pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21682 · v1 · pith:6AHKQTORnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA

The Absolute Age of the Open Cluster NGC 6791 and Its Implications for Galactic Archaeology and Asteroseismic Calibration

George Dufresne , Brian Chaboyer , Rayna Rampalli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 08:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords open clusterNGC 6791stellar isochronesgalactic archaeologyasteroseismic calibrationMilky Way diskmetal-rich starscluster age determination
0
0 comments X

The pith

NGC 6791 formed 8.46 billion years ago with super-solar metallicity, according to Monte Carlo isochrone fits to Gaia photometry and eclipsing binaries.

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

The paper establishes a new absolute age for the open cluster NGC 6791 by generating 10,000 Monte Carlo isochrone realizations that vary composition, distance, reddening, and details of stellar physics, then weighting each realization by how closely its synthetic color-magnitude diagram reproduces the observed main-sequence turnoff and subgiant branch. An independent check uses the properties of detached eclipsing binaries inside the cluster. The resulting age of 8.46 Gyr, paired with the cluster's high metallicity, supports an origin in the inner Galaxy followed by migration outward and supplies a needed anchor point for testing asteroseismic age methods on metal-rich stars.

Core claim

NGC 6791 has an age of 8.46 ± 0.66 Gyr, [Fe/H] = +0.280 ± 0.079, Y = 0.2968 ± 0.0158, (m-M)_V = 13.333 ± 0.058, and E(B-V) = 0.183 ± 0.024. These values come from combining Gaia DR3 photometry with detached eclipsing binary constraints and assessing 10,000 Monte Carlo isochrone sets through a bootstrap-calibrated two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic on synthetic CMDs plus a nearest-point metric in mass-luminosity space for the binaries.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo isochrone sets weighted by bootstrap-resampled two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov comparisons of synthetic color-magnitude diagrams to the observed data, supplemented by a coeval detached-eclipsing-binary statistic.

If this is right

  • The combination of old age and super-solar metallicity favors an inner-Galaxy birth site for NGC 6791 followed by outward migration.
  • The cluster supplies a benchmark for calibrating asteroseismic age estimates at high metallicity.
  • The absolute cluster age-metallicity relation now includes an old, metal-rich open cluster.
  • The error budget contains no single dominant contributor, unlike typical globular-cluster age determinations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Monte Carlo weighting approach could be applied to other open clusters whose ages are currently uncertain because of similar degeneracies between distance, reddening, and model physics.
  • Kinematic data from Gaia for NGC 6791 members could test whether the implied migration orbit is consistent with known dynamical mechanisms in the Milky Way disk.
  • If the models remain accurate at still higher metallicities, the technique may help date individual metal-rich field stars without cluster membership.

Load-bearing premise

The stellar isochrone models and the chosen variations in convective mixing, opacities, diffusion, and nuclear rates correctly describe the behavior of stars at super-solar metallicity without systematic shifts that would change the best-fit age.

