Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 85 references

SIRIUS: Identifying Metal-poor Stars Enriched by a Single Supernova in a Dwarf Galaxy Cosmological Zoom-in Simulation Resolving Individual Massive Stars

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dwarf galaxy simulation that follows individual massive stars finds that only 1.5% of its metal-poor stars were enriched by a single supernova, with the fraction rising to 11% at [Fe/H] = -5.0.

desk verdict First simulation-based mono-enriched fractions are worth taking seriously, but the absolute numbers depend on an unvaried mixing parameter and a machine-precision tolerance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18680 v2 pith:QF757VCN submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Yutaka Hirai , Takayuki R. Saitoh , Michiko S. Fujii , Katsuhiro Kaneko , Timothy C. Beers This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords mono-enrichedstarsmetal-poorsupernovanucleosynthesisdwarfgalaxyformationstar-by-starsimulationscosmologicalzoom-insimulationPopulationIIIchemicalabundances
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 asks what fraction of the oldest, most metal-poor stars were born from the ejecta of a single supernova (mono-enriched stars) rather than from gas seasoned by several explosions. Using a cosmological zoom-in simulation of a dwarf galaxy that follows individual massive stars and their core-collapse supernova yields, it finds that the mono-enriched fraction rises toward lower metallicity: 11% at [Fe/H] = -5.0, 1% at [Fe/H] = -2.5, and only 1.5% overall. The authors conclude that even the most primitive stars are usually polluted by multiple supernovae, and that mono-enriched stars are concentrated near the dwarf's center, making central stellar populations of dwarf galaxies the best targets for finding them.

What carries the argument

The classification device is the carbon-to-iron ratio. Every simulated core-collapse supernova carries a characteristic [C/Fe] yield, so a star formed from gas whose [C/Fe] matches a past CCSN's yield to within ±$10^{-6}$ is counted as mono-enriched. The simulation resolves stars above 6 solar masses individually as star-by-star particles; their explosion ejecta are distributed to 128 neighboring gas particles and diluted by a metal-diffusion scheme whose scale factor (0.01) was calibrated to match abundances of metal-poor stars in dwarf galaxies. AGB and Type Ia contributions are negligible in the metal-poor regime, and the initial gas is zero metallicity, so the match is a clean test of single-SN enrichment.

What would settle it

Re-run the same zoom-in halo at the resolution where galactic wind properties converge (the paper's own stated missing check) and vary the metal-diffusion scale factor between 0.003 and 0.1; if the mono-enriched fraction at [Fe/H] = -5 moves outside roughly 5-20%, the reported numbers are resolution- and mixing-dependent rather than intrinsic. Alternatively, high-precision spectroscopy of more than 100 EMP stars in Milky Way dwarf satellites that finds a mono-enriched fraction well above the simulated 5% would rule out the model's mixing strength.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a dwarf galaxy simulated with individual massive stars, the fraction of mono-enriched stars is small and declines steeply with metallicity: 11% at [Fe/H] = -5.0, 1% at [Fe/H] = -2.5, and 1.5% overall, with an EMP fraction of 5.0%. This is the first direct simulation-based estimate of this fraction, and it independently reproduces the trend toward lower metallicities seen by an observation-based machine-learning analysis of 462 EMP stars, while predicting a substantially lower absolute fraction than that analysis's 31.8% because the simulation's mono-enriched criterion is deliberately strict.

