Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Abundances of P, S, and K in 58 bulge spheroid stars from APOGEE

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read About a third of 58 old bulge spheroid stars show moderately enhanced phosphorus, an effect seen for the first time in the Milky Way's oldest spheroidal population.

desk verdict The P-enhancement claim in this bulge spheroid sample is new and plausible but not established: K is the solid part, and the single blended P line with a 0.4 dex cross-check offset means the headline needs a calibration check before it carries weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11667 v1 pith:SDYSSRFW submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.SR

B. Barbuy , H. Ernandes , A.C.S. Friaça , M.S. Camargo , P. da Silva , S. O. Souza , T. Masseron , M. Brauner
show 20 more authors
D. A. Garcia-Hernandez J. G. Fernandez-Trincado K. Cunha V. V. Smith A. Peerez-Villegas C. Chiappini A.B.A. Queiroz B. X. Santiago T. C. Beers F. Anders R. P. Schiavon M. Valentini D. Minniti D. Geisler D. Souto V. M. Placco M. Zoccali S. Feltzing M. Schultheis C. Nitschelm
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR PACS 97.10.Tk
keywords phosphorusabundancesulphurpotassiumGalacticbulgespheroidAPOGEEH-bandspectroscopyspectralsynthesischemicalevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper analyzes H-band spectra of 58 stars selected to represent the old spheroidal component of the Galactic bulge and derives abundances of phosphorus, sulphur, and potassium. It claims that about one third of these stars show moderately enhanced phosphorus, [P/Fe] greater than about +0.45, at metallicities around [Fe/H] ≈ −1.0, an effect previously seen in thick-disk and halo stars but never before in the bulge spheroid. If correct, the oldest Milky Way population contains stars enriched by a nucleosynthesis process that has not yet been identified. The paper also concludes that sulphur behaves as an alpha element and that potassium fits chemical-evolution models once neutrino-process yields are included.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the P I 16482.932 Å line in the H-band, which is weak and blended with CO molecular lines. The authors anchor the molecular background by recomputing C, N, and O abundances from the CO band-head and the OH and CN lines in the 15520–15590 Å region, then fit the P line via spectrum synthesis with TURBOSPECTRUM and MARCS model atmospheres. The same synthesis isolates the S I 15478.482 Å line and two K I lines, giving abundances for 58 stars based on APOGEE DR17 uncalibrated stellar parameters.

What would settle it

Measure phosphorus abundances in the same stars with an independent set of lines, such as the near-UV P I 2136 Å line or the 10581/10596 Å lines observed in other samples, and check whether the [P/Fe] values reproduce; a systematic disagreement would indicate that the reported phosphorus enhancement is an artifact of the H-band CO deblending.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the first time, moderately phosphorus-enhanced stars are found among old bulge spheroid stars. Using spectral synthesis of the P I 16482.932 Å line, with CNO abundances fixed by fitting the CO, OH, and CN features in the 15520–15590 Å region, the authors derive [P/Fe] for 58 stars and find that about one third exceed the local thick-disk and halo trend, reaching up to [P/Fe] ≈ +1.0. The enhanced stars cluster near [Fe/H] ≈ −1.0, coinciding with the P-rich population identified in thick-disk and inner-halo stars, but with more moderate amplitudes. Sulphur behaves as an alpha element, and potassium is reproduced by the models when neutrino-process enhancements are applied.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the P I 16482.932 Å line being reliably deblended from CO molecular features using CNO abundances that are themselves fixed by fitting a nearby molecular region; if the molecular line data or the CNO values are wrong, the phosphorus abundances shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phosphorus enhancement exists in the oldest bulge spheroid population, not only in the thick disk and halo.
  • Any proposed nucleosynthesis source for the phosphorus excess must act near [Fe/H] ≈ −1.0 in the early bulge but not at very low metallicities.
  • Sulphur behaves as an alpha element in the bulge spheroid, consistent with its production in core-collapse supernovae.
  • The H-band contains usable lines for phosphorus, sulphur, and potassium in moderately metal-poor stars, and the paper recommends which lines to use.
  • The chemical-evolution models reproduce the potassium trend only when neutrino-process yields are included for odd-Z elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The clustering of P-rich stars at [Fe/H] ≈ −1.0 across three independent populations suggests a single enrichment channel tied to a brief early epoch; a testable extension would be to check phosphorus in bulge globular clusters of the same metallicity.
  • If the neutrino-process explanation is correct, phosphorus and potassium abundances should correlate with each other across the sample, a correlation the paper does not examine.
  • The weak P–Si correlation seen here, compared with the strong one in field P-rich stars, may simply reflect the narrow phosphorus range of this sample; a larger sample spanning [P/Fe] from 0 to +1.5 would settle whether the correlation is real.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives phosphorus, sulphur, and potassium abundances for 58 bulge spheroid stars from APOGEE DR17 H-band spectra, using TURBOSPECTRUM spectral synthesis with MARCS model atmospheres and recomputed CNO abundances. It reports that roughly one third of the sample show moderately enhanced phosphorus ([P/Fe] > +0.45), which the authors describe as the first identification of the P-rich phenomenon in the old bulge spheroid population. The paper also provides line recommendations for the H-band, compares the abundances with APOGEE-ASPCAP values and with literature samples, and compares the combined dataset with chemical-evolution models that include neutrino-process contributions. The results are presented in a table of abundances and in figures comparing the present data with literature data and model curves.

