Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Chemical Abundances in the Milky Way's Nuclear Stellar Disc

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nine stars in the Milky Way's nuclear disk share chemical fingerprints with the inner bulge and nuclear star cluster, with sodium as the lone outlier.

desk verdict First 18-element census of NSD giants, honestly analyzed, but nine stars and unquantified membership make the central chemical-similarity claim solid-but-tentative. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15924 v1 pith:XBNQ7PHJ submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

N. Ryde , G. Nandakumar , R. Albarracin , M. Schultheis , A. Rojas-Arriagada , M. Zoccali This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords nuclearstellardiscGalacticCenterabundancesMgiantsinfraredspectroscopychemicalevolutionsodiumenhancementIGRINS
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 sets out to deliver the first comprehensive chemical census of the Milky Way's nuclear stellar disc (NSD), the rotating disc of stars surrounding the Galactic Center, by measuring 18 elements in nine M giants with high-resolution near-infrared spectroscopy. It asks whether the NSD's star-formation history was chemically distinct from the rest of the inner Galaxy, and the answer it argues for is that it was not: element by element, the NSD abundance trends match those of the inner bulge and the nuclear star cluster, and match the local thick disc at subsolar metallicities, implying a shared early formation history across these structures. The single exception is sodium, which is enhanced in both the NSD and the nuclear star cluster relative to thin-disc and inner-bulge stars, pointing to a common but unidentified enrichment source in the nuclear region. The paper also demonstrates that precise abundance work is now possible in the most dust-obscured regions of the Milky Way, which opens the Galactic Center to chemical-evolution studies.

What carries the argument

Nine M giants in the NSD were observed with the high-resolution near-infrared spectrograph IGRINS (R about 45,000, H and K bands) and analysed with the same pipeline, the same stellar-parameter scale, the same spectral-line set, and the same model-atmosphere synthesis as the solar-neighbourhood, inner-bulge, and nuclear-star-cluster comparison stars. Abundance ratios [X/Fe] versus [Fe/H] for 18 elements spanning fast (core-collapse supernova) and slow (Type Ia supernova, AGB s-process) nucleosynthetic channels are then compared trend by trend; systematic uncertainties, estimated from 50 Monte Carlo stellar-parameter realisations, are about 0.05-0.15 dex and are expected to affect all four samples alike. Membership in the NSD rests on orbit integrations in a combined potential of the nuclear star cluster, the disc, and a rotating bar, with the adopted NSD model used to assert an NSD fraction of at least 75% at the target positions.

What would settle it

Re-derive the orbit of each target with a gravitational potential that excludes the NSD component or with a distance shifted by 200 pc, and check whether any star's apocentric radius and vertical excursion fall outside the ranges typical of NSD members; if two or more stars switch to bulge-like orbits, the reported abundances cannot be confidently assigned to the NSD. A second, independent falsification would be a larger kinematically clean sample of NSD stars (from a future multi-object infrared survey) that does not reproduce the supersolar sodium enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that nine M giants in the Milky Way's nuclear stellar disc show abundance-ratio trends for 18 elements that are consistent within uncertainties with those of the inner bulge and the nuclear star cluster, with one exception. At subsolar metallicities, the trends for the alpha-elements (Mg, Si, S, Ca), Ti, Al, the iron-peak elements (Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn), and the neutron-capture elements (Ba, Ce, Nd, Yb) all align with the local thick-disc sequence; above solar metallicity they follow the upper envelope of the inner-bulge and nuclear-star-cluster trends. Sodium is the only element with a distinct behaviour, being enhanced in both the NSD and the NSC relative to thin-disc and inner-bulge stars at supersolar metallicities. The paper reads this overall similarity, across elements with different nucleosynthetic timescales, as evidence that the NSD shares an evolutionary history with the NSC and possibly the inner-disc sequence, and it finds no Na-O or Mg-Al anti-correlations that would indicate a significant contribution from accreted globular clusters.

