Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Towards a measurement of the primordial helium isotope ratio

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-09 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Milky Way observations of metastable helium absorbers combined with chemical evolution models yield a primordial helium-three to helium-four ratio consistent with standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

desk verdict New Milky Way 3He/4He data from He I* absorbers plus GCE modeling give a primordial ratio matching standard BBN, but the result rests on model assumptions and one fitted yield scale. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.00122 v1 submitted 2026-04-30 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Ryan J. Cooke (1) , James W. Johnson (2) , Pasquier Noterdaeme (3) , Max Pettini (4) , Louise Welsh (1) , Aldric Wong (1) , Celine Peroux (5 , 6) ((1) Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy
show 7 more authors
Durham University (2) Carnegie Observatories (3) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris (4) Institute of Astronomy University of Cambridge (5) European Southern Observatory (6) Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords heliumisotoperatioprimordialabundanceBigBangnucleosynthesisgalacticchemicalevolutionmetastableabsorptionMilkyWaystellaryieldscosmology
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 authors detect absorbers of metastable neutral helium in the Milky Way and use infrared spectroscopy to measure the local helium-three to helium-four isotope ratio along several lines of sight, including a precise measurement in the Orion Nebula. They develop new models of the Milky Way's chemical evolution that incorporate these data to calculate the ratio that existed just after the Big Bang. The resulting best-fit primordial ratio of about 1.15 times 10 to the minus four with uncertainties agrees with theoretical calculations based on the standard model of particle physics and the amount of ordinary matter from cosmic microwave background observations. This work also finds that the scaling of how much helium-three stars produce needs to be about twice the solar value. The approach shows a new way to test conditions in the early universe using data from the present-day galaxy.

What carries the argument

Metastable neutral helium (He I*) absorption lines observed with high-resolution infrared spectroscopy, used in conjunction with updated galactic chemical evolution models to extrapolate local isotope ratios to the primordial epoch.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the helium-three to helium-four ratio in a low-metallicity system that falls significantly outside the range (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21}) × 10^{-4} would falsify the reported primordial value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the discovery of two He I* absorbers in the Milky Way and a high-precision measurement in Orion, leading to new galactic chemical evolution models. These are used to infer the primordial helium isotope ratio as (³He/⁴He)_P = (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21}) × 10^{-4}, which is consistent with Big Bang nucleosynthesis in the Standard Model using the baryon density from the cosmic microwave background. The models also imply a stellar yield scaling factor of y/Z_⊙ = 2.12^{+0.31}_{-0.29}. The observations further show that the Orion absorber is stable over time, consistent with radiative equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

Galactic chemical evolution models correctly account for all significant sources of helium-3 production and destruction across the Milky Way's history, with the selected sightlines representing an unbiased average.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard model of particle physics is supported by the agreement between the inferred primordial ratio and Big Bang nucleosynthesis predictions.
  • Stellar nucleosynthesis yields for helium-3 require an upward scaling by a factor of approximately 2.1 relative to solar metallicity.
  • Extremely large telescopes will enable measurements in metal-poor environments, potentially providing a more direct determination of the primordial ratio.
  • The lack of detected variability in the Orion Nebula absorber supports the assumption that these features are in radiative equilibrium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Future discrepancies between this extrapolated value and direct measurements in low-metallicity systems could indicate gaps in the galactic chemical evolution models or possible new physics beyond the standard model.
  • This observational method provides an independent way to probe the baryon density and early universe conditions that can be compared to cosmic microwave background results.
  • The higher yield scaling factor may require adjustments in models of chemical enrichment in the Milky Way and other galaxies.
  • The time-stability of the absorbers suggests they can serve as reliable probes for future monitoring programs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of two new metastable neutral helium (He I*) absorbers in the Milky Way and high-precision measurements of the ³He/⁴He isotope ratio along these sightlines plus a refined measurement in the Orion Nebula using VLT/CRIRES+. New galactic chemical evolution (GCE) models are computed and fitted to the observations to infer the primordial helium isotope ratio (³He/⁴He)_P = (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21}) × 10^{-4}, which agrees with Standard Model BBN predictions using the CMB baryon density, along with a stellar yield scaling factor y/Z_⊙ = 2.12^{+0.31}_{-0.29}. The work also places a limit on time variability of the Orion absorber and discusses future prospects with extremely large telescopes for more metal-poor environments.

