Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 77 references

Stellar ages show mergers drove Milky Way evolution until 8 billion years ago, after which metallicity spread narrowed.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 00:22 UTC pith:HX4G4RVT

load-bearing objection They add SPInS ages to the TOPoS low-res metallicity sample and report up to three metallicity peaks at fixed age that they tie to halo/thick/thin components and early mergers, but the peaks rest on qualitative patterns only. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.17674 v1 pith:HX4G4RVT submitted 2026-06-16 astro-ph.GA

TOPoS VII. Age-metallicity relation in the Galactic halo and assembly of the Milky Way

P. Bonifacio (LIRA) , Y. Lebreton (IPR , LIRA) , I. Koutsouridou (UniFI) , Y. Zou (UNIBO) , D. Romano (OABO) , S. Salvadori (UniFI) , L. Sbordone (ESO)
show 5 more authors
L. Monaco (UNAB) E. Caffau (LIRA) M. Spite (LIRA) P. Fran\c{c}ois (LIRA UPJV)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords age-metallicity relationGalactic haloMilky Way assemblystellar agesmergerschemical evolutionsub-giant starsGaia parallaxes
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 paper derives precise ages for sub-giant stars in the TOPoS sample by comparing their positions in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram to BaSTI evolutionary tracks via Bayesian inference. It maps the resulting age-metallicity relation and finds that metallicity increases with decreasing age overall, yet shows no correlation above 8 Ga because of large scatter at old ages. At any fixed age the metallicity distribution displays up to three distinct peaks that are linked to the halo, thick disc and thin disc. The pattern indicates that mergers played a central role in assembling the Galaxy in its first several billion years, with the spread in metallicity dropping afterward.

Core claim

Using Bayesian inference with the SPInS code and BaSTI stellar evolutionary tracks on sub-giant stars that have precise Gaia parallaxes, we obtain ages that reveal a clear increase in metallicity with decreasing age but with considerable scatter. Above 8 Ga, age and metallicity appear uncorrelated. At any given age the metallicity distribution is multi-modal, with up to three distinct peaks that we tentatively identify with the halo, thick-disc and thin-disc populations. Our data demonstrate the important role of mergers in the evolution of the Galaxy up to 8 Ga ago; in more recent times the spread in metallicity drops, and one possibility is that the major merger Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus pert

What carries the argument

Bayesian age estimation via the SPInS code applied to BaSTI evolutionary tracks for sub-giant stars with Gaia parallaxes, which produces the multi-modal metallicity distributions at fixed age that trace distinct Galactic populations.

Load-bearing premise

The up-to-three distinct peaks in metallicity at fixed age can be identified with the halo, thick-disc and thin-disc populations, which rests on the accuracy of the SPInS Bayesian ages and the absence of strong selection biases that would create artificial peaks.

What would settle it

Re-deriving the ages of the same stars with an independent set of stellar tracks or a different age method that eliminates the three metallicity peaks at fixed age or removes the drop in scatter below 8 Ga.

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

If this is right

  • Mergers were a dominant process in Milky Way evolution for the first several billion years.
  • The metallicity dispersion narrowed after 8 Ga, consistent with a decline in merger activity following a major event.
  • Both chemical evolution models and cosmological simulations of the Local Group align with the observed importance of early mergers.
  • Larger samples with well-characterized selection biases are needed to enable quantitative comparison between the observed age-metallicity relations and model predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The transition around 8 Ga could be tested by applying the same age-metallicity analysis to stars in other Local Group galaxies to check whether major mergers produce a comparable suppression of later accretion.
  • If the multi-modal metallicity peaks at fixed age survive in larger, kinematically unbiased samples, the method could serve as an independent way to tag stellar populations without relying on velocity information.
  • Future releases of Gaia data combined with higher-resolution spectroscopy could tighten the timing of the change in merger rate and distinguish between the proposed perturbation effect and other possible causes for the reduced scatter.

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 analyzes the age-metallicity relation in the Galactic halo using Bayesian ages derived with the SPInS code applied to BaSTI evolutionary tracks for sub-giant stars from the TOPoS sample (metallicities from low-resolution SDSS spectra, precise Gaia parallaxes). It reports a general increase of metallicity with decreasing age but with large scatter such that age and metallicity appear uncorrelated above ~8 Ga; at fixed age the metallicity distribution is multi-modal with up to three peaks, which are tentatively identified with the halo, thick-disc and thin-disc populations. The authors interpret the large early scatter as demonstrating the important role of mergers in Milky Way assembly up to 8 Ga ago, with a subsequent drop in metallicity spread possibly linked to the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger.

