Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Stellar age catalogues can be checked against twin stars born together; this paper uses wide binaries to show that spectroscopic subgiant ages carry honest ~7.5% uncertainties, while a leading photometric catalogue underreports its errors b

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Wide binary tests find Xiang & Rix (2022) subgiant age errors are consistent with reported values, while Nataf et al. (2024) photometric subgiant errors are underestimated by ~2–3×.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection The Nataf+2024 error underestimation is likely real, but the XR22 validation is fragile—drop one of 12 binaries and σz jumps from 0.81 to 2.50. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.08675 v4 pith:DSB2QRGS submitted 2025-10-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

How precisely can we measure the ages of subgiant and giant stars?

Cheyanne Shariat , Kareem El-Badry , Soumyadeep Bhattacharjee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords wide binariesstellar agessubgiantsred giantsage uncertaintiesisochrone fittingspectroscopic abundancesGalactic archaeology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tests whether published age estimates for evolved field stars come with realistic uncertainties. Its benchmark is wide binaries—pairs of stars that formed together, so both components must share the same age. Comparing the two catalog ages in each pair, normalized by the quoted errors, reveals whether the error bars are honest. The result: subgiant ages anchored to spectroscopic metal and alpha-element abundances agree with their reported 5–10% uncertainties, red giant and red clump ages are reliable but only at 25–30% precision, and a photometric subgiant catalogue underestimates its true uncertainties by a factor of 2–3. A reader should care because Galactic archaeology depends on knowing which age estimates can be trusted and at what precision.

Core claim

If two stars formed together, any difference in their catalog ages is a direct measurement of the true uncertainty in those age estimates. Defining z as the age difference divided by the quadrature sum of the quoted errors, the paper finds a scatter of σz ≈ 0.8 for a spectroscopic subgiant sample (after removing one system whose metallicity disagrees at the 3.25σ level), σz ≈ 0.75–1.1 for red giants and red clump stars, and σz ≈ 2.2 for a quality-controlled photometric subgiant sample—meaning that catalogue's errors are underestimated by roughly 2–3 times. The median fractional age uncertainty is 7.5% for the spectroscopic subgiants and 25–30% for the giants. The paper concludes that accurat

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the wide-binary clock: a catalogue of roughly 1.6 million wide binaries within 5 kiloparsecs, built by extending a previous 1-kiloparsec sample, supplies pairs whose members are coeval and share the same initial composition. The test statistic is the uncertainty-normalized age difference z, whose scatter σz should equal 1 if quoted errors are realistic; σz greater than 1 means errors are underestimated, and σz less than 1 means they are overestimated. Each binary thus becomes an independent, model-free calibration experiment for an age catalogue.

Load-bearing premise

That every star pair in the sample is genuinely a binary—two stars born at the same time with the same composition—rather than a chance alignment of unrelated stars.

