Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 65 references

Phylogenetic trees applied to chemical abundances separate galaxy evolution models primarily by differences in the mass-loading outflow parameter.

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 ↗

Phylogenetic trees built from flexCE model abundances separate primarily by the outflow mass-loading parameter η, with branches connecting at the most metal-rich tips.

T0 review reviewed 2026-06-27 challenge →

load-bearing objection Phylogenetic trees on flexCE models separate mainly by outflow parameter η, but lack quantitative tree metrics. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.09284 v1 pith:HZ5ONYUA submitted 2026-06-08 astro-ph.GA

Disentangling chemical evolution histories with phylogenetic trees

Rebeca Canales , Paula Jofr\'e , Claudia Aguilera-G\'omez , Payel Das , Robert Yates , Theosamuele Signor , Patricia Tissera , Xia Hua
show 1 more author
Robert Foley
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords phylogenetic treeschemical evolutiongalaxy evolutionmass-loading factoroutflowsflexCEstellar abundances
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 authors test whether phylogenetic trees can recover distinct evolutionary histories from the chemical abundances generated by one-zone flexCE models. They generate 1024 models, add two fiducial cases, build trees from the abundance outputs, and measure how cleanly the trees split the input models into separate branches. Random forest and Shapley analysis then identify which input parameters control the quality of that split. The mass-loading factor eta emerges as the dominant driver because it controls enrichment rates and final abundances. The work shows that chemical elements function as inherited traits across stellar generations, allowing tree methods to extract shared history and rates of change from abundance patterns.

Core claim

Phylogenetic trees built from flexCE chemical abundance vectors cleanly separate models into two branches when the mass-loading outflow parameter eta differs, with branches joining at the most metal-rich tips; eta exerts the strongest control because it governs chemical enrichment rates and total abundances, while star formation rate and mass accumulation affect eta indirectly but show no direct abundance link.

What carries the argument

Phylogenetic trees constructed from chemical abundance vectors of one-zone flexCE models, which treat elements as inherited traits to reveal branch separations driven by model parameters.

Load-bearing premise

Chemical abundances produced by the one-zone flexCE models carry inheritance-like information between generations that is sufficient for phylogenetic trees to disentangle distinct evolutionary pathways.

What would settle it

If models that differ only in eta produce trees whose branches do not cleanly separate the two fiducial inputs, the claim that phylogenetic trees disentangle histories via this inheritance signal would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Different values of eta produce abundance sets whose trees form two distinct branches separating the input models.
  • Star formation rate and mass accumulation modulate the effect of eta but do not produce direct abundance correlations visible in the trees.
  • Branch length and topology encode the rate of chemical evolution, while the join point between branches records shared history.
  • The trees connect at their most metal-rich ends, reversing the pattern typical of biological phylogenies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observed abundance patterns in real galaxies could be placed on such trees to infer whether they share an eta-driven outflow history.
  • The method might be extended to multi-zone or hydrodynamical simulations to test whether spatial structure preserves or erases the inheritance signal.
  • If the metal-rich tip connection persists in data, it would imply a fundamental directionality difference between chemical enrichment and biological descent.
  • Abundance surveys with high precision could be searched for tree-like clustering that correlates with independent outflow measurements.
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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that phylogenetic trees constructed from chemical abundance vectors of 1024 flexCE one-zone chemical evolution models (plus two fiducial models) can separate distinct evolutionary pathways, with random forests and Shapley analysis identifying the mass-loading outflow parameter η as having the largest impact on branch separation due to its role in chemical enrichment.

