Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

A Metallicity Catalog of Very Metal-poor Main-sequence Turn-off and Red Giant Stars from LAMOST DR10

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper presents a catalog of 8,440 very metal-poor star candidates from LAMOST DR10, with metallicities estimated from calcium-triplet lines in low-resolution spectra and validated to roughly 0.1-0.2 dex.

desk verdict Useful VMP catalog, but the -4.0 reliability claim overreaches the validation; referee it with requests to split by evolutionary stage and publish the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09705 v1 pith:PGCRC4HF submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Xiangyu Li , Huiling Chen , Yang Huang , Huawei Zhang , Timothy C. Beers , Linxuan Zhu , Jifeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords verymetal-poorstarscalciumtripletLAMOSTDR10stellarmetallicitiesmain-sequenceturn-offredgiantsGalacticarchaeologyspectroscopiccatalog
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

The paper argues that calcium triplet lines in LAMOST's red-arm low-resolution spectra, measured with an empirical calibration originally built for red giants, can identify very metal-poor stars among both main-sequence turn-off stars and red giants. It presents a catalog of 8,440 candidate VMP stars with metallicities between [Fe/H] = -2.0 and -4.0 drawn from LAMOST DR10. If the estimates hold, this is a large bright sample for high-resolution follow-up with 4-10 meter telescopes, including more than 7,000 stars brighter than G ~ 16. The authors also craft a second calibration that replaces absolute magnitude with Gaia color and surface gravity, extending the search to distant stars beyond ~6 kpc. Validations against external surveys and high-resolution samples show typical median offsets near 0.1 dex and scatter near 0.2 dex.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Calcium Triplet (CaT): the three near-infrared calcium lines at 8500, 8544, and 8664 Å, whose summed equivalent width (ΣCa) is converted to metallicity via the empirical Carrera et al. (2013) calibration, using absolute magnitude as a gravity proxy (Method 1). A refined calibration, Method 2, replaces absolute magnitude with Gaia BP-RP color and LASP surface gravity, fitted by MCMC to a metal-poor training sample, which removes the distance requirement. The method's leverage comes from the high signal-to-noise of LAMOST's red arm, where CaT lines remain visible even when blue-arm metal lines are too weak for standard pipelines.

What would settle it

Take the 25 EMP ([Fe/H] < -3) candidates in the catalog and observe them with high-resolution spectroscopy; if their measured metallicities come out systematically lower than the catalog values by more than the quoted ~0.2 dex scatter, and the discrepancy grows toward the metal-poor end, the claimed reliability at [Fe/H] ~ -4.0 is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the equivalent widths of the CaT lines at 8500, 8544, and 8664 Å in LAMOST low-resolution spectra carry reliable metallicity information for VMP main-sequence turn-off and red giant stars, down to [Fe/H] = -4.0. Using the Carrera et al. (2013) empirical calibration, the paper estimates metallicities for roughly 220,000 MSTO and red giant stars and isolates 8,440 VMP candidates, of which 4,500 come from the absolute-magnitude-based Method 1 and 3,940 from the color-and-surface-gravity Method 2. The paper further claims that Method 2 avoids the distance errors that hamper Method 1 beyond 6 kpc, and that both methods agree with Gaia RVS, APOGEE, GALAH, and high-resolution samples to within roughly 0.1 dex median offset and 0.2 dex standard deviation. The remaining EMP tail is less certain: the calibration saturates below [Fe/H] ~ -3, and the comparison in that regime shows offsets near +0.2 dex.

