Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Neutron-capture elements in dwarf galaxies I: Chemical clocks & the short timescale of the r-process

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the rapid neutron-capture process, the source of about half of the heavy elements, acts on the same short timescale as massive-star supernovae, and that neutron star mergers are therefore unlikely to be its dominant…

desk verdict A substantial new dataset with a clean, potentially important claim — flat [Eu/Mg] — that deserves refereeing, provided the unmodeled Eu detection bias is addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10729 v3 pith:PZEKR4S2 submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.GA

Ása Skúladóttir , Camilla Juul Hansen , Stefania Salvadori , Arthur Choplin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords r-processs-processneutron-captureelementsdwarfspheroidalgalaxieschemicalclockseuropiumbariumevolution
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 98 red giant stars in the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxy, a small satellite of the Milky Way, to determine when the slow (s-) and rapid (r-) neutron-capture processes enriched the galaxy's gas. Its central result is that the abundance of europium relative to magnesium, $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$, is flat across the full metallicity range of Sculptor and matches the Milky Way's own flat trend. Since magnesium is made almost entirely in core-collapse supernovae, a flat ratio is read as evidence that the dominant r-process source acts on a short timescale, comparable to that of massive stars. The paper concludes that neutron star mergers are unlikely to be the dominant or only r-process site, that s-process enrichment from AGB stars only becomes apparent at $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \approx -2$, and that the $[\mathrm{Y}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ and $[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ chemical clocks work within Sculptor but are offset between galaxies.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the abundance ratio $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ used as a relative clock: europium is about 94% r-process in solar composition and magnesium is about 99% a core-collapse supernova product, so any r-process source with a significant delay should make the ratio climb with metallicity and age, just as $[\mathrm{Y}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ and $[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ climb once AGB stars contribute. The second piece of machinery is a simple two-channel decomposition, Eqs. (1)-(6), that uses pure s- and r-process ratios to split the observed growth of barium and europium into the two channels and shows that the europium growth is more than 90% r-process. Stellar ages from the Sculptor star-formation history convert the $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$ sequence into time, enabling the direct comparison of chemical clocks with Milky Way stars. Together the flat $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ trend and this decomposition support the no-delay conclusion.

