Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

In NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147, atomic diffusion depletes the surfaces of ~1.2–1.35 solar-mass stars by 0.08–0.12 dex on average, beyond 3σ, and fitting the observed Teff–[Fe/H] pattern gives cluster ages of 1.0 and 2.5–3.2 Gyr.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:46 UTC pith:PKLK4YBN

load-bearing objection NGC 752 diffusion detection is credible; the Ruprecht 147 claim is not yet robust to pipeline and line-list systematics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14208 v1 pith:PKLK4YBN submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: IX. Measuring the Effects of Stellar Diffusion in the Open Clusters NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147 using APOGEE

Diogo Souto , Taylor Spoo , Peter M. Frinchaboy , Katia Cunha , Jamie Tayar , Alessa Ibrahim Wiggins , Natalie Myers This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA PACS 97.10.Tk98.20.Di97.10.Ca
keywords atomic diffusiongravitational settlingopen clustersNGC 752Ruprecht 147APOGEEmain-sequence turnoffstellar ages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that atomic diffusion — gravitational settling and radiative levitation — measurably pulls heavy elements out of the surfaces of stars near the main-sequence turnoff in two open clusters, NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147. Using APOGEE spectra and a line-by-line abundance analysis, the authors split each cluster's members into stellar-mass-based classes and compare the warm 'Diff' stars (≈1.2–1.35 solar masses, where models predict the deepest surface depletion) with the coolest unevolved stars, which best preserve the cluster's birth composition. They report that every element with reliable measurements in both classes is depleted in the Diff stars, with mean offsets of −0.08±0.01 dex (NGC 752) and −0.12±0.01 dex (Ruprecht 147), both above 3σ. Fitting the observed temperature–iron pattern with diffusion-inclusive MIST isochrones returns ages of 1.0 Gyr and 2.5–3.2 Gyr, in line with photometric ages. The payoff: surface abundances of turnoff stars are not pristine, so ignoring diffusion biases isochrone-based ages and metallicities.

Core claim

Central claim: stars in the diffusion-dominated mass range (~1.2–1.35 solar masses) are systematically depleted relative to the cool-star reference in every element with reliable measurements, with mean Diff−CS offsets of −0.08±0.01 dex (NGC 752) and −0.12±0.01 dex (Ruprecht 147), both beyond 3σ. The authors attribute this to atomic diffusion — gravitational settling outweighing radiative levitation — in stars whose thin convective envelopes cannot dilute the sinking material. Because the predicted depletion minimum sits at a nearly age-independent mass near 1.25 M☉, the signature appears on the upper main sequence in the younger cluster and near the turnoff in the older one. Carbon is a dua

What carries the argument

The machinery is a mass-based classification rather than an evolutionary label: five classes (cool stars CS, main sequence MS, diffusion-dominated Diff, turnoff transition MS–TO, red giants RG) defined from isochrone-derived masses, with the Diff class centered on the predicted depletion minimum near 1.25 M☉, where the surface convection zone is thinnest and turbulent mixing — modeled in MIST as D_T ∝ (M_CZ/M⋆)^(−3/2) — has not yet restored the surface composition. The CS class, with deep convective envelopes that dilute settling, serves as the pristine-composition reference. The measured signal is the per-element Diff−CS offset (with significance from the dispersion of each class), and the

Load-bearing premise

The attribution of the Diff−CS offsets to atomic diffusion rests on the assumption that the line-by-line abundance analysis, after removing lines with known temperature trends (§§4.2.4–4.2.6), retains no temperature-dependent bias — a fragile premise because the diffusion signal is itself a Teff–abundance trend, and the paper's own Appendix B shows that APOGEE DR19 and DR17 pipelines often return null or opposite-sign offsets for Ruprecht 147.