Load-bearing premise

The mono-enriched fractions rest on the simulation's calibrated metal-diffusion strength and on a single dwarf halo whose resolution is below the level where galactic winds converge; if the real mixing of supernova ejecta is substantially stronger or weaker than this model, the absolute percentages change even if the trend toward lower metallicity survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most metal-poor stars, even at [Fe/H] around -5, carry the imprint of multiple supernovae; single-SN enrichment is the exception rather than the rule.
  • The rising mono-enriched fraction toward lower metallicity reinforces the trend inferred from observations and supports using the lowest-metallicity stars as the most promising single-SN nucleosynthesis probes.
  • Targeting the central regions of dwarf galaxies should efficiently find mono-enriched stars, because that is where the simulation places most of them.
  • If the 5% EMP fraction holds, existing photometric samples of roughly 25,000 EMP stars should contain over a thousand mono-enriched stars for spectroscopic follow-up.
  • The gap with the machine-learning estimate (5% vs 31.8%) is plausibly explained by the much stricter matching criterion in the simulation, so the two approaches are not necessarily in conflict.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the simulation classifies only matches within ±10^-6 as mono-enriched, the 1.5% and 5% figures are closer to lower bounds; a classification using observational precision (~0.2 dex in [C/Fe]) would merge many multi-enriched stars into the mono-enriched group, pushing the fractions up and possibly explaining most of the gap with the machine-learning estimate.
  • Editorial inference: the simulation uses a single halo and a non-converged resolution; the absolute mono-enriched fraction in other dwarfs with different star-formation histories or with a top-heavy Population III IMF could differ by factors of a few, even if the qualitative metallicity trend is universal.
  • Editorial inference: a direct observational test would be to measure carbon and iron abundances of a large sample of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies with precisions below 0.1 dex; if a significant population of stars shows [C/Fe] ratios offset from every known CCSN yield track, the simulation's assumption that every mono-enriched star inherits its SN's [C/Fe] exactly would need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This Letter presents a cosmological zoom-in simulation of a dwarf galaxy, run with the star-by-star SIRIUS model, and uses it to estimate the fraction of metal-poor stars enriched by a single core-collapse supernova (mono-enriched stars). The authors classify a simulated star as mono-enriched if its [C/Fe] ratio matches the yield of a previously occurring CCSN to within ±10^-6 in dex. They report that the mono-enriched fraction increases toward lower metallicity for [Fe/H] < -2.5, reaching 11% at [Fe/H] = -5 and 1% at [Fe/H] = -2.5, with an overall fraction of 1.5% in the simulated galaxy at z = 6.5. They also find that mono-enriched stars are preferentially located near the galactic center. The paper compares these numbers with the observation-based estimate of Hartwig et al. (2023) and discusses implications for upcoming surveys such as PFS.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, this is a valuable first direct simulation-based estimate of the mono-enriched fraction, complementary to machine-learning analyses of observed stellar abundances. The paper's approach of directly tracking individual SN ejecta in a star-by-star simulation is a clear strength, and the reported spatial bias toward the center of the dwarf provides a concrete, testable prediction for future spectroscopic surveys. The authors are also transparent about several limitations, including the single halo realization, the neglect of radiation feedback, and the absence of CEMP stars. However, the central quantitative claims rest on model choices that are not varied or tested, and at least one of the paper's arguments for robustness (Section 4) is not logically sound. The absolute fractions and even the monotonic trend below [Fe/H] = -2.5 should therefore be regarded as provisional until the sensitivity studies requested below are performed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 4] The mono-enriched fractions are controlled by the metal diffusion scaling factor of 0.01, which is calibrated to present-day dwarf galaxy abundances (Hirai & Saitoh 2017). The paper asserts in Section 4 that this parameter 'does not affect the predicted increasing trend toward lower metallicity of the mono-enriched fraction, because the metallicity does not affect the value of the diffusion coefficient.' This is a non sequitur: the diffusion coefficient is a constant, but its effect on whether a gas parcel is classified as mono-enriched depends on the local gas density, the time between SN events, and the enrichment history, all of which vary strongly with [Fe/H]. Over-mixing can erase mono-enriched signatures at all metallicities, while under-mixing can leave spurious exact matches. No simulation with a different diffusion coefficient, or with diffusion disabled, is presented. The absolute fractions (11%, 5%, 1.5%) and even the shape of the trend below [Fe/H] = -2.5 are therefore not secured against this single degree of freedom. The authors should provide a sensitivity test or explicitly reframe the results as conditional on the adopted diffusion model.