Significance. If the reported multi-modality at fixed age is shown to trace distinct Galactic components rather than age uncertainties or selection effects, the work would supply qualitative observational support for merger-driven chemical evolution scenarios already present in both chemical-evolution and cosmological simulations of the Local Group. The underlying method (standard Bayesian isochrone fitting to an independent metallicity-plus-parallax dataset) is appropriate and reproducible in principle, but the current presentation remains qualitative and therefore of limited impact until the robustness of the peaks and the treatment of biases are quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central interpretive claim that the data 'demonstrate the important role of mergers' up to 8 Ga rests on the multi-modal metallicity peaks at fixed age being real and population-specific; however, the manuscript provides no description of the peak-identification procedure, no statistical significance assessment, and no test of robustness against the reported age uncertainties from SPInS/BaSTI.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion of uncorrelated age and metallicity above 8 Ga and the subsequent drop in spread is presented without reported age-error distributions, sample sizes per age bin, or any correction for possible age- or metallicity-dependent selection biases in the TOPoS sample; the abstract itself notes the need for 'larger, unbiased samples', indicating these issues remain unaddressed and directly affect the claimed trends.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the tentative assignment of the three metallicity peaks to halo/thick-disc/thin-disc populations is load-bearing for the interpretation of separate age-metallicity relations, yet no supporting evidence (e.g., kinematic membership probabilities, spatial distributions, or comparison with literature component definitions) is supplied to justify the identification over alternative explanations such as fitting artifacts.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the abbreviation 'Ga' is used for gigayears; adopting the conventional 'Gyr' would remove a minor source of potential confusion for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central interpretive claim that the data 'demonstrate the important role of mergers' up to 8 Ga rests on the multi-modal metallicity peaks at fixed age being real and population-specific; however, the manuscript provides no description of the peak-identification procedure, no statistical significance assessment, and no test of robustness against the reported age uncertainties from SPInS/BaSTI.

    Authors: The peaks were identified through visual inspection of metallicity histograms constructed in successive age bins (as displayed in the figures). We agree a formal description is missing and will add an explicit paragraph describing the binning and peak identification process. We will also add a robustness check by resampling ages within the reported SPInS uncertainties and re-inspecting the histograms. A full statistical significance test (e.g., Gaussian mixture modeling) lies outside the qualitative scope of the present work but will be noted as a limitation; the merger interpretation is already qualified as tentative. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion of uncorrelated age and metallicity above 8 Ga and the subsequent drop in spread is presented without reported age-error distributions, sample sizes per age bin, or any correction for possible age- or metallicity-dependent selection biases in the TOPoS sample; the abstract itself notes the need for 'larger, unbiased samples', indicating these issues remain unaddressed and directly affect the claimed trends.

    Authors: We will include the age-error distribution, the number of stars per age bin, and an expanded discussion of possible selection biases inherent to the TOPoS sample in the revised manuscript. The abstract already flags the requirement for larger samples; we will make this limitation more prominent while retaining that the observed scatter and drop in spread are directly visible in the current data. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the tentative assignment of the three metallicity peaks to halo/thick-disc/thin-disc populations is load-bearing for the interpretation of separate age-metallicity relations, yet no supporting evidence (e.g., kinematic membership probabilities, spatial distributions, or comparison with literature component definitions) is supplied to justify the identification over alternative explanations such as fitting artifacts.

    Authors: The assignment rests on the metallicities of the peaks matching the ranges commonly associated with halo, thick-disc and thin-disc stars in the literature. We will add an explicit comparison with those literature ranges and state that kinematic or spatial membership probabilities are not available for this sample. We will also emphasize that fitting artifacts cannot be excluded and that the population labels remain tentative. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: ages and metallicities derived from independent external models and observations

full rationale

The derivation applies the external SPInS Bayesian code and BaSTI stellar tracks to Gaia parallaxes and SDSS-derived metallicities to obtain ages; the reported age-metallicity scatter, multi-modality at fixed age, and tentative population identifications are direct outputs of this processing. No parameters are fitted to the target relations and then re-predicted, no self-citation chains underpin the central claims, and no definitions reduce the results to their inputs by construction. The paper explicitly notes the need for larger unbiased samples, confirming the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms or invented entities are stated. The work relies on standard stellar-evolution theory and Bayesian inference whose details are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5960 in / 1247 out tokens · 34621 ms · 2026-06-27T00:22:22.222221+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