What would settle it

Recompute the Diff−CS offsets for the same stars using a deliberately temperature-insensitive line list or a full non-LTE/3D analysis: if the −0.08 to −0.12 dex depletion vanishes, flips sign, or shrinks below the quoted uncertainties — as the automated pipelines already suggest for Ruprecht 147 (DR19 gives Fe +0.026 while this work gives −0.090) — the diffusion interpretation fails. Equivalently, shifting the adopted photometric Teff scale by its ~50–150 K systematic offsets and showing the offsets disappear would falsify the claim.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Every element with reliable measurements in both classes is depleted in the diffusion-dominated stars relative to the cool-star reference, with mean offsets of −0.08±0.01 dex (NGC 752) and −0.12±0.01 dex (Ruprecht 147), each significant beyond 3σ.
  • Diffusion-inclusive MIST isochrones fit the observed Teff–[Fe/H] pattern better than a constant-metallicity model, favoring ages of 1.0 Gyr (NGC 752) and 2.5–3.2 Gyr (Ruprecht 147), consistent with photometric ages.
  • Isochrone fitting that treats surface abundances as pristine will systematically mis-estimate ages; the paper cites earlier work quantifying age biases of roughly 10–20% from neglecting diffusion.
  • Carbon is a key diagnostic because it traces both atomic diffusion (in warm stars) and first dredge-up (in red giants), allowing the two mixing processes to be separated along a cluster sequence.
  • The cool-star populations give the cleanest estimate of initial cluster metallicity: [Fe/H] = 0.01±0.02 for NGC 752 and 0.17±0.00 for Ruprecht 147.
  • The abundance pattern alone can act as a chemical clock for cluster ages, providing an estimate independent of photometry and distance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If diffusion is the right explanation, the depletion minimum at ~1.25 M☉ predicts where the signature appears in any cluster of known age: re-analyzing other open clusters with full main-sequence coverage should show the abundance dip migrating to cooler temperatures as cluster age increases, a trend the two clusters here already hint at.
  • The paper's own pipeline comparison (Appendix B) shows the Diff−CS offsets are not pipeline-independent: for Ruprecht 147, APOGEE DR19 and DR17 scales often return null or opposite-sign offsets (e.g., Fe +0.026 vs −0.090). A decisive follow-up would measure the same stars with an independent line list or a full non-LTE treatment.
  • Because carbon shows both diffusion and dredge-up signatures, combined C and N measurements along a cluster sequence could separate the two effects and calibrate the turbulent-mixing prescription, which is currently pinned to a single metal-poor globular cluster.
  • The claimed chemical clock — ages from abundance patterns alone — would be robust to distance and reddening uncertainties that plague photometric fitting; extending it to clusters of different metallicities would test whether the diffusion dip is metallicity-independent as the models assume.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses APOGEE DR17/DR19 spectra of the open clusters NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147 to search for surface abundance changes caused by atomic diffusion. The authors derive photometric Teff and isochrone-based logg, measure elemental abundances for 16 elements with BACCHUS/MARCS, and divide each cluster sample into five evolutionary classes (CS, MS, Diff, MS-TO, RG) using MIST isochrones. They report that stars in the diffusion-dominated mass range are depleted relative to the cool-star reference population in both clusters, with average Diff-CS offsets of -0.08±0.01 dex (NGC 752) and -0.12±0.01 dex (Ruprecht 147), claimed to be >3σ significant. Fitting the Teff-[Fe/H] pattern with MIST diffusion isochrones gives best ages of 1.0 Gyr for NGC 752 and 2.5-3.2 Gyr for Ruprecht 147. The paper concludes that atomic diffusion measurably alters surface abundances of ~1.2-1.35 Msun stars and should be accounted for in isochrone fitting.