Significance. If the P-rich claim is robust, the paper reports an observationally new phenomenon in an important stellar population: moderate P enhancement in the oldest bulge spheroid stars, reminiscent of P-rich thick-disk and halo stars at [Fe/H] ~ -1.0. This would bear on early chemical enrichment in the central Galaxy and on nucleosynthesis in core-collapse supernovae. The paper also provides useful line recommendations and a table of P, S, and K abundances in a sample that has been characterized kinematically and chemically in previous work, which is valuable for future surveys. However, the central claim currently rests on a single CO-blended P I line, and the comparison with chemical-evolution models is partially calibrated rather than predictive; the significance is therefore conditional until the systematic checks requested below are performed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2, Table 2] The P-rich claim depends entirely on the reliability of [P/Fe] from the single P I 16482.932 Å line, blended with CO and deblended using CNO abundances fixed from the 15520-15590 Å region. The only sample star with an independent literature measurement, b2 = 2M17173693-2806495, gives [P/Fe] = +0.40 here versus +0.83 from BAWLAS and a conservative upper limit of 1.24 from Brauner et al. (2023). The paper attributes the ~0.4 dex offset to calibrated versus uncalibrated APOGEE parameters, but it does not quantify this by rerunning the analysis with calibrated parameters. Since the adopted P-rich threshold of +0.45 is close to the typical derived values, a systematic offset of this size could change the reported P-rich fraction substantially. The random errors in Table 2 exclude the CNO reference abundances, the molecular line data, the log gf values (not in NIST for these lines), and continuum placement, which the text itself adds as another 0.1 dex for P. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of [P/Fe] to these systematics and report how many stars cross the P-rich threshold under alternative assumptions.
  2. [Section 5.2] The agreement between the chemical-evolution models and the observed [P/Fe] and [K/Fe] is not an independent test, because the model yields are tuned to the data: the WW95 yields are multiplied by a factor of 2 for P and a factor of 3 for K, with the factors chosen from comparisons with literature observations (Timmes et al. 1995; Caffau et al. 2011). The statements in the Abstract and Conclusions that potassium and sulphur 'fit within the expectations from chemical evolution models' should therefore be presented as post-hoc consistency rather than as a predictive success. The paper would be strengthened by showing the model predictions before the yield scaling is applied, and by stating explicitly that the scaling is a calibration, not a derivation.
  3. [Sections 4 and 6] The P-rich threshold [P/Fe] > +0.45 appears to be chosen after inspecting the results, and the paper itself notes that Brauner et al. (2023) used a higher threshold of +0.8 for their more extreme sample. Because the central claim is that 'about one third' of the sample is P-rich, the fraction is directly sensitive to an arbitrary threshold placed near the typical values and their uncertainties. The authors should justify the threshold a priori, or alternatively present the full [P/Fe] distribution and report how the P-rich fraction changes across a plausible range of thresholds and systematic offsets.
  4. [Sections 5.2 and 6] There is an internal tension in the sulphur discussion. Section 5.2 states that 'our sulphur abundances are very likely overestimated,' while the Abstract and Conclusions state that sulphur behaves as an alpha-element and that the models reproduce the data. If the abundances are likely overestimated, then the claimed alpha-element behavior and the model comparison are not supported without first applying the relevant NLTE corrections or demonstrating that the overestimation does not affect the comparison. The authors should either soften the sulphur conclusions or provide the analysis that reconciles the stated overestimation with the conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Text and Table .1] The text repeatedly refers to 'Table .1' with a placeholder; the abundance table at the end should be properly numbered and cross-referenced throughout.
  2. [Table .1] The table mixes present [S/Fe] values with BAWLAS-based values in bold without a clear legend in the table itself; the note describing the bolding should be moved into the table caption or made more prominent.
  3. [Section 3.2] The continuum-placement uncertainty of 0.1 dex for the P line is stated in the text but is not included in the totals in Table 2; the table should report a total systematic budget that includes this term.
  4. [Figure 1] The fits to the P I line are described as visual; a quantitative measure of the fit quality, or at least a consistent display of the goodness of fit, would help the reader assess how securely the P abundances are determined in individual stars.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'for the first time' in the Abstract and Conclusions is stronger than the current evidence supports; it should be conditioned on the outcome of the systematic and threshold-sensitivity checks recommended above.
  6. [Section 2] There is a typo in 'StarHorsedistances'; it should read 'StarHorse distances'. Several other minor typographical issues appear in the acknowledgments, such as 'the the proyecto plan nacional.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The chemical-evolution model 'expectations' for P and K are partly calibrated to abundance data, so the model-agreement statements reduce to the adopted yield scaling; the measured P-rich abundances themselves are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Chemical-evolution models; echoed in Section 6, Conclusions]
    "In our calculations, we multiplied the yields from WW95 for subsolar metallicities by a factor 2 for P, and a factor 3 for K. ... The value of this correction comes from the comparison of [P/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] given by Figure 23 of Timmes et al. (1995) and the observations of Caffau et al. (2011). In the case of K, the Galactic chemical evolution model of Timmes et al. (1995), using yields of WW95, shows a sharp drop of [K/Fe] below [Fe/H]≈0.6 in serious disagreement with the observations."