Load-bearing premise

The claim assumes that an empirical calibration built on red giants in globular clusters still gives trustworthy metallicities when applied to main-sequence turn-off stars and to LAMOST's low-resolution spectra, all the way down to [Fe/H] = -4.0, even though the validation sample at those lowest metallicities is small and already shows a systematic offset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The catalog gives high-resolution follow-up programs thousands of bright targets (G < 16) rather than a handful, raising the expected yield of confirmed VMP stars.
  • Applying the surface-gravity-based Method 2 to future spectroscopic data releases should extend VMP searches beyond the ~6 kpc distance limit imposed by geometric parallaxes.
  • Because Method 2 does not need accurate distances, the same approach can be reused for other low-resolution surveys with red-arm coverage.
  • The comparison with APOGEE and GALAH implies that LAMOST red-arm CaT measurements can serve as a reliable, homogeneous metallicity scale for VMP halo stars in the Northern sky.
  • The catalog's six-dimensional phase-space information (positions, distances, proper motions, radial velocities) makes it directly usable for dynamical studies of the early Milky Way.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration is as portable as claimed, the same CaT technique could be applied to other large low-resolution surveys with near-infrared coverage to build a homogeneous all-sky VMP census.
  • The reported +0.2 dex offset in the EMP regime suggests the true metallicities of the 25 EMP candidates may be lower than catalog values; high-resolution follow-up of those stars would test both the saturation correction and the calibration's floor.
  • Method 2 currently inherits the systematics of Method 1 through its training sample, so its accuracy at the metal-poor end will improve once surface gravities from independent sources replace LASP values.
  • If the catalog is used for chemical-tagging or halo-assembly studies, the ~0.2 dex scatter on individual stars is expected to average out in ensemble statistics, but it will limit the resolution of any metallicity-dependent substructure at the low-metallicity end.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a catalog of 8,440 candidate very metal-poor (VMP; [Fe/H] < -2.0) main-sequence turn-off (MSTO) and red giant stars selected from LAMOST DR10 low-resolution spectra. Metallicities are estimated from the equivalent widths of the Ca II triplet using two calibrations: Method 1 (Eq. 1), the Carrera et al. (2013) empirical calibration based on absolute magnitude, and Method 2 (Eq. 2), a recalibration using Gaia BP-RP color and LASP surface gravity whose coefficients are fitted by MCMC to Method 1 metallicities. The authors validate the results against Gaia RVS, APOGEE, GALAH, high-resolution spectroscopic samples (PASTEL, SAGA, Li et al. 2022), and machine-learning catalogs, reporting typical median offsets of about 0.1 dex and standard deviations of about 0.2 dex. The paper claims that the method reliably identifies VMP candidates with metallicities as low as [Fe/H] = -4.0 among both MSTO and red giant stars, and that more than 7,000 of the candidates are brighter than G ~ 16, making them suitable for high-resolution follow-up.