Significance. If the detection is robust, this would be a valuable addition to the observational case for atomic diffusion in open clusters, complementing previous M67 and Coma Berenices studies and providing constraints on diffusion models over a range of ages. The paper is thorough in presenting the data, membership selection, and a systematic comparison with APOGEE automated pipelines in Appendix B. However, the strength of the claim rests on a small number of stars in Ruprecht 147 and on the BACCHUS abundance scale, which Appendix B shows to be inconsistent with independent APOGEE pipelines for exactly the stars and elements used in the main claim. A useful element of the paper is the public machine-readable abundance table and the transparent accounting of line-selection choices, but these do not by themselves establish that the measured pattern is free of Teff-dependent systematics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B3); §4.2.14] The Ruprecht 147 detection is based on only 2 Diff and 2 CS stars. With N=2, the dispersion-based uncertainty in Eq. (B2) is essentially a two-point scatter; when the two stars have identical abundances, as in several CS measurements reported with σ=0.000, the significance S can become arbitrarily large (e.g., Fe S=-22.5, Ni S=-27.4, Cr S=-13.9 in Figs. 8, 23, 20). These numbers do not represent statistical evidence and should not be quoted as >3σ in the abstract or §5. A systematic floor, based on the 50-150 K Teff offsets in Appendix A and on the abundance-pipeline scatter in Appendix B, must be added before any significance claim.
  2. [Appendix B, Figs. 8-9, 13-14, 23] The Appendix B comparisons directly undercut the main claim for Ruprecht 147. For Fe (Fig. 8, bottom), this work gives Diff-CS = -0.090 while APOGEE DR19 gives +0.037; for C (Fig. 9), this work -0.129 vs DR19 +0.138; for Si (Fig. 14), this work -0.097 vs DR19 +0.052 and TS +0.030; for Al (Fig. 13), this work -0.223 vs TS -0.008 and Synspec -0.037. These are sign reversals on the same stars, using the same Diff/CS class definitions. The authors acknowledge this but do not quantify it as a systematic uncertainty in their headline offset. Until the source of this discrepancy is identified (Teff scale, line selection, gf values, or continuum normalisation), the Ruprecht 147 detection cannot be considered robust.
  3. [§§4.2.4-4.2.6; Appendix A] The diffusion signal is itself a Teff-abundance trend. The paper removes lines that show systematic Teff trends in dwarfs (Grilo et al. 2024), but does not demonstrate that the remaining lines are free of Teff-dependent biases in the relevant Teff range (5000-6700 K). Appendix A reports 50-150 K offsets between this work's Teff and APOGEE scales, and the quoted abundance uncertainties for Mg, Al, and Si are up to 0.10 dex, i.e., comparable to the claimed depletion. A convincing test would be a synthetic recovery using injected diffusion signals of varying amplitude, or a null test on a cluster/sequence where diffusion is negligible. Without such a test, the observed pattern could be a residual Teff systematic rather than atomic diffusion.
  4. [§4.2.14, Fig. 5; §4.1] The age inference is not independent of the model used to define the stellar sample. The same MIST isochrones assign masses and logg values, determine which stars are classified as 'Diff', predict the depletion curve, and are then fitted to the observed Teff-[Fe/H] pattern. The improvement in chi-square for the diffusion model over a constant [Fe/H] baseline is reported without uncertainties on the best-fit age or a significance estimate of the age difference (e.g., 1.0 vs 1.3 Gyr for NGC 752). The quoted best-fit ages should be framed as model-dependent consistency checks, not as 'chemical clock' measurements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The membership selection text says 'R VPROB>0.1 and R VPROB>0.1'; the second should presumably refer to PM_PROB.
  2. [Captions of Figs. 3 and 4] The captions describe pink triangles as red giants and yellow circles as MS-TO, while the text (e.g., §4.2.1) identifies RG as blue triangles and Diff as yellow inverted triangles. The symbol/colour scheme should be made consistent between text, captions, and the appendix figures.
  3. [Eq. (B1)-(B2)] The notation in the text following Eq. (B1) uses σ_TO and σ_MS, but the formula defines σ_Diff and σ_CS. Please align the notation to avoid confusion.
  4. [§4.2.1, footnote 8] A standard deviation of zero is interpreted in the footnote, but it would be clearer to report the numbers for the individual stars in that case, especially since Ruprecht 147 has only two CS stars.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The SDSS funding paragraph appears twice verbatim. Remove the duplicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the diffusion signature is an external measurement compared against a fixed MIST prediction; pipeline inconsistencies in Appendix B are a robustness concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational: BACCHUS abundances from APOGEE spectra are measured against a fixed grid of MIST diffusion models whose turbulent-diffusion coefficient D_T was calibrated on NGC 6397, not on NGC 752 or Ruprecht 147. The Diff class is defined by isochrone-derived mass, and the depletion is then measured directly as Δ(Diff−CS); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to another by construction. The age fit compares observed T_eff−[Fe/H] to MIST isochrones with fixed diffusion predictions, which is a standard model comparison rather than a circular derivation. The paper's own Appendix B does show that independent APOGEE pipelines produce null or opposite-sign Diff−CS offsets for several elements in Ruprecht 147, and the significance formula (Eq. B3) uses only internal dispersions rather than pipeline-to-pipeline systematics; this is a serious systematic-uncertainty and robustness concern, but it is not a circularity of the claimed derivation. The self-citations (OCCAM membership, Souto et al. line lists and prior cluster results) provide methodology and context but are not load-bearing in a way that makes the new clusters' results equivalent to prior inputs. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new free parameters of its own; the important numbers are adopted from literature. The main 'free' content is the choice to use MIST diffusion models both to define the Diff class and to fit ages, which is a modeling assumption rather than an independent measurement.

