pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12617 · v1 · pith:DT5EB5JQnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Carbon Abundances in Metal-Poor Stars Reveal Distinct Galaxy and Star Formation Pathways in the Early Universe

Alexander Yelland , Anna Frebel , Xiaowei Ou , Sarah Hughes , Mohammad K. Mardini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords carbon-enhanced metal-poor starsultra-faint dwarf galaxiesMilky Way halo assemblychemical enrichmentearly universe star formationdwarf galaxy satellitesCEMP fraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

The metal-poor Milky Way halo assembled from many different dwarf galaxies, with carbon-enhanced stars supplied by ultra-faint systems and non-enhanced stars by intermediate-sized progenitors.

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

This paper assembles carbon abundance measurements for 1032 metal-poor stars drawn from the Milky Way halo and a range of dwarf galaxies. It reports that ultra-faint dwarfs retain high fractions of carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars at low metallicity while classical dwarf spheroidals retain low fractions, producing a clear magnitude-CEMP fraction trend. The pattern implies that the halo formed through accretion of multiple distinct systems rather than a uniform set of progenitors. High CEMP fractions point to enrichment dominated by faint supernovae in the smallest systems, while low fractions indicate in-situ star formation in larger ones. A handful of stars also sit near the theoretical forbidden zone, suggesting dust cooling helped enable the earliest low-mass star formation.

Core claim

The metal-poor Milky Way halo appears to have assembled from many different dwarf galaxies, with CEMP halo stars being contributed by early UFD-like systems and non-CEMP halo stars by intermediate-sized halos that later formed classical dwarfs.

What carries the argument

The low-metallicity Magnitude (M_V)--CEMP Fraction relation, which links observed carbon-enhancement fractions to galaxy mass and distinguishes supernova-dominated enrichment in ultra-faint dwarfs from in-situ formation in classical dwarfs.

If this is right

  • High CEMP fractions in ultra-faint dwarfs indicate their chemical enrichment was dominated by faint supernovae whose energy input did not quench further star formation.
  • Low CEMP fractions in classical dwarfs imply those galaxies formed predominantly in situ rather than through accretion of smaller CEMP-rich systems.
  • Stars lying near the forbidden zone in [C/H] space indicate that dust-induced cooling operated alongside fine-structure line cooling during the earliest low-mass star formation.
  • The Milky Way halo therefore contains a mixture of stellar populations inherited from both the smallest and the intermediate-sized early galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same carbon-based distinction could be applied to stars in the halos of other large galaxies to test whether their assembly histories followed similar mass-dependent pathways.
  • Future observations of disrupted streams or fully disrupted dwarfs could reveal whether the CEMP fraction changes with the degree of tidal processing.
  • The presence of forbidden-zone stars only in UFD-like environments suggests targeted searches in surviving ultra-faint dwarfs for additional dust-cooled candidates.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in CEMP fractions between surviving ultra-faint dwarfs and classical dwarfs directly reflect distinct supernova enrichment histories and formation modes rather than selection biases or differential survival effects.