What would settle it

Measure europium in the 47 Sculptor stars where the weak europium line was not detected, or model their upper limits with survival analysis; if [Eu/Mg] declines significantly toward lower [Fe/H] once upper limits are included, the flat trend disappears and the no-delay conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the r-process has no significant time delay relative to core-collapse supernovae. In Sculptor, $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ has a fitted slope of $0.03 \pm 0.10$ per dex in $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$ and sits near the solar value, while the Milky Way shows $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}] \approx 0$ from $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \approx +0.5$ down to $-2.5$. Because a delayed source would produce an increasing or decreasing ratio with metallicity, as the s-process does for $[\mathrm{Y}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ and $[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}]$, the flat trend places the dominant r-process event on the timescale of massive stars. A two-component calculation splitting the observed Ba and Eu increases into s- and r-process contributions shows that more than 90% of the europium increase in Sculptor is r-process, so the flat trend is not an s-process artifact. The paper therefore concludes that neutron star mergers, which carry a $\sim t^{-1}$ delay distribution and are observed in old host galaxies, are unlikely to be the dominant or only site of the r-process, and that massive-star-related sites such as collapsars or magnetorotationally driven supernovae are the straightforward alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The flat trend rests on the assumption that the stars where europium was measured fairly represent the whole Sculptor population, but europium was detected in only 51 of 98 stars, and if the 47 non-detections have systematically lower europium-to-magnesium ratios, the flat trend could be a selection artifact rather than a true timescale signature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The s-process contribution to Sculptor's barium becomes dominant only at $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \gtrsim -2$; below that, barium tracks the r-process, so the r-process enriched Sculptor throughout its entire chemical evolution.
  • Chemical clocks built on s-process delays must be recalibrated for each galaxy: $[\mathrm{Y}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ at a given age is lower in Sculptor than in the Milky Way, and Fornax sits higher still, so environment and metallicity both matter.
  • Chemical evolution models should use $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ rather than $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}]$ when testing r-process sites, because iron is contaminated by Type Ia supernovae that make no europium.
  • If the r-process is dominated by massive-star sites, r-process yields should track the star-formation rate; the supersolar $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ in Fornax and Sagittarius then becomes an unexplained anomaly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive observational extension would be to measure europium in the Sculptor stars where the weak europium line was not detected; if those upper limits reveal a declining $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ toward low metallicity, the no-delay conclusion would need to be revised.
  • The same flat-$[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ test could be applied to other dwarf spheroidals with well-determined star-formation histories; a system that kept forming stars recently should show whether europium tracks current star formation or lags behind it.
  • The argument tightens the theoretical space: any model that keeps neutron star mergers as the main r-process source must include a delay-hiding mechanism that is metallicity-independent and acts identically in the Milky Way and a much smaller galaxy; otherwise collapsar- or magnetorotational-supernova models are favored.
  • If confirmed, nucleosynthetic yield tables for galactic chemical evolution should associate a substantial r-process component with the core-collapse supernova rate rather than with a separate delay-time distribution, changing predictions for the earliest and latest phases of galaxy enrichment.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a homogeneous LTE abundance analysis of Mg, Y, Ba, La, Nd, and Eu in 98 red-giant stars in the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxy using VLT/FLAMES (GIRAFFE and UVES) spectra, with stellar parameters taken from Hill et al. (2019). The authors use [X/Mg] ratios to trace enrichment timescales: [Y/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] increase with [Fe/H] and age in Sculptor, mirroring Milky Way trends but with offsets that make these chemical clocks environment- and metallicity-dependent. The s-process contribution to Ba becomes significant at [Fe/H] about -2. In contrast, [Eu/Mg] is flat around the solar value in Sculptor (slope 0.03 +/- 0.10 per dex in [Fe/H]) and in the Milky Way, which the authors interpret as evidence that the r-process is not significantly delayed relative to core-collapse supernovae. They further decompose the [Ba/H] and [Eu/H] increases into s- and r-process contributions using solar-scaled pure-process ratios, and use Local Group [Eu/Mg] data to argue against neutron-star mergers as the dominant r-process site, favoring a massive-star-associated site such as collapsars or magnetorotational supernovae. The paper also discusses the Eu ceiling hypothesis and disagrees with the Duggan et al. (2018) conclusion based on Ba time delays.