Significance. If the catalog is validated as claimed, it would be a valuable resource for Galactic archaeology, providing a large, bright sample of VMP stars for high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up. The paper has clear strengths: it uses the high-SNR red arm of LAMOST spectra, presents a detailed description of the spectral fitting and EW measurement pipeline, validates the EW measurements internally (Fig. 2), compares against multiple independent surveys, and explicitly accounts for possible [Ca/Fe] variations with a conservative 0.2 dex uncertainty. However, the two load-bearing claims - that the red-giant calibration works for MSTO stars and that the method is reliable at [Fe/H] ~ -4 - are not supported by the evidence as presented, because the validation is aggregated over stellar types and the EMP regime is only weakly tested. The circularity of Method 2's calibration relative to Method 1 is acknowledged in part but deserves sharper framing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.1.1 and 4; Figures 8 and 9] The claim that the Carrera et al. (2013) red-giant calibration yields reliable metallicities for MSTO stars is asserted in Section 3.1.1 but never validated separately for the MSTO subsample. All external comparisons in Figures 8 and 9 are shown for the combined sample of MSTO and red giant stars. An aggregate scatter of ~0.2 dex is fully consistent with a stage-dependent bias that partially cancels in the mixture. The paper should provide validation of both methods split by stellar type or by log g (e.g., MSTO vs. giant), and specifically for the MSTO stars that the abstract claims are covered.
  2. [Section 4.3] The EMP-regime validation does not support the abstract's claim of robust identification down to [Fe/H] = -4.0. For Method 1, the comparisons against high-resolution samples show median offsets of +0.21 and +0.20 dex with only 25 EMP stars and standard deviations of 0.28 and 0.25 dex; the paper itself notes that the calibration saturates in this regime. For Method 2, Section 4.3 states that the validation lacks EMP stars because LASP did not assign surface gravities to them. The abstract and Section 1 should either be softened to describe the method as identifying VMP candidates with estimated metallicities reaching -4.0, or the authors should present additional EMP-tail validation for each method separately, including MSTO stars.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Figure 9] Method 2's coefficients are fitted via MCMC to metallicities derived from Method 1, so the top-left panel of Figure 9 is not an independent validation. The paper acknowledges in Section 4.2 that Method 2 inherits Method 1's systematics, but the presentation still refers to Method 2 as a separate calibration. The authors should explicitly state that Method 2 is a surrogate for Method 1, and should show external validation of Method 2 for the distant stars (e.g., r > 6 kpc) where the method is specifically intended to be used; the current external comparisons are again shown only for the combined sample.
  4. [Table 2 and Section 5] The central deliverable is the metallicity catalog, but no machine-readable catalog file is provided with the preprint, and the manuscript does not state where the catalog will be publicly available. A catalog paper should include the data or a clear availability statement; without this, readers cannot use the 8,440 stars for follow-up, which is the stated primary purpose of the work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2] The text refers to the SciPy function as "curvefit"; the correct function name is curve_fit.
  2. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in the sentence "other than those in the the sample from Method 1" - "the" is duplicated.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption describes the isochrone as a "red-dotted line," while the text in Section 3.1.1 refers to the isochrone in Figure 1; please ensure the line style is described consistently.
  4. [Section 5] The phrase "average median offset of ~0.1 dex" is ambiguous; the individual comparison offsets vary from <0.01 to +0.25 dex depending on sample and method, so reporting a single average obscures the systematic trends, especially in the EMP regime.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Method 2 is fitted to Method 1 metallicities and then 'validated' against Method 1, making part of the claimed agreement forced by construction; the central catalog still rests on an external calibration and independent benchmarks.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Equation 2) and Section 4.1 (Figure 9, top-left)]
    "The coefficients in Equation 2 were determined using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedure based on a metal-poor sample with metallicities estimated by Method 1 and surface gravity values estimated by LASP. This sample allows us to minimize the systematic errors between the two methods. ... Both comparisons exhibit very small median offsets of +0.01 and −0.01 dex ... indicating that the calibration based on color and surface gravity is a good alternative to the calibration provided by Carrera et al. (2013)."

    Equation 2 is a four-parameter calibration fit to reproduce the metallicities already produced by Equation 1 on the training sample. The Method 1 versus Method 2 comparison in Figure 9 is therefore an in-sample regression residual, not an independent validation; a calibration fitted to a target will always show near-zero offset on the fitting data, so the quoted +0.01/−0.01 dex offsets are forced by construction. The paper later concedes this inheritance: 'the coefficients of the calibration used in Method 2 were derived with a sample from Method 1, and thus Method 2 inherited the systematic offsets from Method 1.'

full rationale

The central Method 1 derivation is not circular: it applies Carrera et al. (2013)'s external CaT calibration, originally calibrated on globular-cluster red giants, to LAMOST spectra and validates the EW pipeline against Gaia RVS, APOGEE, GALAH, and high-resolution samples. The CMD cut from Huang et al. (2022) is a minor self-citation and is not load-bearing. The main circularity is confined to Method 2: its coefficients are fitted to Method 1 outputs, so the Method 1-versus-Method 2 agreement is partly by construction, and Method 2 inherits Method 1's systematics. External comparisons partly mitigate this because Method 2 is also checked against independent surveys and high-resolution data, and the catalog's Method 1 component has independent grounding. The paper honestly notes limitations that are correctness risks rather than circularity: the EMP comparison in Section 4.3 has only 25 stars, shows +0.2 dex offsets from Method 1 saturation, and lacks Method 2 EMP stars because LASP did not assign surface gravities; validation is shown only for the combined MSTO/giant sample, not split by evolutionary stage. These weaken the boldest '-4.0 for both MSTO and giants' claim but do not make it definitionally circular. Overall score 4 reflects one partial circularity in the Method 2 validation while the central catalog has independent content.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The catalog's metallicity estimates depend on empirical calibrations and on stellar parameters from LASP, so the ledger consists of calibration coefficients and domain assumptions rather than new physics.

