M., Grand R. J. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2165C 527, 2165

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Casali G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..62C 629, A62

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Casali G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A.127C 639, A127

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2506.15546

    Casali G., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250615546C p. arXiv:2506.15546

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    arXiv:2103.14692

    Casamiquela L., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210314692C p. arXiv:2103.14692

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M., Price-Jones N., Bovy J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5573C 506, 5573

    Cheng C. M., Price-Jones N., Bovy J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5573C 506, 5573

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Ciuc a I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528L.122C 528, L122

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Ritter C., Paul A., Wehmeyer B., O'Shea B

    C \^o t \'e B., Belczynski K., Fryer C. L., Ritter C., Paul A., Wehmeyer B., O'Shea B. W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..230C 836, 230

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    C \^o t \'e B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...99C 855, 99

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Cristallo S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...17C 197, 17

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Cristallo S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..105C 859, 105

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Cunha K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7beb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..145C 844, 145

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Z., Sousa S

    Delgado Mena E., Tsantaki M., Adibekyan V. Z., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J. I., Israelian G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..94D 606, A94

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2269E 506, 2269

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., Heintz T. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2269E 506, 2269

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Mac Low M.-M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6efc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890..155E 890, 155

    Emerick A., Bryan G. L., Mac Low M.-M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6efc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890..155E 890, 155

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.513..523F 513, 523

    Feng Y., Krumholz M. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.513..523F 513, 523

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C., Bensby T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...21F 934, 21

    Feuillet D. K., Feltzing S., Sahlholdt C., Bensby T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...21F 934, 21

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    arXiv:2407.18130

    Foster S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240718130F p. arXiv:2407.18130

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA

    2002

  40. [48]

    Frischknecht U., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1803F 456, 1803

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    Fuhrmann K., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...338..161F 338, 161

    1998

  42. [50]

    Gilmore G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.120G 666, A120

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Sarajedini A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Gratton R., Carretta E., Matteucci F., Sneden C., 1996, in Morrison H. L., Sarajedini A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 92, Formation of the Galactic Halo...Inside and Out. p. 307

    1996

  44. [52]

    F., 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres

    Gray D. F., 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres

    2008

  45. [53]

    J., Weinberg D

    Griffith E. J., Weinberg D. H., Buder S., Johnson J. A., Johnson J. W., Vincenzo F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931...23G 931, 23

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Hogg D

    Griffith E. J., Hogg D. W., Hasselquist S., Johnson J. W., Price-Whelan A., Sit T., Stone-Martinez A., Weinberg D. H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241022121G p. arXiv:2410.22121

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    G., Nordlund A ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..951G 486, 951

    Gustafsson B., Edvardsson B., Eriksson K., J rgensen U. G., Nordlund A ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..951G 486, 951

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357–362

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357–362

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Hasselquist S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...81H 833, 81

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    Hawkins K., Masseron T., Jofr \'e P., Gilmore G., Elsworth Y., Hekker S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..43H 594, A43

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Hawkins K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1164H 492, 1164

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..132H 808, 132

    Hayden M. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..132H 808, 132

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9cec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852...49H 852, 49

    Hayes C. R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9cec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852...49H 852, 49

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac839f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...34H 262, 34

    Hayes C. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac839f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...34H 262, 34

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    D., Snaith O., Khoperskov S., G \'o mez A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..113H 863, 113

    Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M. D., Snaith O., Khoperskov S., G \'o mez A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..113H 863, 113

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Feuillet D., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D

    Heged u s V., M \'e sz \'a ros S., Jofr \'e P., Stringfellow G. S., Feuillet D., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Nitschelm C., Zamora O., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.107H 670, A107

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    Heil M., K \"a ppeler F., Uberseder E., Gallino R., Pignatari M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015808 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvC..77a5808H 77, 015808

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

    Heiter U., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A.106H 645, A106

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A

    Helmi A., Babusiaux C., Koppelman H. H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A. G. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563...85H 563, 85

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    R., Ishimaru Y., Wanajo S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaabc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...63H 855, 63

    Hirai Y., Saitoh T. R., Ishimaru Y., Wanajo S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaabc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...63H 855, 63

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    W., Casey A

    Hogg D. W., Casey A. R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.11011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240311011H p. arXiv:2403.11011

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    M., Hogg D

    Horta D., Price-Whelan A. M., Hogg D. W., Johnston K. V., Widrow L., Dalcanton J. J., Ness M. K., Hunt J. A. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16e8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..165H 962, 165

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    Imig J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..124I 954, 124

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889...27J 889, 27

    Ji A. P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889...27J 889, 27

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    Jofr \'e P., Heiter U., Soubiran C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..571J 57, 571

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    C., Gupta S

    Jordan G. C., Gupta S. S., Meyer B. S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.065801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvC..68f5801J 68, 065801

    2003 doi

  68. [76]

    I., Lattanzio J

    Karakas A. I., Lattanzio J. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2014.21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...30K 31, e030