What would settle it

Recompute σz for the photometric subgiant sample after removing all pairs with chance-alignment probability R greater than 5%; if σz drops to about 1, the claimed 2–3 times error underestimation depends on pairs that may not be coeval.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Subgiant ages derived with spectroscopic metal and alpha-element abundances can credibly reach fractional uncertainties of 5–10%.
  • Photometric subgiant age catalogues should have their formal uncertainties inflated by 2–3 times, or their metallicities replaced with spectroscopic measurements.
  • Red giant and red clump ages from spectroscopic pipelines are calibrated correctly but plateau at roughly 25–30% precision unless asteroseismic or chemical-clock information is added.
  • The extended 5-kiloparsec wide-binary catalogue provides a reusable, model-independent validation set for future age estimates from any survey.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because shared systematics cancel in a twin-pair comparison, even the validated catalogues carry additional absolute age errors from stellar model physics; the σz ≈ 1 results are lower bounds on total uncertainty, not complete error budgets.
  • A simple robustness test—recomputing σz after excluding pairs with chance-alignment probability above a few percent—would show how much of the photometric catalogue's excess scatter depends on possibly spurious pairs; the paper does not report it.
  • The same wide-binary machinery could be applied to ages derived from Gaia XP spectra as those become available, potentially extending validated subgiant ages to many more stars.
  • The paper's logic implies that abundance-ratio 'chemical clock' ages for giants, while honest about their roughly 28% errors, will not beat isochrone ages until the underlying mixing physics is pinned down.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses Gaia wide binaries as an external, model-independent benchmark to test whether age uncertainties reported by three recent catalogs are realistic. For each binary with two components in the same catalog, the authors compute the normalized age difference z (Eq. 1) and its standard deviation sigma_z, comparing to the expected value of unity. They find: (i) Xiang & Rix (2022) subgiant ages are consistent with reported uncertainties after removing one outlier (sigma_z = 0.81, N=11); (ii) Nataf et al. (2024) photometric subgiant ages underestimate uncertainties (sigma_z = 2.23 for the Primary Sample, 2.73 for the full sample); (iii) Wang et al. (2023) giant ages are consistent (sigma_z = 1.08 full, 0.75 for SNR>50). The conclusions emphasize that spectroscopic abundances are essential for precise subgiant ages and advocate wide binaries as a calibration tool.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a useful empirical calibration of age uncertainties for three widely used catalogs, and the Nataf et al. (2024) under-estimation result is an important caution for users. The wide-binary approach is genuinely external to the catalogs, and the full sample table (Table 1) enables reproduction. The negative result for Nataf et al. is statistically robust (sigma_z ~ 2.2-2.7 with N=21-61). However, the positive headline result for Xiang & Rix (2022) rests on excluding 1 of 12 systems, and with only N=11 after exclusion the test has very limited power to validate 5-10% uncertainties. The paper also does not quantify contamination from chance-alignment pairs with non-negligible R values. With additional sensitivity analyses, the central claims could be placed on firmer footing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The claim that Xiang & Rix (2022) subgiant ages are 'generally consistent within their reported uncertainties' depends entirely on post-hoc removal of one binary. Including the 'a' system gives sigma_z = 2.50; excluding it gives sigma_z = 0.81. The stated justification (3.25-sigma [Fe/H] difference, R=2.8e-4) does not rule out a genuine binary with abundance-systematic or unresolved-companion effects. Moreover, with N=11 the standard error on sigma_z is roughly sigma_z/sqrt(2(N-1)) ~ 0.18, so 0.81 is within ~1 sigma of 1. The data therefore do not strongly validate 5-10% uncertainties. Please report the result with the outlier included, and add bootstrap/jackknife or a predefined outlier-rejection rule.
  2. [Table 1, Section 2.2] Chance-alignment contamination is not tested. Several systems used in the main samples have R>0.05 (e.g., W23* rows with R=0.0878 and 0.0510; N24* rows with R=0.0635 and 0.0797). If any of these are optical pairs, they spuriously inflate sigma_z. Since the Nataf et al. under-estimation conclusion is based on sigma_z ~ 2.2-2.7, removing high-R pairs could materially change the inferred inflation factor. Please provide a sensitivity test excluding R>0.05 or R>0.01, or justify why the quoted R values are sufficiently low.
  3. [Table 1, Eq. (1)] At least one W23 row (Gaia DR3 3837150449699070208/3837150518418620032) lists Age2 = 0.00+0.00 with zero lower and upper uncertainty. If included in the sigma_z calculation, the denominator in Eq. (1) is zero and z is undefined; the paper does not state how this entry was treated. Please explain whether such entries were excluded, and confirm that the reported sigma_z = 1.08 for the full W23 sample is robust to their treatment.
  4. [Section 3] The abstract's phrase 'subgiant ages based on spectroscopic metallicities are generally consistent... implying that fractional uncertainties of 5-10% are realistically achievable' overstates what the data can show. For the Wang et al. SNR>50 subsample, sigma_z = 0.75 with N=21 is also statistically indistinguishable from 1. The test as designed can only rule out large under-estimates; it cannot confirm a specific precision floor. Please temper the abstract and conclusions accordingly, or add a formal confidence interval on sigma_z for each subsample.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Figure 1 caption] The abstract states photometric subgiant errors are underestimated by 'factors of 2-3', while the Figure 1 caption says 'factors of ~2-5'. These should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 2.2] '1 arcsecond tolerance' is typographically garbled ('1 '' tolerance').
  3. [Figure 1] The top-left panel marks the XR22 outlier with hollow points, but the bottom-left panel does not show the outlier; the reader cannot visually assess its impact. Consider showing it with an open symbol in the bottom panel as well.
  4. [Section 3] The statement 'We find that the catalog of Xiang & Rix (2022) produces the most consistent subgiant ages' appears before the caveat about outlier removal. Soften or reorder so the caveat is not buried.
  5. [Section 4] The discussion of [C/N]-based ages (Section 4.2) is interesting but somewhat disconnected; it reports sigma_z=1.5 for N=7, which is fully consistent with 1 given small N. A brief sentence noting this lack of statistical power would avoid over-interpretation.
  6. [Table 1] The table uses '0.00+0.00' for some ages/uncertainties; please clarify the rounding convention and whether zero values are physical or placeholders.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the wide-binary benchmark is external to the age catalogs being tested.

