Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A chemical close-up of the main body of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy's main body was built by low-efficiency star formation with a top-light initial mass function, few hypernovae, sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia supernovae, and efficient r-process enrichment…

desk verdict First homogeneous high-resolution Mn/Ni/Zn abundances for Sagittarius' main body, carefully analyzed, but the Zn anchor is weak and the LTE baseline is untested; a solid conditional paper worth reviewing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02476 v1 pith:OJ24JACM submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Alessio Liberatori , Deimer Antonio Alvarez Garay , Marco Palla , Alessio Mucciarelli , Michele Bellazzini , Donatella Romano This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords SagittariusdwarfgalaxychemicalabundancesredgiantbranchstarsnucleosynthesisTypeIasupernovaer-processhigh-resolutionspectroscopygalacticevolution
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

This paper uses high-resolution spectra of 37 red giant stars in the main body of the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy to reconstruct how that galaxy enriched itself chemically. The authors derive abundances for 21 elements from oxygen to europium, covering [Fe/H] from about -2 to -0.4. They argue that the abundance patterns trace the galaxy's formation conditions: a low star formation efficiency, an initial mass function skewed against the most massive stars, a Type Ia supernova population dominated by sub-Chandrasekhar explosions, and efficient production of rapid neutron-capture elements. If the interpretation holds, Sagittarius formed its stars under quite different conditions from the Milky Way disk, and its tidal debris should carry distinctive chemical fingerprints.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is a homogeneous abundance network: 21 chemical species measured in 37 FLAMES-UVES spectra at R about 47,000, all analysed with the same code, model atmospheres, atomic data, and line-selection scheme used for the Galactic globular-cluster comparison sample, so that Sagittarius-to-Milky Way differences are not artifacts of heterogeneous analysis. Within that network, specific ratios serve as nucleosynthetic diagnostics: [Zn/Fe] and [Mn/Fe] track the contribution of hypernovae, [Ni/Fe] and [Mn/Fe] distinguish near-Chandrasekhar from sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia progenitors, [Eu/Fe] traces the r-process, and the alpha-element plateau-to-decline transition fixes the onset of Type Ia enrichment.

What would settle it

Re-derive Mn, Zn, Ni, and Eu in the same or a larger Sagittarius sample using NLTE (and ideally 3D) line formation and a second Zn transition: if the [Zn/Fe] decline to -1 dex and the [Mn/Fe] and [Ni/Fe] offsets collapse under the corrections, the nucleosynthetic story fails. A cruder check is whether the claimed Sgr/MW differences survive a change in adopted reddening or effective-temperature scale, since those shift the abundance ratios differentially with metallicity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Sagittarius dwarf's field-star abundances, freed from contamination by the globular cluster M54, split into two regimes: below [Fe/H] about -1.5/-1.3 the stars look like Milky Way stars of the same metallicity, except for higher [Mn/Fe] and [Eu/Fe] and lower [Zn/Fe]; above that knee almost every measured ratio deviates. The authors read the deviations as nucleosynthetic signatures: lower [Zn/Fe] and elevated [Mn/Fe] indicate a smaller contribution from hypernovae and hence fewer very massive stars; the drop of [Ni/Fe] to about -0.4 dex and the shallower [Mn/Fe] rise point to a Type Ia population dominated by sub-Chandrasekhar white-dwarf progenitors; and the systematically high [Eu/Fe], together with later [Ba,La,Nd/Fe] boosts above [Fe/H] about -0.7, indicate unusually efficient r-process and late s-process enrichment. The alpha-element knee at the same metallicity is taken as direct evidence of Sagittarius's low star formation efficiency relative to the Milky Way.