One technique for determining stellar ages is to compare the position of a star in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram to theoretical stellar evolutionary tracks. The sub-giant evolutionary stage is the one that is most sensitive to age and allows the most precise evolutionary age estimates. The TOPoS sample of stars with metallicities derived from low-resolution Sloan Digital Sky Survey spectra contains a large subset of sub-giant stars with precise parallaxes from the Gaia mission, for which evolutionary ages can be determined. Our aim is to use this stellar sample to investigate the age-metallicity relation in the Galactic halo. We use the Bayesian inference code SPInS and theoretical BaSTI stellar evolutionary tracks to determine the ages for TOPoS stars. There is a clear increase in metallicity with decreasing age, albeit with a considerable scatter at any given age. At ages larger than 8 Ga, the scatter is so large that in fact, over this range, age and metallicity appear to be uncorrelated. At any given age, the metallicity distribution is multi-modal, with up to three distinct peaks. These peaks trace three age-metallicity relations that we tentatively identify with the halo, thick-disc, and thin-disc. Our data demonstrate the important role of mergers in the evolution of the Galaxy, up to 8 Ga ago. In more recent times, the spread in metallicity drops. One possibility is that the major merger Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus may have perturbed the galaxies in the Milky Way vicinity in such a way as to decrease the merger rate. Chemical evolution models and cosmological models of the Local Group both support the importance of mergers in the early evolution of the Milky Way. Larger, unbiased samples, or at least with well-understood biases, of stars with accurate ages are required for a quantitative comparison between models and data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17674 by D. Romano (OABO), E. Caffau (LIRA), I. Koutsouridou (UniFI), LIRA), L. Monaco (UNAB), L. Sbordone (ESO), M. Spite (LIRA), P. Bonifacio (LIRA), P. Fran\c{c}ois (LIRA, S. Salvadori (UniFI), UPJV), Y. Lebreton (IPR, Y. Zou (UNIBO).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Colour magnitude diagram of the TOPoS stars with those we analyse as SGs in blue, the others in red. To guide the eye we super￾impose three BaSTI (Pietrinferni et al. 2021) isochrones with ages 4, 8, and 12 Ga and [Fe/H]=–0.4 (green) and –2.5 (grey). There is an exception to this general rule and that is the case for the smaller galaxy in a minor merger (Michel-Dansac et al. 2008). In this case the gas rai… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for the SG stars of NGC 6397 that we used to estimate its age. Three BASTI isochrones of 12, 13, and 14 Ga and metallicity –2.0 are shown for reference. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Age(Ga) ¡3 ¡2 ¡1 0 [F e = H] Casamiquela et al: (2024) no prior prior on age [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: AMR from our sample assuming a prior on age (green dots), our sample without any prior (red dots), and the sample of Casamiquela et al. (2024) (blue dots). Note that there are red dots and blue dots below the green dots. of Casamiquela et al. (2024). The main differences between our setup for SPInS and that of Casamiquela et al. (2024) are: (i) we use α-enhanced stellar models with a constant [α/Fe] = +0.4… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metallicity histogram of our sample (blue), compared with the LRS sample of Casamiquela et al. (2024) (green). The two histograms have been normalised by the number of stars in each sample. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Fig.5 but for the whole sample of SGs, without any cut on the error in luminosity. ¡4 ¡3 ¡2 ¡1 0 1 2 3 Lz(£103) ¡100 ¡50 0 50 E n erg y(£ 1 0 3) GSE Sequoia Thick disc Thin disc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dynamically selected populations in the angular momentum– energy plane. The grey points are all the stars that cannot be classified as disc (thick or thin), GSE, or Sequoia. The grey points plus Sequoia, plus GSE, is what can generically be called halo. The units for energy are 103×km2 s 2 (actually it is a specific energy, or energy per unit mass) and 103 × kpc km s−1 for the angular momentum. diagram. At… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AMR as defined from our dataset. The data are divided into six age bins, and for each bin we show the points corresponding to the centre of the bin and to the metallicity of the peaks. The vertical bars correspond to the FWHM of a Gaussian to each peak. The blue dots correspond to the low-AMR, the red dots to the mid-AMR, and the pur￾ple points to the high-AMR. ¡3:0 ¡2:5 ¡2:0 ¡1:5 ¡1:0 ¡0:5 0 [Fe=H] 0 50 1… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histogram of the metallicities in the age bin 10 to 12 Ga. The fitted Gaussians are shown both individually (blue, red, magenta lines) and summed (black line). the stars in our selection that are not SGs are a minority. To help the interpretation of the diagram we divided the sample into six age bins, and for each bin we noted the metallicity of obvious peaks in the metallicity histogram and their FWHM, bo… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Contour plot of the two extreme age bins (youngest and oldest) in the R, |z| plane. ¡0:1 0 0:1 0:2 0:3 0:4 0:5 0:6 0:7 0:8 0:9 (B ¡ V)0 ¡0:8 ¡0:6 ¡0:4 ¡0:2 0 0:2 0:4 0:6 (U ¡ B)0 BMP 0:22 ¡ 0:85 ¤ (B ¡ V)0 ¡2:66 + 7 ¤ (B ¡ V)0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Stars in our sample that classify as blue metal-poor according to the criteria of Preston et al. (1994). Although for Belokurov et al. (2020) it was possible to isolate the metal-rich component of this population, because they used APOGEE as a source of metallicities, there is no physical reason why more metal-poor stars, if present in the disc at the time of the perturbing merger, should not also be sent… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: AMRs predicted by chemical evolution models tailored to the solar neighbourhood (magenta line), the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (light blue line), the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxy (medium blue line), and the Boötes I ultra-faint dwarf (dark blue line). The star symbols on top of each curve indicate the ages at which the star for￾mation stops in the dwarf galaxy models. The theoretical AMRs are… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison between the data and the AMR predicted by the NEFERTITI model for stars residing in: the Milky Way and its dwarf satellites (top); the Milky Way, including stars formed both in situ and in accreted satellites (middle); and the Milky Way, considering only stars formed in situ (bottom). jor merger associated with GSE, but dedicated simulations are necessary to confirm or refute this scenario. Our… 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