What would settle it

A new homogeneous survey that finds comparable CEMP fractions in classical dwarfs and ultra-faint dwarfs at [Fe/H] less than -2.5, after matching selection criteria, would falsify the claim of distinct pathways.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12617 by Alexander Yelland, Anna Frebel, Mohammad K. Mardini, Sarah Hughes, Xiaowei Ou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: [Fe/H] vs [C/Fe] for stars in each of the four categories of systems. The legend provides information on the individual systems in each category. Milky Way stars are shown as light gray points for comparison. The dashed dark gray line at [C/Fe] = 0.0 represents the solar carbon abundance. The black dashed line at [C/Fe] = 0.7 represents the CEMP threshold, while the gray dashed line at [C/Fe] = 0.0 depicts… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: [Fe/H] vs. CEMP star fractions for stars in each category of systems. CEMP fractions are depicted for UFDs (orange line), CDW (green line), SSs (red line), and ADWs (SASS stars: blue dashed line, accreted dwarf galaxy stars: dotted blue line, and cumulative accreted stars: solid blue line). Milky Way stars are shown in black for comparison. reduced for a given CEMP classification threshold, rela￾tive to th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Magnitude–CEMP Fraction (MCF) relation for stars with [Fe/H] ≤ −2.0. The top panel shows the re￾lation between the absolute V-band magnitudes (MV) and the CEMP star fractions of the different systems. The bot￾tom panel shows the equivalent relation using systems’ stellar mass. Data points and fitted trends are color-coded by system type: CDW are shown in green, UFDs in orange, and ADW in blue. The black li… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Fe/H] vs Dtrans for stars in each category of systems, with each panel showing one category, respectively, with the Milky Way stars shown with light gray points for comparison. The legends provide information on the individual systems in each category. The vertical lines on each data point represent the possible range of the star’s Dtrans value, assuming −0.6 ≤ [C/O] ≤ 0.0. The solid diagonal black line r… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [Si/H] vs Dtrans for stars in each category of systems. The vertical lines on each data point represent the possible range of the star’s Dtrans value, assuming −0.6 ≤ [C/O] ≤ 0.0. The vertical green and red bars represent the thresholds for which “standard” and “shock” dust cooling remains viable (Ji et al. 2014). Any [Si/H] abundances below these thresholds infer that dust is not efficient for cooling the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP; with $\rm{[Fe/H]} \le -2.0$ and $\rm{[C/Fe]} \ge 0.7$) stars preserve information about early chemical enrichment, low-mass star formation, and the hierarchical assembly of galaxies. In this study, we have compiled an extensive literature sample of 1032 stellar carbon abundances spanning the metal-poor Milky Way halo (437 stars), 21 ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs; 102 stars), seven classical dwarf spheroidal galaxies (254 stars), three accreted dwarf galaxies (90 stars), the Small Accreted Stellar Systems (SASS; 77 stars), and eleven stellar streams (72 stars). We establish the fractions of CEMP stars for each of these systems and categories. Generally, the low-mass UFDs possess the high fractions at low metallicities, whereas the more massive classical dwarf galaxies have relatively few CEMP stars. This behavior reveals a new low-metallicity Magnitude ($M_{\rm V}$)--CEMP Fraction relation across the dwarf satellite galaxy population. The high CEMP fractions in surviving UFDs suggest their enrichment was dominated by faint supernovae, as higher energy input would likely have quenched star production. The low CEMP fractions in classical dwarfs imply predominantly in situ formation rather than assembly from smaller systems. Using $\rm{[C/H]}$ abundances, we also probe early low-mass star formation. Eight stars lie within or near the theoretical ''forbidden zone'', indicating that dust-induced cooling, alongside fine-structure line cooling, contributed to early star formation. These rare dust-cooled stars may have formed in UFD-like systems that did not survive. Overall, the metal-poor Milky Way halo appears to have assembled from many different dwarf galaxies, with CEMP halo stars being contributed by early UFD-like systems and non-CEMP halo stars by intermediate-sized halos that later formed classical dwarfs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles a literature sample of 1032 carbon abundance measurements for metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] ≤ -2) across the Milky Way halo (437 stars), 21 UFDs (102 stars), seven classical dSphs (254 stars), three accreted dwarfs (90 stars), SASS (77 stars), and eleven streams (72 stars). It reports systematically higher CEMP fractions ([C/Fe] ≥ 0.7) in UFDs than in classical dwarfs, identifies a new M_V–CEMP fraction relation, interprets the pattern as evidence that UFDs experienced faint-supernova-dominated enrichment while classical dwarfs formed largely in situ, and concludes that the metal-poor halo assembled from a heterogeneous mix of UFD-like and intermediate-mass progenitors, with eight stars near the theoretical forbidden zone implying dust cooling in early low-mass systems.