full rationale

The paper's central statistic, z = (Age1 - Age2)/sqrt(sigma1^2 + sigma2^2), is evaluated using ages and quoted uncertainties drawn from three external catalogs (Xiang & Rix 2022, Nataf et al. 2024, Wang et al. 2023). The wide-binary benchmark is constructed from astrometry-based common-proper-motion pairs (El-Badry et al. 2021), not from the age catalogs, so the tested quantities are not defined in terms of the outcome. No parameter is fitted to force sigma_z ~ 1, and the catalogs' reported uncertainties were not calibrated against wide binaries. The only self-citation that plays a substantive role, El-Badry et al. (2021), provides the input binary catalog rather than the result itself; its selection is independent of stellar ages and of the conclusions. The exclusion of one XR22 outlier is a robustness/statistical-power concern, not a constructional circularity, because it does not redefine z or the null hypothesis. The paper also acknowledges in Section 4.1 that the test is relative and yields a lower limit on absolute uncertainties. No quoted equation reduces to its own inputs, and the claimed validation is not equivalent to the assumptions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the analysis relies on catalog uncertainties and sample selection thresholds (SNR>50, Primary Sample [Fe/H] range, outlier exclusion). The key assumptions are the physical nature of the wide binaries and the independence of errors.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Components of a wide binary are coeval and share initial chemical composition.
    Used throughout Section 3 to interpret age differences between binary components as measurement noise. Supported by prior literature but not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption The selected pairs are genuine bound binaries rather than chance alignments.
    Entry via the extended wide-binary catalog (Section 2.2). Table 1 lists R values up to ~0.09, but no contamination-sensitivity analysis is performed.
  • domain assumption Quoted uncertainties are treated as independent between the two components.
    Appears in Equation 1 for σz. The paper notes that shared systematics cancel, making the test conservative for detecting underestimation, but this is not quantified.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How precisely can we measure the ages of subgiant and giant stars?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSB2QRGS

@misc{pith2026251008675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How precisely can we measure the ages of subgiant and giant stars?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSB2QRGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.08675}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Precise stellar ages are fundamental to Galactic archaeology. However, obtaining reliable age estimates and uncertainties for field stars has been a long-standing challenge. We test the fidelity of ages from recent catalogs of giants and subgiants using wide binaries, whose components formed at the same time and thus should have consistent inferred ages. We find that subgiant ages based on spectroscopic metallicities from Xiang & Rix (2022) are generally consistent within their reported uncertainties, implying that fractional uncertainties of 5-10% are realistically achievable. In contrast, we find that published photometric subgiant ages underestimate true uncertainties by factors of 2-3. Spectroscopic age estimates for red giant and red clump stars also show reliable uncertainties, but are generally less precise (25-30%). These results demonstrate that accurate chemical abundance measurements are essential for precise subgiant ages and establish wide binaries as a powerful, model-independent benchmark for calibrating stellar age measurements in the era of large spectroscopic surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08675 by Cheyanne Shariat, Kareem El-Badry, Soumyadeep Bhattacharjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Calibrating subgiant and giant star age uncertainties using wide binaries. Top: Kiel diagrams (Teff -log g) for the stars in each sample: Xiang & Rix (2022) subgiants (purple; hollow points show the outlier), Nataf et al. (2024) subgiants (green, red outline for the Primary Sample), and Wang et al. (2023) LAMOST red giants (blue, red outline for SNR> 50). The black points in the background show a randomly … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The Epoch of the GSE Merger: Insights from the Splash and Thick Disk Age Distributions

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Age uncertainties after GSE truncation bias Splash ages older via Eddington bias; the observed peak offset dates the merger to 10.1^{+0.2}_{-0.2} Gyr.