77 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike , H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  2. [2]

    M., Tacchella , S., Johnson , B

    Baker , W. M., Tacchella , S., Johnson , B. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 141

    2025

  3. [3]

    H., Minniti , D., Geisler , D., et al

    Barb \'a , R. H., Minniti , D., Geisler , D., et al. 2019, , 870, L24

    2019

  4. [4]

    W., Koposov , S

    Belokurov , V., Erkal , D., Evans , N. W., Koposov , S. E., & Deason , A. J. 2018, , 478, 611

    2018

  5. [5]

    L., Fattahi , A., et al

    Belokurov , V., Sanders , J. L., Fattahi , A., et al. 2020, , 494, 3880

    2020

  6. [6]

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

    2014

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06335

    Bonifacio , P., Caffau , E., Fran c ois , P., & Spite , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06335

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2024, , 684, A91

    Bonifacio , P., Caffau , E., Monaco , L., et al. 2024, , 684, A91

    2024

  9. [9]

    2021, , 651, A79

    Bonifacio , P., Monaco , L., Salvadori , S., et al. 2021, , 651, A79

    2021

  10. [10]

    2012, , 542, A87

    Bonifacio , P., Sbordone , L., Caffau , E., et al. 2012, , 542, A87

    2012

  11. [11]

    2013, , 560, A71

    Caffau , E., Bonifacio , P., Sbordone , L., et al. 2013, , 560, A71

    2013

  12. [12]

    2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e70025

    Caffau , E., Katz , D., Bonifacio , P., et al. 2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e70025

    2025

  13. [13]

    2024, , 683, A72

    Caffau , E., Katz , D., G \'o mez , A., et al. 2024, , 683, A72

    2024

  14. [14]

    R., Lebreton , Y., et al

    Casamiquela , L., Reese , D. R., Lebreton , Y., et al. 2024, , 692, A243

    2024

  15. [15]

    S., Cohen , R

    Correnti , M., Gennaro , M., Kalirai , J. S., Cohen , R. E., & Brown , T. M. 2018, , 864, 147

    2018

  16. [16]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui , X.-Q., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    2012