    The model curves presented as 'expectations from chemical evolution models' are not independent predictions for the abundance level: the WW95 yields were multiplied by 2 (P) and 3 (K) precisely to fix the disagreement with previously published [P/Fe] and [K/Fe] observations. The later statements that the data 'fit within the expectations' (Abstract) and that the models fit [K/Fe] 'remarkably well' (Section 6) therefore reduce, at the normalization level, to the input scaling. The bulge [P/Fe] measurements were not used in the tuning, so the observed P-rich fraction retains independent content; the circularity is confined to the model-agreement statements.

full rationale

The central abundance measurements are not circular: [P/Fe], [S/Fe], and [K/Fe] are derived by spectral synthesis of H-band lines with TURBOSPECTRUM, MARCS model atmospheres, and CNO abundances fixed from a different spectral region (15520-15590 Å), so the P deblending is not defined in terms of the P result. The sample membership is imported from Razera et al. (2022), a separate published analysis, rather than re-derived here, so that premise is not a reduction of the present measurement. The one substantive circular step is in the chemical-evolution comparison: the WW95 yields are rescaled by factors chosen from literature [P/Fe] and [K/Fe] data, and the paper then presents the resulting model curves as 'expectations' that the data 'fit', with Section 6 explicitly crediting the ν-process and the scaling for the good K fit. This makes the model-agreement claim partly constructed, but it does not force the observational P-rich finding, which stands on the measured line abundances and literature comparisons.