Significance. The paper is valuable: it provides the first large, homogeneously analyzed sample of n-capture elements in a dwarf spheroidal galaxy, cross-checks against Hill et al. (2019), and produces an empirical [Eu/Mg] trend that is not tied to a fitted chemical evolution model. If the flat trend is robust, it is a strong constraint on r-process delay-time distributions and on proposed r-process sites, because Sculptor has a star formation history very different from the Milky Way. The demonstration that [Y/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] age calibrations depend on environment and metallicity is a useful contribution in its own right. The paper is transparent about stellar parameter choices, line lists, and known caveats for Y, Ba, La, and Nd; however, it does not extend that transparency to the Eu non-detections, which are load-bearing for the main conclusion. The manuscript therefore needs a completeness or upper-limit analysis before the no-delay claim can be fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 3.1 (Figs. 2, 3)] The flat [Eu/Mg] trend, which is the empirical basis for the no-delay and anti-NSM conclusions, is computed from detections only, and the 47 non-detections are not modeled. Section 2.3 states that Eu was detected in only 51 of 98 stars and typically in stars with average or above-average S/N and [Fe/H] > -2.2. Because the Eu ii line at 6645.1 Å is weak, the detection probability depends on S/N and on [Eu/H]; since [Eu/H] increases with [Fe/H] (Fig. 5), non-detections are expected to be concentrated at low [Fe/H] and possibly at low [Eu/Mg]. If the missing stars are preferentially low in [Eu/Mg], the measured slope of 0.03 ± 0.10 could be an artifact of censoring. The manuscript explicitly guards against this for Y and Ba and acknowledges the same risk for La and Nd (Sec. 3.1), but gives no equivalent caveat or upper-limit treatment for Eu. This is a load-bearing gap: a survival analysis, or an explicit test of the conclusion under extreme assumptions for the non-detections, is needed before the strongest claim is supported.
  2. [Sec. 4 and Conclusions (Figs. 5, 6)] The related claim that the r-process was active throughout the entire chemical evolution of Sculptor is also based on the Eu detections in Fig. 5. The decomposition of the [Ba/H] and [Eu/H] increases (Eqs. 1-6) starts at the lowest metallicity bin with available Eu measurements, [Fe/H] about -2 (Sec. 4), so it cannot directly probe the earliest enrichment epoch; the statement that the r-process contributed throughout the entire history extends beyond the detections. This claim should either be restricted to the sampled metallicity range or be supported by an upper-limit treatment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.3 and Table B.1] The entries with N_Eu = 0 are not accompanied by upper limits; please add a column with detection limits or state explicitly that upper limits are not available, so readers can assess the censoring quantitatively.
  2. [Sec. 5.2] GW170807 should be GW170817; the confirmed neutron-star merger discussed earlier in the paper is GW170817.
  3. [Sec. 6] Two-phased IMF appears to be a typo; the mechanism discussed in Sec. 5.3 is the two-phase ISM proposed by Schönrich and Weinberg (2019).
  4. [Sec. 2.2] Owning to the low signal-to-noise ratio should read Owing to the low signal-to-noise ratio.
  5. [Sec. 4 and Conclusions] Please rephrase throughout the entire chemical evolution of Sculptor to throughout the sampled metallicity range, since Eu is mostly detected at [Fe/H] > -2.2.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] For the Eu panels, several bins contain fewer than seven stars; please list the number of Eu detections per bin in the caption or text, because the flatness statement is sensitive to bin population.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central [Eu/Mg] result is an empirical measurement and the s/r decomposition uses external solar-process ratios, not fitted Sculptor parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the r-process shows no significant time delay relative to core-collapse supernovae—rests on the measured flat [Eu/Mg] trend in Sculptor (slope 0.03 ± 0.10, Sec. 3.1) and the similar flat trend in the Milky Way. This is an observed abundance pattern, not a quantity derived from a fitted model. The s/r decomposition in Eqs. 1–6 combines observed bin-to-bin increments of [Ba/H] and [Eu/H] with pure s- and r-process ratios taken from Bisterzo et al. (2014); those external ratios are inputs, not quantities fitted to the Sculptor data, and the derived α is solved from the data rather than chosen to produce the conclusion. The inference from a flat [Eu/Mg] trend to 'no significant delay' is a physical interpretation explicitly contrasted with the rising [Y/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] trends expected from delayed s-process enrichment, so it is not a tautology. Stellar parameters, ages, and reduction procedures are adopted from previous papers, some with overlapping authorship (e.g., Hill et al. 2019; Skúladóttir et al. 2017), but these are standard data-processing inputs and do not predetermine the r-process timescale result. The unmodeled Eu non-detections (47 of 98 stars) are a legitimate completeness/selection-bias concern about the flat trend, but they represent a data-quality risk, not circular reasoning. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to force the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and does not depend on fitted parameters. The only input ratios for the secondary s/r decomposition are external solar-scaled yields from the literature. No new particles, forces, or processes are introduced. The main uncertainties are domain assumptions about tracer purity and the completeness of Eu detections.

