Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 119 references

Revealing {\alpha}-Element's Past with Subaru/IRD: Oxygen Abundance of 35 Very Metal-Poor Stars from Near-IR OH lines

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Near-IR OH oxygen abundances in metal-poor stars can be calibrated onto the reliable [OI] scale, flattening [O/Fe] trends to match chemical-evolution models.

desk verdict Solid new OH abundances and a usable empirical fix for the Teff-dependent offset, but the four-parameter calibration is under-constrained and partly tautological. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.18862 v2 pith:T4XG74LX submitted 2026-06-17 astro-ph.SR

Bakuh Danang Setyo Budi , Wako Aoki , Nicholas Storm , Miho Ishigaki , Tadafumi Matsuno , Teruyuki Hirano , Masayuki Kuzuhara , Jun Nishikawa
show 5 more authors
Masashi Omiya Takayuki Kotani Tomoyuki Kudo Sebastien Vievard Motohide Tamura
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarabundancesoxygenmetal-poorstarsnear-IROHlines[OI]6300GalacticchemicalevolutionPopulationIIInucleosynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Oxygen in the oldest, most metal-poor stars records the yields of the first massive stars, but measuring it is hard: the cleanest optical line is extremely weak, while molecular OH lines are strong yet sensitive to temperature and three-dimensional atmospheric effects. This work measures oxygen in 35 very and extremely metal-poor stars with many near-infrared H-band OH lines from Subaru/IRD, then compares them directly to the forbidden [OI] 6300 Å line for 24 of the same stars. After re-deriving stellar parameters and iron abundances uniformly with Gaia data, a clear temperature-dependent offset appears: cool giants give systematically lower OH abundances than [OI], while warmer giants give higher ones. Because dozens of OH lines reduce random error far below that of the single weak [OI] line, the authors construct a four-parameter empirical correction that brings the 1D/LTE OH results onto the [OI] scale. Once corrected, the [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H] diagram loses much of its scatter and temperature slope and sits in good agreement with standard Galactic chemical-evolution predictions.

What carries the argument

The four-parameter linear correction (Eq. 8) that maps the statistical precision of many NIR OH lines onto the absolute zero-point of the 3D/NLTE-insensitive [OI] line.

What would settle it

A full 3D/NLTE radiative-transfer calculation of the same H-band OH lines for a subset of the cool and warm giants that either confirms or systematically reverses the sign of the empirical temperature-dependent correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

An empirical linear calibration of 1D/LTE near-IR OH oxygen abundances, written as a function of effective temperature, surface gravity, iron abundance and carbon-to-iron ratio, successfully removes the temperature-dependent offset relative to the [OI] 6300 Å line; after the correction the [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] relation flattens and matches Galactic chemical-evolution models.

Load-bearing premise

That the 1D/LTE [OI] abundance is an accurate absolute baseline and that a linear fit derived from only 24 stars adequately captures residual three-dimensional and non-LTE systematics of the OH lines across the full sample.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives 1D/LTE oxygen abundances for 35 V/EMP stars (−4.0 < [Fe/H] < −1.5) from Subaru/IRD H-band OH vibro-rotational lines, after homogeneously redetermining Teff (Gaia–2MASS colours), log g (Gaia parallaxes + assumed 0.8 M⊙), ξt and 1D/NLTE [Fe/H] from literature EWs. These are compared with [OI] 6300 Å abundances (archival optical spectra for 24 stars), for which 1D/NLTE and 3D/LTE corrections are shown to be ≲0.01 dex. A temperature-dependent offset is found (OH lower than [OI] by 0.05–0.25 dex for Teff ≲ 4600 K; higher for warmer giants). An empirical linear calibration (Eq. 8) in Teff, log g, [Fe/H] and [C/Fe], fitted to the 24 dual-tracer stars, is applied to place the OH abundances on the [OI] scale; the corrected [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] trend is flatter, less scattered, and in better agreement with Kobayashi et al. (2020) GCE models.