  2. [Section 3] The mono-enriched classification uses a matching tolerance of ±10^-6 in [C/Fe]. This tolerance is far smaller than the numerical scatter in the simulation (the paper notes that some stars in constant-[C/Fe] stripes are not labeled mono-enriched because they are 'slightly affected by other SN ejecta') and far smaller than the observational precision of ±0.2 dex. The reported fractions are therefore a direct function of an arbitrary cutoff: any multi-enriched star whose second SN contribution shifts [C/Fe] by less than 10^-6 is counted as mono-enriched. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the fractions and the trend to the tolerance, for example by recomputing them with tolerances of 10^-4, 10^-2, and 0.2 dex. The statement in Section 4 that the strict condition makes the estimate 'expected to be lower than observation-based estimates' does not address the internal sensitivity of the reported numbers to this parameter.
  3. [Section 2.3] Only a single cosmological zoom-in halo is simulated, with no resolution convergence test; the paper explicitly notes that the resolution is below that at which galactic wind properties converge (Hu 2019). The mono-enriched fraction depends on the number of SN events per gas parcel and on the star formation history, both of which vary from halo to halo and with resolution. Without a second halo realization or a resolution study, the reported values of 11% at [Fe/H] = -5 and 1% at [Fe/H] = -2.5 should be accompanied by an uncertainty or a caveat that they are single-realization numbers. As written, the quantitative claims in the abstract and Section 3 are presented without any error estimate, which is difficult to justify for a single simulation.
  4. [Section 4] The paper describes the agreement with Hartwig et al. (2023) as 'an independent confirmation of the increasing trend' because the two approaches are 'completely different.' This overstates the degree of independence: the simulation enriches gas with yields from the celib library (Nomoto et al. 2013), and the mono-enriched classification compares simulated stars against the same yield table, so the simulation cannot falsify the nucleosynthesis yields. While the method of estimating the enrichment history is different from the machine-learning approach, the two are not independent validations of the underlying yield models. The authors should temper this claim and explicitly state that the comparison primarily tests the mixing and star-formation model adopted in the simulation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1] The metal diffusion scaling factor of 0.01 is said to be 'determined from the chemical abundances of MP stars in dwarf galaxies' (Hirai & Saitoh 2017). A short justification of why this calibration, likely based on local dwarf galaxies, should apply at the very low metallicities and early cosmic times probed here would help the reader assess the extrapolation.
  2. [Section 3] Figure 2 shows the mono-enriched fraction as a function of [Fe/H], but no error bars or Poisson uncertainties are provided. Since the fractions are derived from finite particle counts, particularly in the sparsely populated high- and low-metallicity bins, adding confidence intervals (or at least stating the bin counts) would make the trend easier to evaluate.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence explaining why the diffusion coefficient does not affect the trend ('because the metallicity does not affect the value of the diffusion coefficient') is confusing and should be rewritten or removed; as noted above, it conflates a constant parameter value with the metallicity-dependent physical consequences of diffusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mono-enriched fractions are not forced by construction, and the calibrated diffusion coefficient is an external input rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the simulated mono-enriched fraction and its metallicity trend, obtained by comparing each star's [C/Fe] to the yields of CCSNe from the celib library (Nomoto et al. 2013). It is true that the same yield library enriches the simulated gas, so a star formed from pure ejecta will match the template by construction. However, this is a self-consistency of the classification, not a circular derivation of the quantitative result. The fraction itself is not fixed by the yield table: it is set by the gas dynamics, star-formation timing, mixing history, and the timing and location of supernova explosions, all of which are computed in the simulation. A star formed from multiple supernovae generally will not match any single CCSN template to within 1e-6, so the multi-enriched population is not an artifact of the definition. The metal-diffusion scaling factor of 0.01 is adopted from Hirai & Saitoh (2017), where it was calibrated against observed chemical abundances of metal-poor stars in dwarf galaxies; this is an external calibration, not a fit to the mono-enriched fraction, so it does not constitute 'fitted input called prediction.' The paper explicitly acknowledges its limitations: only one zoom-in halo was simulated, and the resolution is below that at which galactic wind properties converge (citing Hu 2019). These are legitimate correctness risks that could shift the absolute percentages and possibly the trend, but they do not make the derivation circular. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs. The increasing trend toward lower metallicity for [Fe/H] < -2.5 is an emergent property of the simulation rather than an assumption built into the classification. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation prediction rests on five structural assumptions: the yield library is correct, the IMF is universal, the gas starts metal-free, the single halo is representative, and the calibrated diffusion model preserves [C/Fe] at the one-in-a-million level used for classification. The two hand-set numbers, the diffusion coefficient and the classification tolerance, control the absolute mono-enriched fractions, while the trend with metallicity is largely driven by the decreasing number of prior SNe at low [Fe/H].