Significance. If the quantitative separation results hold, the work demonstrates a controlled test of phylogenetic methods on galactic chemical evolution data and highlights the value of interpretable ML (random forests + Shapley) for ranking input parameters in a large model ensemble. The experimental design with 1024 runs provides a reproducible framework for testing method sensitivity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results description: the central claim that the trees 'split the two input models' and that η dominates separation lacks any reported quantitative metrics (e.g., purity scores, silhouette coefficients, or branch-separation statistics), which are required to evaluate whether the phylogenetic approach succeeds beyond visual inspection.
  2. [Results] Methods/results on random forest + Shapley: no cross-validation, out-of-bag error rates, or uncertainty estimates on the feature-importance ranking are provided, so the robustness of the conclusion that η has the 'largest impact' cannot be assessed.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion: the interpretation that phylogenetic trees reconstruct histories because 'information is inherited between generations' is invoked to motivate the method, yet the paper supplies no direct test (e.g., comparison of tree topologies against known inheritance structure in the flexCE outputs) showing that abundance vectors satisfy this premise at a level that justifies the approach over standard clustering.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The statement that 'branches connected through the most metal rich tips' is opposite to biological trees would benefit from a precise definition of tip ordering and a quantitative comparison of metal-rich vs. metal-poor connections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report. The comments highlight areas where additional quantitative support and validation will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results description: the central claim that the trees 'split the two input models' and that η dominates separation lacks any reported quantitative metrics (e.g., purity scores, silhouette coefficients, or branch-separation statistics), which are required to evaluate whether the phylogenetic approach succeeds beyond visual inspection.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics are required to move beyond visual assessment. In the revised manuscript we will report purity scores quantifying how cleanly the two fiducial models are separated on the trees, together with silhouette coefficients and branch-separation statistics for the primary splits. These metrics will be added to both the abstract and the results section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Methods/results on random forest + Shapley: no cross-validation, out-of-bag error rates, or uncertainty estimates on the feature-importance ranking are provided, so the robustness of the conclusion that η has the 'largest impact' cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We accept that the current random-forest and Shapley analysis lacks explicit validation. We will add k-fold cross-validation, report out-of-bag error rates, and supply bootstrap-derived uncertainty estimates (standard errors) on both the feature-importance ranking and the Shapley values. This will allow readers to assess the robustness of the conclusion that η is the dominant parameter. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion: the interpretation that phylogenetic trees reconstruct histories because 'information is inherited between generations' is invoked to motivate the method, yet the paper supplies no direct test (e.g., comparison of tree topologies against known inheritance structure in the flexCE outputs) showing that abundance vectors satisfy this premise at a level that justifies the approach over standard clustering.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes the absence of an explicit test of the inheritance premise. While the observed separation by η is consistent with chemical abundances carrying evolutionary information, we did not directly compare tree topologies against the known parameter structure. In revision we will add a quantitative comparison of the recovered tree topologies with the clustering structure in the input-parameter space and will contrast the phylogenetic results with those obtained from standard clustering (e.g., k-means) on the same abundance vectors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: simulation sensitivity analysis on controlled inputs

full rationale

The paper generates synthetic chemical abundance vectors by running 1024 flexCE one-zone models while varying input parameters (including η), constructs phylogenetic trees on those vectors plus fiducials, and applies standard random-forest + Shapley feature ranking to quantify which parameters most affect tree separation. The headline result that η dominates is the direct numerical output of that supervised ranking procedure; it does not reduce to a tautology, self-definition, or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior work appear in the derivation chain. The biological-inheritance framing is presented only as motivation, not as a premise required for the quantitative result. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that chemical abundances behave like inherited traits and on the flexCE model framework whose parameters are varied but not newly derived here.

free parameters (1)
  • η (mass-loading outflow parameter)
    Identified by random forests as the parameter with largest impact on tree separation; varied across the 1024 models.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Chemical elements encode information that is inherited between generations of stars in a manner analogous to genetic traits.
    Invoked in the final paragraph to justify applying phylogenetic methods to galaxy evolution.

reviewed 2026-06-27 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disentangling chemical evolution histories with phylogenetic trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZ5ONYUA