free parameters (1)
  • initial metallicity bin for s/r decomposition = [Fe/H] near -2
    Chosen as the lowest metallicity bin with available Eu measurements (Section 4). It is used as the initial condition in Eq. 6 to separate s- and r-process contributions. A different starting bin would change the derived s-process contribution to Eu, though not the flat [Eu/Mg] trend itself.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mg is produced almost entirely by core-collapse supernovae.
    Invoked in Sections 3.1 and 5.2 to interpret [Eu/Mg] as a timescale relative to massive-star products. If this is wrong, the inference of no r-process delay weakens.
  • domain assumption [Fe/H] is a good proxy for evolutionary state and age in the central Sculptor sample.
    Assumed in Section 3.1 following Hill et al. (2019), and used in the binned trends versus [Fe/H] and age. The paper notes the sample is biased toward younger, more metal-rich stars, but still uses [Fe/H] as an evolutionary indicator.
  • domain assumption Eu and Ba trace the r- and s-processes with solar proportions (94% and 85%), and the Bisterzo et al. (2014) pure-process ratios apply to Sculptor.
    Used in Section 4, Eqs. 1-6, to estimate the s-process contribution to Eu and the r-process contribution to Ba. If these ratios depend on metallicity or environment, the decomposition changes, though the flat [Eu/Mg] trend is independent of this correction.
  • domain assumption Eu detections are representative of the full Sculptor population despite non-detections.
    Section 2.3 reports Eu detections in about half the sample, preferentially at higher S/N and [Fe/H] > -2.2. The flat trend in Fig. 7 assumes no detection bias. This is the weakest data premise in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron-capture elements in dwarf galaxies I: Chemical clocks & the short timescale of the r-process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZEKR4S2

@misc{pith2026190810729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron-capture elements in dwarf galaxies I: Chemical clocks & the short timescale of the r-process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZEKR4S2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10729}
}
abstract

The heavy elements (Z>30) are created in neutron-capture processes which happen at very different nucleosynthetic sites. To study them in an environment different from the Milky Way, we target these elements in RGB stars in the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Using ESO VLT/FLAMES spectra, we measure the chemical abundances of Y, Ba, La, Nd, and Eu, in 98 stars covering $-2.4<\text{[Fe/H]}<-0.9$. This is the first paper in a series about the $n$-capture elements in dwarf galaxies, and here we focus on the relative and absolute timescales of the slow ($s$)- and rapid ($r$)-processes in Sculptor. From the abundances of the $s$-process element Ba and the $r$-process element Eu, it is clear that the $r$-process enrichment occurred throughout the entire chemical evolution history of Sculptor. Furthermore, there is no evidence for the $r$-process to have a significant time delay relative to core-collapse supernovae. Neutron star mergers are therefore unlikely the dominant (or only) nucleosynthetic site of the $r$-process. However, the products of the $s$-process only become apparent at $\text{[Fe/H]}\approx-2$ in Sculptor, and the $s$-process becomes the dominant source of Ba at $\text{[Fe/H]}\gtrsim-2$. We test the use of [Y/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] as chemical clocks in Sculptor. Similarly to what is observed in the Milky Way, [Y/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] increase towards younger ages. However, there is an offset, where the abundance ratios of [Y/Mg] in Sculptor are significantly lower than those of the Milky Way at any given age. This is most likely caused by metallicity dependence of yields from the $s$-process, as well as different relative contribution of the $s$-process to core-collapse supernovae in these galaxies. Comparisons of our data with that of the Milky Way and the Fornax dwarf spheroidal galaxy furthermore show that these chemical clocks are both metallicity and environment dependent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) SFH of Sculptor (de Boer et al. 2012a) b) The ages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ratios of the n-capture elements to Mg. Target stars are shown with blue (GIRAFFE) and light blue (UVES) circles. The representative error bar for the Sculptor data is shown in blue. Previous measurements in Sculptor from HR spectra are shown with magenta diamonds (Shetrone et al. 2003; Geisler et al. 2005; Kirby & Cohen 2012; Skúladóttir et al. 2015b; Jablonka et al. 2015). Open diamonds are stars with peculiar abu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average [X/Mg] for our sample in five [Fe/H] bins (left panel) and four age bins (right panel): Y (purple triangles), Ba (orange circles), La (green squares), Nd (light blue downward pointing triangles), and Eu (pink diamonds). Open symbols note bins with < 7 stars, while all filled points contain ≥ 10 stars. Dashed vertical lines show the sizes of the bins, and the y-error bar is the error of the mean. Ba were meas… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Y/Mg] and [Ba/Mg] as a function of age. Sculptor binned data are blue circles. Left panels: Comparison with individ￾ual Milky Way solar twin stars (gray symbols). Right panels: Comparison with binned data from the Fornax dSph (pink pen￾tagons) and the Milky Way (open …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Build-up of [Ba/H] (top panel) and [Eu/H] (bottom panel) with [Fe/H]. Circles are individual Sculptor stars observed with GIRAFFE (blue) and UVES (light blue). Red squares are binned data, where the error of the mean is in all cases smaller than or comparable to the sy…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Measurements of [Eu/Mg] in individual stars in the Local Group. Confirmed CEMP-s or CEMP-s/r stars are not included. Black squares are Milky Way stars, and Sculptor is blue: circles are target stars (GIRAFFE and UVES), and diamonds are from the literature. Triangles ar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Reconstructing Critical Current Density in Josephson Junctions with Phase Non-linearity