free parameters (3)
  • metal diffusion scaling factor = 0.01
    Calibrated to match metal-poor star abundances in dwarf galaxies (Hirai & Saitoh 2017); directly sets how SN ejecta dilute, affecting which stars pass the mono-enriched [C/Fe] match.
  • mono-enriched [C/Fe] tolerance = 1e-6 dex
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 3; absolute fractions 11%, 5%, and 1.5% scale with this tolerance, as the authors acknowledge when comparing with the 0.2 dex observational uncertainty.
  • star formation thresholds = n_H > 100 cm^-3, T < 1000 K
    Adopted from the SIRIUS model (Hirai et al. 2021); determines where and when stars form, hence which gas is available for mono-enrichment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CCSN nucleosynthesis yields of Nomoto et al. (2013), SNe Ia yields of Seitenzahl et al. (2013), and AGB yields of Cristallo et al. are accurate for the simulated enrichment
    The celib yield set (Section 2.1) both enriches the simulation and defines the mono-enriched classification, so errors in the yields propagate directly into the fractions.
  • domain assumption The Kroupa IMF from 0.1 to 120 Msun applies at all metallicities in the dwarf galaxy
    Section 2.2; the authors explicitly note a top-heavy Pop III IMF (Chon et al. 2021) could change mono-enriched fractions, and CEMP stars are suppressed by this choice.
  • domain assumption Initial gas is metal-free and the single selected (4 Mpc)^3 halo is representative of dwarf galaxies
    Sections 2.3 and 4; the paper computes one zoom-in realization without convergence tests, so representativeness is assumed.
  • domain assumption The metal diffusion equation with scaling factor 0.01 captures ISM mixing of SN ejecta at the precision needed for the 1e-6 [C/Fe] mono-enriched cut
    Section 2.1; the entire classification depends on simulated [C/Fe] values being meaningful at that tolerance.
  • domain assumption Neglect of non-equilibrium chemistry, massive-star radiation, and Pop III stars above 120 Msun does not change the mono-enriched fraction
    Section 2.1: 'We have not included the effects of radiation from massive stars' and 'we did not include non-equilibrium chemistry'; these omissions are stated but not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SIRIUS: Identifying Metal-poor Stars Enriched by a Single Supernova in a Dwarf Galaxy Cosmological Zoom-in Simulation Resolving Individual Massive Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QF757VCN