Load-bearing premise

The whole interpretation assumes the measured Mn, Zn, Ni, and Eu abundances are not biased by metallicity-dependent systematic errors in the 1D LTE analysis, most delicately that [Zn/Fe] comes from a single Zn I line observed at signal-to-noise of only 10-20.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the Sagittarius dwarf formed its stars with an initial mass function deficient in the most massive stars, challenging the idea that a universal IMF applies down to dwarf-galaxy scales.
  • Chemical evolution models for dwarf galaxies would need sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia supernovae as the dominant iron producers, explaining both the [Ni/Fe] deficit and the [Mn/Fe] behaviour.
  • The alpha-knee at [Fe/H] about -1.5/-1.3 would place Sagittarius's star formation efficiency below the Milky Way's by an amount that can be quantified with time-delay models.
  • The elevated [Eu/Fe] in the metal-poor regime implies efficient r-process enrichment, and the large [Ba,La,Nd/Fe] values at high metallicity imply late AGB enrichment, both testable predictions for the chemical evolution of the galaxy.
  • Stars stripped from Sagittarius into the Milky Way halo should carry these same Mn, Zn, Ni, and Eu anomalies, providing a chemical tag to identify Sgr debris.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the top-light IMF conclusion is right, Sagittarius debris should be identifiable in large Galactic surveys by its combination of low [Zn/Fe], elevated [Mn/Fe], and high [Eu/Fe] - a signature the paper itself does not compute.
  • The three blue, metal-rich stars could be a young (about 1-2 Gyr) population formed after gas stripping; the paper finds no chemical difference for them, so whether they represent a second enrichment path or binary mass transfer remains open.
  • Because [Zn/Fe] rests on one line at S/N about 10-20, a targeted re-observation with higher signal-to-noise or additional Zn transitions would directly test whether the steep decline is real or a systematic effect.
  • The r-process excess may reflect a delay-time effect: with low star formation efficiency, neutron-star mergers have time to enrich the interstellar medium before Type Ia supernovae dilute [Eu/Fe]; comparing [Eu/alpha] across dwarfs of different masses would test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a high-resolution (FLAMES-UVES) chemical abundance study of 37 red giant branch stars in the main body of the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy, combining 23 newly observed targets with 14 archival spectra. The authors derive abundances for 21 species over [Fe/H] from -1.93 to -0.41 dex, identify the alpha-element knee around [Fe/H] ~ -1.5/-1.3, and compare the resulting abundance patterns with homogeneously analyzed Milky Way globular clusters and the heterogeneous SAGA field-star sample. They interpret the low-metallicity offsets in [Mn/Fe], [Zn/Fe], and [Eu/Fe], together with high-metallicity deviations in many elements, as evidence for a low star formation efficiency, a top-light IMF with a reduced hypernova contribution, a sub-Chandrasekhar-dominated Type Ia supernova population, and efficient r- and s-process enrichment.