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

The abundance measurements themselves are not circular, but the chemical-evolution model comparison relies on yield multipliers chosen to fit literature data, and the P-rich labeling depends on a hand-set threshold. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • WW95 yield multiplier for P = 2
    Section 5.2: P yields multiplied by 2 for subsolar Z, based on Timmes et al. (1995) comparison with Caffau et al. (2011).
  • WW95 yield multiplier for K = 3
    Section 5.2: K yields multiplied by 3 to remove the [K/Fe] drop below [Fe/H]<0.6 seen in Timmes et al. (1995) Fig. 24.
  • P-rich threshold = [P/Fe] > +0.45
    Section 6: threshold chosen by authors, lower than Brauner et al. (2023)'s +0.8; affects the 'about one third P-rich' claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MARCS CN-mild model atmospheres with uncalibrated APOGEE DR17 parameters adequately represent the sample's cool, low-gravity, metal-poor giants.
    Section 3: model atmospheres interpolated in MARCS grids; Section 3 discusses the choice of uncalibrated vs calibrated parameters, acknowledging neither grid matches the sample exactly.
  • domain assumption The APOGEE line list and the region 15520-15590 Å fitting of CO/CN/OH features correctly fix the molecular blending of the P I 16482.932 Å line.
    Section 3.1: 'it is crucial to adjust precisely the strength of the related molecular features'; the P line is blended with CO.
  • domain assumption NLTE effects on P are negligible and on K are below 0.1 dex; S NLTE corrections are small per Korotin & Kiselev (2024), which is limited to Teff>=4000 K.
    Section 3.2: no P NLTE calculations; Brauner et al. (2023) found no P trend with temperature.
  • domain assumption Yields from Woosley & Weaver (1995), with hypernovae for [Fe/H]<-2.5 and neutrino-process enhancements from Yoshida et al. (2008), apply to bulge chemical evolution.
    Section 5.1-5.2: adopted from literature, then P and K yields are multiplied by factors 2 and 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Abundances of P, S, and K in 58 bulge spheroid stars from APOGEE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDYSSRFW

@misc{pith2026250711667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Abundances of P, S, and K in 58 bulge spheroid stars from APOGEE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDYSSRFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11667}
}
read the original abstract

We have previously studied several elements in 58 selected bulge spheroid stars, based on spectral lines in the H-band. We now derive the abundances of the less-studied elements phosphorus (P; Z=15), sulphur (S; Z=16), and potassium (K; Z=19). The abundances of P, S, and K in 58 bulge spheroid stars are compared both with the results of a previous analysis of the data from the Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE), and with a few available studies of these elements. We derive the individual abundances through spectral synthesis, using the stellar physical parameters available for our sample from the DR17 release of the APOGEE project. We provide recommendations for the best lines to be used for the studied elements among those in the H-band. We also compare the present results, together with literature data, with chemical-evolution models. Finally, the neutrino-process was taken into account for the suitable fit to the odd-Z elements P and K. We confirm that the H-band has useful lines for the derivation of the elements P, S, and K in moderately metal-poor stars. The abundances, plotted together with literature results from high-resolution spectroscopy, indicate that: moderately enhanced phosphorus stars are found, reminiscent results obtained for thick disk and halo stars of metallicity [Fe/H]~-1.0. Therefore, for the first time, we identify this effect to occur in the old stars from the bulge spheroid. Sulphur is an alpha-element and behaves as such. Potassium and sulphur both exhibit some star-to-star scatter, but fit within the expectations from chemical evolution models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. P i 16482.932 Å line in 8 sample stars, fitted with synthetic spec￾tra computed with [P/Fe] = 0.0 (green), 1.0 (blue), and final values (red), if different from 0.0 or 1.0. The computation with molecular lines only are shown as dotted black lines. molecular only: .... [S/Fe]=0.62 (red) [S/Fe]=0.0 (green), 1.0 (blue) b11 2M17351981-1948329 SI 15475.616 SI 15478.482 [S/Fe]=0.38 c2 2M17285088-2855427 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. S i 15475.624 and 15478.496 Å lines in stars b11 2M17351981- 1948329 and c2 2M17285088-2855427. Observed spectra (black) are compared with synthetic spectra computed with [S/Fe] = 0.0 (green), 1.0 (blue), and final values (red). Dotted lines correspond to molecular lines only. 3.2. Uncertainties There are no calculations of non-LTE deviations for the lines of P i analysed in this work, therefore these uncertainties … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the difference between the S and K abun￾dances derived in this work minus the ones from APOGEE￾ASPCAP DR17. The mean difference between present results and ASPCAP DR17 is found to be: [S/Fe]present − [S/Fe]ASPCAP = −0.08+0.22 −0.17 [K/Fe]present − [K/Fe]ASPCAP = −0.04+0.07 −0.10 (1) For S the differences are due to continuum placement, but more so due to measuring only the best line for S, because, as explaine… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: over-plots the chemical-evolution models for spe￾cific star-formation rates of ν = 1 and 3 Gyr−1 for the phosphorus data. It is interesting to note that, at metallicities [Fe/H] ∼ −1.0, there is a maximum [P/Fe] = +0.423 at [Fe/H] = −0.825 for the model with ν = 1, and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: over-plots the chemical-evolution models for spe￾cific star-formation rates of ν = 1 and 3 Gyr−1 , for our results and literature data for sulphur described above. Our data seems to indicate that sulphur is enhanced in the bulge. Although a first thought is that NLTE e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [K/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] for the present results compared with litera￾ture data Symbols – red- open stars: present work, dark- green squares: Zhang et al. (2006), blue-filled triangles: Andrievsky et al. (2010), green- filled squares + black- open squares: Reinhard & Laird (2…