@misc{pith2026241118680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SIRIUS: Identifying Metal-poor Stars Enriched by a Single Supernova in a Dwarf Galaxy Cosmological Zoom-in Simulation Resolving Individual Massive Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QF757VCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18680}
}
abstract

Metal-poor stars enriched by a single supernova (mono-enriched stars) are direct proof (and provide valuable probes) of supernova nucleosynthesis. Photometric and spectroscopic observations have shown that metal-poor stars have a wide variety of chemical compositions; the star's chemical composition reflects the nucleosynthesis process(es) that occurred before the star's formation. While the identification of mono-enriched stars enables us to study the ejecta properties of a single supernova, the fraction of mono-enriched stars among metal-poor stars remains unknown. Here we identify mono-enriched stars in a dwarf galaxy cosmological zoom-in simulation resolving individual massive stars. We find that the fraction of mono-enriched stars is higher for lower metallicity, stars with [Fe/H] $< -2.5$. The percentages of mono-enriched stars are 11% at [Fe/H] = $-$5.0 and 1% at [Fe/H] = $-$2.5, suggesting that most metal-poor stars are affected by multiple supernovae. We also find that mono-enriched stars tend to be located near the center of the simulated dwarf. Such regions will be explored in detail in upcoming surveys such as the Prime Focus Spectrograph (PFS) on the Subaru telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18680 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. highlights our main result. Using our simula￾tions, we can compute the mono-enriched fraction as a function of [Fe/H]. As expected, the fraction exhibits an increasing trend toward lower metallicity for stars with [Fe/H] < −2.5. At [Fe/H] = −5.0, 11% of the stars are mono-enriched. This result indicates that the ISM is less likely to be multiply enriched by CCSNe as metallicity decreases. For [Fe/H] > −2.5, the perc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) of mono- and multi-enriched stars. From inspection, the mono-enriched MDF exhibits an en￾hanced low-metallicity tail, while the multi-enriched MDF smoothly decreases as [Fe/H] decreases. This fea￾ture reflects the increasing trend of the mono-enriched fraction toward lower metallicity for [Fe/H] < −2.5 (Fig￾ure 2). For higher metallicity, the MDFs are indistin- −5 −4 −… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The density profiles of multi-enriched (blue￾dashed line) and mono-enriched (orange-solid line) stars at z = 6.5. The density profile of multi-enriched stars is multi￾plied by 0.017 to be scaled to that of mono-enriched stars. 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Formation Time (Gyr) 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 d f/d t Multi-enriched stars Mono-enriched stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The formation times of multi-enriched (blue￾dashed line) and mono-enriched (orange-solid line) stars. 4. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY For the first time, this study has computed the mono￾enriched fraction, as a function of [Fe/H], directly from a simulation. We have shown an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ̈́0 vR EB α K) v =j * ._gнi(OF v؀3ļ1TWG2 phQW)31E

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    I., et al

    Agertz , O., Pontzen , A., Read , J. I., et al. 2020, , 491, 1656, 10.1093/mnras/stz3053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3053 2020

  5. [5]

    C., Honda , S., & Lee , Y

    Aoki , W., Tominaga , N., Beers , T. C., Honda , S., & Lee , Y. S. 2014, Science, 345, 912, 10.1126/science.1252633

    doi:10.1126/science.1252633 2014

  6. [6]

    1986, , 324, 446, 10.1038/324446a0

    Barnes , J., & Hut , P. 1986, , 324, 446, 10.1038/324446a0

    doi:10.1038/324446a0 1986

  7. [7]

    C., & Christlieb , N

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

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    C., Preston , G

    Beers , T. C., Preston , G. W., & Shectman , S. A. 1985, , 90, 2089, 10.1086/113917

    doi:10.1086/113917 1985

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    1992, , 103, 1987, 10.1086/116207

    ---. 1992, , 103, 1987, 10.1086/116207

    1992 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Sivarani , T., Marsteller , B., et al

    Beers , T. C., Sivarani , T., Marsteller , B., et al. 2007, , 133, 1193, 10.1086/511183

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16366, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16366

    Brauer , K., Emerick , A., Mead , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16366, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16366

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Moles , M., Crist \'o bal-Hornillos , D., et al

    Cenarro , A. J., Moles , M., Crist \'o bal-Hornillos , D., et al. 2019, , 622, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833036

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, , 484, 721, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748

    Christlieb , N., Sch \"o rck , T., Frebel , A., et al. 2008, , 484, 721, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    F., McKee , C

    Cioffi , D. F., McKee , C. F., & Bertschinger , E. 1988, , 334, 252, 10.1086/166834

    1988 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Koposov , S

    Cooper , A. P., Koposov , S. E., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2023, , 947, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2009, , 696, 797, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/797

    Cristallo , S., Straniero , O., Gallino , R., et al. 2009, , 696, 797, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/797

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, , 219, 40, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/40

    Cristallo , S., Straniero , O., Piersanti , L., & Gobrecht , D. 2015, , 219, 40, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/40

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, , 197, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/17

    Cristallo , S., Piersanti , L., Straniero , O., et al. 2011, , 197, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/17