Significance. If the measurements are robust, the paper provides one of the most complete chemical snapshots of Sgr's main body and offers concrete support for IMF variations and SN Ia progenitor differences in dwarf galaxies. The study has notable strengths: the careful selection of targets outside the M54 tidal radius, an analysis strategy that reanalyzes archival spectra homogeneously, detailed Monte Carlo error estimation, and a homogeneous globular cluster benchmark (Mucciarelli et al. 2023b) that reduces analysis systematics for the Sgr-versus-GC comparison. The principal weakness is that the central nucleosynthetic conclusions rest on elements (especially Zn, Mn, and Ni) measured in 1D LTE with no NLTE corrections, and the key [Zn/Fe] trend is based on a single weak line at S/N = 10-20. These issues are partially acknowledged in the text but are not quantitatively bounded, which limits the strength of the astrophysical claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 5.3] The central nucleosynthetic claims—a lower hypernova contribution inferred from [Mn/Fe] and [Zn/Fe] and a sub-Chandrasekhar-dominated SN Ia population inferred from [Ni/Fe]—are based on abundances derived in 1D LTE, with NLTE corrections applied only to Na (Section 3.3). Mn I and Zn I lines in cool giants are known to be affected by NLTE in ways that can depend on both [Fe/H] and effective temperature. Since the claimed Sgr/MW differences are differential with metallicity, an unquantified NLTE bias could mimic or erase the observed offsets. The authors should either apply published NLTE corrections (e.g., for Mn and Zn) or provide an explicit sensitivity test that bounds the magnitude of these effects and re-evaluate the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.3, Fig. 9] The steep decline of [Zn/Fe] from sub-solar values to about -1 dex is the primary evidence for a top-light IMF and a reduced hypernova contribution, yet it rests entirely on the single Zn I 4810 A line observed at S/N = 10-20, as the paper itself acknowledges. The paper attributes the large star-to-star scatter to continuum placement in the bluest part of the UVES setup, but if the continuum errors correlate with S/N, Teff, or metallicity, the inferred trend could be an artifact. The robustness of this trend should be demonstrated, for example by showing line fits and continuum regions for representative stars, by testing whether the trend persists when restricting to stars with S/N above a threshold, or by re-deriving [Zn/Fe] with a different continuum placement algorithm.
  3. [Section 5, Figs. 6-10] The claimed deviations of Sgr from the Milky Way are inferred against the SAGA database (Suda et al. 2008), which is a heterogeneous compilation of literature abundances. The globular cluster benchmark is homogeneous, but the MW field baseline is not, so the reported offsets in [Mn/Fe], [Zn/Fe], [Eu/Fe], and the high-metallicity patterns could partly reflect inter-analysis systematics rather than intrinsic differences. The authors note possible systematics but still use the SAGA sample as the reference for distinguishing Sgr from MW field stars. Please either include a homogeneously analyzed MW field sample (e.g., stars processed with the same SALVADOR pipeline) or provide a quantitative estimate of the systematic uncertainty in the SAGA baseline, and temper claims where that baseline is not secure.
  4. [Section 5.3, Fig. 9] The high-metallicity end of the [Zn/Fe] and [Mn/Fe] trends, which drives the conclusion of a very steep [Zn/Fe] decline and a shallower [Mn/Fe] rise, appears to be based on a small number of stars (roughly six with [Fe/H] > -0.8 dex based on Table A.1). The paper does not report the number of stars in the metal-rich bins, nor does it test whether the trends survive removal of individual stars. Given the large scatter in [Zn/Fe], the authors should state the relevant star counts and perform a simple leave-one-out robustness check to establish whether the high-metallicity trends are driven by a few objects.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The word 'aroind' should be 'around'.
  2. [Section 5] The word 'benchmarck' should be 'benchmark'.
  3. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'hose production is favored' appears to be a typo for 'whose production is favored'.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] The phrase 'The [α/Fe] is computed' is grammatically awkward; consider 'The [α/Fe] ratio is computed'.
  5. [Table A.1] The header 'ID Minelliet al.(2021)' should read 'ID Minelli et al. (2021)'.
  6. [Section 2] The paper states that all abundances will be available in electronic format, but the arXiv version does not include the machine-readable tables; please ensure they are provided with the submitted version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the abundance measurements are external data reduced with standard codes, and the nucleosynthetic conclusions are interpretations against independent yield models and comparison samples.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational: 37 Sgr RGB spectra are reduced with standard pipeline tools, model atmospheres, and line synthesis, and the resulting abundances are compared with external samples (SAGA MW field stars, Galactic GCs from Mucciarelli et al. 2023b, APOGEE/Hasselquist et al. 2021, other dwarf galaxies) and interpreted with published nucleosynthesis models. No abundance trend is fitted and then re-predicted from its own fit; no 'prediction' is derived from a parameter calibrated to the target quantity; and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the chosen interpretation. The many self-citations (Mucciarelli et al. 2021 color-Teff relation, Mucciarelli & Bonifacio 2020 microturbulence relation, Mucciarelli et al. 2023b GC reference abundances) are methodological or provide comparison data analyzed under the same assumptions; they support rather than presuppose the conclusions. The paper explicitly acknowledges the fragile [Zn/Fe] measurements (single 4810 Å line at S/N ~ 10-20) and the heterogeneous SAGA baseline; these are systematic-error caveats, not circular steps. The nucleosynthetic claims (lower hypernova contribution, sub-Chandrasekhar SNe Ia, efficient r-process) are post-hoc interpretations of measured abundance ratios in light of external yield libraries, so the central claims retain independent observational content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger records the three external calibration values (E(B-V), mass, distance) that enter the photometric parameter scale, plus the model-atmosphere, line-formation, comparison-sample, and yield-mapping assumptions. No yield parameters are fitted to the data; the nucleosynthetic discussion is a qualitative interpretation against literature models.