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The standard Dynes-Fulton reconstruction of critical current density breaks down for junctions with nonlinear phase distributions, and the authors propose an iterative algorithm that incorporates prior knowledge to fix it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Plez, B

    Alvarez, R. & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109

    1998

  2. [2]

    M., Korotin, S

    Andrievsky, S. M., Korotin, S. A., Hill, V ., & Zhukova, A. V . 2017, arXiv e-prints

    2017

  3. [3]

    2008, ApJ, 681, L13

    Battaglia, G., Helmi, A., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, L13

    2008

  4. [4]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71

    2014

  5. [5]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    2014

  6. [6]

    L., Cassisi, S., et al

    Bettinelli, M., Hidalgo, S. L., Cassisi, S., et al. 2019, MNR AS, 1642

    2019

  7. [7]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 10

    Bisterzo, S., Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Wiescher, M., & Kä ppeler, F. 2014, ApJ, 787, 10

    2014

  8. [8]

    K., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al

    Blanchard, P . K., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L22

    2017

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    2019, arXi v e-prints, arXiv:1905.12016

    Bonetti, M., Perego, A., Dotti, M., & Cescutti, G. 2019, arXi v e-prints, arXiv:1905.12016

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2000, A&A, 359, 663

    Bonifacio, P ., Hill, V ., Molaro, P ., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, 663

    2000

  3. [11]

    Cameron, A. G. W. 2003, ApJ, 587, 327

    2003

  4. [12]

    2015, A&A, 577, A139

    Cescutti, G., Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Chiappini, C., & Hi rschi, R. 2015, A&A, 577, A139

    2015

  5. [13]

    Chaplin, W. J. & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353

    2013

  6. [14]

    D., Frebel, A., et al

    Chiti, A., Simon, J. D., Frebel, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 142

    2018

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 848, L1 9

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L1 9

    2017

  8. [16]

    Cohen, J. G. & Huang, W. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1053

    2009

  9. [17]

    Cohen, J. G. & Huang, W. 2010, ApJ, 719, 931 Côté, B., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 230 Côté, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106

    2010

  10. [18]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, S cience, 358, 1556

    2017

  11. [19]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P . S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017,ApJ, 848, L17 da Silva, R., Porto de Mello, G. F., Milone, A. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A84 de Boer, T. J. L., Tolstoy, E., Hill, V ., et al. 2012a, A&A, 539 , A103 de Boer, T. J. L., Tolstoy, E., Hill, V ., et al...