What would settle it

Additional detached eclipsing binaries whose measured masses and luminosities fall outside the narrow band allowed by an 8.46 Gyr isochrone at the derived metallicity and distance would falsify the reported age.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21682 by Brian Chaboyer, George Dufresne, Rayna Rampalli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: CMDs of NGC 6791 from Gaia DR3 before (left) and after (right) ridge-line filtering with |d⊥|normalized ≤ 0.05 mag, the median ridge line is included in the right plot in red. (HUGS; GO-13297; A. P. Milone et al. 2018; M. Soto et al. 2017). The footprint covers the central ∼ 2×2 arcmin2 and reaches F606W ≈ 25 with quality-flag information critical for assessing completeness. The overlap with the Gaia data … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ensemble of 10,000 Monte Carlo 8.5 Gyr isochrones generated for this work (gray). The red curve shows the medoid isochrone, defined as the member of the ensemble that minimizes the total cumulative distance to all other isochrones in the (BP−RP, G) plane. The shaded blue region marks the 68% confidence interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between the observed color–magnitude diagram (CMD, left panel) and a well fitting simulated CMD (right panel) obtained from the 2D Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test. The observed CMD is shown in black, while the simulated CMD is displayed in red. The parameters are: age = 8.4 Gyr, µ = 13.24, and E(B − V ) = 0.19. Given the full grid size, we apply an initial screening step to reduce the number of sCM… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bootstrap resampling for the 2D-KS method. The empirical 2D-KS distribution from 10,000 bootstrap resampling. selection, and after keeping only the best distance-modulus and reddening combination for each isochrone, we retain 13,932 well-fitting sCMDs for the remainder of the analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of 2D KS statistics for the synthetic CMD realizations. The left panel shows the full distribution for all ∼ 2.26 × 108 realizations, demonstrating that the vast majority of models provide poor fits to the observed CMD. The right panel shows a zoomed view of the low-KS tail, with the red dashed line marking the adopted 3σ selection threshold derived from the bootstrap distribution and the blac… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bootstrap calibration of the DEB nearest-point statistic, χ 2 DEB, for the adopted M–L fitting scheme using the V18p, V18s, and V20p components. Thin gray curves show the empirical distributions obtained from approximately 100 individual well-fitting reference isochrones, while the colored curves show the combined calibrations used in the analysis. The top panel gives the cumulative distribution functions … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginalized posterior age distributions for NGC 6791 from the sCMD-only, DEB-only, and joint sCMD×DEB analyses. Vertical dashed lines mark the posterior medians. The joint sCMD×DEB solution, which is adopted throughout the remainder of this work, yields a median age of 8.46 ± 0.66 Gyr. 5.2. MC Error Budget Our Monte Carlo framework yields marginalized posterior distributions for the cluster age and all nu… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contributions to the error of the age of NGC 6791 from each Monte Carlo parameter as well as distance and reddening. All the errors are converted to the percentage of error of the age of NGC 6791. The total age error is 7.74%, of which the unexplained residual contributes about 0.33%. = +0.06 ± 0.08, is sufficiently narrow that most realizations map to only a small subset of those tables: 76% use the 0.0 t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: [Fe/H]-Age plane with NGC 6791 and Sun plotted and Rbirth contours shown in color using Rbirth calibrations from Y. L. Lu et al. (2024). From its newly measured age and [Fe/H], NGC 6791 has an inferred Rbirth of 0 kpc, suggesting an inner-disk/bulge origin and a migration of ∼ 8 kpc. Right: [Fe/H]-[α/Fe] plane displaying high- and low-α sequences (thin/thick disks) from sample APOGEE data with NGC 67… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: compares several age estimates for NGC 6791. The detailed frequency-modelling result agrees well with our independently derived cluster age (J. M. McKeever et al. 2019), while the global seismic ages of nominal cluster members show substantially larger star-to-star scatter (J. Tayar & M. Joyce 2025; M. H. Pinsonneault et al. 2025). We do not attempt to identify the origin of that dispersion here. Instead,… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute age vs metallicity plot for 10 Milky Way GCs and NGC 6791. The age of the universe, as measured by Planck Collaboration et al. (2020), is also shown with its 3σ uncertainty. globular clusters and old open clusters at high metallicity, will be necessary to determine whether NGC 6791 represents a continuous extension of the in-situ cluster AMR or instead traces a distinct old open-cluster sequence … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a new absolute age determination for NGC 6791, one of the Milky Way's oldest and most metal-rich open clusters. Its unusual properties make it an important probe of inner-disk evolution and asteroseismic calibration, but its age has remained difficult to determine because of coupled uncertainties in reddening, distance, photometry, and stellar-model physics. Gaia DR3 photometry together with detached eclipsing binaries (DEBs) in NGC 6791 are combined with 10,000 Monte Carlo isochrone sets (marginalizing over uncertainties in composition, convective mixing processes, opacities, diffusion, nuclear reaction-rates, distance modulus, and reddening) to determine the age of NGC 6791. For each isochrone we build a synthetic color-magnitude diagram (CMD) that matches the observed star count in the MSTO and subgiant-branch window and injects empirical photometric scatter perpendicular to the ridgeline, enabling CMD comparisons without artificial-star tests. We assess CMD morphology using a bootstrap-calibrated two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, and add an external check based on the nearest-point metric: a coeval DEB statistic in $(M,L)$ space. These statistics are mapped to probability-density weights via bootstrap-resampling and combined into a single isochrone weight. NGC 6791 is determined to have an age of $8.46\pm0.66$ Gyr, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=+0.280\pm0.079$, $Y=0.2968\pm0.0158$, $(m{-}M)_V=13.333\pm0.058$, and $E(B{-}V)=0.183\pm0.024$. Our error budget shows no single dominant contributor, and highlights differences between open-cluster and globular-cluster age errors. Combined with its super-solar metallicity, our age estimate favors an inner-Galaxy origin for NGC 6791 and subsequent outward migration, provides a benchmark for asteroseismic calibration at high metallicity, and extends the absolute cluster age--metallicity relation to an old, metal-rich open cluster.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims a new absolute age for the open cluster NGC 6791 of 8.46 ± 0.66 Gyr (with [Fe/H] = +0.280 ± 0.079, Y = 0.2968 ± 0.0158, (m-M)_V = 13.333 ± 0.058, E(B-V) = 0.183 ± 0.024) derived from Gaia DR3 photometry and detached eclipsing binaries combined with 10,000 Monte Carlo isochrone realizations. These realizations marginalize over composition, convective mixing, opacities, diffusion, nuclear rates, distance, and reddening; synthetic CMDs are compared via bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS statistics in the MSTO/subgiant region plus a DEB nearest-point metric in (M, L) space, with weights mapped to a joint probability density. The result is interpreted as favoring inner-Galaxy origin followed by outward migration and as a high-metallicity benchmark for asteroseismic calibration.