free parameters (3)
  • Color excess E(B-V) = 0.15
    Adopted from Layden & Sarajedini (2000) to deredden Gaia photometry (Section 3.1); enters Teff determination and propagates into all abundances.
  • Stellar mass = 0.8 Msun
    Assumed for all 37 stars to derive surface gravities from G-band bolometric corrections (Section 3.1); affects log g and line abundances.
  • Distance to Sgr = 26.0 kpc
    Adopted from Monaco et al. (2004) to compute log g (Section 3.1); a distance error propagates into gravities and abundances.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 37 targets are genuine Sgr main-body stars, selected by Gaia proper motions within 0.5 mas/yr, parallax within 3 sigma of zero, and confirmed by radial velocities between +119 and +159 km/s (Section 2, Section 3.2).
    If foreground Milky Way stars or M54 members contaminate the sample, the derived abundance patterns would mix populations and the Sgr-specific conclusions would be invalid.
  • domain assumption Plane-parallel 1D LTE model atmospheres (ATLAS9) and LTE line formation (SYNTHE) are adequate for these RGB stars; NLTE corrections are applied only to Na (Section 3.3).
    Systematic NLTE/3D effects on Fe-peak and neutron-capture lines, if metallicity-dependent, could produce the apparent Sgr/MW differences in Mn, Zn, Ni, and Eu.
  • domain assumption The adopted atomic data (laboratory gf-values, hyperfine and isotopic splits, updated linelists) are accurate (Section 3.3).
    Errors in gf-values or line blending would shift absolute abundances and ratio comparisons.
  • domain assumption The MW comparison baselines, namely GCs analyzed with the same assumptions (Mucciarelli et al. 2023b) and SAGA MW field stars, are representative and free of large systematics (Section 5).
    The claim that Sgr deviates from the MW for almost all elements is defined relative to these external samples; the paper itself acknowledges possible systematics in the SAGA sample.
  • domain assumption The nucleosynthetic yields and IMF models cited in the discussion (hypernovae, sub-Chandrasekhar SNe Ia, NSM r-process) correctly map abundance ratios to progenitor populations (Sections 5.3-5.5).
    The interpretation of the measured [Mn/Fe], [Zn/Fe], [Ni/Fe], [Eu/Fe] trends as evidence about IMF and SNe Ia progenitors relies on these theoretical yields.
  • domain assumption For the GC comparison, first-generation stars of the O-Na-Mg-Al anticorrelation represent field-star abundances (Section 5, Figures 6-10).
    The comparison with GCs excludes second-generation stars for these four elements, assuming the adopted first-generation abundances are the relevant benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A chemical close-up of the main body of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJ24JACM

@misc{pith2026250602476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A chemical close-up of the main body of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJ24JACM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02476}
}
read the original abstract