  2. Dawn of the Milky Way disk: Determination of when a rotationally supported disk appears and dating the spin-up of the disk

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The Milky Way disk spin-up to rotationally supported motion occurred at mean age 12.1 Gyr for -1.25 < [Fe/H] < -0.9, traced by high-alpha stars, while low-alpha stars show no transition and start at disk-like velocities.

  3. Stable but Wrong: An Inference Limit in Galactic Archaeology

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In specific regions of observational data quality, stellar age inferences yield a stable but biased Milky Way disk formation timescale offset by 0.5-1 Gyr from independent asteroseismic references.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 678, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346666

    Anders, F., Gispert, P., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346666

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346666 2023

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 2023

  3. [3]

    J., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Andrews, J. J., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Gianninas, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/63 2015

  4. [4]

    J., Anguiano, B., Chanam´ e, J., et al

    Andrews, J. J., Anguiano, B., Chanam´ e, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf502

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf502 2019

  5. [5]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167, doi: 10.1086/519295

    doi:10.1086/519295 2007

  6. [6]

    R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al

    Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al. 2011, Nature, 471, 608, doi: 10.1038/nature09935

    doi:10.1038/nature09935 2011

  7. [7]

    P., Angelou, G

    Bellinger, E. P., Angelou, G. C., Hekker, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 31, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/31

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/31 2016

  8. [8]

    A., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9caa 2020

  9. [9]

    2005, A&A, 442, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053046

    Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., et al. 2005, A&A, 442, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053046

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053046 2005

  10. [10]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    J., et al

    Casagrande, L., Silva Aguirre, V., Schlesinger, K. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2320 Chanam´ e, J., & Ram ´ ırez, I. 2012, ApJ, 746, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/102

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2320 2016

  12. [12]

    H., Naidu, R

    Conroy, C., Weinberg, D. H., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.02989, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.02989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02989 2022

  13. [13]

    R., Kraus, A

    Deacon, N. R., Kraus, A. L., Mann, A. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2132

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2132 2016

  14. [14]

    J., & Belokurov, V

    Deason, A. J., & Belokurov, V. 2024, NewAR, 99, 101706, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

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

    doi:10.1086/424966 2004

  16. [16]

    2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323 2021

  18. [18]

    Elsworth, Y., Hekker, S., Basu, S., & Davies, G. R. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3288 Garc´ es, A., Catal´ an, S., & Ribas, I. 2011, A&A, 531, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116775

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3288 2017

  19. [19]

    A., & Janes, K

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346590 2023

  20. [20]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 1164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3132

    Hawkins, K., Lucey, M., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3132

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3132 2020

  21. [21]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  22. [22]

    A., Littlefair, S

    Hollands, M. A., Littlefair, S. P., & Parsons, S. G. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3729

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3729 2024

  23. [23]

    Kuszlewicz, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2853

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2853 2020

  24. [24]

    A., & Apps, K

    Johnson, J. A., & Apps, K. 2009, ApJ, 699, 933, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/933 Precision of subgiant and giant star ages11

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/933 2009

  25. [25]

    L., & Hillenbrand, L

    Kraus, A. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2009, ApJ, 704, 531, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/531

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/1/531 2009

  26. [26]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 132, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad4a7c L´ epine, S., & Bongiorno, B

    Lares-Martiz, M., Buzasi, D., Oswalt, T., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 132, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad4a7c L´ epine, S., & Bongiorno, B. 2007, AJ, 133, 889, doi: 10.1086/510333

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad4a7c 2024

  27. [27]

    W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J

    Leung, H. W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J. T., & Miglio, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1272

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1272 2023

  28. [28]

    T., Bovy, J., Leung, H

    Mackereth, J. T., Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1521

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1521 2019

  29. [29]