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Freeman , K

    De Silva , G. M., Freeman , K. C., Bland-Hawthorn , J., et al. 2015, , 449, 2604, 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Liu , C., et al

    Deng , L.-C., Newberg , H. J., Liu , C., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 735, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/003

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08869, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08869

    Deng , Y., Li , H., Liu , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08869, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08869

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    L., Mac Low , M.-M., et al

    Emerick , A., Bryan , G. L., Mac Low , M.-M., et al. 2018, , 869, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec7d

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    N., et al

    Escala , I., Wetzel , A., Kirby , E. N., et al. 2018, , 474, 2194, 10.1093/mnras/stx2858

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, , 268, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ace04a

    Fan , Z., Zhao , G., Wang , W., et al. 2023, , 268, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ace04a

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137. 1302.4485

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Frebel , A., & Norris , J. E. 2015, , 53, 631, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2007, , 59, 1095, 10.1093/pasj/59.6.1095

    Fujii , M., Iwasawa , M., Funato , Y., & Makino , J. 2007, , 59, 1095, 10.1093/pasj/59.6.1095

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Hattori , K., Wang , L., et al

    Fujii , M. S., Hattori , K., Wang , L., et al. 2022 a , , 514, 43, 10.1093/mnras/stac808

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Saitoh , T

    Fujii , M. S., Saitoh , T. R., Hirai , Y., & Wang , L. 2021 a , , 73, 1074, 10.1093/pasj/psab061

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Saitoh , T

    Fujii , M. S., Saitoh , T. R., Wang , L., & Hirai , Y. 2021 b , , 73, 1057, 10.1093/pasj/psab037

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Wang , L., Hirai , Y., et al

    Fujii , M. S., Wang , L., Hirai , Y., et al. 2022 b , , 514, 2513, 10.1093/mnras/stac1496

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Wang , L., Tanikawa , A., Hirai , Y., & Saitoh , T

    Fujii , M. S., Wang , L., Tanikawa , A., Hirai , Y., & Saitoh , T. R. 2024, Science, 384, 1488, 10.1126/science.adi4211

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    C., et al

    Gilmore , G., Randich , S., Worley , C. C., et al. 2022, , 666, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243134

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Pakmor , R., Naab , T., & Springel , V

    Gutcke , T. A., Pakmor , R., Naab , T., & Springel , V. 2021, , 501, 5597, 10.1093/mnras/staa3875

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2012, , 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt , F., & Madau , P. 2012, , 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2011, , 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn , O., & Abel , T. 2011, , 415, 2101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    2011

  29. [37]

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

    Hartwig , T., Ishigaki , M. N., Kobayashi , C., Tominaga , N., & Nomoto , K. 2023, , 946, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc6

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

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

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Chiba , M., et al

    Hirai , Y., Beers , T. C., Chiba , M., et al. 2022, , 517, 4856, 10.1093/mnras/stac2489

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    S., & Saitoh , T

    Hirai , Y., Fujii , M. S., & Saitoh , T. R. 2021, , 73, 1036, 10.1093/pasj/psab038

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    R., et al

    Hirai , Y., Ishimaru , Y., Saitoh , T. R., et al. 2015, , 814, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/41

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, , 466, 2474, 10.1093/mnras/stw3342

    ---. 2017, , 466, 2474, 10.1093/mnras/stw3342

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    N., Chiba , M., et al

    Hirai , Y., Kirby , E. N., Chiba , M., et al. 2024 a , , 970, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad500c

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Hirai , Y., & Saitoh , T. R. 2017, , 838, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6799

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Ishimaru , Y., & Wanajo , S

    Hirai , Y., Saitoh , T. R., Ishimaru , Y., & Wanajo , S. 2018, , 855, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaabc

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Hirai , Y., Wanajo , S., & Saitoh , T. R. 2019, , 885, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4654

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Lee , Y

    Hirai , Y., Beers , T. C., Lee , Y. S., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11943, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11943

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    S., et al

    Hirashima , K., Moriwaki , K., Fujii , M. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23346, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23346