free parameters (3)
  • MIST turbulent diffusion coefficient D0 = 1 cm2 s-1
    Calibrated on NGC 6397 in VandenBerg et al. (2012)/Dotter et al. (2017); adopted in Eq. (2) and controls the depth/location of the predicted [Fe/H] minimum around 1.25 M_sun (§4.1).
  • Assumed cluster age used for mass/logg derivation = 1.3 Gyr (NGC 752), 2.5 Gyr (Ruprecht 147)
    Taken from Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) in §3.2; stellar masses, logg, and hence the Diff/CS class definitions depend on these ages.
  • Assumed cluster [Fe/H] for T_eff calibration and isochrone comparison = -0.04/-0.05 (NGC 752), +0.12 (Ruprecht 147)
    Used in §3.2 for photometric T_eff calibrations and in §4.2.14/Fig. 5 for MIST isochrones; changing it shifts both T_eff and the model baseline.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Atomic diffusion (gravitational settling + radiative acceleration) as implemented in the MIST/MESA models correctly predicts surface abundance evolution for the studied stars.
    The central comparison in §4.2 assumes the MIST diffusion models are the correct physical baseline; if the diffusion implementation is incomplete, the inferred depletion pattern and age fits inherit that error.
  • domain assumption Turbulent-mixing coefficient D_T from Eq. (2), with D0 = 1 cm2/s calibrated on NGC 6397, applies to solar-metallicity open clusters without recalibration.
    §4.1 uses D_T to place the predicted [Fe/H] minimum at 1.25 M_sun and to interpret the recovery at higher masses; this parameter is not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Cool stars (CS) with M* ≲ 0.8–1.0 M_sun have deep convective envelopes and surface abundances equal to the initial cluster composition.
    §4.1 and the [Fe/H]_CS values in the abstract treat CS as the pristine reference; if CS stars are themselves affected by diffusion or spots, all Δ(Diff-CS) offsets are misinterpreted.
  • domain assumption The photometric T_eff scale (González Hernández & Bonifacio 2009) applied at adopted cluster [Fe/H] is unbiased over 4500–7000 K.
    §3.2 and Appendix A adopt photometric T_eff; residual offsets of 50–150 K vs APOGEE scales could generate or erase T_eff-abundance trends.
  • ad hoc to paper Lines removed because they show systematic T_eff trends in dwarfs (Grilo et al. 2024) are the only significant T_eff-dependent systematics; the remaining lines are clean.
    §§4.2.4–4.2.6 exclude specific Mg, Si, Al, Ti lines; the diffusion signal is itself a T_eff trend, so the exclusion choice directly shapes the measured trend and is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption For elements without explicit diffusion treatment in the MIST isochrones, iron abundance is an adequate proxy for their diffusion.
    Stated in §2.2; comparisons for elements like S, K, Cr rely on this proxy for the model curve.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 67752 in / 17189 out tokens · 178487 ms · 2026-08-02T02:46:40.841461+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: IX. Measuring the Effects of Stellar Diffusion in the Open Clusters NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147 using APOGEE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKLK4YBN