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    I., Lugaro M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...26K 825, 26

    Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...26K 825, 26

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    Kobayashi C., Umeda H., Nomoto K., Tominaga N., Ohkubo T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653.1145K 653, 1145

    2006 doi

  71. [79]

    I., Lugaro M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    Kobayashi C., Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900..179K 900, 179

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    Kos J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.4232K 506, 4232

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    arXiv:2501.06140

    Kos J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250106140K p. arXiv:2501.06140

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    R., Ting Y.-S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3286 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2236K 475, 2236

    Krumholz M. R., Ting Y.-S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3286 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2236K 475, 2236

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    L., 1992

    Kurucz R. L., 1992. pp 225--225

    1992

  76. [84]

    Lian J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.4130L 513, 4130

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    Limongi M., Chieffi A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...13L 237, 13

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    I., Carlos M., Marino A

    Liu F., Asplund M., Yong D., Mel \'e ndez J., Ram \' rez I., Karakas A. I., Carlos M., Marino A. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..696L 463, 696

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    arXiv:2005.07210

    Liu C., et al., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200507210L p. arXiv:2005.07210

    2020 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    T., Yong D., Ting Y.-S., Feltzing S., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2471 , 508, 1227

    Liu F., Bitsch B., Asplund M., Liu B.-B., Murphy M. T., Yong D., Ting Y.-S., Feltzing S., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2471 , 508, 1227

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    Liu F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07091-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.627..501L 627, 501

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.065809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvC..85f5809L 85, 065809

    Longland R., Iliadis C., Karakas A. I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.065809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvC..85f5809L 85, 065809

    2012 doi

  83. [91]

    K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515L..34L 515, L34

    Lu Y., Buck T., Minchev I., Ness M. K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515L..34L 515, L34

    2022 doi

  84. [92]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    K., Buder S., Martell S

    Manea C., Hawkins K., Ness M. K., Buder S., Martell S. L., Zucker D. B., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231015257M p. arXiv:2310.15257

    2023 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    Masseron T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..47M 571, A47

    2014 doi

  87. [95]

    Masseron T., Merle T., Hawkins K., 2016, BACCHUS: Brussels Automatic Code for Characterizing High accUracy Spectra , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1605.004

    2016

  88. [96]

    M., Busson M., Gallino R., Gratton R., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...272..421M 272, 421

    Matteucci F., Raiteri C. M., Busson M., Gallino R., Gratton R., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...272..421M 272, 421

    1993

  89. [97]

    Matteucci F., Romano D., Arcones A., Korobkin O., Rosswog S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2177M 438, 2177

    2014 doi

  90. [98]

    arXiv:2504.18532

    Mead J., De La Garza R., Ness M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250418532M p. arXiv:2504.18532

    2025 doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    Mel \'e ndez J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..29M 543, A29

    2012 doi

  92. [100]

    R., Yong D., Ram \' rez I., Asplund M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...567L...3M 567, L3

    Mel \'e ndez J., Schirbel L., Monroe T. R., Yong D., Ram \' rez I., Asplund M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...567L...3M 567, L3

    2014 doi

  93. [101]

    Molero M., Magrini L., Matteucci F., Romano D., Palla M., Cescutti G., Viscasillas V \'a zquez C., Spitoni E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2974M 523, 2974

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    Monty S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.2420M 533, 2420

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    Nandakumar G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513..232N 513, 232

    2022 doi

  96. [104]

    Nelson T., Ting Y.-S., Hawkins K., Ji A., Kamdar H., El-Badry K., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14be , 921, 118

    2021 doi

  97. [105]

    W., Rix H

    Ness M., Hogg D. W., Rix H. W., Ho A. Y. Q., Zasowski G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...16N 808, 16

    2015 doi

  98. [106]

    Ness M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d8e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..198N 853, 198

    2018 doi

  99. [107]

    K., Johnston K

    Ness M. K., Johnston K. V., Blancato K., Rix H. W., Beane A., Bird J. C., Hawkins K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e3c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..177N 883, 177

    2019 doi

  100. [108]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..52N 579, A52

    Nissen P. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..52N 579, A52

    2015 doi

  101. [109]

    E., Gustafsson B., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-018-0111-3 , 26, 6

    Nissen P. E., Gustafsson B., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-018-0111-3 , 26, 6

    2018 doi

  102. [110]

    Ortigoza-Urdaneta M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.140O 676, A140

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    Pignatari M., Gallino R., Heil M., Wiescher M., K \"a ppeler F., Herwig F., Bisterzo S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1557P 710, 1557

    2010 doi

  104. [112]

    Plez B., 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    2012

  105. [113]

    J., et al., 2020, Technical report, Open Cluster Chemical Homogeneity Throughout the Milky Way

    Poovelil V. J., et al., 2020, Technical report, Open Cluster Chemical Homogeneity Throughout the Milky Way . ( @eprint arXiv 2009.06777v1 )