Significance. If the reported CEMP fractions prove robust against selection effects, the magnitude–CEMP relation and the inferred differential contributions to the halo would supply a new, observationally grounded constraint on the mass-dependent enrichment and assembly channels that built the Milky Way’s metal-poor component. The identification of stars near the forbidden zone would additionally highlight a possible dust-cooling pathway in the lowest-mass early systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and the sample description): the central claim that CEMP fractions directly trace distinct supernova enrichment and in-situ versus accreted modes rests on the assumption that the compiled fractions are free of heterogeneous literature selection and targeting biases. No selection function, completeness correction, or quantification of differential spectroscopic follow-up priorities across the 21 UFDs, 7 classical dSphs, and halo samples is provided, even though more luminous systems have higher surface densities that can suppress CEMP detection rates at fixed [Fe/H] < -2.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (and the statistical analysis section): no description is given of the statistical methods used to compute CEMP fractions, propagate uncertainties, or assess the significance of the reported M_V–CEMP fraction relation. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed differences between UFDs and classical dwarfs exceed what would be expected from Poisson sampling or from the heterogeneous literature compilation.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract (interpretation paragraph): the inference that low CEMP fractions in classical dwarfs imply predominantly in-situ formation rather than assembly from smaller systems is load-bearing for the halo-assembly conclusion, yet the manuscript does not test or quantify differential survival effects that could make the surviving UFD sample unrepresentative of the progenitor population that contributed to the halo.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses the notation rm{[Fe/H]} and rm{[C/Fe]} without defining the exact solar reference scale or the precise [C/Fe] threshold adopted for the CEMP classification in the compiled sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and indicate revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the sample description): the central claim that CEMP fractions directly trace distinct supernova enrichment and in-situ versus accreted modes rests on the assumption that the compiled fractions are free of heterogeneous literature selection and targeting biases. No selection function, completeness correction, or quantification of differential spectroscopic follow-up priorities across the 21 UFDs, 7 classical dSphs, and halo samples is provided, even though more luminous systems have higher surface densities that can suppress CEMP detection rates at fixed [Fe/H] < -2.

    Authors: We agree that heterogeneous selection effects represent a significant caveat for any literature compilation. Complete selection functions and completeness corrections are unavailable for the full set of contributing surveys. However, the reported M_V–CEMP fraction trend runs opposite to the direction expected from surface-density suppression in brighter systems, and subsets of UFDs observed with different instruments yield consistent high CEMP fractions. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit paragraph in the sample section acknowledging these limitations and noting that the observed trend provides a lower limit on the true difference. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the statistical analysis section): no description is given of the statistical methods used to compute CEMP fractions, propagate uncertainties, or assess the significance of the reported M_V–CEMP fraction relation. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed differences between UFDs and classical dwarfs exceed what would be expected from Poisson sampling or from the heterogeneous literature compilation.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. CEMP fractions were computed as the binomial proportion of stars with [C/Fe] ≥ 0.7 among those with [Fe/H] ≤ −2; uncertainties follow the standard binomial (or Poisson for small N) formula. The M_V–CEMP relation was assessed with the Spearman rank correlation test. The revised manuscript now contains a dedicated “Statistical Methods” subsection that fully describes these procedures, reports the resulting p-value, and discusses the impact of sample heterogeneity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (interpretation paragraph): the inference that low CEMP fractions in classical dwarfs imply predominantly in-situ formation rather than assembly from smaller systems is load-bearing for the halo-assembly conclusion, yet the manuscript does not test or quantify differential survival effects that could make the surviving UFD sample unrepresentative of the progenitor population that contributed to the halo.

    Authors: The interpretation rests on the large observed contrast in CEMP fractions between surviving UFDs and classical dwarfs. We acknowledge that differential survival of early progenitors could alter the representativeness of the UFD sample. A quantitative assessment of such effects requires cosmological simulations with detailed chemical tagging that lie outside the scope of this observational compilation. The revised discussion now explicitly flags this limitation while retaining the interpretation as the most direct reading of the extant data on surviving systems. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative modeling or simulation-based test of differential survival effects that could render the surviving UFD population unrepresentative of halo progenitors