Significance. If the temperature-dependent OH–[OI] offset is real and the empirical correction robust, the work supplies a practical route to high-precision oxygen abundances for large samples of cool V/EMP giants where the single weak [OI] line is unusable, leveraging the statistical power of many NIR OH lines. The homogeneous Gaia-based parameters, multi-instrument [OI] consistency checks, exhaustive sensitivity maps, and explicit demonstration that [OI] is essentially 3D/NLTE-insensitive constitute a solid observational foundation. The reverse offset in cool giants is a new empirical finding that can constrain future 3D/NLTE OH modelling. The absolute scale and GCE agreement, however, inherit the [OI] baseline by construction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (8)] §5.3 and Eq. (8): the four-parameter linear calibration is derived from only the 24 dual-tracer stars and is then applied to the full sample (including the EMP star J2217+2104). The reported coefficients have formal uncertainties of order the coefficients themselves (−2.23±2.45, 1.59±3.08, o0.308±0.513, o0.457±0.434, 0.098±0.142), yielding a typical correction uncertainty σ_∆corr o 0.20 dex that exceeds the pre-correction random errors the paper advertises as the advantage of the OH lines. Because the fit is constructed precisely to null the observed OH–[OI] residuals (including their clear Teff dependence), the subsequent reduction in scatter and the flattening that produces “fairly good agreement” with Kobayashi et al. (2020) are partly tautological for the calibration stars and an extrapolation for the remaining 11. The paper itself notes that the sample is too small for non-linear
  2. [§5.2–5.3, Figs. 8–9] §5.2–5.3: the absolute [O/Fe] scale and the claimed agreement with GCE models rest on the assumption that 1D/LTE [OI] (with negligible 3D/NLTE corrections) is the true baseline. While the paper correctly shows that [OI] corrections are ≲0.01 dex, the subsequent statement that the corrected OH abundances “bring the results into fairly good agreement with Galactic chemical evolution models” therefore inherits whatever agreement the [OI] abundances already possessed. The reduction in temperature dependence is real, but the absolute level and model comparison are not independent tests of the OH method. This circularity should be stated more explicitly, and the uncorrected OH trend (left panel of Fig. 8) should remain the primary observational result against which models are compared.
  3. [§5.1–5.2] §5.1 and Table 9: the reverse OH–[OI] offset in cool giants (Teff ≲ 4600 K) is statistically significant and interesting, yet the physical interpretation (3D radiative heating + residual NLTE photodissociation) remains qualitative. No quantitative 3D/NLTE OH calculations are performed, and the paper notes that literature 3D/LTE corrections for NIR OH are typically negative. The claim that the empirical correction “aligns” the abundances therefore rests on an untested extrapolation of the [OI] baseline into a regime where the formation physics of the two tracers may differ. At minimum, the discussion should quantify how large a change in the 3D temperature structure would be required to reverse the sign of the correction, or flag the cool-giant regime as requiring dedicated 3D/NLTE modelling before the calibration is used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: “V ery Metal-Poor” and similar spacing artefacts appear throughout the draft; a global search-and-replace for LaTeX spacing issues is needed.
  2. [Tables 1, 4, 8] Table 1 and Table 4: the single dwarf (HD 25329) is retained in the sample but excluded from the calibration and from the final [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] plots; this should be stated once in the text rather than only in table notes.
  3. [Fig. 7] Fig. 7 Panel 1: the star-ID legend is dense; colour-coding by Teff alone would improve readability while still conveying the temperature dependence.
  4. [§3.2] §3.2: the adopted mass 0.80 o 0.25 M⊙ is conservative, but the resulting log g uncertainty ( o0.12–0.15 dex) propagates directly into the OH sensitivity; a short sentence quantifying the contribution of mass error to the final σ_atm would be useful.
  5. [Appendix A] Appendix A: the comparison with Collet et al. (2018) for HD 122563 is thorough, but the 0.13 dex residual offset after parameter homogenisation is left unexplained; a brief remark on possible line-list or continuum differences would close the loop.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Empirical four-parameter linear fit (Eq. 8) is constructed to null observed OH–[OI] residuals on the same 24 stars; subsequent claims of reduced scatter, flattened [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] trend, and GCE-model agreement therefore inherit the [OI] baseline by design rather than constituting an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3, Equation (8) and surrounding text; Figure 9]
    "Leveraging this statistical precision, an empirical calibration as a function of Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and [C/Fe] is derived to align the 1D/LTE OH abundances onto the [OI] scale. Applying this correction substantially reduces the scatter and temperature dependence in the [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H] plane and flattens the trend, bringing the results into fairly good agreement with Galactic chemical evolution models. … Δcorr_OH−[OI]=(-2.23±2.45)+(1.59±3.08)(Teff/4500 K)+…"