@misc{pith2026260714208,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: IX. Measuring the Effects of Stellar Diffusion in the Open Clusters NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147 using APOGEE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKLK4YBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14208}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A growing understanding of stellar processes that alter surface chemical abundances over time has opened new avenues for using these changes as probes of stellar properties. On the main sequence and near the turnoff, stellar surface abundances are affected by gravitational settling and radiative acceleration, collectively known as atomic diffusion. In this work, we use SDSS/APOGEE DR17/DR19 data to investigate atomic diffusion in the open clusters NGC~752 and Ruprecht~147, thereby constraining how these signatures vary with age. From the analysis of Fe, C, N, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, and Ni, we find significant abundance differences between stars near the turnoff and the cooler main-sequence, where warmer stars are depleted relative to the cooler main-sequence stars at the $\geq1\sigma$ level for all elements available in the analysis. These abundance differences are consistent with the signatures expected from atomic diffusion and are further supported by comparisons with stellar models that include diffusion. By fitting the observed $T_{\rm eff}$--[Fe/H] patterns with MIST isochrones, we obtain best-fit ages of 1.0~Gyr for NGC~752 and 2.5--3.2~Gyr for Ruprecht~147. Carbon is a key diagnostic, as it shows both atomic diffusion and extra-mixing signatures associated with first-dredge-up. For NGC~752, the coolest stars in our sample, which provide the best proxy for the initial cluster composition, yield [Fe/H]$_{\rm CS} = 0.01~\pm~0.02(\pm~0.05)$ dex. For Ruprecht~147, we obtain [Fe/H]$_{\rm CS} = 0.17~\pm~0.00(\pm~0.05)$ dex. Our findings further constrain atomic diffusion models, suggesting that atomic diffusion affects age estimates of stars near the main-sequence turnoff.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14208 by Alessa Ibrahim Wiggins, Diogo Souto, Jamie Tayar, Katia Cunha, Natalie Myers, Peter M. Frinchaboy, Taylor Spoo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Color–magnitude diagram and APOGEE spectra for stars in NGC 752 and Ruprecht 147 in the top and bottom panels, respectively. The left panel shows the dereddened MKs versus (J − Ks)0 diagram. Symbols indicate the evolutionary classes adopted in this work: red giants (RG; blue triangles), main-sequence–turnoff transition stars (MS–TO; orange plus symbols), diffusion-dominated stars (Diff; yellow inverted tri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Atomic diffusion diagnostics as a function of stellar mass for NGC 752 (left) and Ruprecht 147 (right). In each column, the four panels share the same abscissa (isochrone-derived stellar mass); the green band marks the predicted [Fe/H] minimum (M⋆ = 1.25±0.05M⊙ for NGC 752), and the gray region marks masses evolved past the main sequence at the cluster age. First panel: mass–Teff plane; the solid curve is … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Abundances, [X/H], as a function of effective temperature of the studied elements for the open cluster NGC 752. Each panel corresponds to a different chemical species. The different symbols indicate the evolutionary stages: pink triangles represent red giant (RG) stars, green squares indicate main-sequence (MS) stars, yellow circles show stars in the main-sequence turnoff transition region (MS–TO), and blu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Abundances, [X/H], as a function of effective temperature of the studied elements for the open cluster Ruprecht 147. Each panel corresponds to a different chemical species. The different symbols indicate the evolutionary stages: pink triangles represent red giant (RG) stars, green squares indicate main-sequence (MS) stars, yellow circles show stars in the main-sequence turnoff transition region (MS–TO), an… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top left: Metallicity as a function of effective temperature for NGC 752. The solid and dashed lines represent MIST isochrones assuming [Fe/H]=-0.05 and ages = 0.8, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6 Gyr. Bottom left: A chi-squared minimization comparing the derived metallicities with MIST isochrones. The grey dashed line is a chi-squared comparison assuming the mean metallicity is constant. The color of the circle markers cor… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the different effective temperature scales considered for NGC 752. The diagonal panels show the temperature distributions for each scale, while the lower panels show the pairwise comparisons. The temperature scales include the photometric Teff adopted in this work, computed as the mean of five color calibrations; the photometric Teff derived using only the J − Ks color; the raw DR17 Syns… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: Abundance scale comparison for Fe in the NGC 752 open cluster. Bottom panel: the same as top, but for Ruprecht 147 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_23.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Ag¨ ueros, M

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Curtis, J. L., N´ u˜ nez, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03a3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711225 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Alvarez, R., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711225 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9711225 1998

  3. [3]

    L., Oelkers, R

    Beaton, R. L., Oelkers, R. J., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 302, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac260c 2021

  4. [4]

    L., Kos, J., de Grijs, R., et al

    Beeson, K. L., Kos, J., de Grijs, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae439 Bertelli Motta, C., Pasquali, A., Richer, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1011