free parameters (4)
  • a (Method 2) = -3.68 +/- 0.15
    Coefficient in Method 2 calibration (Eq. 2) fitted by MCMC to Method 1 metallicities and LASP log g.
  • b (Method 2) = -0.72 +/- 0.12
    Coefficient in Method 2 calibration (Eq. 2) fitted by MCMC to Method 1 metallicities and LASP log g.
  • c (Method 2) = 0.49 +/- 0.01
    Coefficient in Method 2 calibration (Eq. 2) fitted by MCMC to Method 1 metallicities and LASP log g.
  • d (Method 2) = 0.35 +/- 0.02
    Coefficient in Method 2 calibration (Eq. 2) fitted by MCMC to Method 1 metallicities and LASP log g.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Carrera et al. (2013) CaT calibration is valid for VMP red giants and, after testing, for MSTO stars.
    The entire metallicity estimation rests on this external empirical calibration; the paper tests it but cannot fully validate it for all stellar types and metallicities.
  • domain assumption LASP surface gravity values are reliable for metal-poor MSTO and red giant stars.
    Method 2 replaces absolute magnitude with LASP log g; systematic errors in surface gravity would bias the metallicities.
  • domain assumption Gaia BP-RP colors after de-reddening with the Schlafly and Finkbeiner (2011) map provide accurate temperature proxies across the selected color range.
    Method 2 relies on de-reddened BP-RP as a proxy for stellar temperature and gravity in the empirical calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Metallicity Catalog of Very Metal-poor Main-sequence Turn-off and Red Giant Stars from LAMOST DR10." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGCRC4HF

@misc{pith2026250609705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Metallicity Catalog of Very Metal-poor Main-sequence Turn-off and Red Giant Stars from LAMOST DR10},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGCRC4HF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09705}
}
read the original abstract

We present a catalog of 8,440 candidate very metal-poor (VMP; [Fe/H] < -2.0) main-sequence turn-off (MSTO) and red giant stars in the Milky Way, identified from low-resolution spectra in LAMOST DR10. More than 7,000 of these candidates are brighter than G ~ 16, making them excellent targets for high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up with 4-10 meter-class telescopes. Unlike most previous studies, we employed an empirical calibration to estimate metallicities from the equivalent widths (EWs) of the Calcium Triplet (CaT) lines, taking advantage of the high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the red arm of LAMOST spectra. We further refined this calibration to improve its reliability for more distant stars. This method enables robust identification of VMP candidates with metallicities as low as [Fe/H] = -4.0 among both MSTO and red giant stars. Comparisons with metal-poor samples from other spectroscopic surveys and high-resolution follow-up observations confirm the accuracy of our estimates, showing a typical median offset of ~0.1 dex and a standard deviation of ~0.2 dex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of stars in LAMOST DR10. The black rectangle indicates our empir￾ical cut for MSTO and red giant stars, defined by 0.4 < GBP − GRP < 1.6 and −4.0 < MG < 6.5. The blue data points represent the full stellar sample from LAMOST DR10, while the orange data points represent the VMP stars iden￾tified by Method 1. These stars exhibit a good agreement with the PARSEC isochrone for [Fe/H] = −2.0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Comparison of the sum of the EWs of three CaT lines, W8500 + W8544 + W8664, for the high-SNR VMP sample using the Gaussian fitting method and direct integration method. Right: Comparison of two definitions of ΣCa: the sum of the three lines W8500 + W8544 + W8664, and 1.24 times the sum of the last two lines 1.24 × (W8544 + W8664). The number of samples (n), median offset (µ), and standard deviation (σ) are sho… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized spectra and fitted CaT lines for four example stars in this work. OBSID stands for LAMOST DR10 unique spectrum ID. These examples cover the main range of metallicities and SNRs of our samples. The blue line represents the normalized spectra, and the orange line represents the fitted CaT lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The correlation between metallicity and the CaT index, Gaia BP-RP color (left), and surface gravity (right). The metallicities are estimated by Method 1, while the surface gravity values are estimated by LASP. This color map shows that metallicity has a strong relation…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The MCMC result for the coefficients in Equation 2. The values at the top of the columns represent the median offset and one-sigma standard deviation of the coefficients. This figure shows good fitting results, indicating that the coefficients are reliable. stars with …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Distribution of the VMP sample in Galactic coordinates. The red-dashed line represents the celestial equator. This VMP sample covers a large area of the sky in the Northern Hemisphere. Right: Distribution of the magnitudes of the VMP sample. More than 7,000 stars…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top row: The [Ca/Fe] distribution of metal-poor stars in this work using measurements from APOGEE (left) and GALAH (right). Bottom row: The distribution of [Fe/H] measured in this work versus the [Ca/Fe] measured by APOGEE (left) and GALAH (right). ate standard deviati…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top row: Comparison of metallicities (left) and CaT EWs (right) estimated by Method 1 with results from Gaia RVS spectroscopy. Second row: Comparison with spectroscopic surveys such as APOGEE DR17 (left) and GALAH DR3 (right). Third row: Comparison with metal-poor samp…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top row: Comparison between metallicities estimated by Method 1 and Method 2 (left) and comparison between metal-poor samples from Method 2 and Gaia RVS spectroscopy (right). Second row: Comparison with spectroscopic surveys such as APOGEE DR17 (left) and GALAH DR3 (ri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Lim, P