Load-bearing premise

That all nine target stars are genuine members of the nuclear stellar disc; if the assumed distance of 8.2 kpc, the adopted gravitational potential, or the measured proper motions are wrong even for one or two stars, the sample could include bulge interlopers, and the claimed chemical similarity with the nuclear star cluster and inner bulge would then be shared contamination rather than a property of the NSD itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NSD, the nuclear star cluster, and the inner bulge were probably assembled from gas with the same enrichment history, so the innermost Milky Way did not evolve chemically in isolation from the thick disc.
  • The sodium enhancement shared by the NSD and NSC but not by inner-bulge stars implies an enrichment channel specific to the nuclear region, one that a successful model of Galactic-Center chemistry must reproduce.
  • The absence of Na-O and Mg-Al anti-correlations in the metal-poor NSD stars argues against a substantial population of accreted globular-cluster stars in the NSD, at least down to [Fe/H] about -1.
  • The demonstrated feasibility of high-resolution K-band abundance analysis in heavily obscured fields means future surveys can expand this nine-star sample into a statistically meaningful census of the central molecular zone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the sodium result is to search for the same supersolar Na enhancement in younger, super-solar-metallicity stars and in the massive bulge complex Liller 1; a common enrichment event roughly a gigayear ago could tie those populations to the NSD and NSC.
  • The two metal-poor NSD stars that require very high nitrogen to fit the CN lines, and whose fluorine lines are unmeasurably weak, may be internally CNO-processed or mass-losing giants; re-analysing the abundance trends with those stars flagged separately would show how much of the reported scatter depends on them.
  • If the shared-history reading is right, a chemical-evolution model of the central molecular zone with inside-out nuclear-ring formation should reproduce the thick-disc-like alpha-element plateau without invoking a distinct, faster star-formation history for the NSD; building and running such a model would be a direct numerical test.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first comprehensive chemical abundance census of nine M giants in the Milky Way's Nuclear Stellar Disc (NSD), using high-resolution IGRINS H- and K-band spectra. The authors derive abundances of 18 elements and compare the resulting trends, as a function of [Fe/H], with comparison samples of solar-neighborhood thin/thick disc stars, inner-bulge stars, and Nuclear Star Cluster (NSC) stars that were observed and analyzed with the same pipeline. They report that the NSD trends largely follow the thick-disc sequence at subsolar metallicities and the NSC/inner-bulge trends at supersolar metallicities, with sodium being the only element showing a distinct enhanced trend in the NSD and NSC. They conclude that the NSD likely shares an evolutionary history with the NSC and possibly the inner-disc sequence, while finding no evidence of globular-cluster-like abundance anomalies in their sample.