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae439 2024

  5. [5]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Deliyannis, C

    Boesgaard, A. M., Deliyannis, C. P., Stephens, A., & King, J. R. 1998, ApJ, 493, 206, doi: 10.1086/305089

    work page doi:10.1086/305089 1998

  7. [7]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, ApOpt, 12, 1430, doi: 10.1364/AO.12.001430

    doi:10.1364/ao.12.001430 1973

  8. [8]

    2018, A&A, 619, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833888

    Donati, P. 2018, A&A, 619, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833888

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833888 2018

  9. [9]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.07274

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.07274. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07274

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    2019, A&A, 623, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834546

    Carrera, R., Bragaglia, A., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834546

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834546 2019

  11. [11]

    J., et al

    Casagrande, L., Silva Aguirre, V., Schlesinger, K. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2320

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2320 2016

  12. [12]

    1917a, MNRAS, 77, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.539

    Chapman, S. 1917a, MNRAS, 77, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.539

    doi:10.1093/mnras/77.7.539

  13. [13]

    1917b, MNRAS, 77, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.540

    Chapman, S. 1917b, MNRAS, 77, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.540

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/77.7.540

  14. [14]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  15. [15]

    V., Johnson, J

    Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L41

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/l41 2015

  16. [16]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  17. [17]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad635

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad635 2018

  18. [18]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab77bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab77bc 2020

  19. [19]

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

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

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

  20. [20]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 2017

  21. [21]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 2011

  22. [22]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840

    Freeman, K., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840

    arXiv 2002

  23. [23]

    M., Thompson, B., Jackson, K

    Frinchaboy, P. M., Thompson, B., Jackson, K. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l1 2013

  24. [24]

    M., et al

    Gao, X., Lind, K., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2414 20Souto et al. Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2414 2018

  25. [25]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25 Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25 Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., & Bonifacio, P. 2009, A&A, 497, 497, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810904

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810904 2012

  26. [26]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 3005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2209

    Grilo, V., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2209

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2209 2024

  27. [27]

    J., Richard, O., et al

    Gruyters, P., Korn, A. J., Richard, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220821

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220821 2013

  28. [28]

    Gruyters, P., Nordlander, T., & Korn, A. J. 2014, A&A, 567, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423590

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423590 2014

  29. [29]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  30. [30]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 2008

  31. [31]

    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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  32. [32]

    R., Sharma, S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al

    Hayden, M. R., Sharma, S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2787

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2787 2022

  33. [33]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9 2018

  34. [34]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020a, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020b, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  35. [35]

    I., & Lattanzio, J

    Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.21

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.21 2014

  36. [36]

    R., Stephens, A., Boesgaard, A

    King, J. R., Stephens, A., Boesgaard, A. M., & Deliyannis, C. 1998, AJ, 115, 666, doi: 10.1086/300209

    doi:10.1086/300209 1998

  37. [37]

    J., Grundahl, F., Richard, O., et al

    Korn, A. J., Grundahl, F., Richard, O., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 657, doi: 10.1038/nature05011

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05011 2006

  38. [38]

    J., Grundahl, F., Richard, O., et al

    Korn, A. J., Grundahl, F., Richard, O., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 402, doi: 10.1086/523098

    doi:10.1086/523098 2007

  39. [39]

    2012, A&A, 543, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118331

    Lagarde, N., Decressin, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118331

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118331 2012

  40. [40]

    2019, A&A, 627, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935306

    Liu, F., Asplund, M., Yong, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935306

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935306 2019

  41. [41]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2896

    Loaiza-Tacuri, V., Cunha, K., Souto, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2896

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2896 2023

  42. [42]

    G., & Boesgaard, A

    Lum, M. G., & Boesgaard, A. M. 2019, ApJ, 878, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c4d 2019

  43. [43]

    2023, A&A, 669, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244957

    Magrini, L., Viscasillas V´ azquez, C., Spina, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244957

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244957 2023

  44. [44]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d 2017

  45. [45]

    L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al

    Martell, S. L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2835

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2835 2017

  46. [46]

    2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1605.004

    Masseron, T., Merle, T., & Hawkins, K. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1605.004

    2016

  47. [47]

    2015, Atomic Diffusion in Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19854-5