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  2. [2]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    C., & Christlieb, N

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

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    C., Preston, G

    Beers, T. C., Preston, G. W., & Shectman, S. A. 1985, AJ, 90, 2089, doi: 10.1086/113917 —. 1992, AJ, 103, 1987, doi: 10.1086/116207

    doi:10.1086/113917 1985

  5. [5]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T

    Buder, S., Asplund, M., Duong, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281 Cabrera Garcia, J., Beers, T. C., Huang, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8973, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3674

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1281 2018

  6. [6]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1126

    Carrera, R., Pancino, E., Gallart, C., & del Pino, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1126

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1126 2013

  7. [7]

    J., Moles, M., Crist´ obal-Hornillos, D., et al

    Cenarro, A. J., Moles, M., Crist´ obal-Hornillos, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833036

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833036 2019

  8. [8]

    2008, A&A, 484, 721, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748

    Christlieb, N., Sch¨ orck, T., Frebel, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 721, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078748 2008

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 De Silva, G

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace04a Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Fan, Z., Zhao, G., Wang, W., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace04a Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al

    Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Lee, Y

    Hong, J., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4a6f

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Q., Yuan, H

    Huang, Y., Chen, B. Q., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1f72

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Wolf, C., et al

    Huang, Y., Beers, T. C., Wolf, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac21cb

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Yuan, H., et al

    Huang, Y., Beers, T. C., Yuan, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace628

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Xiao, K., et al

    Huang, Y., Beers, T. C., Xiao, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b94

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 13

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K

    Ishigaki, M. N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 857, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3de

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, ApJS, 238, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aada4a

    Li, H., Tan, K., & Zhao, G. 2018, ApJS, 238, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aada4a

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Lee, Y

    Rockosi, C. M., Lee, Y. S., Morrison, H. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5323

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Placco, V

    Shank, D., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac409a —. 2023, ApJ, 943, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca322

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, A&A, 591, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628497

    Soubiran, C., Le Campion, J.-F., Brouillet, N., & Chemin, L. 2016, A&A, 591, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628497

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1068

    Starkenburg, E., Martin, N., Youakim, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1068

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2006, AJ, 132, 1645, doi: 10.1086/506564

    Steinmetz, M., Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645, doi: 10.1086/506564

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  27. [35]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, A&A, 683, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347944

    Viswanathan, A., Starkenburg, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347944

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4df7

    Wang, C., Huang, Y., Yuan, H., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4df7

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Luvaul, L

    Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., Luvaul, L. C., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.5

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5364

    Xiang, M., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5364

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4377, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4377

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Placco, V

    Zepeda, J., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbcc

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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