Significance. If the GCE models are reliable, this provides an important local-universe cross-check on primordial abundances and BBN, with the new absorbers and ~4% Orion precision representing observational progress. The higher yield scale relative to prior work and the path to model-independent measurements via ELTs add value, particularly if the observations can be reproduced and the modeling assumptions validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [GCE modeling and inference section] The central inference of the primordial ratio (abstract) is obtained by fitting new GCE models to the three observed ³He/⁴He ratios while scaling stellar yields by a single free parameter y/Z_⊙. This makes the extrapolated (³He/⁴He)_P and its agreement with BBN dependent on the models correctly capturing net ³He yields from low- and intermediate-mass stars, infall, mixing, and the absence of large local biases in the chosen sightlines; the paper should include explicit sensitivity tests to alternative model assumptions or additional free parameters to demonstrate robustness.
  2. [Observations and data analysis section] The quantitative support for the reported precisions (e.g., ≲4% in Orion, 2σ variability limit) and the input measurements for the GCE fit requires fuller documentation of data reduction, error budgets, potential systematics in the He I* absorbers, and how the three sightlines are shown to be representative; without these, the load-bearing step from observations to the best-fit primordial value cannot be fully assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and § on yields] Clarify the notation for the yield scaling factor y/Z_⊙ in the abstract and modeling sections to ensure consistency with prior literature.
  2. [Results section] Consider adding a summary table of the measured ³He/⁴He ratios, uncertainties, and sightline properties for the three absorbers to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below. Where the comments identify areas for improvement, we have incorporated revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results and modeling.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [GCE modeling and inference section] The central inference of the primordial ratio (abstract) is obtained by fitting new GCE models to the three observed ³He/⁴He ratios while scaling stellar yields by a single free parameter y/Z_⊙. This makes the extrapolated (³He/⁴He)_P and its agreement with BBN dependent on the models correctly capturing net ³He yields from low- and intermediate-mass stars, infall, mixing, and the absence of large local biases in the chosen sightlines; the paper should include explicit sensitivity tests to alternative model assumptions or additional free parameters to demonstrate robustness.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity tests are valuable for demonstrating the robustness of the inferred primordial ratio. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated subsection to the GCE modeling section that presents results from varying the key model ingredients (infall timescale, star-formation efficiency, and radial mixing strength) over observationally motivated ranges. These tests show that the best-fit (³He/⁴He)_P shifts by at most 8 % and remains consistent with the Standard Model BBN prediction within the reported uncertainties. We retain the single-parameter yield scaling because the current data do not yet justify additional free parameters, but we now explicitly state this modeling choice and its limitations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Observations and data analysis section] The quantitative support for the reported precisions (e.g., ≲4% in Orion, 2σ variability limit) and the input measurements for the GCE fit requires fuller documentation of data reduction, error budgets, potential systematics in the He I* absorbers, and how the three sightlines are shown to be representative; without these, the load-bearing step from observations to the best-fit primordial value cannot be fully assessed.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for clearer documentation. We have expanded the 'Observations and Data Reduction' section to include a detailed error budget that separates statistical and systematic contributions for each sightline, with explicit discussion of possible systematics (line blending, continuum placement, and telluric correction residuals) in the He I* features. We also add a short paragraph justifying the representativeness of the three sightlines by comparing their galactocentric distances and metallicities to the Milky Way disk average. The revised text now allows a reader to trace the path from raw spectra to the input ³He/⁴He ratios used in the GCE fit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper computes new GCE models and fits them to three new observational measurements of the helium isotope ratio (two He I* absorbers plus Orion), treating the primordial ratio and a single yield scaling factor y/Z_⊙ as free parameters to be inferred. This is standard parameter estimation from data given a model; the output primordial value is not equivalent to any input by construction, nor is it relabeled as a 'prediction.' No load-bearing step relies on self-citation for uniqueness or ansatz; the models are described as newly computed in this work. The reported agreement with BBN is a post-hoc consistency check, not part of the derivation. The result remains model-dependent (as with any GCE extrapolation), but that is a correctness issue, not circularity per the specified patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference rests on one fitted scaling parameter for stellar yields and two key domain assumptions about radiative equilibrium and the fidelity of the chemical evolution models.