    V., Zacharias, N., & Hennessy, G

    Makarov, V. V., Zacharias, N., & Hennessy, G. S. 2008, ApJ, 687, 566, doi: 10.1086/591638

    work page doi:10.1086/591638 2008

  30. [30]

    E., & Hillenbrand, L

    Mamajek, E. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1264, doi: 10.1086/591785

    doi:10.1086/591785 2008

  31. [31]

    Hilton, E. J. 2013, AJ, 145, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/52

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/52 2013

  32. [32]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2830 2016

  33. [33]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1731

    Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1731

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1731 2015

  34. [34]

    M., et al

    Montes, D., Gonz´ alez-Peinado, R., Tabernero, H. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1295

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1295 2018

  35. [35]

    M., Tayar, J., & Claytor, Z

    Morales, L. M., Tayar, J., & Claytor, Z. R. 2025, ApJ, 986, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add2f5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add2f5 2025

  36. [36]

    Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1503.010. http://ascl.net/1503.010

    2015

  37. [37]

    M., Schlaufman, K

    Nataf, D. M., Schlaufman, K. C., Reggiani, H., & Hahn, I. 2024, ApJ, 976, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4e 2024

  38. [38]

    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

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/114 2016

  39. [39]

    Nissen, P. E. 2015, A&A, 579, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 2015

  40. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6035

    Otani, T., von Hippel, T., Buzasi, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6035

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6035 2022

  41. [41]

    Pagel, B. E. J. 2009, Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    2009

  42. [42]

    H., Elsworth, Y., Epstein, C., et al

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y., Epstein, C., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/19 2014

  43. [43]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty330

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty330 2018

  44. [44]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 1137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2021

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Anguiano, B., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2021

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2021 2016

  45. [45]

    D., Pinsonneault, M

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae820 2024

  46. [46]

    R., Muirhead, P

    Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2010, ApJL, 720, L113, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L113

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/l113 2010

  47. [47]

    L., & Das, P

    Sanders, J. L., & Das, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2490

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2490 2018

  48. [48]

    A., et al

    Shetrone, M., Tayar, J., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff66

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaff66 2019

  49. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 5947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1803

    Silva-Beyer, J., Godoy-Rivera, D., & Chanam´ e, J. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1803

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1803 2023

  50. [50]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806 2010

  51. [51]

    R., et al

    Stello, D., Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2013, ApJL, 765, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L41

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/l41 2013

  52. [52]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad12a6 2024

  53. [53]

    A., Lu, Y., et al

    Stone-Martinez, A., Holtzman, J. A., Lu, Y., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/addd18

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/addd18 2025

  54. [54]

    2018, ApJL, 858, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabf8e

    Ting, Y.-S., Hawkins, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, ApJL, 858, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabf8e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabf8e 2018

  55. [55]

    Twarog, B. A. 1980, ApJ, 242, 242, doi: 10.1086/158460

    work page doi:10.1086/158460 1980

  56. [56]

    2016, A&A, 588, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527259

    Vrard, M., Mosser, B., & Samadi, R. 2016, A&A, 588, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527259

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527259 2016

  57. [57]

    2023, A&A, 675, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245809

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, H. 2023, A&A, 675, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245809

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245809 2023

  58. [58]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aded16

    Wang, J.-H., Xiang, M., Zhang, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aded16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aded16 2025

  59. [59]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 5315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz256

    Wu, Y., Xiang, M., Zhao, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz256

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz256 2019

  60. [60]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5 2022

  61. [61]

    2017, ApJS, 232, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa80e4

    Xiang, M., Liu, X., Shi, J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa80e4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa80e4 2017

  62. [62]

    2001, ApJS, 136, 417, doi: 10.1086/321795

    Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., et al. 2001, ApJS, 136, 417, doi: 10.1086/321795

    doi:10.1086/321795 2001

  63. [63]

    M., Chaboyer, B., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Weisz, D

    Ying, J. M., Chaboyer, B., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Weisz, D. R., & Goebel-Bain, R. 2025, ApJ, 987, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add471

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add471 2025

  64. [64]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/144

    Zhao, G. 2012, ApJ, 746, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/144

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/144 2012

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.