We present the chemical composition of a sample of 37 red giant branch (RGB) stars belonging to the main body of the remnant of the Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf spheroidal galaxy. All stars were observed with the FLAMES-UVES high-resolution spectrograph. Twenty-three new targets are selected along the blue side of the RGB of Sgr, but outside the galaxy stellar nucleus, in order to avoid contamination by the stars of the metal-poor globular cluster M54. Additionally, we re-analyzed archival spectra of fourteen targets located on the red RGB. For this sample, we derive the abundances of 21 chemical species (from Oxygen to Europium) representing different nucleosynthetic sites. The sample covers a large range of metallicity, from [Fe/H]~-2 to ~ -0.4 dex and we can identify the transition between the enrichment phases dominated by core-collapse (CC-SNe) and Type Ia (SNe-Ia) supernovae. The observed [{\alpha}/Fe] trend suggests a knee occurring at [Fe/H]~-1.5/-1.3 dex, compatible with the rather low star formation efficiency of Sgr. At lower [Fe/H], Sgr stars exhibit a chemical composition compatible with Milky Way stars of similar [Fe/H]. The only relevant exceptions are [Mn/Fe], [Zn/Fe], and [Eu/Fe]. At [Fe/H] higher than ~ -1.5/-1.3 dex, instead, the chemical pattern of Sgr significantly deviates from that of the Milky Way for almost all the elements analyzed in this study. Some of the abundance patterns reveal a lower contribution by very massive stars exploding as hypernovae (e.g. [Mn/Fe], [Zn/Fe]), a higher contribution by sub-Chandrasekhar progenitors of SNe Ia (e.g. [Ni/Fe]) and a high production efficiency of rapid neutron-capture elements ([Eu/Fe]).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02476 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ), using archival spectra obtained under the programs 71.B￾0146 (PI: Bonifacio) and 081.D-286 (PI: Carretta). These spectra have been previously analysed in Monaco et al. (2005), Carretta et al. (2010) and Minelli et al. (2021) and here we present a new analysis with a homogeneous approach with respect to the new targets. The position of all the spectroscopic targets in the Gaia DR3 color-magnitude diagram of Sgr dS… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kiel diagram showing the run of log g as a function of Teff for the Sgr spectroscopic targets (same symbols as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of spectra for three target stars with different [Fe/H] and marked some lines of interest. younger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Position in the color-magnitude diagram of the Sgr targets with [Fe/H]>–0.7 dex, superimposed to some BaSTI-IAC isochrones (Pietrinferni et al. 2021) with [Fe/H]=–0.6 and –0.4 dex, solar-scaled chemical mixture, red and blue curves respectively, and ages of 1, 4 and 11…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Behavior of [Na/Fe] and [Al/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] for the Sgr spectroscopic targets of this study (same symbols of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: α-elements (O, Mg, Si, Ca and Ti) abundance ratios as a function of [Fe/H], same symbols of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Behavior of the average hydrostatic [α/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] for the Sgr stars (same symbols of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Behavior of [Sc/Fe], [V/Fe], [Cr/Fe] and [Mn/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H], same symbols of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Behavior of [Zr/Fe], [Ba/Fe], [La/Fe] [Nd/Fe] and [Eu/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H], same symbols of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Europium, we have a problem. Modelling r-process enrichment across Local Group galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Milky Way-calibrated model underproduces europium in three Local Group dwarf galaxies by about 0.5 dex, pointing to extra r-process production from delayed neutron-star merger sources at low metallicity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2001, , 377, 389

    Alard , C. 2001, , 377, 389

    2001

  4. [4]

    2019, , 886, 57

    Alfaro-Cuello , M., Kacharov , N., Neumayer , N., et al. 2019, , 886, 57

    2019

  5. [5]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A8

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A8

    2018

  6. [6]

    & Samland , M

    Argast , D. & Samland , M. 2004, , 21, 161

    2004

  7. [7]

    R., & Buonanno , R

    Bellazzini , M., Ferraro , F. R., & Buonanno , R. 1999, , 304, 633

    1999

  8. [8]

    A., Chapman, S., et al

    Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R. A., Chapman, S., et al. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 1147

    2008

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    J., Correnti , M., Ferraro , F

    Bellazzini , M., Newberg , H. J., Correnti , M., Ferraro , F. R., & Monaco , L. 2006, , 457, L21

    2006

  2. [10]

    Busso , M., Gallino , R., & Wasserburg , G. J. 1999, , 37, 239

    1999

  3. [11]

    L., Majewski , S

    Carlin , J. L., Majewski , S. R., Casetti-Dinescu , D. I., et al. 2012, , 744, 25

    2012

  4. [12]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 714, L7

    2010

  5. [13]

    Castelli, F., Kurucz, R., Piskunov, N., Weiss, W., & Gray, D. 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    & Matteucci , F

    Cescutti , G. & Matteucci , F. 2022, Universe, 8, 173

    2022

  7. [15]

    2015, , 577, A139

    Cescutti , G., Romano , D., Matteucci , F., Chiappini , C., & Hirschi , R. 2015, , 577, A139

    2015

  8. [16]

    2019, , 875, 106

    C \^o t \'e , B., Eichler , M., Arcones , A., et al. 2019, , 875, 106

    2019

  9. [17]

    2015, , 219, 40

    Cristallo , S., Straniero , O., Piersanti , L., & Gobrecht , D. 2015, , 219, 40

    2015

  10. [18]