    Eq. 8 is an ordinary linear regression of the observed abundance difference Δ_OH–[OI] against the four stellar parameters for the identical 24 stars that possess both tracers. Subtracting that fitted surface from the OH abundances therefore forces the mean residual (and its dominant Teff dependence) toward zero by construction for the calibration set. The subsequent statements that scatter is reduced, the trend is flattened, and the points now agree with GCE models simply restate the fact that the corrected OH scale has been forced onto the [OI] scale, which already lay closer to the models. The large formal uncertainties on the coefficients (σ_Δcorr ≈ 0.20 dex) further indicate that the multi-parameter surface is under-constrained, amplifying the tautological character of the claimed impr

full rationale

The paper’s central scientific payoff is the post-correction [O/Fe]–[Fe/H] diagram (Fig. 9) that shows reduced scatter, loss of temperature dependence, and “fairly good agreement” with Kobayashi et al. (2020). That diagram is produced by subtracting a linear function (Eq. 8) whose four coefficients were obtained by ordinary least-squares regression of the very quantity Δ_OH–[OI] that the correction is later said to remove. For the 24 calibration stars the mean residual is therefore zero by construction (within the large coefficient uncertainties); the remaining 11 stars receive an extrapolation of the same fit. The absolute oxygen scale and the model concordance are consequently those already present in the [OI] measurements, not an independent verification of the NIR OH lines. The paper is transparent that the relation is empirical and under-constrained, yet still presents the post-correction flattening and model agreement as a substantive result. This is classic “fitted input called prediction” circularity of moderate severity: the reduction in discrepancy is real and useful for practical purposes, but it is not a free prediction. No self-definitional loop, uniqueness theorem, or load-bearing self-citation is present; the circularity is confined to the empirical-calibration step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard 1D MARCS atmospheres and LTE synthesis, the assumption that [OI] is effectively 3D/NLTE-free, literature carbon abundances, and a four-coefficient linear fit whose values are determined solely from the observed OH–[OI] residuals of the present sample. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the calibration coefficients themselves.