Significance. If the central age holds, the work supplies a rare absolute anchor for the old, super-solar end of the open-cluster age-metallicity relation and thereby strengthens evidence for radial migration in the Galactic disk. The methodological strengths—large-scale Monte Carlo marginalization over multiple physics inputs, dual independent statistics (2D KS and DEB metric), and an error budget showing no single dominant term—are genuine advances over traditional isochrone fitting and merit citation in future galactic-archaeology and asteroseismology studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Monte Carlo isochrone construction and weighting procedure] The age and parameter posteriors rest on the premise that the chosen ranges of convective mixing, opacities, diffusion, and nuclear rates, together with the base evolutionary code, generate an ensemble whose CMD morphologies bracket the true behavior of stars at [Fe/H] ≈ +0.28. If unvaried systematic errors persist in the high-Z opacity tables or mixing-length calibration, the probability weights assigned via the bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS and DEB metrics will be mis-calibrated and the reported 8.46 ± 0.66 Gyr age can shift outside the quoted uncertainty even though the internal error budget identifies no dominant contributor. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim and requires either expanded physics variations or an external validation test.
  2. [Synthetic CMD generation and 2D KS statistic] The synthetic CMD construction injects empirical photometric scatter perpendicular to the ridgeline to enable direct comparison without artificial-star tests. While this avoids one common source of bias, the effectiveness of the scatter model in the MSTO + subgiant window must be shown to reproduce the observed density distribution at the level required by the bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS statistic; otherwise the weighting can systematically favor isochrones whose morphology matches the scatter prescription rather than the true stellar distribution.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the error budget 'highlights differences between open-cluster and globular-cluster age errors'; a short quantitative comparison (e.g., fractional contributions from distance/reddening versus physics) would make this claim more concrete for readers.
  2. [DEB nearest-point metric] Notation for the DEB nearest-point metric in (M, L) space is introduced without an explicit equation; adding a one-line definition would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive major comments, which identify important assumptions in our methodology. We respond to each point below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Monte Carlo isochrone construction and weighting procedure] The age and parameter posteriors rest on the premise that the chosen ranges of convective mixing, opacities, diffusion, and nuclear rates, together with the base evolutionary code, generate an ensemble whose CMD morphologies bracket the true behavior of stars at [Fe/H] ≈ +0.28. If unvaried systematic errors persist in the high-Z opacity tables or mixing-length calibration, the probability weights assigned via the bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS and DEB metrics will be mis-calibrated and the reported 8.46 ± 0.66 Gyr age can shift outside the quoted uncertainty even though the internal error budget identifies no dominant contributor. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim and requires either expanded physics variations or an external validation test.