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on direct literature compilation and counting

full rationale

The paper compiles 1032 literature carbon abundances, computes CEMP fractions per system category, reports an observed M_V--CEMP fraction trend, and offers an interpretive narrative about assembly pathways. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations appear in the provided text. All load-bearing steps are empirical counts and comparisons of external data; none reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes. This matches the default expectation of a self-contained observational study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central interpretive claims rest on the domain assumption that CEMP fraction is a faithful tracer of supernova type and formation mode, plus the assumption that the compiled samples fairly represent the underlying populations.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption CEMP classification uses the standard thresholds [Fe/H] ≤ -2.0 and [C/Fe] ≥ 0.7
    Invoked throughout the abstract to define the stellar categories being compared.
  • domain assumption Differences in observed CEMP fractions between galaxy types reflect intrinsic enrichment pathways rather than selection or survival biases
    This premise underpins the inference that UFDs were faint-supernova dominated and classical dwarfs formed in situ.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5911 in / 1470 out tokens · 30151 ms · 2026-06-27T08:52:24.997081+00:00 · methodology

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

186 extracted references · 183 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2018, Astrophys

    Abohalima, A., & Frebel, A. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 238, 36, 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 2018

  2. [2]

    S., Allende Prieto, C., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez, J

    Aguado, D. S., Allende Prieto, C., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez, J. I., Rebolo, R., & Caffau, E. 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 604, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731320

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731320 2017

  3. [3]

    S., Molaro, P., Caffau, E., et al

    Aguado, D. S., Molaro, P., Caffau, E., et al. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 668, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244627

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244627 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Carigi, L., Nissen, P

    Akerman, C. J., Carigi, L., Nissen, P. E., Pettini, M., & Asplund, M. 2004, Astron. Astrophys., 414, 931, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034188

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034188 2004

  5. [5]

    D., Santos Figueiredo, A., Fienberg, C

    Andales, H. D., Santos Figueiredo, A., Fienberg, C. G., Mardini, M. K., & Frebel, A. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 530, 4712, 10.1093/mnras/stae670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae670 2024

  6. [6]

    C., Christlieb, N., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Christlieb, N., et al. 2007 a , Astrophys. J., 655, 492, 10.1086/509817

    work page doi:10.1086/509817 2007

  7. [7]

    2006, Astrophys

    Aoki, W., Bisterzo, S., Gallino, R., et al. 2006, Astrophys. J., 650, L127, 10.1086/508878

    work page doi:10.1086/508878 2006

  8. [8]

    G., Norris, J

    Aoki, W., Ryan, S. G., Norris, J. E., et al. 2002, Astrophys. J., 580, 1149, 10.1086/343885

    work page doi:10.1086/343885 2002

  9. [9]

    C., et al

    Aoki, W., Honda, S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, Astrophys. J., 632, 611, 10.1086/432862

    work page doi:10.1086/432862 2005

  10. [10]

    2007 b , Astrophys

    ---. 2007 b , Astrophys. J., 660, 747, 10.1086/512601

    work page doi:10.1086/512601 2007

  11. [11]

    C., Sivarani, T., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2008, Astrophys. J., 678, 1351, 10.1086/533517

    work page doi:10.1086/533517 2008

  12. [12]

    C., Lee, Y

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2013, Astron. J., 145, 13, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/13 2013

  13. [13]

    M., Lee, Y

    Arentsen, A., Placco, V. M., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 515, 4082, 10.1093/mnras/stac2062

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2062 2022

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

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

  15. [15]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  16. [16]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  17. [17]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  18. [18]

    S., Christlieb, N., Beers, T

    Barklem, P. S., Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, Astron. Astrophys., 439, 129, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052967

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052967 2005

  19. [19]

    C., Placco, V

    Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., Carollo, D., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/81 2017

  20. [20]

    Bekki, K., & Freeman, K. C. 2003, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 346, L11, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07275.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07275.x 2003

  21. [21]

    W., Koposov S

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 478, 611, 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  22. [22]

    2007, Astrophys

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, Astrophys. J., 668, 949, 10.1086/521385

    work page doi:10.1086/521385 2007

  23. [23]

    2009, Astron

    Bonifacio, P., Spite, M., Cayrel, R., et al. 2009, Astron. Astrophys., 501, 519, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810610

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810610 2009

  24. [24]

    2025, Astrophys

    Brauer, K., Emerick, A., Mead, J., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J., 980, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4a1 2025

  25. [25]

    2013, Rep

    Bromm, V. 2013, Rep. Prog. Phys., 76, 112901, 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901 2013

  26. [26]