  17. [17]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  18. [18]

    L., Patton , D

    Ellison , S. L., Patton , D. R., Simard , L., & McConnachie , A. W. 2008, , 672, L107

    2008

  19. [19]

    K., Sahlholdt , C

    Feuillet , D. K., Sahlholdt , C. L., Feltzing , S., & Casagrande , L. 2021, , 508, 1489

    2021

  20. [20]

    2020, , 888, 55

    Franchini , M., Morossi , C., Di Marcantonio , P., et al. 2020, , 888, 55

    2020

  21. [21]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  22. [22]

    J., Brook , C

    Gallart , C., Bernard , E. J., Brook , C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932

    2019

  23. [23]

    I., Bonifacio , P., Caffau , E., et al

    Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., Bonifacio , P., Caffau , E., et al. 2009, , 505, L13

    2009

  24. [24]

    G., Bragaglia , A., Carretta , E., et al

    Gratton , R. G., Bragaglia , A., Carretta , E., et al. 2003, , 408, 529

    2003

  25. [25]

    F., Ji , A

    Griffen , B. F., Ji , A. P., Dooley , G. A., et al. 2016, , 818, 10

    2016

  26. [26]

    A., et al

    Hammer , F., Wang , J., Mamon , G. A., et al. 2024, , 527, 2718

    2024

  27. [27]

    D., et al

    Haywood , M., Di Matteo , P., Lehnert , M. D., et al. 2018, , 863, 113

    2018

  28. [28]

    H., et al

    Helmi , A., Babusiaux , C., Koppelman , H. H., et al. 2018, , 563, 85

    2018

  29. [29]

    L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al

    Hidalgo , S. L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al. 2018, , 856, 125

    2018

  30. [30]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 60

    2014

  31. [31]

    C., Dalton , G

    Jin , S., Trager , S. C., Dalton , G. B., et al. 2024, , 530, 2688

    2024

  32. [32]

    2025, , 704, A294

    Katz , D., G \'o mez , A., Caffau , E., et al. 2025, , 704, A294

    2025

  33. [33]

    H., Helmi , A., Massari , D., Price-Whelan , A

    Koppelman , H. H., Helmi , A., Massari , D., Price-Whelan , A. M., & Starkenburg , T. K. 2019, , 631, L9

    2019

  34. [34]

    2024, , 962, L26

    Koutsouridou , I., Salvadori , S., & Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A . 2024, , 962, L26

    2024

  35. [35]

    NEFERTITI: Linking early galaxy formation to the assembly of the Milky Way

    Koutsouridou , I., Salvadori , S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.00990

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    2023, , 525, 190

    Koutsouridou , I., Salvadori , S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., et al. 2023, , 525, 190

    2023

  37. [37]

    2025, , 699, A32

    Koutsouridou , I., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., & Salvadori , S. 2025, , 699, A32

    2025

  38. [38]

    Larson , R. B. 1976, , 176, 31

    1976

  39. [39]

    J., & Montalb \'a n , J

    Lebreton , Y., Goupil , M. J., & Montalb \'a n , J. 2014, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 65, EAS Publications Series, ed. Y. Lebreton , D. Valls-Gabaud , & C. Charbonnel (EDP), 99--176

    2014

  40. [40]

    & Reese , D

    Lebreton , Y. & Reese , D. R. 2020, , 642, A88

    2020

  41. [41]

    J., Carollo , C

    Lilly , S. J., Carollo , C. M., Pipino , A., Renzini , A., & Peng , Y. 2013, , 772, 119

    2013

  42. [42]

    E., Torres, G., Prsa, A., et al

    Mamajek, E. E., Torres, G., Prsa, A., et al. 2015, IAU 2015 Resolution B2 on Recommended Zero Points for the Absolute and Apparent Bolometric Magnitude Scales

    2015

  43. [43]

    2010, , 408, 2115

    Mannucci , F., Cresci , G., Maiolino , R., Marconi , A., & Gnerucci , A. 2010, , 408, 2115

    2010

  44. [44]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18896

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

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    G., Alonso , M

    Michel-Dansac , L., Lambas , D. G., Alonso , M. S., & Tissera , P. 2008, , 386, L82

    2008

  46. [46]

    Chemical decoding of kinematic substructures in the Galactic halo

    Mori , A., Di Matteo , P., Salvadori , S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13408