    Authors: We agree that the coverage of systematic uncertainties in the input physics is a load-bearing assumption. The ranges adopted (mixing-length parameter varied by ±0.15 around the solar-calibrated value, OPAL/OP opacities with high-Z adjustments drawn from recent tabulations, diffusion included or excluded, and nuclear rates varied within published 1σ uncertainties) follow standard practice for Monte Carlo isochrone studies at super-solar metallicity. Our 10,000 realizations and the resulting error budget (no single term dominating) provide internal support for robustness. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that unaccounted systematics in high-Z opacities or mixing-length calibration could shift the posterior. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (Section 4.3) that (i) tabulates the exact prior ranges and their literature sources, (ii) discusses the limitations of current high-Z opacity tables, and (iii) explicitly states that the quoted uncertainty is conditional on the adopted physics variations. We will also note that a fully independent code comparison lies beyond the scope of the present work but would be valuable for future calibration. This constitutes a partial revision focused on transparency rather than new computations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Synthetic CMD generation and 2D KS statistic] The synthetic CMD construction injects empirical photometric scatter perpendicular to the ridgeline to enable direct comparison without artificial-star tests. While this avoids one common source of bias, the effectiveness of the scatter model in the MSTO + subgiant window must be shown to reproduce the observed density distribution at the level required by the bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS statistic; otherwise the weighting can systematically favor isochrones whose morphology matches the scatter prescription rather than the true stellar distribution.

    Authors: We appreciate this point. The empirical scatter is measured directly from the Gaia DR3 photometric uncertainties of stars in the magnitude range of the MSTO and subgiant branch and is injected perpendicular to the ridgeline to preserve the intrinsic morphology. To demonstrate that this prescription reproduces the observed density distribution at the precision demanded by the bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS test, we will add a new figure (Figure 8) and accompanying text in Section 3.2. The figure will show (i) the observed versus synthetic Hess diagram in the MSTO/subgiant window for the maximum-weight isochrone and (ii) a quantitative residual map together with a supplementary one-dimensional KS test on the magnitude and color marginals. If the residuals are consistent with Poisson noise, this will confirm that the scatter model does not systematically bias the weighting. We will implement this addition in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; age derived from independent data-model comparison

full rationale

The derivation generates 10,000 Monte Carlo isochrone realizations by varying composition, mixing, opacities, diffusion, nuclear rates, distance, and reddening; builds synthetic CMDs matched to observed star counts in the MSTO/subgiant window with empirical scatter; applies bootstrap-calibrated 2D KS statistics plus DEB nearest-point metric in (M,L); and maps the combined statistics to probability weights for the output parameters. This is a standard forward-modeling fit where inputs are varied physics and external photometry/DEB data, and the age 8.46±0.66 Gyr is an output posterior. No equation or step reduces by construction to a fitted quantity renamed as prediction, no self-definitional loop, and no load-bearing self-citation chain that replaces external verification. The method remains self-contained against the Gaia CMD and DEB constraints without importing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stellar evolution models whose parameters are varied in Monte Carlo runs and on the assumption that DEBs provide an independent coeval check. Several quantities including age, metallicity, helium abundance, distance modulus, and reddening are effectively fitted outputs. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • age = 8.46 Gyr
    Primary output parameter determined by weighting the Monte Carlo isochrones against CMD and DEB data.
  • [Fe/H] = +0.280
    Metallicity varied and marginalized over in the isochrone sets.
  • Y = 0.2968
    Helium mass fraction varied in the Monte Carlo ensemble.
  • (m-M)_V = 13.333
    Distance modulus marginalized jointly with reddening.
  • E(B-V) = 0.183
    Reddening marginalized jointly with distance.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution models with varied convective mixing, opacities, diffusion, and nuclear rates accurately represent stars at super-solar metallicity.
    Invoked when generating the 10,000 isochrone sets used for synthetic CMDs.
  • domain assumption The detached eclipsing binaries are cluster members and coeval with the single-star population.
    Used to construct the external nearest-point metric in (M,L) space.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5940 in / 2024 out tokens · 50302 ms · 2026-05-22T08:10:16.071825+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    2016, Physics Letters B, 760, 584, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032