    2017

  12. [20]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science , 358, 1570

    2017

  13. [21]

    E., Kirby, E

    Duggan, G. E., Kirby, E. N., Andrievsky, S. M., & Korotin, S. A . 2018, ApJ, 869, 50

    2018

  14. [22]

    M., McMillan, P

    Feltzing, S., Howes, L. M., McMillan, P . J., & Stonkut˙e, E. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L109

    2017

  15. [23]

    K., et al

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Blanchard, P . K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L23 François, P ., Depagne, E., Hill, V ., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 935

    2017

  16. [24]

    2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Scien ce, 68, 237

    Frebel, A. 2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Scien ce, 68, 237

    2018

  17. [25]

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

    Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Gilmore, G., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2016, A pJ, 826, 110

    2016

  18. [26]

    D., & Kirby, E

    Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Kirby, E. N. 2014, ApJ, 786, 74

    2014

  19. [27]

    P ., Rich, R

    Fulbright, J. P ., Rich, R. M., & Castro, S. 2004, ApJ, 612, 447

    2004

  20. [28]

    V ., Wallerstein, G., Gonzalez, G., & Charbonnel, C

    Geisler, D., Smith, V . V ., Wallerstein, G., Gonzalez, G., & Charbonnel, C. 2005, AJ, 129, 1428

    2005

  21. [29]

    & Sauval, A

    Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161

    1998

  22. [30]

    2008, A &A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A &A, 486, 951

    2008

  23. [31]

    J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A31

    2012

  24. [32]

    T., Andersen, J., Nordström, B., et al

    Hansen, T. T., Andersen, J., Nordström, B., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A3

    2016

  25. [33]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Marshall, J. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 44

    2017

  26. [34]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    2005

  27. [35]

    C., et al

    Hill, V ., Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A91

    2017

  28. [36]

    2002, A&A, 387, 560

    Hill, V ., Plez, B., Cayrel, R., et al. 2002, A&A, 387, 560

    2002

  29. [37]

    2019, A&A, 626, A15

    Hill, V ., Skúladóttir, Á., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A15

    2019

  30. [38]

    R., et al

    Hirai, Y ., Ishimaru, Y ., Saitoh, T. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814,41

    2015

  31. [39]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005

    Hotokezaka, K., Beniamini, P ., & Piran, T. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005

    2018

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Im, M., Y oon, Y ., Lee, S.-K. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, L16

    2017

  33. [41]

    Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., Aoki, W., & Ryan, S. G. 2004, ApJ, 600, L47

    2004

  34. [42]

    G., & Prantzos, N

    Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., Aoki, W., Ryan, S. G., & Prantzos, N . 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 758, 603

    2005

  35. [43]

    2015, ApJ, 804, L35

    Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., & Prantzos, N. 2015, ApJ, 804, L35

    2015

  36. [44]

    1999, ApJS, 12 5, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 12 5, 439

    1999

  37. [45]

    2015, A&A, 583, A67

    Jablonka, P ., North, P ., Mashonkina, L., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A67

    2015

  38. [46]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030

    2014

  39. [47]

    Kirby, E. N. & Cohen, J. G. 2012, AJ, 144, 168

    2012

  40. [48]

    2013, A&A, 5 54, A5

    Koch, A., Feltzing, S., Adén, D., & Matteucci, F. 2013, A&A, 5 54, A5

    2013

  41. [49]

    K., Zucker, D

    Koch, A., McWilliam, A., Grebel, E. K., Zucker, D. B., & Belok urov, V . 2008, ApJ, 688, L13

    2008

  42. [50]

    & Shigeyama, T

    Komiya, Y . & Shigeyama, T. 2016, ApJ, 830, 76

    2016

  43. [51]

    A., Andrievsky, S

    Korotin, S. A., Andrievsky, S. M., Hansen, C. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A70

    2015

  44. [52]

    A., Stempels, H

    Kupka, F., Piskunov, N., Ryabchikova, T. A., Stempels, H. C. , & Weiss, W. W. 1999, A&AS, 138, 119

    1999

  45. [53]

    Lemasle, B., de Boer, T. J. L., Hill, V ., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A88

    2014

  46. [54]

    2012, A&A, 538, A10 0

    Lemasle, B., Hill, V ., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A10 0

    2012

  47. [55]

    2010, A&A, 523, A17

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

    2010

  48. [56]