@misc{pith2026260609284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disentangling chemical evolution histories with phylogenetic trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZ5ONYUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.09284}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Chemical abundances encode the fossil record of galaxy evolution in a complex and diverse way that requires innovative approaches to reconstruct galactic histories. We investigate the power of using phylogenetic methods to disentangle different evolutionary pathways in analytical chemical evolution models. We ran 1024 one-zone chemical evolution models using flexCE. The resulting chemical abundances are combined with those of two fiducial models, mw-fid and dw-fid, and then used both to determine which combinations produce two-branched phylogenetic trees, as well as how purely these trees split the two input models. We used random forests and Shapley analysis to predict which model combinations return well-separated trees and explain which input parameters are most important for this. We also studied the abundance patterns, as well as star formation rates, mass accumulation, and branch lengths. We found that {\eta}, the mass-loading outflow parameter in flexCE, had the largest impact in separating models into separate branches, due to its importance in driving the chemical enrichment rates and total abundances. Star formation rates and mass accumulation had some impact on {\eta}, but no direct relation between these quantities and the abundances was found. We also found that branches connected through the most metal rich tips in our trees, which is opposite to how phylogenetic trees connect in biological systems. Phylogenetic trees help to reconstruct histories when there is information that is inherited between generations, which is the case of the chemical elements in galaxy evolution. Branch topologies can provide information about the rates of evolutionary change of the various populations, and the connection between branches also contains information about their shared history. This work brings us a step further understanding galaxy evolution through cross-disciplinary research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09284 by Claudia Aguilera-G\'omez, Patricia Tissera, Paula Jofr\'e, Payel Das, Rebeca Canales, Robert Foley, Robert Yates, Theosamuele Signor, Xia Hua.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the star formation history (SFH), for both fiducial models, where in green we show the mw-fid and in pink the dwarf-fid model. The SFR for each model was cal￾culated following Eq. 3. We can see that the SFR of the mw-fid is higher than the one from the dwarf-fid at all times. Addi￾tionally, while the SFR of the mw-fid is at its highest at the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Chemical abundance ratios as a function of time for both the mw-fid model (left) and the dwarf-fid model (right). We show the evolution of [O/H] in blue, [Na/H] in red, [Mn/H] in purple, and [N/H] in yellow. can understand why [Mn/H] takes longer to reach its highest value, as SNIae have a delay compared to CCSN. We further￾more see that [Na/H] quickly reaches higher values than [O/H], which might be cause… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phylogenetic tree of mw-fid and dwarf-fid models together. As before, green represents the mw-fid model and pink the dwarf-fid model. and dwarf-fid models. In this case, we can see that the phy￾logenetic tree has two branches, and that each branch contains the data of a different model. Therefore, for this tree, we can say that the NJ algorithm is able to separate the mw-fid from the dwarf-fid model into t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fig.5. The vertical blue line indicates our threshold of good and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Importance of the input features for a random forest modified by Shapley values, which studies the condition P > 0.9 for the models compared to the mw-fid in the upper panel, and for the models com￾pared to the dwarf-fid in the lower panel. therefore, if similar ν values are adopted then trees do not sepa￾rate. However, when the adopted values of ν differentiate more, the trees do not necessarily separate.… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of trees of mw-fid and dwarf-fid models considering uncertainties of 0.15 dex. Top: for mw-fid, bottom: for dwarf-fid. Grid models have gray tips, fid models green for mw-fid and pink for dwarf-fid. Purity is indicated and background is yellow for P < 0.9 and blue for P > 0.9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Abundance planes for the example models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SFR and mass budget as a function of time for the example models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Path length in log scale from tip to central bifurcation as a function of age for the trees shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    X., et al

    Anders, F., Chiappini, C., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A125

    2018

  2. [2]

    H., Weinberg, D

    Andrews, B. H., Weinberg, D. H., Schönrich, R., & Johnson, J. A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 224

    2017

  3. [3]

    A., Mendez, D., Ezzeddine, R., et al

    Barth, N. A., Mendez, D., Ezzeddine, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 129

    2025

  4. [4]

    A., Smith, S

    Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., & Donovan, S. S. 2005, Science, 310, 979

    2005

  5. [5]