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    2017, , 605, A46

    Mucciarelli , A., Bellazzini , M., Ibata , R., et al. 2017, , 605, A46

    2017

  48. [48]

    2026, , 705, A134

    Mucciarelli , A., Bonifacio , P., & Lardo , C. 2026, , 705, A134

    2026

  49. [49]

    C., Vasiliev , E., Iorio , G., Evans , N

    Myeong , G. C., Vasiliev , E., Iorio , G., Evans , N. W., & Belokurov , V. 2019, , 488, 1235

    2019

  50. [50]

    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

  51. [51]

    2021, , 908, 102

    Pietrinferni , A., Hidalgo , S., Cassisi , S., et al. 2021, , 908, 102

    2021

  52. [52]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  53. [53]

    W., Beers , T

    Preston , G. W., Beers , T. C., & Shectman , S. A. 1994, , 108, 538

    1994

  54. [54]

    Preston , G. W. & Sneden , C. 2000, , 120, 1014

    2000

  55. [55]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

    2025

  56. [56]

    Reese , D. R. & Lebreton , Y. 2020, SPInS: Stellar Parameters INferred Systematically , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.006

    2020

  57. [57]

    2015, , 446, 4220

    Romano , D., Bellazzini , M., Starkenburg , E., & Leaman , R. 2015, , 446, 4220

    2015

  58. [58]

    & Starkenburg , E

    Romano , D. & Starkenburg , E. 2013, , 434, 471

    2013

  59. [59]

    2024, , 691, A284

    Rossi , M., Romano , D., Mucciarelli , A., et al. 2024, , 691, A284

    2024

  60. [60]

    2021, , 503, 6026

    Rossi , M., Salvadori , S., & Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A . 2021, , 503, 6026

    2021

  61. [61]

    2024, , 974, L35

    Rusta , E., Salvadori , S., Gelli , V., Koutsouridou , I., & Marconi , A. 2024, , 974, L35

    2024

  62. [62]

    1993, , 414, 580

    Salaris , M., Chieffi , A., & Straniero , O. 1993, , 414, 580

    1993

  63. [63]

    2010, , 401, L5

    Salvadori , S., Ferrara , A., Schneider , R., Scannapieco , E., & Kawata , D. 2010, , 401, L5

    2010

  64. [64]

    2015, , 454, 1320

    Salvadori , S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., & Tolstoy , E. 2015, , 454, 1320

    2015

  65. [65]

    2014, , 437, L26

    Salvadori , S., Tolstoy , E., Ferrara , A., & Zaroubi , S. 2014, , 437, L26

    2014

  66. [66]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz , G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  67. [67]

    2019, , 623, A60

    Spitoni , E., Silva Aguirre , V., Matteucci , F., Calura , F., & Grisoni , V. 2019, , 623, A60

    2019

  68. [68]

    2021, , 647, A73

    Spitoni , E., Verma , K., Silva Aguirre , V., et al. 2021, , 647, A73

    2021

  69. [69]

    G., & Camisassa , M

    Torres , S., Garc \' a-Berro , E., Althaus , L. G., & Camisassa , M. E. 2015, , 581, A90

    2015

  70. [70]

    A., Brogaard , K., Leaman , R., & Casagrande , L

    VandenBerg , D. A., Brogaard , K., Leaman , R., & Casagrande , L. 2013, , 775, 134

    2013

  71. [71]

    2023, , 526, 2620

    Vanni , I., Salvadori , S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., Rossi , M., & Koutsouridou , I. 2023, , 526, 2620

    2023

  72. [72]

    & Baumgardt , H

    Vasiliev , E. & Baumgardt , H. 2021, , 505, 5978

    2021

  73. [73]

    2019, , 882, 174

    Villanova , S., Monaco , L., Geisler , D., et al. 2019, , 882, 174

    2019

  74. [74]

    2024, , 527, 7144

    Wang , J., Hammer , F., Yang , Y., et al. 2024, , 527, 7144

    2024

  75. [75]

    2019, , 482, 4454

    Wang , L., De Lucia , G., Fontanot , F., & Hirschmann , M. 2019, , 482, 4454

    2019

  76. [76]

    2024, , 691, A363

    Yang , Y., Caffau , E., Bonifacio , P., et al. 2024, , 691, A363

    2024

  77. [77]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000