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. Investigating Phosphorus Abundances in a Sample of APOGEE-2 Bulge Globular Clusters

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Phosphorus-enhanced stars are found in two of seven bulge globular clusters, and these stars tend to also be nitrogen-rich, hinting at a second-generation origin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35 Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 804

    2022

  2. [2]

    & Plez, B

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

    1998

  3. [3]

    M., Spite, M., Korotin, S

    Andrievsky, S. M., Spite, M., Korotin, S. A., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A88

    2010

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 698, A164

    Aschenbrenner, P., Butler, K., & Przybilla, N. 2025, A&A, 698, A164

    2025

  5. [5]

    2021, AJ, 161, 167

    Ashok, A., Zasowski, G., Seth, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 167

    2021

  6. [6]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  8. [8]

    O., et al

    Barbuy, B., Ernandes, H., Souza, S. O., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A16

    work page 2021

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Barbuy, B., Friaça, A. C. S., Ernandes, H., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A296

    2024

  2. [10]

    Barbuy, B., Friaça, A. C. S., Ernandes, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2365

    2023

  3. [11]

    L., Oelkers, R

    Beaton, R. L., Oelkers, R. J., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 302

    2021

  4. [12]

    & Tsujimoto, T

    Bekki, K. & Tsujimoto, T. 2024, ApJ, 967, L1

    2024

  5. [13]

    2016, PASA, 33, e028

    Bica, E., Ortolani, S., & Barbuy, B. 2016, PASA, 33, e028

    2016

  6. [14]

    Bica, E., Ortolani, S., Barbuy, B., & Oliveira, R. A. P. 2024, A&A, 687, A201

    2024

  7. [15]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

  8. [16]

    Bowen, I. S. & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, Appl. Opt., 12, 1430

    1973

  9. [17]

    A., et al

    Brauner, M., Masseron, T., García-Hernández, D. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A123

    2023

  10. [18]

    A., & Lugaro, M

    Brauner, M., Pignatari, M., Masseron, T., García-Hernández, D. A., & Lugaro, M. 2024, A&A, 690, A262

    2024

  11. [19]

    2016, A&A, 585, A16

    Caffau, E., Andrievsky, S., Korotin, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A16

    2016

  12. [20]

    2011, A&A, 532, A98

    Caffau, E., Bonifacio, P., Faraggiana, R., & Steffen, M. 2011, A&A, 532, A98

    2011

  13. [21]