    2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 100

    Belokurov, V . 2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 100

    2013

  6. [6]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71

    2014

  7. [7]

    F., Wild, V ., Vale Asari, N., & D’Eugenio, F

    Boardman, N. F., Wild, V ., Vale Asari, N., & D’Eugenio, F. 2025, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 2667

    2025

  8. [8]

    2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

    2022

  9. [9]

    The History of Star Formation in Galaxies

    Brown, T. M., Postman, M., & Calzetti, D. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.4141

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    M., & Hawkins, K

    Buckley, N., Das, P., Jofré, P., Yates, R. M., & Hawkins, K. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1985

    2024

  11. [11]

    E., et al

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, X. E., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e051

    2025

  12. [12]

    K., et al

    Buder, S., Lind, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2407

    2022

  13. [13]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547

    1957

  14. [14]

    J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

    Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165

    2024

  15. [15]

    2021, A&A, 654, A151

    Casamiquela, L., Castro-Ginard, A., Anders, F., & Soubiran, C. 2021, A&A, 654, A151

    2021

  16. [16]

    & Limongi, M

    Chieffi, A. & Limongi, M. 2004, ApJ, 608, 405 Chru´sli´nska, Pakmor, R., Matthee, J., & Matsuno, T. 2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 686, A186

    2004

  17. [17]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 5195 de Brito Silva, D., Jofré, P., Tissera, P

    Das, P., Hawkins, K., & Jofré, P. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5195 de Brito Silva, D., Jofré, P., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 154 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 26...

    2020

  18. [18]

    E., García-Rojas, J., & Arellano-Córdova, K

    Esteban, C., Méndez-Delgado, J. E., García-Rojas, J., & Arellano-Córdova, K. Z. 2022, ApJ, 931, 92

    2022

  19. [19]

    1985, The American Naturalist, 125, 1

    Felsenstein, J. 1985, The American Naturalist, 125, 1

    1985

  20. [20]

    & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Freeman, K. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 40, 487 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2002

  21. [21]

    K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C

    Gibson, B. K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C. B., Stinson, G. S., & Bailin, J. 2013, A&A, 554, A47

    2013

  22. [22]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    2012

  23. [23]

    The heartbeat of stellar halos: Insights from the stellar halo mass-metallicity relation

    Gonzalez-Jara, J., Tissera, P. B., Monachesi, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07780

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 758

    Hawkins, K., Jofré, P., Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 758

    2015

  25. [25]

    2006, in Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, ed

    Heggarty, P. 2006, in Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, ed. P. Forster & C. Renfrew (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research), 183–194

    2006

  26. [26]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    2020

  27. [27]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5671

    2023

  28. [28]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    1999

  29. [29]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 32 Jofré, P., Aguilera-Gómez, C., Villarreal, P., et al

    Jackson, H., Jofré, P., Yaxley, K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 32 Jofré, P., Aguilera-Gómez, C., Villarreal, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A291 Jofré, P., Das, P., Bertranpetit, J., & Foley, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 1140 Jofré, P., Heiter, U., & Soubiran, C. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 571

    2021

  30. [30]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1413

    2010

  31. [31]

    A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 52

    2026

  32. [32]

    S., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Koposov, S., Li, T. S., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 9, 55260

    2026

  33. [33]

    2002, Science, 295, 82

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    2002

  34. [34]

    O., Pérez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., Pérez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 109

    2022

  35. [35]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2006, ApJ, 647, 483

    2006

  36. [36]

    2023, A&A, 669, A119

    Magrini, L., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Spina, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A119

    2023

  37. [37]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  38. [38]

    T., Heckman, T

    Marlowe, A. T., Heckman, T. M., Wyse, R. F. G., & Schommer, R. 1995, ApJ, 438, 563

    1995

  39. [39]

    2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies (Springer) Mészáros, S., Jofré, P., Johnson, J

    Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies (Springer) Mészáros, S., Jofré, P., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 96 Mészáros, S., Masseron, T., Fernández-Trincado, J. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1645

