REVIEW 1 cited by
Chemical abundance inventory in phosphorus-rich stars
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We provide an overview of the latest advances in the study of phosphorus-rich stars, covering their detailed chemical abundance analyses and innovative mining approaches. Following the discovery of 16 low-mass and low-metallicity stars rich in P, we expanded this sample by demonstrating that a recently identified group of Si-rich giants is also P-rich. A detailed abundance analysis was conducted on the nearinfrared spectra from APOGEE-2 DR17, encompassing 13 elements. Subsequently, a similar analysis was performed on the optical UVES spectra of four P-rich stars, resulting in the abundance determination of 48 light and heavy elements. This comprehensive analysis further refined the chemical fingerprint of these peculiar stars, which was employed to evaluate the plausibility of various nucleosynthetic formation scenarios. In order to obtain a statistically more reliable chemical fingerprint in the future, we explored the use of unsupervised machine learning algorithms to identify additional P-rich stars in extensive spectroscopic surveys, such as APOGEE-2. The primary objective of this research is to identify the progenitor of these stars and determine whether current nucleosynthetic models require revision or if a completely new source of P in the Galaxy is responsible for the existence of the P-rich stars.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Classifying metal-poor stars with machine learning using nucleosynthesis calculations
Machine learning trained on simulated r- and s-process nucleosynthesis patterns classifies metal-poor stars in agreement with conventional labels 87% of the time and suggests some standard classifications are wrong.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.