    2018, , 620, A146

    Cseh , B., Lugaro , M., D'Orazi , V., et al. 2018, , 620, A146

    2018

  11. [19]

    V., Suntzeff , N

    Cunha , K., Smith , V. V., Suntzeff , N. B., et al. 2002, , 124, 379

    2002

  12. [20]

    Y., Monty , S., Belokurov , V., & Dillamore , A

    Davies , E. Y., Monty , S., Belokurov , V., & Dillamore , A. M. 2024, , 529, 772

    2024

  13. [21]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 658

    De Boer, T., Belokurov, V., Beers, T., & Lee, Y. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 658

    2014

  14. [22]

    de Boer , T. J. L., Belokurov , V., & Koposov , S. 2015, , 451, 3489

    2015

  15. [23]

    de los Reyes , M. A. C., Kirby , E. N., Seitenzahl , I. R., & Shen , K. J. 2020, , 891, 85

    2020

  16. [24]

    2024, , 691, A333

    Ernandes , H., Feuillet , D., Feltzing , S., & Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A . 2024, , 691, A333

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  18. [26]

    2018, , 616, A12

    Gaia Collaboration , Helmi , A., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018, , 616, A12

    2018

  19. [27]

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

    2016

  20. [28]

    1998, , 497, 388

    Gallino , R., Arlandini , C., Busso , M., et al. 1998, , 497, 388

    1998

  21. [29]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 794

    Gibbons, S., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 794

    2017

  22. [30]

    2004, , 42, 385

    Gratton , R., Sneden , C., & Carretta , E. 2004, , 42, 385

    2004

  23. [31]

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

    Hansen , C. J., El-Souri , M., Monaco , L., et al. 2018, , 855, 83

    2018

  24. [32]

    R., Lian, J., et al

    Hasselquist, S., Hayes, C. R., Lian, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 172

    2021

  25. [33]

    R., Majewski, S

    Hayes, C. R., Majewski, S. R., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 63

    2020

  26. [34]

    2019, , 626, A15

    Hill , V., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., Tolstoy , E., et al. 2019, , 626, A15

    2019

  27. [35]

    2020, , 891, L19

    Ibata , R., Bellazzini , M., Thomas , G., et al. 2020, , 891, L19

    2020

  28. [36]

    1994, Nature, 370, 194

    Ibata, R., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. 1994, Nature, 370, 194

    1994

  29. [37]

    2018, , 620, A39

    Je r \'a bkov \'a , T., Hasani Zonoozi , A., Kroupa , P., et al. 2018, , 620, A39

    2018

  30. [38]

    D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R

    Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 103

    2020

  31. [39]

    N., Xie , J

    Kirby , E. N., Xie , J. L., Guo , R., et al. 2019, , 881, 45

    2019

  32. [40]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 179

    2020

  33. [41]

    2020, , 895, 138

    Kobayashi , C., Leung , S.-C., & Nomoto , K. 2020, , 895, 138

    2020

  34. [42]

    2006, , 653, 1145

    Kobayashi , C., Umeda , H., Nomoto , K., Tominaga , N., & Ohkubo , T. 2006, , 653, 1145

    2006

  35. [43]

    A., & Gilmore , G

    Kroupa , P., Tout , C. A., & Gilmore , G. 1993, , 262, 545

    1993

  36. [44]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 14

    2005

  37. [45]

    Lapenna , E., Mucciarelli , A., Origlia , L., & Ferraro , F. R. 2012, , 761, 33

    2012

  38. [46]

    F., Johnston, K

    Laporte, C. F., Johnston, K. V., & Tzanidakis, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 1427

    2019

  39. [47]

    Lattimer , J. M. & Schramm , D. N. 1974, , 192, L145

    1974

  40. [48]

    E., Guzman , A., Wood , M

    Lawler , J. E., Guzman , A., Wood , M. P., Sneden , C., & Cowan , J. J. 2013, , 205, 11

    2013

  41. [49]

    E., Hala , Sneden , C., et al

    Lawler , J. E., Hala , Sneden , C., et al. 2019, , 241, 21

    2019

  42. [50]

    E., Wood , M

    Lawler , J. E., Wood , M. P., Den Hartog , E. A., et al. 2014, , 215, 20

    2014

  43. [51]