    Platter, L. 2016, Physics Letters B, 760, 584, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.032 2016

  3. [3]

    G., Garc´ ıa, A., Robertson, R

    Adelberger, E. G., Garc´ ıa, A., Robertson, R. G. H., et al. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 195, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.195

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.195 2011

  4. [4]

    Ahmed, N. M. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1469

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1469 2025

  5. [5]

    2007, ACM Trans

    Avidan, S., & Shamir, A. 2007, ACM Trans. Graph., 26, 10–es, doi: 10.1145/1276377.1276390

    work page doi:10.1145/1276377.1276390 2007

  6. [6]

    M., Protopapas, P., Sandvik, H

    Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., Castelli, F., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1038, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08735.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08735.x 2005

  7. [7]

    2006, A&A, 460, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066085

    Anderson, J. 2006, A&A, 460, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066085

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066085 2006

  8. [8]

    R., Salaris, M., Piotto, G., et al

    Bedin, L. R., Salaris, M., Piotto, G., et al. 2008, ApJL, 679, L29, doi: 10.1086/589151

    work page doi:10.1086/589151 2008

  9. [9]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    Belokurov, V., & Kravtsov, A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3920

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3920 2024

  10. [10]

    Bentley, J. L. 1980, Commun. ACM, 23, 214–229, doi: 10.1145/358841.358850 Bijavara Seshashayana, S., J¨ onsson, H., D’Orazi, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349068

    work page doi:10.1145/358841.358850 1980

  11. [11]

    2023, fidanka, 0.5 https://github.com/tboudreaux/fidanka

    Boudreaux, E., & Ying, M. 2023, fidanka, 0.5 https://github.com/tboudreaux/fidanka

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    2011, A&A, 525, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015503

    Brogaard, K., Bruntt, H., Grundahl, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015503

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015503 2011

  13. [13]

    A., Bruntt, H., et al

    Brogaard, K., VandenBerg, D. A., Bruntt, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219196

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219196 2012

  14. [14]

    1970, ApJ, 159, 641, doi: 10.1086/150338

    Canuto, V. 1970, ApJ, 159, 641, doi: 10.1086/150338

    work page doi:10.1086/150338 1970

  15. [15]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 1151, doi: 10.1086/500801

    Carraro, G., Villanova, S., Demarque, P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1151, doi: 10.1086/500801

    work page doi:10.1086/500801 2006

  16. [16]

    1995, ApJL, 444, L9, doi: 10.1086/187847

    Chaboyer, B. 1995, ApJL, 444, L9, doi: 10.1086/187847

    work page doi:10.1086/187847 1995

  17. [17]

    J., Krauss, L

    Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., Kernan, P. J., Krauss, L. M., & Sarajedini, A. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.2.683 18

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/283.2.683 1996

  18. [18]

    M., & Liebert, J

    Chaboyer, B., Green, E. M., & Liebert, J. 1999, AJ, 117, 1360, doi: 10.1086/300794

    work page doi:10.1086/300794 1999

  19. [19]

    1995, ApJ, 454, 767, doi: 10.1086/176529

    Chaboyer, B., & Kim, Y.-C. 1995, ApJ, 454, 767, doi: 10.1086/176529

    work page doi:10.1086/176529 1995

  20. [20]

    2015, PhRvC, 91, 045801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.045801