Significance. If the claimed chemical similarity holds, this work provides the first detailed abundance trends for the NSD across many nucleosynthetic channels, offering valuable constraints on the formation history of the Galactic Center. The strength of the paper is its differential approach: the NSD, NSC, inner-bulge, and solar-neighborhood samples are all analyzed with the same spectral lines, stellar parameter scale, and SME/MARCS pipeline, which minimizes systematic offsets when comparing populations. The authors also explicitly test the sensitivity of their results to the assumed O abundance in the stellar-parameter determination. However, the central conclusion rests on only nine stars, with several elements measured in fewer than half of them (e.g., Cr in 4, Zn in 5, Ba in 6), and the claimed similarities are assessed visually rather than statistically. The paper is a pilot study that demonstrates feasibility, but the strength of the evolutionary conclusion is not yet supported by the sample size and the quantitative analysis presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2] The NSD membership of the nine targets is not quantitatively demonstrated. The text states that 'All derived orbits show apocentric radii and zmax values typically for the NSD' but provides no orbital parameters, membership probabilities, or sensitivity tests to the assumed potential, distance, or proper motions. The 75% NSD fraction from Sormani et al. (2022) applies to the field population at the target positions, not to the individual stars after the kinematic selection. Because the central claim of chemical similarity between the NSD and the NSC/inner bulge assumes a clean NSD sample, the authors should report the computed orbital elements for each star, the assumed distance and potential variations, and a quantitative estimate of the interloper probability, or explicitly show that the results are robust to removing any one star.
  2. [Section 4 (Figs. 2-5)] The claimed 'strong similarities' between the NSD trends and the comparison populations are based on visual inspection of small samples: at subsolar metallicities the NSD has five stars and the inner-bulge comparison has only two, while at supersolar metallicities the NSD has four stars and the NSC also has only two. For several elements (e.g., Cr in four stars, Zn in five, Ba in six) the number of measurements is even lower. The authors do not provide any quantitative statistical comparison, such as mean offsets or dispersions of the NSD stars relative to each comparison sequence, nor do they quantify how the scatter compares with the reported uncertainties. Given that the central conclusion is chemical similarity, the paper should either provide such an analysis or temper the conclusions to reflect that the agreement is not statistically established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The observation window in the text is given as April 1-8, 2024, but Table 1 lists NSD_1 as observed on 2024-04-09; please reconcile this discrepancy.
  2. [Table 3] The [F/Fe] row appears internally inconsistent: the text (Section 4) states that NSD_1 and NSD_19 have unmeasurable F lines, yet the table lists numeric values for these stars, and the placement of the '(b)' footnote is unclear. Please revise the table to clearly indicate which entries are upper limits, non-detections, or measurements.
  3. [Section 3] The uncertainty estimate for stellar parameters is based on varying [O/Fe] by ±0.2 dex, but the text does not explain how this range relates to the actual uncertainty in the oxygen abundance derived from the OH lines; please clarify.
  4. [Figure A.4 caption] The caption describes Ti, Cr, Mn, Co, and K as 'iron-peak elements', but K is an odd-Z element; please correct the grouping.
  5. [Section 1 and abstract] The count of elements is stated as 18 in the abstract and text, while Table 3 contains 19 rows including K (all dashes); please make the counting consistent and explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NSD abundances are independently measured and then compared, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational rather than formal: IGRINS spectra are reduced, stellar parameters and abundances are obtained with SME/MARCS, and the resulting trends are compared with previously published samples. No parameter is fitted to the comparison samples in order to produce the NSD trends; the comparison is a posteriori. The stellar-parameter method is adopted from Nandakumar et al. (2023a), which is validated against benchmark stars and open clusters, and the comparison samples (Nandakumar et al. 2024a,c; Ryde et al. 2025) are independent published datasets. The only assumptions that could bias the comparison are the common 1D LTE/SME pipeline and the thin/thick-disc oxygen prior in the parameter determination; the paper explicitly tests the thin-disc alternative and shows that it shifts the abundances within the quoted uncertainties (Sect. 3 and Figs. 2-5). The membership claim relies on the assumed potential (Nieuwmunster et al. 2024, with a co-author overlap) and the Sormani et al. (2022) 75% NSD fraction, but this is a selection and contamination risk, not a circular reduction: membership is kinematic, not chemical, and is not derived from the abundance ratios being compared. The paper itself flags small-sample and selection-function limitations in Sect. 5, and repeatedly notes that more stars are needed, which further indicates that the conclusions are presented as tentative rather than forced. Self-citations appear for the method and comparison datasets, but these are prior independent publications with external validation, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity.

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

The central claim (chemical similarity of the NSD with the NSC/inner bulge) rests on the measured abundance ratios, which depend on standard stellar atmosphere modeling and the assumption that the differential comparison cancels systematic errors. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'shared evolutionary history' is an interpretation of observed similarity, not a new mechanism.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 1D LTE MARCS model atmospheres, with NLTE corrections for selected elements, accurately represent M giants in the Galactic Center.
    All abundances are derived by fitting synthetic spectra computed with SME over MARCS models (Section 3). If the models miss environment-dependent effects (e.g., granulation or chromospheres), the derived abundances could shift systematically.
  • domain assumption The initial classification of each star into thin- or thick-disc populations, used to set the oxygen abundance in the parameter iteration, does not bias the final abundances.
    Described in Section 3 after Nandakumar et al. (2023a); the authors test the alternative thin-disc assumption and find the abundances change within the quoted uncertainties, but the test covers only one parameter choice.
  • domain assumption The nine stars are genuine NSD members, as inferred from AGAMA orbit integration in a combined NSC+NSD+rotating-bar potential at an assumed distance of 8.2 kpc.
    Membership assignment in Section 2 relies on the adopted gravitational potential and distance; if these are wrong, bulge interlopers could contaminate the sample and shape the apparent trends.
  • domain assumption The comparison populations (solar neighborhood, inner bulge, NSC) were analyzed with the identical methodology, so systematic uncertainties cancel in the differential comparison.
    Section 3 states all samples were observed with the same setup and analyzed with the same parameter scale and mostly the same lines; any residual zero-point offset between samples would change the claimed similarities.
  • standard math The solar abundance scale of Grevesse et al. (2007) is used consistently for all [X/Fe] ratios.
    Section 3 states abundances are on this scale; a different scale would shift absolute values but relative trends are unaffected if applied consistently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemical Abundances in the Milky Way's Nuclear Stellar Disc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBNQ7PHJ