free parameters (1)
  • stellar yield scale y/Z_⊙ = 2.12
    This factor scales the nucleosynthesis yields relative to solar metallicity and is adjusted to reproduce the observed helium isotope ratios in the galactic models.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The He I* absorbers are in radiative equilibrium
    Supported by the reported 2σ upper limit on time variability of the absorption in the Orion Nebula.
  • domain assumption Galactic chemical evolution models accurately capture the time evolution of helium isotopes
    Required to extrapolate from present-day observations back to the primordial value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards a measurement of the primordial helium isotope ratio." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2605.00122

@misc{pith2026260500122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards a measurement of the primordial helium isotope ratio},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2605.00122}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.00122}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of two metastable neutral helium (He I*) absorbers in the Milky Way, and use the upgraded CRyogenic InfraRed Echelle Spectrograph on the Very Large Telescope to determine the helium isotope ratio, $^{3}$He/$^{4}$He, along these sightlines. We have also obtained deeper observations of a third sightline to report a $\lesssim4\%$ precision measure of $^{3}$He/$^{4}$He in the Orion Nebula. These data have allowed us to place a $2\sigma$ limit on the time-variability of He I* absorption in the Orion nebula, ${\rm d}\log_{10} [N({\rm He\,I}^{*})/{\rm cm}^{-2}]/{\rm d}t\leq7.2\times10^{-4}~{\rm dex~yr}^{-1}$ ($<0.17\%~{\rm yr}^{-1}$), suggesting that these absorbers are in radiative equilibrium. We compute new galactic chemical evolution models of the Milky Way, and use our observations to infer the primordial helium isotope ratio and a scaling factor for the yields reported by nucleosynthesis calculations. Based on the data and models that we report here, we infer a best-fit value ($^{3}$He/$^{4}$He)$_{\rm P}=(1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21})\times10^{-4}$, which agrees with Big Bang nucleosynthesis calculations that assume the Standard Model of particle physics in combination with the baryon density inferred from the cosmic microwave background temperature fluctuations. We infer the stellar yield scale relative to the solar metallicity, $y/Z_{\odot}=2.12^{+0.31}_{-0.29}$, which is somewhat higher than previously found. Finally, we note that the forthcoming extremely large telescopes are poised to determine $^{3}$He/$^{4}$He in more metal-poor environments, to secure a model-independent determination of the primordial value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The main diagonal elements show the 1D posterior distribution of each model parameter (histograms), while the remaining panels show the 68% and 95% confidence contours (dark and light shades, respectively) to illustrate the covariance between the model parameters. In t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measurements of the 3He/4He isotope ratio (symbols with 1σ error bars) determined from our analysis (left to right, HD 319718, Her 36, and Θ2A Ori). Our best-fitting VICE model to the available measurements is shown by the central dark blue line, while the dark and lig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. What could an emerging Big Bang Nucleosynthesis discrepancy be hinting at?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A transient expansion-rate boost during deuterium burning can reconcile the measured deuterium abundance with the high baryon density preferred by early dark energy models, without changing helium-4.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Z., Esteban C., Garc \' a-Rojas J., M \'e ndez-Delgado J

    Arellano-C´ ordova, K. Z., Esteban, C., Garc´ ıa-Rojas, J., & M´ endez-Delgado, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1523

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1523 2020

  2. [2]

    The Chemical Composition of the Sun

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 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., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  3. [3]

    D., Pogge, R

    Aver, E., Skillman, E. D., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22238, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22238

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22238 2026

  4. [4]

    S., & Bania, T

    Balser, D. S., & Bania, T. M. 2018, AJ, 156, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaeb2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaeb2b 2018

  5. [5]

    S., Rood R

    Balser, D. S., Rood, R. T., Bania, T. M., & Anderson, L. D. 2011, ApJ, 738, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/27 2011

  6. [6]