free parameters (3)
  • Empirical calibration coefficients (Eq. 8) = −2.23 ± 2.45 + (1.59 ± 3.08)(Teff/4500) + (0.308 ± 0.513)(log g/1.5) + (0.457 ± 0.434)([Fe/H]/2.5) + (0.098 ± 0.142)[C/F
    Four linear coefficients (and intercept) fitted to the 24-star Δ(OH–[OI]) residuals as functions of Teff/4500 K, log g/1.5, [Fe/H]/2.5 and [C/Fe]; values and uncertainties are reported but are purely data-driven.
  • Assumed stellar mass for log g = 0.80 ± 0.25 M⊙
    Fixed at 0.80 ± 0.25 M⊙ for all giants; enters the surface-gravity calculation that later appears in the calibration.
  • Constant σ_Teff = 50 K = 50 K
    Adopted for error propagation even though photometric color scatter is smaller; affects total abundance uncertainties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 1D LTE MARCS model atmospheres plus Turbospectrum synthesis adequately describe the formation of both OH and [OI] lines for the purpose of differential comparison.
    Invoked throughout Sections 4–5; 3D/NLTE corrections are computed only for [OI] and found negligible.
  • domain assumption The forbidden [OI] 6300 Å line is effectively insensitive to both 3D granulation and NLTE effects in red giants (corrections ≲ 0.01 dex).
    Stated in abstract and Section 4.3; used as the absolute reference scale for the empirical calibration.
  • domain assumption Literature carbon abundances (mostly from optical CH) can be adopted without re-derivation and do not strongly couple to NIR OH abundances at the low [C/O] of the sample.
    Section 3.3 and sensitivity tests in 5.1; enters the calibration as an independent variable.
  • domain assumption Solar oxygen abundance A(O)⊙ = 8.77 (Magg et al. 2022 / Bergemann et al. 2021).
    Used to convert absolute abundances to [O/Fe] ratios throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing {\alpha}-Element's Past with Subaru/IRD: Oxygen Abundance of 35 Very Metal-Poor Stars from Near-IR OH lines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4XG74LX

@misc{pith2026260618862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing \alpha-Element's Past with Subaru/IRD: Oxygen Abundance of 35 Very Metal-Poor Stars from Near-IR OH lines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4XG74LX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.18862}
}
read the original abstract

Oxygen abundances in very and extremely metal-poor (V/EMP) stars provide critical constraints on early massive stars' nucleosynthesis. An Oxygen abundance analysis is presented for 35 V/EMP stars (-4.0<[Fe/H]< -1.5) using near-infrared H-band OH vibro-rotational lines from high-resolution Subaru/IRD spectra. To examine the reliability of these NIR OH lines, the results are compared with the abundances obtained from the 3D/NLTE-insensitive forbidden [OI] 6300{\AA} line using archival high-resolution optical spectra. After homogeneously rederiving stellar parameters and 1D/NLTE Fe abundances using Gaia photo-astrometry and literature optical Fe equivalent width data, oxygen abundance from OH and [OI] lines is determined through 1D/LTE spectral synthesis. A sensitivity analysis confirms that near-IR OH lines are highly sensitive to the adopted temperature compared to the forbidden line. A temperature-dependent discrepancy between the tracers is identified: in cool red giants (Teff <4600 K), OH-based abundances are systematically lower than [OI]-based abundance by 0.05 to 0.25 dex, while warmer red giants show higher OH-based abundances as expected from 3D effects. Despite this systematic offset, the numerous measurable NIR OH lines yield significantly smaller random abundance errors than that of the single, weak [OI] line. Leveraging this statistical precision, an empirical calibration as a function of Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and [C/Fe] is derived to align the 1D/LTE OH abundances onto the [OI] scale. Applying this correction substantially reduces the scatter and temperature dependence in the [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H] plane and flattens the trend, bringing the results into fairly good agreement with Galactic chemical evolution models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The non-LTE corrections of the Fe abundance from Fe I lines. Each point represents the result for an indi￾vidual Fe I line for each star, with colour-codes according to the adopted effective temperature. The upper panel shows the correction as a function of the Fe I LTE abundance, while the lower panel shows the correction as a function of the adopted surface gravity. plays a major role. For Fe II species that follo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The histogram distribution of Fe I (left panels) and Fe II (right panels) abundance changes corresponding to each stellar parameter: Teff on the first row, log g on the second row, and microturbulence velocity on the last row. as ∼ 10 − 20 K, which could be underestimate as Teff error; hence, for a more reasonable and conservative ap￾proach, a constant σTeff = 50 K is assumed across the sample, which is supported by… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subaru/IRD spectra (black dots) of several samples (except for Arcturus) with the spectral region including several OH lines used in the analysis. The solid red line shows the best fit, with the grey shaded region representing ±0.2 dex O abundance changes to the lines. The dashed and dotted lines are the synthetic spectra without OH lines ([O/Fe] = −20) and the spectra of a rapidly rotating star (indicating location… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All archival optical spectra (black dots) of 24 samples from various instruments. The solid red line shows the best fit, with the grey shaded region representing ±0.2 dex O abundance changes to the lines. The dashed lines are synthetic spectra without [OI] lines ([O/Fe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The histogram distribution of [OI] line (first row) and OH lines (second row) abundance changes corresponding to each stellar parameter. parameter variations is plotted against the adopted stel￾lar parameters (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Abundance change of OH lines (red points) and [OI] line (green points) due to changes of stellar parameters as a function of input parameters. See the text for further explanation. spectively. In a typical red giant with Teff = 4500 K (D0/kB ∼ 5.1 × 103 ), a 100 K temp…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Oxygen abundance differences between 1D/LTE H -band OH lines and optical [OI] against several parameters. Panel 1: Abundance differences are plotted for all 24 targets (including Arcturus), ordered by decreasing effective temperature from left to right. Each marker sha…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The adopted [O/Fe] versus adopted [Fe/H] plot for near-IR OH (left panel) and 6300.3 ˚A [OI] line (right panel), color-coded by effective temperature. Both oxygen abundances shown here are derived in 1D/LTE. The error bars represent the total uncertainty (σtot). The so…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper left panel: Corrected OH-based [O/Fe] ratios for the complete sample of 35 stars, overlaid with a linear regression fit (gray dashed line). The solid blue line represents the Galactic chemical evolution of oxygen (K20: C. Kobayashi et al. 2020). For comparison, t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same description as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same description as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plot of O abundance (A(O)) derived from both OH and [OI] lines as a function of line strength for Arcturus (upper panel) and HD 122563 (lower panel). The error bar in each data point represents the uncertainty due to the input atmospheric parameters: σatm. The mean ab…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The literature and derived stellar parameters and O abundances for Arcturus and HD 122563. For Teff, log g, and [Fe/H], the Y-axis shows the differences between each literature source and the adopted values. Half-filled data points represent the O abundance derived us…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example of the 3D/LTE correction (∆3L 1L ≡ A(O)3D/LTE − A(O)1D/LTE) derived in this works (show as color-coded map) for [O/Fe]=0.75 dex (upper panel) and 1.50 dex (lower dex) for various Fe and C abundances. In each subplot, X and Y-axes are effective temperature and …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 114 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 103, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/103