    2018, A&A, 613, C1

    Letarte, B., Hill, V ., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, C1

    2018

  49. [57]

    J., Lyman, J

    Levan, A. J., Lyman, J. D., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848 , L28

    2017

  50. [58]

    C., et al

    Lucatello, S., Tsangarides, S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, Ap J, 625, 825

    2005

  51. [59]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 2177

    Matteucci, F., Romano, D., Arcones, A., Korobkin, O., & Ross wog, S. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2177

    2014

  52. [60]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4

    2012

  53. [61]

    2013, ApJ, 778 , 149

    McWilliam, A., Wallerstein, G., & Mottini, M. 2013, ApJ, 778 , 149

    2013

  54. [62]

    V ., Pignatari, M., Korotin, S

    Mishenina, T. V ., Pignatari, M., Korotin, S. A., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A128 Mösta, P ., Roberts, L. F., Halevi, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 1 71

    2013

  55. [63]

    P ., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P ., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  56. [64]

    Nishimura, N., Sawai, H., Takiwaki, T., Y amada, S., & Thielemann, F. K. 2017, ApJ, 836, L21

    2017

  57. [65]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 109

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

    2015

  58. [66]

    Nissen, P . E. 2015, A&A, 579, A52

    2015

  59. [67]

    Nissen, P . E. 2016, A&A, 593, A65

    2016

  60. [68]

    Nissen, P . E. & Gustafsson, B. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 6

    2018

  61. [69]

    E., Silva Aguirre, V ., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J ., et al

    Nissen, P . E., Silva Aguirre, V ., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J ., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A112

    2017

  62. [70]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 45 7

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 45 7

    2013

  63. [71]

    E., Y ong, D., V enn, K

    Norris, J. E., Y ong, D., V enn, K. A., et al. 2017, ApJS, 230, 28

    2017

  64. [72]

    2012, A&A, 541, A45

    North, P ., Cescutti, G., Jablonka, P ., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A45

    2012

  65. [73]

    C., Kilpatrick, C

    Pan, Y . C., Kilpatrick, C. D., Simon, J. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 8 48, L30

    2017

  66. [74]

    2017, Nature, 551 , 67 Pietrzy´nski, G., Gieren, W., Szewczyk, O., et al

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P ., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551 , 67 Pietrzy´nski, G., Gieren, W., Szewczyk, O., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1993 Article number, page 12 of 17 Á. Skúladóttir et al.: Neutron-capture elements in dwarf ga laxies I: Chemical clocks & the short timescale ...

    2017

  67. [75]

    2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, astrophysics Source Code Library

    Plez, B. 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, astrophysics Source Code Library

    2012

  68. [76]

    E., Lambert, D

    Reddy, B. E., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2006, MNRAS , 367, 1329

    2006

  69. [77]

    E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D

    Reddy, B. E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 304

    2003

  70. [78]

    Roederer, I. U. & Kirby, E. N. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2665

    2014

  71. [79]

    2018, A&A, 615 , A132

    Rosswog, S., Sollerman, J., Feindt, U., et al. 2018, A&A, 615 , A132

    2018

  72. [80]

    2004, PASJ, 56, 1 041

    Sadakane, K., Arimoto, N., Ikuta, C., et al. 2004, PASJ, 56, 1 041

    2004

  73. [81]

    M., Placco, V

    Sakari, C. M., Placco, V . M., Farrell, E. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 110

    2018

  74. [82]

    Savino, A., de Boer, T. J. L., Salaris, M., & Tolstoy, E. 2018,MNRAS, 480, 1587 Schönrich, R. A. & Weinberg, D. H. 2019, MNRAS, 1083

    2018

  75. [83]

    J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al

    Shen, S., Cooke, R. J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 80 7, 115

    2015

  76. [84]

    A., Tolstoy, E., et al

    Shetrone, M., V enn, K. A., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 6 84

    2003

  77. [85]

    D., Côté, P ., & Stetson, P

    Shetrone, M. D., Côté, P ., & Stetson, P . B. 2001, PASP , 113, 1122

    2001

  78. [86]