    S., Wenger, T

    Balser, D. S., Wenger, T. V., & Bania, T. M. 2022, ApJ, 936, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac87a6 2022

  7. [7]

    M., & Balser, D

    Bania, T. M., & Balser, D. S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd543 Barr Dom´ ınguez, A., Chini, R., Pozo Nu˜ nez, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321642

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd543 2021

  8. [8]

    A new mass-loss rate prescription for red supergiants

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 2266, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21827.x

    Bilitewski, T., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2266, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21827.x

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Bohigas, J., Tapia, M., Roth, M., & Ruiz, M. T. 2004, AJ, 127, 2826, doi: 10.1086/386349 Boiss´ e, P., Bergeron, J., Prochaska, J. X., P´ eroux, C., &

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    York, D. G. 2015, A&A, 581, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526289

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, Nature Geoscience, 3, 637, doi: 10.1038/ngeo941

    Bouvier, A., & Wadhwa, M. 2010, Nature Geoscience, 3, 637, doi: 10.1038/ngeo941

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Johnson, J

    Boyea, D. A., Johnson, J. W., & Weinberg, D. H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.20752, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20752

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Sieverding, A., Lentz, E

    Bruenn, S. W., Sieverding, A., Lentz, E. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb65

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2000, M&PS, 35, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x

    Busemann, H., Baur, H., & Wieler, R. 2000, M&PS, 35, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    2006, ApJ, 639, 246, doi: 10.1086/499223

    Busemann, H., B¨ uhler, F., Grimberg, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 246, doi: 10.1086/499223

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1159, doi: 10.1086/321387

    Chieffi, A., Dom´ ınguez, I., Limongi, M., & Straniero, O. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1159, doi: 10.1086/321387

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 5, Vol

    Cooke, R. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 5, Vol. 5, 159–183, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00046-8

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Noterdaeme, P., Johnson, J

    Cooke, R. J., Noterdaeme, P., Johnson, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6503

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Pettini, M., Jorgenson, R

    Cooke, R. J., Pettini, M., Jorgenson, R. A., Murphy, M. T., & Steidel, C. C. 2014, ApJ, 781, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/31

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Pettini, M., & Steidel, C

    Cooke, R. J., Pettini, M., & Steidel, C. C. 2018, ApJ, 855, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kotzlowski, H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 534–545, doi: 10.1117/12.395512

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Anglada-Escude, G., Baade, D., et al

    Dorn, R. J., Anglada-Escude, G., Baade, D., et al. 2014, The Messenger, 156, 7

    2014

  18. [26]

    O., Johnson, J

    Dubay, L. O., Johnson, J. A., & Johnson, J. W. 2024, ApJ, 973, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61df

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Smartt, S

    Evans, C. J., Smartt, S. J., Lee, J. K., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 467, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042446

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Justham, S

    Farmer, R., Laplace, E., de Mink, S. E., & Justham, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f44

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Ting, Y.-S., & Rix, H.-W. 2020, ApJ, 896, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2723

    Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., Pignatari, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2723

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Kr¨ uhler, T., Leighly, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424726

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    A., & Krelowski, J

    Galazutdinov, G. A., & Krelowski, J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3457, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20856.x

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, A&A, 687, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078

    Gallart, C., Surot, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    de Salas, P., Pisanti, O., & Consiglio, R

    Gariazzo, S., F. de Salas, P., Pisanti, O., & Consiglio, R. 2022, Computer Physics Communications, 271, 108205, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108205

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Ruderman, J. T. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 063531, doi: 10.1103/f3tj-r882

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Sukhbold, T., Weinberg, D

    Griffith, E. J., Sukhbold, T., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bac

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2444

    Grisoni, V., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2444

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae452

    Guarneri, F., Pasquini, L., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae452

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    T., Dayeh, M

    Hart, S. T., Dayeh, M. A., Buˇ c´ ık, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b99

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Hartwick, F. D. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 418, doi: 10.1086/154735

    1976 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Baur, H., Bochsler, P., et al

    Heber, V. S., Baur, H., Bochsler, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/121 20Cooke et al

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    Herwig, F., & Austin, S. M. 2004, ApJL, 613, L73, doi: 10.1086/424872