    Michaud, G., Alecian, G., & Richer, J. 2015, Atomic Diffusion in Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19854-5

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19854-5 2015

  48. [48]

    Michaud, G., Richard, O., Richer, J., & VandenBerg, D. A. 2004, ApJ, 606, 452, doi: 10.1086/383001

    work page doi:10.1086/383001 2004

  49. [49]

    2022, AJ, 164, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5

    Myers, N., Donor, J., Spoo, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5 2022

  50. [50]

    Nordlander, T., Gruyters, P., Richard, O., & Korn, A. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3973 ¨Onehag, A., Gustafsson, B., & Korn, A. 2014, A&A, 562, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3973 2024

  51. [51]

    2020, A&A, 637, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937054

    Shetrone, M. 2020, A&A, 637, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937054

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937054 2020

  52. [52]

    M., Frinchaboy, P

    Otto, J. M., Frinchaboy, P. M., Myers, N. R., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae28d8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae28d8 2026

  53. [53]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  54. [54]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  55. [55]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  56. [56]

    2012, http://ascl.net/1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, http://ascl.net/1205.004

    2012

  57. [57]

    R., & Michaud, G

    Proffitt, C. R., & Michaud, G. 1991, ApJ, 380, 238, doi: 10.1086/170580 Prˇ sa, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41

    doi:10.1086/170580 1991

  58. [58]

    2018, A&A, 612, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731738

    Randich, S., Tognelli, E., Jackson, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731738

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731738 2018

  59. [59]

    Reddy, A. B. S., Giridhar, S., & Lambert, D. L. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1350, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19791.x

    arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    1998, ApJ, 492, 833, doi: 10.1086/305054

    Richer, J., Michaud, G., Rogers, F., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 833, doi: 10.1086/305054

    work page doi:10.1086/305054 1998

  61. [61]

    A., Beaton, R

    Santana, F. A., Beaton, R. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 303, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2cbc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2cbc 2021

  62. [62]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1872, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1872 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    Sarajedini, A., Dotter, A., & Kirkpatrick, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1872, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1872 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1872 2009

  63. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093 SDSS Collaboration, Aghakhanloo, M., Aird, J., et al

    Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093 SDSS Collaboration, Aghakhanloo, M., Aird, J., et al. 2026, ApJS, 285, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae4697

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07093 2025

  64. [64]

    2020, A&A, 643, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038833

    Semenova, E., Bergemann, M., Deal, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038833

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038833 2020

  65. [65]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1 OCCAM IX: Stellar Diffusion using APOGEE DR1721

    Sinha, A., Zasowski, G., Frinchaboy, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1 OCCAM IX: Stellar Diffusion using APOGEE DR1721

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1 2024

  66. [66]

    V., Cunha, K., Shetrone, M

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/16 2013

  67. [67]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806 2010

  68. [68]

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., & Smith, V. V. 2021, ApJ, 917, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb5 2021

  69. [69]

    2026, ApJL, 1001, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5b7c

    Souto, D., Pascucci, I., Cunha, K., & Kanodia, S. 2026, ApJL, 1001, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5b7c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae5b7c 2026

  70. [71]

    2016b, ApJ, 830, 35, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/35

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V., et al. 2016b, ApJ, 830, 35, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/35

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/35

  71. [72]

    A., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239 2017

  72. [73]

    V., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 857, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab612

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab612

  73. [74]

    T., Smith, V

    Souto, D., Unterborn, C. T., Smith, V. V., et al. 2018b, ApJL, 860, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac896

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac896 2041

  74. [75]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43

    Souto, D., Allende Prieto, C., Cunha, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43 2019

  75. [76]

    A., Bahcall, J

    Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828, doi: 10.1086/173695

    doi:10.1086/173695 1994

  76. [77]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Gim´ enez, A. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    doi:10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1 2010

  77. [78]

    A., Bergbusch, P

    VandenBerg, D. A., Bergbusch, P. A., Dotter, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/15 2012

  78. [79]

    A., Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J

    VandenBerg, D. A., Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J. 2002, ApJ, 571, 487, doi: 10.1086/339895

    doi:10.1086/339895 2002

  79. [80]

    E., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  80. [81]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075 2019

Showing first 80 references.