    2003, Nature, 425, 812, 10.1038/nature02071

    Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812, 10.1038/nature02071

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02071 2003

  27. [27]

    2011, Nature, 477, 67, 10.1038/nature10377

    Caffau, E., Bonifacio, P., Fran c ois, P., et al. 2011, Nature, 477, 67, 10.1038/nature10377

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10377 2011

  28. [28]

    C., Bovy, J., et al

    Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Bovy, J., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J., 744, 195, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/195

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/195 2012

  29. [29]

    R., & Schlaufman, K

    Casey, A. R., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9079

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9079 2017

  30. [30]

    2004, Astron

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034074 2004

  31. [31]

    2013 a , Astrophys

    Chiaki, G., Nozawa, T., & Yoshida, N. 2013 a , Astrophys. J., 765, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L3

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/l3 2013

  32. [32]

    2013 b , Astrophys

    Chiaki, G., Yoshida, N., & Kitayama, T. 2013 b , Astrophys. J., 762, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/50 2013

  33. [33]

    P., et al

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2018 a , Astrophys. J., 857, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab4fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab4fc 2018

  34. [34]

    D., Frebel, A., et al

    Chiti, A., Simon, J. D., Frebel, A., et al. 2018 b , Astrophys. J., 856, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab663

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab663 2018

  35. [35]

    P., et al

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2023, Astron. J., 165, 55, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca416

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca416 2023

  36. [36]

    2024, Nat

    Chiti, A., Mardini, M., Limberg, G., et al. 2024, Nat. Astron., 8, 637, 10.1038/s41550-024-02223-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02223-w 2024

  37. [37]

    M., Pace, A

    Chiti, A., Placco, V. M., Pace, A. B., et al. 2025, A Second-Generation Star in a Relic Dwarf Galaxy, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.04053

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.04053 2025

  38. [38]

    2026, Nat

    ---. 2026, Nat. Astron., 10.1038/s41550-026-02802-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-026-02802-z 2026

  39. [39]

    2018, Astron

    Choplin, A., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., et al. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 618, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833283

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833283 2018

  40. [40]

    G., Christlieb, N., McWilliam, A., et al

    Cohen, J. G., Christlieb, N., McWilliam, A., et al. 2008, Astrophys. J., 672, 320, 10.1086/523638

    work page doi:10.1086/523638 2008

  41. [41]

    G., Christlieb, N., Thompson, I., et al

    Cohen, J. G., Christlieb, N., Thompson, I., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 778, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/56

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/56 2013

  42. [42]

    G., Hsieh, S., Metchev, S., Djorgovski, S

    Cohen, J. G., Hsieh, S., Metchev, S., Djorgovski, S. G., & Malkan, M. 2007 a , Astron. J., 133, 99, 10.1086/509127

    work page doi:10.1086/509127 2007

  43. [43]

    G., McWilliam, A., Christlieb, N., et al

    Cohen, J. G., McWilliam, A., Christlieb, N., et al. 2007 b , Astrophys. J., 659, L161, 10.1086/518031

    work page doi:10.1086/518031 2007

  44. [44]

    G., Thompson, I

    Cohen, J. G., Thompson, I. B., Sumi, T., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J., 699, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/66 2009

  45. [45]

    G., Gould, A., Thompson, I

    Cohen, J. G., Gould, A., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J., 711, L48, 10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/L48

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/l48 2010

  46. [46]

    J., & Madau, P

    Cooke, R. J., & Madau, P. 2014, Astrophys. J., 791, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/116 2014

  47. [47]

    U., et al

    Ezzeddine, R., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7 2019

  48. [48]

    2020, Astrophys

    Ezzeddine, R., Rasmussen, K., Frebel, A., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 898, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1a 2020

  49. [49]

    2025, Eur

    Farouqi, K., Frebel, A., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2025, Eur. Phys. J. A, 61, 207, 10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01668-5

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01668-5 2025

  50. [50]

    2016, Astron

    Fran c ois, P., Monaco, L., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 588, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527181

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527181 2016

  51. [51]

    2007, Astron

    Fran c ois, P., Depagne, E., Hill, V., et al. 2007, Astron. Astrophys., 476, 935, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077706