@misc{pith2026250515924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemical Abundances in the Milky Way's Nuclear Stellar Disc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBNQ7PHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15924}
}
read the original abstract

The Nuclear Stellar Disc (NSD) is a rotating, disc-like structure in the Galactic Center, believed to have a distinct star formation. However, its formation history and evolutionary links to other structures in the Galactic Center remain uncertain. This study aims to present the first comprehensive chemical census of the NSD by deriving abundance trends for 18 elements in 9 M giants in the metallicity range of -1.0 <[Fe/H]< 0.5. By comparing these trends with those of other Galactic populations we seek to understand the chemical relationships between these structures. We obtained high-resolution H- and K-band spectra of NSD stars using the IGRINS spectrometer mounted on the Gemini South telescope. The giants were analyzed consistently with stars from a comparison populations to minimize systematic uncertainties. The abundance trends of NSD stars exhibit similarities with those of the inner-bulge and Nuclear Star Cluster (NSC) populations across a broad range of elements with different chemical evolution histories. The trends for 17 elements align closely with the local thick-disc behaviour at subsolar metallicities. At super-solar metallicities, most elements follow the NSC and inner-bulge trends. Sodium is the only element exhibiting a distinct trend, with enhanced abundances in the NSD and NSC compared to both thin-disc and inner-bulge stars. The chemical similarity suggests that the NSD likely shares an evolutionary history with the NSC and possibly the inner-disc sequence. Further studies are required to determine potential evolutionary links to Liller 1 and metal-rich globular clusters. We find no evidence of typical globular cluster abundance signatures in our NSD stars with subsolar metallicities. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining high-quality abundance data even in highly dust-obscured regions of the Milky Way, paving the way for future surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15924 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Ks vs (H - Ks) diagram of our targets, colored by metallicity, superimposed on stars from the Fritz et al. (2021) KMOS catalog. Right: Distribution of our targets in the sky as colored circles, again colored by metallicity. Black dashed lines show the density contours of the NSD model from Sormani et al. (2022) over an image from the GLIMPSE survey (Benjamin et al. 2003; Glimpse Team 2020). Black dots represen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Abundance ratios versus metallicities for F, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ca, Ti, and Cr for stars in the Nuclear Stellar Disc (green triangles) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simple mean of the three α elements Mg, Si, and Ca for the NSD (green triangles). Also shown are the comparison sam￾ples of the Galactic disc populations (red circles and yellow dia￾monds), the inner-bulge (blue squares), and the NSC (black star symbols). Typical uncertainties are given in the the lower right corner. The most uncertain determination of our abundance is for our coolest, most metal-rich, and faintest … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Abundance ratios versus metallicities for Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ba, Ce, Nd, and Yb for stars in the Nuclear Stellar Disc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [Na/Fe] versus [Fe/H] for different stellar populations. The Nuclear Stellar Disc stars are represented by green open and filled triangles, NSC stars by black star symbols, inner bulge stars by blue squares, solar neighborhood thin-disc stars by red filled circles, and…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z., Sousa, S

    Adibekyan, V . Z., Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A32 Alvarez Garay, D. A., Fanelli, C., Origlia, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A198

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    M., Liljegren, S., & Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Liljegren, S., & Nissen, P. E. 2022, A&A, 668, A68

    2022

  3. [3]

    M., Lind, K., Osorio, Y ., et al

    Amarsi, A. M., Lind, K., Osorio, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A62 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    & Kawata, D

    Baba, J. & Kawata, D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4500

    2020

  5. [5]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83

    2018

  6. [6]