    Chakraborty, S., deBoer, R., Mukherjee, A., & Roy, S. 2015, PhRvC, 91, 045801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.045801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.91.045801 2015

  21. [21]

    MESA Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST). I: Solar-Scaled Models

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  22. [22]

    2004, A&A, 424, 919, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040470

    Claret, A. 2004, A&A, 424, 919, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040470

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040470 2004

  23. [23]

    V., Johnson, J

    Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L41

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/l41 2015

  24. [24]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 1811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv395 deBoer, R

    Moitinho, A. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv395 deBoer, R. J., G¨ orres, J., Smith, K., et al. 2014, PhRvC, 90, 035804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.035804

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv395 2015

  25. [25]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/424966 2004

  26. [26]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad635

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad635 2018

  27. [27]

    MESA Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST) 0: Methods for the construction of stellar isochrones

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  28. [28]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    work page doi:10.1086/589654 2008

  29. [29]

    2026, isochronetoolbox: Monte Carlo isochrones and synthetic CMD fitting tools,, GitHub repository https://github.com/georgedufresne/isochrone-toolbox

    Dufresne, G. 2026, isochronetoolbox: Monte Carlo isochrones and synthetic CMD fitting tools,, GitHub repository https://github.com/georgedufresne/isochrone-toolbox

    work page 2026

  30. [30]

    Eddington, A. S. 1926, The Internal Constitution of the Stars

    work page 1926

  31. [31]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832756

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832756 2018

  32. [32]

    1987, MNRAS, 225, 155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.1.155

    Fasano, G., & Franceschini, A. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.1.155

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/225.1.155 1987

  33. [33]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642 Fern´ andez-Alvar, E., Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A258, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553814

    work page doi:10.1086/428642 2005

  34. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., & Ness, M. 2019, ApJ, 884, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4254 2019

  35. [35]

    Friel, E. D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 381, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.002121 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.002121 1995

  36. [36]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 121, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/121

    Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., Jackiewicz, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 121, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/121

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/121 2016

  37. [37]

    B., & Demarque, P

    Guenther, D. B., & Demarque, P. 2000, ApJ, 531, 503, doi: 10.1086/308446

    work page doi:10.1086/308446 2000

  38. [38]

    1994, ApJ, 425, 222, doi: 10.1086/173978

    Haft, M., Raffelt, G., & Weiss, A. 1994, ApJ, 425, 222, doi: 10.1086/173978

    work page doi:10.1086/173978 1994

  39. [39]

    H., Allard, F., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 377, doi: 10.1086/306745

    work page doi:10.1086/306745 1999

  40. [40]

    S., & Bodenheimer, P

    Henyey, L., Vardya, M. S., & Bodenheimer, P. 1965, ApJ, 142, 841, doi: 10.1086/148357

    work page doi:10.1086/148357 1965

  41. [41]

    B., & Lampe, M

    Hubbard, W. B., & Lampe, M. 1969, ApJS, 18, 297, doi: 10.1086/190192

    work page doi:10.1086/190192 1969

  42. [42]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348662 2024

  43. [43]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  44. [44]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    work page doi:10.1086/177381 1996

  45. [45]

    Irwin, A. W. 2012, FreeEOS: Equation of State for stellar interiors calculations,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1211.002

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Johnson, J. W. 2000, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1, doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3501 1

    work page doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3501 2000

  47. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab200

    Joyce, M., & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab200

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab200 2018

  48. [48]

    S., & Richer, H

    Kalirai, J. S., & Richer, H. B. 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 368, 755, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2009.0257

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2009.0257 2010

  49. [49]

    2005, AJ, 130, 626, doi: 10.1086/431327 Krishna Swamy, K

    Anderson, J. 2005, AJ, 130, 626, doi: 10.1086/431327 Krishna Swamy, K. S. 1966, ApJ, 145, 174, doi: 10.1086/148752

    work page doi:10.1086/431327 2005

  50. [50]

    Chemo-dynamical reconstruction of Milky Way globular cluster progenitors: Age-metallicity relations and the universality of multiple stellar populations