    Layden, A. C. & Sarajedini, A. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 1760

    2000

  44. [52]

    2010, , 523, A17

    Letarte , B., Hill , V., Tolstoy , E., et al. 2010, , 523, A17

    2010

  45. [53]

    & Nomoto , K

    Leung , S.-C. & Nomoto , K. 2018, , 861, 143

    2018

  46. [54]

    & Nomoto , K

    Leung , S.-C. & Nomoto , K. 2020, , 888, 80

    2020

  47. [55]

    S., & Belyaev, A

    Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Belyaev, A. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A103

    2011

  48. [56]

    2018, Astronomy & astrophysics, 616, A2

    Lindegren, L., Hern \'a ndez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & astrophysics, 616, A2

    2018

  49. [57]

    R., Skrutskie, M., Weinberg, M

    Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M., Weinberg, M. D., & Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 1082

    2003

  50. [58]

    2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    Matteucci , F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    2012

  51. [59]

    2021, , 29, 5

    Matteucci , F. 2021, , 29, 5

    2021

  52. [60]

    & Brocato , E

    Matteucci , F. & Brocato , E. 1990, , 365, 539

    1990

  53. [61]

    & Greggio , L

    Matteucci , F. & Greggio , L. 1986, , 154, 279

    1986

  54. [62]

    2014, , 438, 2177

    Matteucci , F., Romano , D., Arcones , A., Korobkin , O., & Rosswog , S. 2014, , 438, 2177

    2014

  55. [63]

    McCrea , W. H. 1964, , 128, 147

    1964

  56. [64]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 149

    McWilliam, A., Wallerstein, G., & Mottini, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 149

    2013

  57. [65]

    2023, , 669, A54

    Minelli , A., Bellazzini , M., Mucciarelli , A., et al. 2023, , 669, A54

    2023

  58. [66]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 114

    Minelli, A., Mucciarelli, A., Romano, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 114

    2021

  59. [67]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 2974

    Molero, M., Magrini, L., Matteucci, F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 2974

    2023

  60. [68]

    2007, , 464, 201

    Monaco , L., Bellazzini , M., Bonifacio , P., et al. 2007, , 464, 201

    2007

  61. [69]

    2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 141

    Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 141

    2005

  62. [70]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 874

    Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F., & Pancino, E. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 874

    2004

  63. [71]

    L., et al

    Monty , S., Belokurov , V., Sanders , J. L., et al. 2024, , 533, 2420

    2024

  64. [72]

    2013, , 435, 3667

    Mucciarelli , A., Bellazzini , M., Catelan , M., et al. 2013, , 435, 3667

    2013

  65. [73]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 605, A46

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

    2017

  66. [74]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A90

    Mucciarelli, A., Bellazzini, M., & Massari, D. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A90

    2021

  67. [75]

    & Bonifacio, P

    Mucciarelli, A. & Bonifacio, P. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A87

    2020

  68. [76]

    Mucciarelli , A., Carretta , E., Origlia , L., & Ferraro , F. R. 2008, , 136, 375

    2008

  69. [77]

    2023 a , , 671, A124

    Mucciarelli , A., Minelli , A., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2023 a , , 671, A124

    2023

  70. [78]

    2023 b , , 677, A61

    Mucciarelli , A., Minelli , A., Lardo , C., et al. 2023 b , , 677, A61

    2023

  71. [79]

    2015, , 810, 109

    Nishimura , N., Takiwaki , T., & Thielemann , F.-K. 2015, , 810, 109

    2015

  72. [80]

    2013, , 51, 457

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457

    2013

  73. [81]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14061

    Ou , X., Yelland , A., Chiti , A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14061

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    2021, , 503, 3216

    Palla , M. 2021, , 503, 3216

    2021

  75. [83]

    2024, , 690, A334

    Palla , M., Magrini , L., Spitoni , E., et al. 2024, , 690, A334

    2024

  76. [84]

    2022, , 663, A125

    Palla , M., Santos-Peral , P., Recio-Blanco , A., & Matteucci , F. 2022, , 663, A125

    2022

  77. [85]