    2004, A&A, 416, 1117

    Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117

    2004

  14. [22]

    2012, A&A, 540, A33

    Cescutti, G., Matteucci, F., Caffau, E., & François, P. 2012, A&A, 540, A33

    2012

  15. [23]

    Q., Nissen, P

    Chen, Y . Q., Nissen, P. E., Zhao, G., & Asplund, M. 2002, A&A, 390, 225

    2002

  16. [24]

    2011, Nature, 472, 454

    Chiappini, C., Frischknecht, U., Meynet, G., et al. 2011, Nature, 472, 454

    2011

  17. [25]

    Clegg, R. E. S., Lambert, D. L., & Tomkin, J. 1981, ApJ, 250, 262 da Silva, P., Barbuy, B., Ernandes, H., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A66

    1981

  18. [26]

    2009, AJ, 138, 1577

    Daflon, S., Cunha, K., de la Reza, R., Holtzman, J., & Chiappini, C. 2009, AJ, 138, 1577

    2009

  19. [27]

    Ernandes, H., Barbuy, B., Friaça, A. C. S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A89 Fernández-Trincado, J. G., Minniti, D., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A145

    2020

  20. [28]

    1987, A&A, 176, 294

    Francois, P. 1987, A&A, 176, 294

    1987

  21. [29]

    1988, A&A, 195, 226

    Francois, P. 1988, A&A, 195, 226

    1988

  22. [30]

    Friaca, A. C. S. & Terlevich, R. J. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 399 Friaça, A. C. S. & Barbuy, B. 2017, A&A, 598, A121 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    1998

  23. [31]

    S., et al

    Gao, L., Theuns, T., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1283 García Pérez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144

    2010

  24. [32]

    C., Dias, B., et al

    Geisler, D., Parisi, M. C., Dias, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A115

    2023

  25. [33]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A54 González Hernández, J. I. & Bonifacio, P. 2009, A&A, 497, 497

    2011

  26. [34]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332

    2006

  27. [35]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

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

    2008

  28. [36]

    2023, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Hayes, C., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2023, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 241, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 401.07

    2023

  29. [37]

    R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al

    Hayes, C. R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 34

    2022

  30. [38]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829

    Hubeny, I., Allende Prieto, C., Osorio, Y ., & Lanz, T. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    & Lanz, T

    Hubeny, I. & Lanz, T. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1706.01859

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    & Rebolo, R

    Israelian, G. & Rebolo, R. 2001, ApJ, 557, L43

    2001

  33. [41]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    1999

  34. [42]

    R., Thanathibodee, T., Frebel, A., et al

    Jacobson, H. R., Thanathibodee, T., Frebel, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, L24 Jönsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 120

    2014

  35. [43]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lugaro, M. 2016, ApJ, 825, 26

    2016

  36. [44]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 1145

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

    2006

  37. [45]

    Korn, A. J. & Ryde, N. 2005, A&A, 443, 1029

    2005

  38. [46]

    2017, in Astronomi- cal Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Korotin, S., Andrievsky, S., Caffau, E., & Bonifacio, P. 2017, in Astronomi- cal Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 510, Stars: From Collapse to Collapse, ed. Y . Y . Balega, D. O. Kudryavtsev, I. I. Romanyuk, & I. A. Yakunin, 141

    2017

  39. [47]

    Korotin, S. A. & Kiselev, K. O. 2024, Astronomy Reports, 68, 1159

    2024

  40. [48]

    & Bell, B

    Kurucz, R. & Bell, B. 1995, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 23

    1995

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 657, A29

    Lucertini, F., Monaco, L., Caffau, E., Bonifacio, P., & Mucciarelli, A. 2022, A&A, 657, A29

    2022

  42. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5981

    Lucey, M., Hawkins, K., Ness, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5981

    2021

  43. [51]

    G., Cescutti, G., & Pilachowski, C

    Maas, Z. G., Cescutti, G., & Pilachowski, C. A. 2019, AJ, 158, 219

    2019

  44. [52]