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2019, , 483, 3363, 10.1093/mnras/sty3252

    Hu , C.-Y. 2019, , 483, 3363, 10.1093/mnras/sty3252

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Xiao , K., et al

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

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

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

    Ishigaki , M. N., Tominaga , N., Kobayashi , C., & Nomoto , K. 2014, , 792, L32, 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L32

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, , 857, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3de

    ---. 2018, , 857, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3de

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Beers , T

    Jeong , M., Lee , Y. S., Beers , T. C., et al. 2023, , 948, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58a

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Curtis , S., Storm , N., et al

    Ji , A. P., Curtis , S., Storm , N., et al. 2024, , 961, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad19c4

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  48. [56]

    H., et al

    Lah \'e n , N., Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., et al. 2020, , 891, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7190

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Beers , T

    Lee , Y. S., Beers , T. C., Masseron , T., et al. 2013, , 146, 132, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/132

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Schiavon , R

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

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, , 489, 241, 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    Mendes de Oliveira , C., Ribeiro , T., Schoenell , W., et al. 2019, , 489, 241, 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2006, , 447, 623, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053070

    Meynet , G., Ekstr \"o m , S., & Maeder , A. 2006, , 447, 623, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053070

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    2013, , 51, 457, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    S., Jenkins , A., & Theuns , T

    Okamoto , T., Frenk , C. S., Jenkins , A., & Theuns , T. 2010, , 406, 208, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16690.x

    2010

  55. [63]

    A., Wolf , C., Bessell , M

    Onken , C. A., Wolf , C., Bessell , M. S., et al. 2019, , 36, e033, 10.1017/pasa.2019.27

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    H., Rai c evi \` c , M., & Schaye , J

    Rahmati , A., Pawlik , A. H., Rai c evi \` c , M., & Schaye , J. 2013, , 430, 2427, 10.1093/mnras/stt066

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    2009, , 501, 189, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911734

    Revaz , Y., Jablonka , P., Sawala , T., et al. 2009, , 501, 189, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911734

    2009 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Lee , Y

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

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    U., Preston , G

    Roederer , I. U., Preston , G. W., Thompson , I. B., et al. 2014, , 147, 136, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/136

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    Saitoh , T. R. 2017, , 153, 85, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/85

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Daisaka , H., Kokubo , E., et al

    Saitoh , T. R., Daisaka , H., Kokubo , E., et al. 2008, , 60, 667, 10.1093/pasj/60.4.667

    2008 doi

  63. [71]

    2009, , 61, 481, 10.1093/pasj/61.3.481

    ---. 2009, , 61, 481, 10.1093/pasj/61.3.481

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    R., & Makino , J

    Saitoh , T. R., & Makino , J. 2013, , 768, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/44

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann , F., R \"o pke , F

    Seitenzahl , I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann , F., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2013, , 429, 1156, 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  67. [75]

    2017, , 471, 2587, 10.1093/mnras/stx1068

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

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    2006, , 132, 1645, 10.1086/506564

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

    2006 doi

  69. [77]

    S., Chiba , M., et al

    Takada , M., Ellis , R. S., Chiba , M., et al. 2014, , 66, R1, 10.1093/pasj/pst019

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    2009, , 47, 371, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy , E., Hill , V., & Tosi , M. 2009, , 47, 371, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, , 687, A307, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449156

    Tsiatsiou , S., Sibony , Y., Nandal , D., et al. 2024, , 687, A307, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449156

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    2023, , 526, 2620, 10.1093/mnras/stad2910

    Vanni , I., Salvadori , S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., Rossi , M., & Koutsouridou , I. 2023, , 526, 2620, 10.1093/mnras/stad2910

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    J., et al

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

    2009 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Tian , D., & Whitten , D

    Yoon , J., Beers , T. C., Tian , D., & Whitten , D. D. 2019, , 878, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ead

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    C., Placco , V

    Yoon , J., Beers , T. C., Placco , V. M., et al. 2016, , 833, 20, 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/20

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  77. [85]

    C., Placco , V

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

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.