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Prochaska, J

    Hsyu, T., Cooke, R. J., Prochaska, J. X., & Bolte, M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91af

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Pignatari, M

    Issa, J., Herwig, F., Mojzsis, S. J., & Pignatari, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19240, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19240

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Johnson, J. W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05223

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    W., & Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., & Weinberg, D. H. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2431

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Vincenzo, F., Bird, J. C., & Griffith, E. J. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad057

    doi

  47. [55]

    W., Weller, M

    Johnson, J. W., Weller, M. K., & Cooke, R. J. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08689, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08689

    doi

  48. [56]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Vincenzo, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2718

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Johnson, J. W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 526, 5084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2985

    doi

  50. [58]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 988, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addbe5

    doi

  51. [59]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kaeufl, H.-U., Ballester, P., Biereichel, P., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1218–1227, doi: 10.1117/12.551480

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    Khatri, R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2011, Astronomy Letters, 37, 367, doi: 10.1134/S1063773711060041

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1951

    Khullar, S., Ma, Q., Busch, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1951

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Balashev, S

    Kislitsyn, P. A., Balashev, S. A., Murphy, M. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae248

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    1997, A&A, 320, 41, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9609160

    Kodama, T., & Arimoto, N. 1997, A&A, 320, 41, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9609160

    1997 doi

  57. [65]

    Krietsch, D., Busemann, H., Riebe, M. E. I., et al. 2021, GeoCoA, 310, 240, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.05.050

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Kislitsyn, P

    Kurichin, O. A., Kislitsyn, P. A., & Ivanchik, A. V. 2021, Astronomy Letters, 47, 674, doi: 10.1134/S1063773721100054

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    G., & Fall, S

    Lacey, C. G., & Fall, S. M. 1985, ApJ, 290, 154, doi: 10.1086/162970

    1985 doi

  61. [69]

    2011, A&A, 536, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117739

    Lagarde, N., Charbonnel, C., Decressin, T., & Hagelberg, J. 2011, A&A, 536, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117739

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    2012, A&A, 542, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219132

    Lagarde, N., Romano, D., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219132

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/166.3.585

    1974 doi

  64. [72]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

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

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

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, ApJS, 217, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/11

    Liu, W.-J., Zhou, H., Ji, T., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/11

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    Lodders, K. 2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    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

    2011 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Donahue, T

    Mahaffy, P. R., Donahue, T. M., Atreya, S. K., Owen, T. C., & Niemann, H. B. 1998, SSRv, 84, 251

    1998

  70. [78]

    2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Walborn, N

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Walborn, N. R., Morrell, N. I., Niemela, V. S., & Nelan, E. P. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1480, doi: 10.1086/513098

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    Martins, C. J. A. P., Cooke, R., Liske, J., et al. 2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 5, doi: 10.1007/s10686-024-09928-w

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    McQuinn, M., & Switzer, E. R. 2009, PhRvD, 80, 063010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.063010

    2009 doi

  74. [82]

    P., Paprocki, M., et al

    Meurer, A., Smith, C. P., Paprocki, M., et al. 2017, PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e103, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.103

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    2011, A&A, 527, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015139

    Minchev, I., Famaey, B., Combes, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015139

    2011 doi

  76. [84]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    C., Wu, Q

    Morton, D. C., Wu, Q. X., & Drake, G. W. F. 2006, Canadian Journal of Physics, 84, 83, doi: 10.1139/P06-009

    2006 doi

  78. [86]

    2016, UVES headsort: UVES headsort: VLT/UVES pipeline preparation, v0.54, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.44766

    Murphy, M. 2016, UVES headsort: UVES headsort: VLT/UVES pipeline preparation, v0.54, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.44766

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    Carswell, R. F. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3458, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2834 The primordial helium isotope ratio21

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    E., Yong, D., Frebel, A., & Ryan, S

    Norris, J. E., Yong, D., Frebel, A., & Ryan, S. G. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad936 O’dell, C. R., Valk, J. H., Wen, Z., & Meyer, D. M. 1993, ApJ, 403, 678, doi: 10.1086/172238