    G., Hawkins, K., Hinkel, N

    Maas, Z. G., Hawkins, K., Hinkel, N. R., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 61

    2022

  45. [53]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  46. [54]

    2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

    Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

    2021

  47. [55]

    2022, A&A, 668, A88

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Montelius, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A88

    2022

  48. [56]

    Nelder, J. A. & Mead, H. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308–313

    1965

  49. [57]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 173

    2015

  50. [58]

    E., Akerman, C., Asplund, M., et al

    Nissen, P. E., Akerman, C., Asplund, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 319

    2007

  51. [59]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

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

    2013

  52. [60]

    2021, A&A, 647, A162 Pérez-Villegas, A., Barbuy, B., Kerber, L

    Perdigon, J., de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A162 Pérez-Villegas, A., Barbuy, B., Kerber, L. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3251

    2021

  53. [61]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 24

    Pignatari, M., Herwig, F., Hirschi, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 24

    2016

  54. [62]

    H., Elsworth, Y

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y . P., Tayar, J., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 32 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2018

  55. [63]

    2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    2012

  56. [64]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2556

    2018

  57. [65]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Chiappini, C., Perez-Villegas, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A156

    2021

  58. [66]

    C., et al

    Razera, R., Barbuy, B., Moura, T. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4590

    2022

  59. [67]

    Reinhard, M. V . & Laird, J. B. 2024, AJ, 167, 6

    2024

  60. [68]

    U., Jacobson, H

    Roederer, I. U., Jacobson, H. R., Thanathibodee, T., Frebel, A., & Toller, E. 2014, ApJ, 797, 69

    2014

  61. [69]

    U., Placco, V

    Roederer, I. U., Placco, V . M., & Beers, T. C. 2016, ApJ, 824, L19

    2016

  62. [70]

    J., Ortolani, S., Barbuy, B., Bica, E., & Bonfanti, A

    Rossi, L. J., Ortolani, S., Barbuy, B., Bica, E., & Bonfanti, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3270

    2015

  63. [71]

    & Pakhomov, Y

    Ryabchikova, T. & Pakhomov, Y . 2015, Baltic Astronomy, 24, 453

    2015

  64. [72]

    & Nishimura, M

    Sadakane, K. & Nishimura, M. 2022, PASJ, 74, 298

    2022

  65. [73]

    V ., Cunha, K., Smith, V

    Sales-Silva, J. V ., Cunha, K., Smith, V . V ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 119

    2024

  66. [74]

    A., Beaton, R

    Santana, F. A., Beaton, R. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 303

    2021

  67. [75]

    X., Brauer, D

    Santiago, B. X., Brauer, D. E., Anders, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A42

    2016

  68. [76]

    V ., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V . V ., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254

    2021

  69. [77]

    M., et al

    Spite, M., Caffau, E., Andrievsky, S. M., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A9

    2011

  70. [78]

    2002, ApJ, 573, 614

    Takada-Hidai, M., Takeda, Y ., Sato, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 573, 614

    2002

  71. [79]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 81

    Takeda, Y ., Omiya, M., Harakawa, H., & Sato, B. 2016, PASJ, 68, 81

    2016

  72. [80]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 98, 617 van den Hoek, L. B. & Groenewegen, M. A. T. 1997, A&AS, 123, 305

    1995

  73. [81]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001

    2019

  74. [82]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., Norman, M. L., & Abel, T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 50

    2012

  75. [83]

    Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, in American Institute of Physics Confer- ence Series, V ol. 327, Nuclei in the Cosmos III, ed. M. Busso, C. M. Raiteri, & R. Gallino (AIP), 365

    1995

  76. [84]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 448

    Yoshida, T., Suzuki, T., Chiba, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 448

    2008

  77. [85]

    W., Gehren, T., Butler, K., Shi, J

    Zhang, H. W., Gehren, T., Butler, K., Shi, J. R., & Zhao, G. 2006, A&A, 457, 645 Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs:manuscript no. psk Table .1.Internal and 2MASS star identification, the ASPCAP uncalibrated stellar parameters, recomputed C, N, O abundances, the abundance...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.