    A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B

    Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 953 Bijavara Seshashayana, S., Jönsson, H., D’Orazi, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A218

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 10

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

    2014

  8. [8]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2009, A&A, 505, 139

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., & Lucatello, S. 2009, A&A, 505, 139

    2009

  2. [10]

    G., Gratton, R

    Carretta, E., Cohen, J. G., Gratton, R. G., & Behr, B. B. 2001, AJ, 122, 1469

    2001

  3. [11]

    V ., Hasselquist, S., et al

    Cunha, K., Smith, V . V ., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 145 de Sá-Freitas, C., Fragkoudi, F., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A8 Di Matteo, P. 2016, PASA, 33, e027

    2017

  4. [12]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11856

    Feldmeier-Krause, A., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11856

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2023, PhD thesis, Lund University

    Forsberg, Rebecca. 2023, PhD thesis, Lund University

    2023

  6. [14]

    Friske, J. K. S. & Schönrich, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.01899

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    K., Patrick, L

    Fritz, T. K., Patrick, L. R., Feldmeier-Krause, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A83

    2021

  8. [16]

    A., Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A14 Glimpse Team. 2020, Galactic Legacy Infrared Midplane Survey Extraordinaire, NASA IPAC DataSet, IRSA405

    2020

  9. [17]

    A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 18

    2020

  10. [18]

    I., Read, J

    Gray, E. I., Read, J. I., Taylor, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19286

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, Space Sci. Rev., 130, 105 Guerço, R., Smith, V . V ., Cunha, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2801

    2007

  12. [20]

    2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Gully-Santiago, M., Wang, W., Deen, C., & Jaffe, D. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instru- mentation II, ed. R. Navarro, C. R. Cunningham, & E. Pri...

    2012

  13. [21]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

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

    2008

  14. [22]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Han, J.-Y ., Yuk, I.-S., Ko, K., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8550, Optical Systems Design 2012, ed. D. G. Smith, J.-L. M. Tissot, L. Mazuray, T. E. Kidger, F. Wyrowski, J. M. Raynor, R. Wartmann, S. David...

    2012

  15. [23]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20266

    Hattori, K., Taniguchi, D., Tsujimoto, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20266

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

    Hayes, C. R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00071

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2018, A&A, 618, A78

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A78

    2018

  18. [26]

    D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Katz, D., & Gómez, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A109

    2013

  19. [27]

    D., Barnes, A

    Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 83

    2023

  20. [28]

    A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al

    Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  22. [30]

    S., et al

    Jeong, U., Chun, M.-Y ., Oh, J. S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9154, High En- ergy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VI, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 91541X Jönsson, H., Allende Prieto, C.,...

    2014

  23. [31]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 138

    Kobayashi, C., Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2020, ApJ, 895, 138

    2020

  24. [32]

    Launhardt, R., Zylka, R., & Mezger, P. G. 2002, A&A, 384, 112

    2002

  25. [33]

    2017, Igrins/Plp 2.2.0, Zenodo

    Lee, J.-J., Gullikson, K., & Kaplan, K. 2017, Igrins/Plp 2.2.0, Zenodo

    2017

  26. [34]

    2019, A&A, 625, A141

    Lomaeva, M., Jönsson, H., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., & Thorsbro, B. 2019, A&A, 625, A141

    2019

  27. [35]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Mace, G., Sokal, K., Lee, J.-J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107020Q

    2018

  28. [36]

    K., et al

    Manea, C., Hawkins, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15257

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Matrozis, E., Ryde, N., & Dupree, A. K. 2013, A&A, 559, A115

    2013

  30. [38]

    2011, Nature, 477, 188

    Matsunaga, N., Kawadu, T., Nishiyama, S., et al. 2011, Nature, 477, 188

    2011

  31. [39]

    2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    2012

  32. [40]

    2021, A&A Rev., 29, 5

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

    2021

  33. [41]

    & Brocato, E

    Matteucci, F. & Brocato, E. 1990, ApJ, 365, 539

    1990

  34. [42]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New A, 15, 433

    2010

  35. [43]

    2022, A&A, 665, A135

    Montelius, M., Forsberg, R., Ryde, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A135

    2022

  36. [44]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Moon, B., Wang, W., Park, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8450, Modern Tech- nologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation II, ed. R. Navarro, C. R. Cunningham, & E. Prieto, 845048 Mu...