    Siegel, D. M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.09044

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

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

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241 Silva Aguirre, V ., Bojsen-Hansen, M., Slumstrup, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5487

    2019

  80. [88]

    D., Jacobson, H

    Simon, J. D., Jacobson, H. R., Frebel, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 80 2, 93

    2015

  81. [89]

    20 19, MNRAS, 486, 2896 Skúladóttir, Á., Andrievsky, S

    Simonetti, P ., Matteucci, F., Greggio, L., & Cescutti, G. 20 19, MNRAS, 486, 2896 Skúladóttir, Á., Andrievsky, S. M., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2015 a, A&A, 580, A129 Skúladóttir, Á., Salvadori, S., Pettini, M., Tolstoy, E., & Hill, V . 2018, A&A, 615, A137 Skúladóttir, Á., Tolstoy...

    2015

  82. [90]

    2017, A&A, 604, L8

    Slumstrup, D., Grundahl, F., Brogaard, K., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, L8

    2017

  83. [91]

    J., & Gallino, R

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

    2008

  84. [92]

    J., Lawler, J

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 936

    2003

  85. [93]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581

    2010

  86. [94]

    I., et al

    Spina, L., Meléndez, J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 4 74, 2580

    2018

  87. [95]

    2013, A&A, 549, A88

    Starkenburg, E., Hill, V ., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A88

    2013

  88. [96]

    D., McConnachie, A

    Starkenburg, E., Shetrone, M. D., McConnachie, A. W., & V enn , K. A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1217

    2014

  89. [97]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1159

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

    2008

  90. [98]

    2017, A&A, 606, A112

    Susmitha, A., Koch, A., & Sivarani, T. 2017, A&A, 606, A112

    2017

  91. [99]

    2010, A&A, 524, A58+

    Tafelmeyer, M., Jablonka, P ., Hill, V ., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A58+

    2010

  92. [100]

    A., et al

    Tanaka, M., Utsumi, Y ., Mazzali, P . A., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69,102

    2017

  93. [101]

    M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

    Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P . C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 8 46, 170

    2017

  94. [102]

    , & Guiglion, G

    Titarenko, A., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P ., Hayden, M. , & Guiglion, G. 2019, A&A, 622, A59

    2019

  95. [103]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V ., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371

    2009

  96. [104]

    J., Helmi, A., et al

    Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M. J., Helmi, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L1 19

    2004

  97. [105]

    2004, ApJ, 601 , 864

    Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Arnone, E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601 , 864

    2004

  98. [106]

    N., & Shig eyama, T

    Tsujimoto, T., Matsuno, T., Aoki, W., Ishigaki, M. N., & Shig eyama, T. 2017, ApJ, 850, L12

    2017

  99. [107]

    & Nishimura, N

    Tsujimoto, T. & Nishimura, N. 2015, ApJ, 811, L10

    2015

  100. [108]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 945 Tucci Maia, M., Ramírez, I., Meléndez, J., et al

    Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Y oshii, Y ., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945 Tucci Maia, M., Ramírez, I., Meléndez, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 5 90, A32 van de V oort, F., Quataert, E., Hopkins, P . F., Kereš, D., & Fa ucher-Giguère, C.-A. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 140 V enn, K. A., Irwin, M., Sh...

    1995

  101. [109]

    A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al

    Villar, V . A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 8 51, L21

    2017

  102. [110]

    T., Kitaura, F

    Wanajo, S., Nomoto, K., Janka, H. T., Kitaura, F. S., & Müller , B. 2009, ApJ, 695, 208

    2009

  103. [111]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ , 789, 147

    2014

  104. [112]

    2012, ApJ, 750, L22 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Winteler, C., Käppeli, R., Perego, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, L22 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Skuladottir19a_AA Fig. A.1: Comparison of measurements in this work and Hill et al. (2019). ∆[X/Fe] = [X/Fe] − [X/Fe] Hill. Appendix A: Comparison with pr...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.