    2002, The Messenger, 110, 1

    Pasquini, L., Avila, G., Blecha, A., et al. 2002, The Messenger, 110, 1

    2002

  78. [86]

    2021, , 908, 102

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

    2021

  79. [87]

    2008, , 480, 379

    Pomp \'e ia , L., Hill , V., Spite , M., et al. 2008, , 480, 379

    2008

  80. [88]

    2020, , 491, 1832

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Cristallo , S., Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2020, , 491, 1832

    2020

  81. [89]

    2018, , 476, 3432

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Limongi , M., Chieffi , A., & Cristallo , S. 2018, , 476, 3432

    2018

  82. [90]

    2022, , 666, A64

    Ramos , P., Antoja , T., Yuan , Z., et al. 2022, , 666, A64

    2022

  83. [91]

    J., Hanke , M., et al

    Reichert , M., Hansen , C. J., Hanke , M., et al. 2020, , 641, A127

    2020

  84. [92]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A3

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A3

    2021

  85. [93]

    Roederer , I. U. & Lawler , J. E. 2012, , 750, 76

    2012

  86. [94]

    I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F

    Romano, D., Karakas, A. I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 522, A32

    2010

  87. [95]

    & Matteucci, F

    Romano, D. & Matteucci, F. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 378, L59

    2007

  88. [96]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965

    2020

  89. [97]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 465, 815

    Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Buonanno, R., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 465, 815

    2007

  90. [98]

    Seitenzahl , I. R. & Townsley , D. M. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 1955

    2017

  91. [99]

    2024, , 689, A201

    Sestito , F., Vitali , S., Jofre , P., et al. 2024, , 689, A201

    2024

  92. [100]

    M., Barnes , J., & Metzger , B

    Siegel , D. M., Barnes , J., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, , 569, 241

    2019

  93. [101]

    H., Dotter , A., Majewski , S

    Siegel , M. H., Dotter , A., Majewski , S. R., et al. 2007, , 667, L57

    2007

  94. [102]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A71

    Sk \'u lad \'o ttir, \'A ., Tolstoy, E., Salvadori, S., Hill, V., & Pettini, M. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A71

    2017

  95. [103]

    2016, , 589, A115

    Smiljanic , R., Romano , D., Bragaglia , A., et al. 2016, , 589, A115

    2016

  96. [104]

    J., & Gallino , R

    Sneden , C., Cowan , J. J., & Gallino , R. 2008, , 46, 241

    2008

  97. [105]

    2022, , 663, A174

    Spitoni , E., Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., Verma , K., & Stokholm , A. 2022, , 663, A174

    2022

  98. [106]

    Stancliffe , R. J. 2021, , 505, 5554

    2021

  99. [107]

    Stetson, P. B. & Pancino, E. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 1332

    2008

  100. [108]

    2008, , 60, 1159

    Suda , T., Katsuta , Y., Yamada , S., et al. 2008, , 60, 1159

    2008

  101. [109]

    & Bland-Hawthorn , J

    Tepper-Garc \' a , T. & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2018, , 478, 5263

    2018

  102. [110]

    Tinsley , B. M. 1979, , 229, 1046

    1979

  103. [111]

    Truran , J. W. 1981, , 97, 391

    1981

  104. [112]

    & Nomoto , K

    Umeda , H. & Nomoto , K. 2002, , 565, 385

    2002

  105. [113]

    Van der Swaelmen , M., Hill , V., Primas , F., & Cole , A. A. 2013, , 560, A44

    2013

  106. [114]

    2022, , 517, 6121

    Vitali , S., Arentsen , A., Starkenburg , E., et al. 2022, , 517, 6121

    2022

  107. [115]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06896

    Vitali , S., Rojas-Arriagada , A., Jofr \'e , P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06896

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    2012, , 750, L22

    Winteler , C., K \"a ppeli , R., Perego , A., et al. 2012, , 750, L22

    2012

  109. [117]

    P., Lawler , J

    Wood , M. P., Lawler , J. E., Sneden , C., & Cowan , J. J. 2014, , 211, 20

    2014

  110. [118]

    Woosley , S. E. & Weaver , T. A. 1995, , 101, 181

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.