    2012

  37. [45]

    2022, A&A, 668, A88

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

    2022

  38. [46]

    2025, ApJ, 982, L14

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, L14

    2025

  39. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4374

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4374

    2018

  40. [48]

    2023, A&A, 671, A94

    Nieuwmunster, N., Nandakumar, G., Spitoni, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A94

    2023

  41. [49]

    2024, A&A, 685, A93

    Nieuwmunster, N., Schultheis, M., Sormani, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A93

    2024

  42. [50]

    2013, ApJ, 769, L28

    Nishiyama, S., Yasui, K., Nagata, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, L28

    2013

  43. [51]

    2023, A&A, 680, A75

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Feldmeier-Krause, A., Schödel, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A75

    2023

  44. [52]

    T., et al

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schödel, R., Gallego-Calvente, A. T., et al. 2020, Nature As- tronomy, 4, 377

    2020

  45. [53]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 97

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schödel, R., & Neumayer, N. 2021, ApJ, 920, 97

    2021

  46. [54]

    S., Park, C., Cha, S.-M., et al

    Oh, J. S., Park, C., Cha, S.-M., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 914739

    2014

  47. [55]

    T., Yuk, I.-S., et al

    Park, C., Jaffe, D. T., Yuk, I.-S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471D

    2014

  48. [56]

    2010, ApJ, 710, 1557

    Pignatari, M., Gallino, R., Heil, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1557

    2010

  49. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    2020

  50. [58]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., & Cristallo, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    2018

  51. [59]

    & Lambert, D

    Ryde, N. & Lambert, D. L. 2004, A&A, 415, 559

    2004

  52. [60]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 174

    Ryde, N., Nandakumar, G., Schultheis, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 174

    2025

  53. [61]

    & Schultheis, M

    Ryde, N. & Schultheis, M. 2015, A&A, 573, A14

    2015

  54. [62]

    L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al

    Sanders, J. L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2972 Schödel, R., Longmore, S., Henshaw, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.11912 Schödel, R., Nogueras-Lara, F., Gallego-Cano, E., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A102 Schönrich, R., Aumer, M., & Sale, S. E. ...

    2024

  55. [63]

    2020, A&A, 642, A81

    Schultheis, M., Rojas-Arriagada, A., Cunha, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A81

    2020

  56. [64]

    2016, A&A, 589, A115

    Smiljanic, R., Romano, D., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A115

    2016

  57. [65]

    C., Lucas, P

    Smith, L. C., Lucas, P. W., Kurtev, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1826

    2018

  58. [66]

    C., Sanders, J

    Sormani, M. C., Sanders, J. L., Fritz, T. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1857

    2022

  59. [67]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  60. [68]

    M., et al

    Thorsbro, B., Ryde, N., Rich, R. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 26

    2020

  61. [69]

    1993, in ASP Conf

    Tody, D. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 52: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  62. [70]

    Valenti, J. A. & Piskunov, N. 1996, A&AS, 118, 595

    1996

  63. [71]

    Valenti, J. A. & Piskunov, N. 2012, SME: Spectroscopy Made Easy, astrophysics Source Code Library van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22 van Donkelaar, F., Mayer, L., Capelo, P. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4104

    2012

  64. [72]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    2019

  65. [73]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  66. [74]

    J., & Jaffe, D

    Wang, W., Gully-Santiago, M., Deen, C., Mar, D. J., & Jaffe, D. T. 2010, in So- ciety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7739, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation, ed. E. Atad-Ettedgui & D. Lemke, 77394L

    2010

  67. [75]

    T., Barnes, S., et al

    Yuk, I.-S., Jaffe, D. T., Barnes, S., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77351M

    2010

  68. [76]

    2024, A&A, 684, A214 Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Zoccali, M., Rojas-Arriagada, A., Valenti, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A214 Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: Additional figures Article number, page 12 of 15 Ryde et al.: NSD Abundance trends Fig. A.1: Sample spectra of the NSD star (NSD...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.