    2020 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Price-Jones N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.5101P 496, 5101

    2020 doi

  107. [115]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...17P 910, 17

    Price-Whelan A. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...17P 910, 17

    2021 doi

  108. [117]

    Randich S., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.121R 666, A121

    doi

  109. [118]

    Ratcliffe B., Minchev I., Cescutti G., Spitoni E., J \"o nsson H., Anders F., Queiroz A., Steinmetz M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3464R 528, 3464

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

    G., Cignoni M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd53d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..16R 907, L16

    Re Fiorentin P., Spagna A., Lattanzi M. G., Cignoni M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd53d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..16R 907, L16

    2021 doi

  111. [120]

    Reback J., et al., 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.3 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  112. [121]

    Recio-Blanco A., Fern \'a ndez-Alvar E., de Laverny P., Antoja T., Helmi A., Crida A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A.108R 648, A108

    2021 doi

  113. [122]

    E., Tomkin J., Lambert D

    Reddy B. E., Tomkin J., Lambert D. L., Allende Prieto C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06305.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.340..304R 340, 304

    2003

  114. [123]

    G., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952ApJ...116..122R 116, 122

    Roman N. G., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952ApJ...116..122R 116, 122

    1952 doi

  115. [124]

    Serminato A., Gallino R., Travaglio C., Bisterzo S., Straniero O., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS08053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASA...26..153S 26, 153

    2009 doi

  116. [125]

    Shetrone M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..137S 872, 137

    2019 doi

  117. [126]

    J., Collier J., Woolf V

    Simmerer J., Sneden C., Cowan J. J., Collier J., Woolf V. M., Lawler J. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617.1091S 617, 1091

    2004 doi

  118. [127]

    Sinha A., Zasowski G., Frinchaboy P., Cunha K., Souto D., Tayar J., Stassun K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...89S 975, 89

    2024 doi

  119. [128]

    G., Crocker D

    Sneden C., Gratton R. G., Crocker D. A., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...246..354S 246, 354

    1991

  120. [129]

    Souto D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857...14S 857, 14

    2018 doi

  121. [130]

    Souto D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...97S 874, 97

    2019 doi

  122. [131]

    I., Ram \' rez I., Monroe T

    Spina L., Mel \'e ndez J., Karakas A. I., Ram \' rez I., Monroe T. R., Asplund M., Yong D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A.125S 593, A125

    2016 doi

  123. [132]

    Spina L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2580S 474, 2580

    2018 doi

  124. [133]

    Spina L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A..16S 668, A16

    2022 doi

  125. [134]

    Spoo T., Tayar J., Frinchaboy P., Cunha K., Myers N., Donor J., Majewski S., 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting \#240. p. 201.05

    2022

  126. [135]

    X., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...12S 903, 12

    Sun W. X., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...12S 903, 12

    2020 doi

  127. [136]

    M., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..547T 151, 547

    Tinsley B. M., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..547T 151, 547

    1968 doi

  128. [137]

    M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229.1046T 229, 1046

    Tinsley B. M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229.1046T 229, 1046

    1979 doi

  129. [138]

    Travaglio C., Galli D., Gallino R., Busso M., Ferrini F., Straniero O., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...521..691T 521, 691

    1999 doi

  130. [139]

    Travaglio C., Gallino R., Arnone E., Cowan J., Jordan F., Sneden C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..864T 601, 864

    2004 doi

  131. [140]

    G., MacQueen P

    Tull R. G., MacQueen P. J., Sneden C., Lambert D. L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..251T 107, 251

    1995 doi

  132. [141]

    Vincenzo F., Spitoni E., Calura F., Matteucci F., Silva Aguirre V., Miglio A., Cescutti G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487L..47V 487, L47

    2019 doi

  133. [142]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  134. [143]

    L., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240102328V p

    Vitali S., Slumstrup D., Jofr \'e P., Casamiquela L., Korhonen H., Blanco-Cuaresma S., Winther M. L., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240102328V p. arXiv:2401.02328

    2024 doi arXiv

  135. [144]

    Wallerstein G., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962ApJS....6..407W 6, 407

    1962 doi

  136. [145]

    Winckler N., Dababneh S., Heil M., K \"a ppeler F., Gallino R., Pignatari M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..685W 647, 685

    2006 doi

  137. [146]

    E., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS..101..181W 101, 181

    1995 doi

  138. [147]

    Yong D., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1276 , 434, 3542

    2013 doi

  139. [148]

    Yong D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.2181Y 526, 2181

    2023 doi

  140. [149]

    R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp..198Z

    Zhang C., Li Z., Hu Z., Krumholz M. R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp..198Z

    2025 doi

  141. [150]

    arXiv:2103.06377

    de Mijolla D., Ness M., Viti S., Wheeler A., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210306377D p. arXiv:2103.06377

    2021 arXiv

  142. [151]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V 13, 22

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.