    Af¸ sar, M., Sneden, C., Frebel, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 103, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/103

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/103 2016

  2. [2]

    M., Asplund, M., Collet, R., & Leenaarts, J

    Amarsi, A. M., Asplund, M., Collet, R., & Leenaarts, J. 2016a, MNRAS, 455, 3735, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2608

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2608

  3. [3]

    M., Liljegren, S., & Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Liljegren, S., & Nissen, P. E. 2022, A&A, 668, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244542

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244542 2022

  4. [4]

    2016b, MNRAS, 463, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2077

    Collet, R. 2016b, MNRAS, 463, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2077

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2077

  5. [5]

    Barklem, P. S. 2019a, A&A, 622, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834480 32

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834480

  6. [6]

    Carbon, oxygen, and iron abundances in disk and halo stars

    Amarsi, A. M., Nissen, P. E., & Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A. 2019b, A&A, 630, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936265

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936265

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/64

    Aoki, W. 2015, ApJ, 811, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/64 2015

  8. [8]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy092

    Aoki, W., Matsuno, T., Honda, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy092

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy092 2018

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    E., Ryan, S

    Aoki, W., Norris, J. E., Ryan, S. G., Beers, T. C., & Ando, H. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1166, doi: 10.1086/338756

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Aoki, W., Honda, S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 747, doi: 10.1086/512601

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Sivarani, T., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1351, doi: 10.1086/533517

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Honda, S., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Honda, S., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 273, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab123

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Honda, S., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Honda, S., et al. 2025, PASJ, psaf017, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf017

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, A&A, 621, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834146

    Arentsen, A., Starkenburg, E., Shetrone, M.-D., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834146

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Asplund, M., & Garc´ ıa P´ erez, A. E. 2001, A&A, 372, 601, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010483

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    Asplund, M., Nordlund, ˚A., Trampedach, R., & Stein, R. F. 1999, A&A, 346, L17, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905059 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. ...