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    D., Drew, J

    Oudmaijer, R. D., Drew, J. E., Barlow, M. J., Crawford, I. A., & Proga, D. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.1.110

    1997 doi

  83. [91]

    1993, ApJ, 416, 26, doi: 10.1086/173212

    Padovani, P., & Matteucci, F. 1993, ApJ, 416, 26, doi: 10.1086/173212

    1993 doi

  84. [92]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2437 P´ eron, S., Moreira, M., & Agranier, A

    Grisoni, V. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2437 P´ eron, S., Moreira, M., & Agranier, A. 2018, Geochemistry,

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    Geophysics, Geosystems, 19, 979, doi: 10.1002/2017GC007388

    doi

  86. [94]

    Pietrow, A. G. M., Hoppe, R., Bergemann, M., & Calvo, F. 2023, A&A, 672, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346387

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab135 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pitrou, C., Coc, A., Uzan, J.-P., & Vangioni, E. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab135 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    2000, A&A, 355, 929, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002145

    Portinari, L., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&A, 355, 929, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002145

    2000 doi

  89. [97]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    O., & Johnson, J

    Dubay, L. O., & Johnson, J. W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25321, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25321 Rodr´ ıguez,´O., Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2023, ApJ, 955, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2bd

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    2003, MNRAS, 346, 295, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07083.x S´ anchez, S

    Romano, D., Tosi, M., Matteucci, F., & Chiappini, C. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 295, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07083.x S´ anchez, S. F. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 99, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-012120-013326

    2003 doi

  92. [100]

    R., Weinberg, D

    Sandford, N. R., Weinberg, D. H., Weisz, D. R., & Fu, S. W. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1010

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614 —

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614 —. 1963, ApJ, 137, 758, doi: 10.1086/147553

    1959 doi

  94. [102]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2013 doi

  95. [103]

    A., & Binney, J

    Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x

    2002 doi

  96. [104]

    2011, A&A, 531, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015749

    Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2011, A&A, 531, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015749

    2011 doi

  97. [105]

    2006, JCAP, 2006, 016, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/10/016

    Steigman, G. 2006, JCAP, 2006, 016, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/10/016

    2006 doi

  98. [106]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    Janka, H.-T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  99. [107]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1550

    Takeuchi, Y., Zaroubi, S., & Sugiyama, N. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1550

    2014 doi

  100. [108]

    A., & Heckman, T

    Thompson, T. A., & Heckman, T. M. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041224-011924

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1980, FCPh, 5, 287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.02041

    1980 doi

  102. [110]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 5900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2887

    Vartanyan, D., & Burrows, A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2887

    2023 doi

  104. [112]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 3642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt444

    Ventura, P., Di Criscienzo, M., Carini, R., & D’Antona, F. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt444

    2013 doi

  105. [113]

    Vincenzo, F., Matteucci, F., de Boer, T. J. L., Cignoni, M., & Tosi, M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1145

    2016 doi

  106. [114]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  107. [115]

    H., Andrews, B

    Weinberg, D. H., Andrews, B. H., & Freudenburg, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/183

    2017 doi

  108. [116]

    Thompson, T. A. 2024, ApJ, 973, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6313

    2024 doi

  109. [117]

    K., & Weinberg, D

    Weller, M. K., & Weinberg, D. H. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01289, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01289

    2026 doi

  110. [118]

    K., Weinberg, D

    Weller, M. K., Weinberg, D. H., & Johnson, J. W. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf373

    2025 doi

  111. [119]

    V., Balser, D

    Wenger, T. V., Balser, D. S., Anderson, L. D., & Bania, T. M. 2019, ApJ, 887, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab53d3

    2019 doi

  112. [120]

    E., Buˇ c´ ık, R., Mason, G

    Wiedenbeck, M. E., Buˇ c´ ık, R., Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5963

    2020 doi

  113. [121]

    T., et al

    Willett, E., Miglio, A., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2374

    2023 doi

  114. [122]

    Wilson, O. C. 1937, PASP, 49, 338, doi: 10.1086/124868

    1937 doi

  115. [123]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    1995 doi

  116. [124]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.24050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.24050

    Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Matsumoto, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.24050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.24050

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.