    Lardo, C., Valcin, D., & Jimenez, R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11814, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11814

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11814 2026

  51. [51]

    1991, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37, 145, doi: 10.1109/18.61115

    Lin, J. 1991, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37, 145, doi: 10.1109/18.61115

    work page doi:10.1109/18.61115 1991

  52. [52]

    H., Merenda, P

    Lindeman, R. H., Merenda, P. F., & Gold, R. Z. 1980, Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman), 444

    work page 1980

  53. [53]

    T., Pryal, M., Hayes, C

    Linden, S. T., Pryal, M., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f17 2017

  54. [54]

    J., Ong, J

    Lindsay, C. J., Ong, J. M. J., & Basu, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac67ed 2022

  55. [55]

    J., Ong, J

    Lindsay, C. J., Ong, J. M. J., & Basu, S. 2024, ApJ, 965, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae5 2024

  56. [56]

    Lu, Y., Buck, T., Minchev, I., & Ness, M. K. 2022, MNRAS, 515, L34, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac065

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac065 2022

  57. [57]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535..392L 535, 392

    Lu, Y. L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2364

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2364 2024

  58. [58]

    E., Schiavilla, R., & Viviani, M

    Marcucci, L. E., Schiavilla, R., & Viviani, M. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 192503, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.192503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.192503 2013

  59. [59]

    2011, PhRvC, 83, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045804 19

    Marta, M., Formicola, A., Bemmerer, D., et al. 2011, PhRvC, 83, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045804 19

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.045804 2011

  60. [60]

    2023, A&A, 680, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347289

    Massari, D., Aguado-Agelet, F., Monelli, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347289

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347289 2023

  61. [61]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18896

    Massari, D., Zerbinati, C., Fanelli, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18896

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18896 2026

  62. [62]

    M., Basu, S., & Corsaro, E

    McKeever, J. M., Basu, S., & Corsaro, E. 2019, ApJ, 874, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c04 2019

  63. [63]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2573

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2573 2018

  64. [64]

    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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2033 2018

  65. [65]

    2012, A&A, 541, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117749

    Mowlavi, N., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117749

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117749 2012

  66. [66]

    K., Johnston K

    Ness, M. K., Johnston, K. V., Blancato, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e3c O’Malley, E. M., McWilliam, A., Chaboyer, B., &

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e3c 2019

  67. [67]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a2

    Thompson, I. 2017, ApJ, 838, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a2 2017

  68. [68]

    Peacock, J. A. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.3.615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/202.3.615 1983

  69. [69]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 168, doi: 10.1086/422498

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168, doi: 10.1086/422498

    work page doi:10.1086/422498 2004

  70. [70]

    H., Elsworth, Y

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaebfd 2018

  71. [71]

    H., Zinn, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef 2025

  72. [72]

    2018, HST UV Globular Cluster Survey (”HUGS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9810F Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Piotto, G. 2018, HST UV Globular Cluster Survey (”HUGS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9810F Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.17909/t9810f 2018

  73. [73]

    M., Kozhurina-Platais, V., et al

    Platais, I., Cudworth, K. M., Kozhurina-Platais, V., et al. 2011, ApJL, 733, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/733/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/733/1/l1 2011

  74. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1

    Sinha, A., Zasowski, G., Frinchaboy, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1 2024

  75. [75]

    2017, AJ, 153, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/19

    Soto, M., Bellini, A., Anderson, J., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/19 2017

  76. [76]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adcd6f 2025

  77. [77]

    T., Morales, L., & Tayar, J

    Theodoridis, A. T., Morales, L., & Tayar, J. 2026, ApJS, 283, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae315a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae315a 2026

  78. [78]

    A., Bahcall, J

    Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828, doi: 10.1086/173695

    work page doi:10.1086/173695 1994

  79. [79]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/72

    Edvardsson, B. 2014, ApJ, 794, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/72 2014

  80. [80]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae4e5

    Assmann, P. 2018, ApJ, 867, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae4e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae4e5 2018

Showing first 80 references.