    1999 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    C., & Carney, B

    Balachandran, S. C., & Carney, B. W. 1996, AJ, 111, 946, doi: 10.1086/117842

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, ApJ, 588, 1072, doi: 10.1086/374312

    Barbuy, B., Mel´ endez, J., Spite, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 588, 1072, doi: 10.1086/374312

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    2024,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2407.001 http://ascl.net/2407.001

    Barlow, T. 2024,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2407.001 http://ascl.net/2407.001

    2024

  12. [20]

    C., & Christlieb, N

    Beers, T. C., & Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 27, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21687.x

    Bergemann, M., Lind, K., Collet, R., Magic, Z., & Asplund, M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 27, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21687.x

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    2014, in Determination of Atmospheric Parameters of B, ed

    Bergemann, M., & Nordlander, T. 2014, in Determination of Atmospheric Parameters of B, ed. E. Niemczura, B. Smalley, & W. Pych, 169–185, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06956-2 16

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2160

    Bergemann, M., Hoppe, R., Semenova, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2160

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofr´ e, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Bonifacio, P., Monai, S., & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2065, doi: 10.1086/301566

    2000 doi

  18. [26]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae27a1

    Tennyson, J. 2026, ApJ, 997, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae27a1

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    Brooke, J. S. A., Bernath, P. F., Western, C. M., et al. 2016, JQSRT, 168, 142, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.07.021

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad37d

    Cain, M., Frebel, A., Gull, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad37d

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  22. [30]

    S., et al

    Casagrande, L., Portinari, L., Glass, I. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu089

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

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

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2007, A&A, 469, 687, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066321

    Collet, R., Asplund, M., & Trampedach, R. 2007, A&A, 469, 687, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066321

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 3369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty002

    Trampedach, R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty002

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    2015, A&A, 576, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424885

    Dobrovolskas, V., Kuˇ cinskas, A., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424885

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    F., & Steffen, M

    Mello, G. F., & Steffen, M. 2016, A&A, 585, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526783

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, A&A, 688, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348448

    Eitner, P., Bergemann, M., Hoppe, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348448

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2009, A&A, 500, 1143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810095 Fernandes de Melo, R., Lombardo, L., Alencastro Puls, A., et al

    Akerman, C. 2009, A&A, 500, 1143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810095 Fernandes de Melo, R., Lombardo, L., Alencastro Puls, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A220, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451173

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Fulbright, J. P. 2000, AJ, 120, 1841, doi: 10.1086/301548

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    P., & Johnson, J

    Fulbright, J. P., & Johnson, J. A. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1154, doi: 10.1086/377443 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10....

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

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

    Gallagher, A. J., Caffau, E., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628602

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Magg, E., Plez, B., et al

    Gerber, J. M., Magg, E., Plez, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243673

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    T., Holmbeck, E

    Hansen, T. T., Holmbeck, E. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacc

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2011, A&A, 529, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015782

    Hayek, W., Asplund, M., Collet, R., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, A&A, 529, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015782

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, A&A, 645, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936291

    Heiter, U., Lind, K., Bergemann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936291

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    1995, PASP, 107, 1042, doi: 10.1086/133660

    Hinkle, K., Wallace, L., & Livingston, W. 1995, PASP, 107, 1042, doi: 10.1086/133660

    1995 doi

  42. [50]

    H., & Lambert, D

    Hinkle, K. H., & Lambert, D. L. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/170.3.447 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27

    1975 doi

  43. [51]