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077706 2007

  52. [52]

    2018, Astron

    Fran c ois, P., Caffau, E., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 620, A187, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834375

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834375 2018

  53. [53]

    2016, Searching for the Oldest Stars

    Frebel, A. 2016, Searching for the Oldest Stars . Ancient Relics from the Early Universe (Princeton University Press). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016sosa.book.....F

    2016

  54. [54]

    2012, Astrophys

    Frebel, A., & Bromm, V. 2012, Astrophys. J., 759, 115, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/115 2012

  55. [55]

    P., Jacobson, H

    Frebel, A., Chiti, A., Ji, A. P., Jacobson, H. R., & Placco, V. M. 2015, Astrophys. J., 810, L27, 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/l27 2015

  56. [56]

    2008, Astrophys

    Frebel, A., Collet, R., Eriksson, K., Christlieb, N., & Aoki, W. 2008, Astrophys. J., 684, 588, 10.1086/590327

    work page doi:10.1086/590327 2008

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Frebel, A., Johnson, J. L., & Bromm, V. 2007 a , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 380, L40, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00344.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00344.x 2007

  58. [58]

    N., & Simon, J

    Frebel, A., Kirby, E. N., & Simon, J. D. 2010 a , Nature, 464, 72, 10.1038/nature08772

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08772 2010

  59. [59]

    Frebel, A., & Norris, J. E. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems . Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations , Vol. 5 (Springer), 55, 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_3 2013

  60. [60]

    2015, Annu

    ---. 2015, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 53, 631, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 2015

  61. [61]

    E., Aoki, W., et al

    Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Aoki, W., et al. 2007 b , Astrophys. J., 658, 534, 10.1086/511517

    work page doi:10.1086/511517 2007

  62. [62]

    E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R

    Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2016, Astrophys. J., 826, 110, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/110

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/110 2016

  63. [63]

    D., Geha, M., & Willman, B

    Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010 b , Astrophys. J., 708, 560, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/560

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/560 2010

  64. [64]

    D., & Kirby, E

    Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Kirby, E. N. 2014, Astrophys. J., 786, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/74 2014

  65. [65]

    E., et al

    Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., Norris, J. E., et al. 2006, Astrophys. J., 652, 1585, 10.1086/508506

    work page doi:10.1086/508506 2006

  66. [66]

    P., Rich, R

    Fulbright, Jon . P., Rich, R. M., & Castro, S. 2004, Astrophys. J., 612, 447, 10.1086/421712

    work page doi:10.1086/421712 2004

  67. [67]

    E., Monaco, L., et al

    Gilmore, G., Norris, J. E., Monaco, L., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 763, 61, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/61 2013

  68. [68]

    2021, Astrophys

    Gull, M., Frebel, A., Hinojosa, K., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 912, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/abea1a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abea1a 2021

  69. [69]

    J., El-Souri , M., Monaco, L., et al

    Hansen, C. J., El-Souri , M., Monaco, L., et al. 2018 a , Astrophys. J., 855, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa978f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa978f 2018

  70. [70]

    J., Christlieb, N., et al

    Hansen, T., Hansen, C. J., Christlieb, N., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 787, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/2/162 2014

  71. [71]

    2015, Astrophys

    ---. 2015, Astrophys. J., 807, 173, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/173

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/173 2015

  72. [72]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 968, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a52 2024

  73. [73]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Marshall, J. L., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 838, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa634a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa634a 2017

  74. [74]

    T., Holmbeck, E

    Hansen, T. T., Holmbeck, E. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2018 b , Astrophys. J., 858, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacc

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

  75. [75]

    T., Marshall, J

    Hansen, T. T., Marshall, J. L., Simon, J. D., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 897, 183, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9643

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9643 2020

  76. [76]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 863, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 2018

  77. [77]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, Astrophys. J., 724, 341, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/341 2010

  78. [78]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  79. [79]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw , P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53, 10.1038/46980

    work page doi:10.1038/46980 1999

  80. [80]

    2019, Astron

    Hill, V., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir, \'A ., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 626, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833950

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833950 2019

Showing first 80 references.