    2012

  40. [40]

    2008, Reviews in Mineral- ogy & Geochemistry - REV MINERAL GEOCHEM, 68, 31

    Meyer, B., Nittler, L., Nguyen, A., & Messenger, S. 2008, Reviews in Mineral- ogy & Geochemistry - REV MINERAL GEOCHEM, 68, 31

    2008

  41. [41]

    K., Johnston, K

    Ness, M. K., Johnston, K. V ., Blancato, K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 883, 177 O’Brien, M. J., Vidiella, B., Duran-Nebreda, S., Bentley, R. A., & Valverde, S. 2025, Biological Theory, 20, 189

    2019

  42. [42]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  43. [43]

    2026, A&A, 705, A106

    Rhee, J., Pichon, C., Dubois, Y ., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A106

    2026

  44. [44]

    2013, masterthesis, Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Sencken- berg

    Ritter, C. 2013, masterthesis, Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Sencken- berg

    2013

  45. [45]

    & Nei, M

    Saitou, N. & Nei, M. 1987, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4, 406

    1987

  46. [46]

    S., Mistry, D., Ortega-Martorell, S., & Olier, I

    Sante, A., Font, A. S., Mistry, D., Ortega-Martorell, S., & Olier, I. 2026, MN- RAS, 547, stag503

    2026

  47. [47]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243 Schönrich, R

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243 Schönrich, R. & McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1154

    1959

  48. [48]

    2024, A&A, 688, A165

    Signor, T., Jofré, P., Martí, L., & Sánchez-Pi, N. 2024, A&A, 688, A165

    2024

  49. [49]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375

    2019

  50. [50]

    M., Grand, R

    Simpson, C. M., Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 548

    2018

  51. [51]

    R., Schweitzer, D

    Smith, R., Gai, M., Stern, S. R., Schweitzer, D. K., & Ahmed, M. W. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 5920

    2021

  52. [52]

    V ., & Kovtyukh, V

    Soubiran, C., Bienaymé, O., Mishenina, T. V ., & Kovtyukh, V . V . 2008, A&A, 480, 91

    2008

  53. [53]

    I., et al

    Spina, L., Meléndez, J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A125

    2016

  54. [54]

    2025, A&A, 702, A267

    Spina, L., Quandt Rodriguez, M., Magrini, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A267

    2025

  55. [55]

    Reconstructing chemical enrichment pathways in disc galaxies: A phylogenetic approach

    Tapia-Contreras, B., Tissera, P. B., Sillero, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.11974

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    F., Battaglia, G., Grand, R

    Thomas, G. F., Battaglia, G., Grand, R. J. J., & Aguiar Álvarez, A. 2025, A&A, 704, A40

    2025

  57. [57]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 229, 1046

    1979

  58. [58]

    B., Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Bower, R

    Tissera, P. B., Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Bower, R. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2208

    2019

  59. [59]

    A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M

    Venn, K. A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1177

    2004

  60. [60]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 2939

    Vincenzo, F., Matteucci, F., & Spitoni, E. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2939

    2017

  61. [61]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 529, 2946

    Walsen, K., Jofré, P., Buder, S., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 529, 2946

    2024

  62. [62]

    H., Andrews, B

    Weinberg, D. H., Andrews, B. H., & Freudenburg, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 183

    2017

  63. [63]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 222

    Xu, X., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 222

    2022

  64. [64]

    2014, Molecular evolution: a statistical approach (Oxford University Press)

    Yang, Z. 2014, Molecular evolution: a statistical approach (Oxford University Press)

    2014

  65. [65]

    & Lind, K

    Youakim, K. & Lind, K. 2025, A&A, 704, A296 Article number, page 12 of 15 R. Canales et al.: Disentangling chemical evolution histories with phylogenetic trees Appendix A: Abundance planes of the fiducial models Figure A.1 shows the chemical distribution of the same elements discussed in Fig. 2, but this time the abundance ratios are with respect to Fe an...

    2025

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.3 on June 27, 2026.