    K., Frebel, A., Roederer, I

    Hollek, J. K., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/54

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Beers, T

    Holmbeck, E. M., Beers, T. C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2018, ApJL, 859, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac722

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J

    Holtzman, J. A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/148

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    C., & Takada-Hidai, M

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., & Takada-Hidai, M. 2011, ApJ, 730, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/77

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    2004, ApJ, 607, 474, doi: 10.1086/383406

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Kajino, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 474, doi: 10.1086/383406

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7110

    Huber, D., Slumstrup, D., Hon, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7110

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Aoki, W., & Chiba, M

    Ishigaki, M. N., Aoki, W., & Chiba, M. 2013, ApJ, 771, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/67

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    N., Chiba, M., & Aoki, W

    Ishigaki, M. N., Chiba, M., & Aoki, W. 2012, ApJ, 753, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/64

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    2016, in IOS Press, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in IOS Press, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kotani, T., Tamura, M., Nishikawa, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  54. [62]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 1070211, doi: 10.1117/12.2311836

    doi

  55. [63]

    P., Suntzeff, N

    Kraft, R. P., Suntzeff, N. B., Langer, G. E., et al. 1982, PASP, 94, 55, doi: 10.1086/130941

    1982 doi

  56. [64]

    C., & Weiss, W

    Stempels, H. C., & Weiss, W. W. 2000, Baltic Astronomy, 9, 590, doi: 10.1515/astro-2000-0420

    2000 doi

  57. [65]

    K., Johnson, J

    Lai, D. K., Johnson, J. A., Bolte, M., & Lucatello, S. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1185, doi: 10.1086/520949

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6514

    Li, H., Aoki, W., Matsuno, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6514

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    N., Ludwig, H

    Li, H. N., Ludwig, H. G., Caffau, E., Christlieb, N., & Zhao, G. 2013, ApJ, 765, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/51

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    Lind, K., & Amarsi, A. M. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-103557

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2013, A&A, 557, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274

    Magic, Z., Collet, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0b4

    Marasco, C., Tayar, J., & Nidever, D. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0b4

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    2011, A&A, 528, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015336

    Grupp, F. 2011, A&A, 528, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015336

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    2017, A&A, 608, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731582

    Mashonkina, L., Jablonka, P., Sitnova, T., Pakhomov, Y., & North, P. 2017, A&A, 608, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731582

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20 Mel´ endez, J., & Barbuy, B

    Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20 Mel´ endez, J., & Barbuy, B. 2002, ApJ, 575, 474, doi: 10.1086/341142 Mel´ endez, J., Barbuy, B., & Spite, F. 2001, ApJ, 556, 858, doi: 10.1086/321624

    2003 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, A&A, 687, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449816

    Mishenina, T., Pignatari, M., Usenko, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449816

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    Mittal, S., & Roederer, I. U. 2025, AJ, 169, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adadf0

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    Morton, T. D. 2015,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1503.010 http://ascl.net/1503.010

    2015

  70. [78]

    2021, A&A, 653, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140979

    Mucciarelli, A., Bellazzini, M., & Massari, D. 2021, A&A, 653, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140979

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    2002, PASJ, 54, 855, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.855

    Noguchi, K., Aoki, W., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 855, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.855

    2002 doi

  72. [80]

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

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

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    2017, A&A, 607, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730427

    Nordlander, T., & Lind, K. 2017, A&A, 607, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730427

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    E., Christlieb, N., Bessell, M

    Norris, J. E., Christlieb, N., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/150

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    Pepe, F., Cristiani, S., Rebolo, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    C., Dalle Ore, C

    Peterson, R. C., Dalle Ore, C. M., & Kurucz, R. L. 1993, ApJ, 404, 333, doi: 10.1086/172283

    1993 doi

  77. [85]

    E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T

    Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S. 1995, A&AS, 112, 525 34

    1995

  78. [86]

    M., Santucci, R

    Placco, V. M., Santucci, R. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b9

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    2012

  80. [88]

    A., Hoppe, R., Bergemann, M., et al

    Popa, S. A., Hoppe, R., Bergemann, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245503 Prakapaviˇ cius, D., Kuˇ cinskas, A., Dobrovolskas, V., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629306 Prˇ sa, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152,...

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    U., Preston, G

    Roederer, I. U., Preston, G. W., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/136 R´ o˙ za´ nski, T., Niemczura, E., Lemiesz, J., Posi lek, N., & R´ o˙ za´ nski, P. 2022, A&A, 659, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141480

    2014 doi

  82. [90]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    2009, A&A, 496, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811070

    Ryde, N., Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, B., et al. 2009, A&A, 496, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811070

    2009 doi

  84. [92]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 6075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2581

    Scannapieco, C., Cescutti, G., & Chiappini, C. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 6075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2581

    2022 doi

  85. [93]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, A&A, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  86. [94]

    C., Placco, V

    Shank, D., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac409a

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    J., et al

    Simmerer, J., Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1091, doi: 10.1086/424504

    2004 doi

  88. [96]

    V., Cunha, K., Shetrone, M

    Smith, V. V., Cunha, K., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/16

    2013 doi

  89. [97]

    V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V. V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    P., Prosser, C

    Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Prosser, C. F., & Langer, G. E. 1991, AJ, 102, 2001, doi: 10.1086/116023

    1991 doi

  91. [99]

    2005, A&A, 430, 655, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041274

    Spite, M., Cayrel, R., Plez, B., et al. 2005, A&A, 430, 655, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041274

    2005 doi

  92. [100]

    2015, A&A, 583, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526406

    Steffen, M., Prakapaviˇ cius, D., Caffau, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526406

    2015 doi

  93. [101]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2488

    Storm, N., & Bergemann, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2488

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 3284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf472

    Storm, N., Bergemann, M., Eitner, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf472

    2025 doi

  95. [103]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    Suda, T., Katsuta, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    2008 doi

  96. [104]

    2003, A&A, 402, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030217

    Takeda, Y. 2003, A&A, 402, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030217

    2003 doi

  97. [105]

    2013, PASJ, 65, 65, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.3.65

    Takeda, Y., & Takada-Hidai, M. 2013, PASJ, 65, 65, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.3.65

    2013 doi

  98. [106]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tamura, M., Suto, H., Nishikawa, J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461T, doi: 10.1117/12.925885

    2012 doi

  99. [107]

    Thompson, R. I. 1973, ApJ, 181, 1039, doi: 10.1086/152110

    1973 doi

  100. [108]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  101. [109]

    2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    2007 doi

  102. [110]

    F., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Nordlund, ˚A., & Asplund, M

    Trampedach, R., Stein, R. F., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Nordlund, ˚A., & Asplund, M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2084

    2014 doi

  103. [111]

    2024, A&A, 684, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348133

    Vernekar, N., Lucatello, S., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348133

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    S., Allen, S

    Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362, doi: 10.1117/12.176725

    1994 doi

  105. [113]

    2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 862, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610645

    Vollmann, K., & Eversberg, T. 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 862, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610645

    2006 doi

  106. [114]

    X., Nordlander, T., Asplund, M., et al

    Wang, E. X., Nordlander, T., Asplund, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3381

    2021 doi

  107. [115]

    Westin, J., Sneden, C., Gustafsson, B., & Cowan, J. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 783, doi: 10.1086/308407

    2000 doi

  108. [116]

    E., & Weaver, T

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

    1995 doi

  109. [117]

    2005, A&A, 430, 255, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041540

    Yushchenko, A., Gopka, V., Goriely, S., et al. 2005, A&A, 430, 255, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041540

    2005 doi

  110. [118]

    A., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Zamora, O., Garc´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/181

    2015 doi

  111. [119]

    C., Beers, T

    Zepeda, J., Rasmussen, K. C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3a79

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.