Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 44 references

The age of the Methuselah star in light of stellar evolution models with tailored abundances

T0 review · 2 major / 8 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 This paper argues that the Methuselah star's age drops to about 13 billion years once its real elemental abundances and a revised parallax are used, removing the apparent conflict with the age of the Universe.

desk verdict A useful tailored-opacity study of HD140283 whose headline age is plausible but misreported in the abstract and rests on an unexamined Gaia parallax assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12343 v1 pith:YNQG2NVL submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

C. Guillaume , G. Buldgen , A. M. Amarsi , M. A. Dupret , M. S. Lundkvist , J. R. Larsen , R. Scuflaire , A. Noels This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords HD140283MethuselahstarstellarevolutionagesPopulationIIstarschemicalabundancesopacitytablesasteroseismology
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

HD140283, the 'Methuselah star,' has long been a puzzle because careful stellar models gave it an age older than the Universe itself. This paper argues that previous age estimates were inflated by using a solar-scaled chemical mixture rather than the star's actual composition. Building opacity tables from the measured abundances of carbon, oxygen, iron, and other elements, the authors find an age near 12.6–13.1 Gyr (12.3 Gyr in their headline fit), comfortably below the Universe's 13.77 ± 0.06 Gyr. They also show that this composition effect is degenerate with lowering the mixing-length parameter: either change pushes the inferred age down. The practical consequence is that HD140283 no longer stands as strong evidence of a cosmic age conflict, and that asteroseismic data would be needed to fix the star's mass and settle the remaining ambiguity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of stellar evolution grids with dedicated opacity tables computed for HD140283's measured composition, coupled to a Markov Chain Monte Carlo parameter fitter. The load-bearing objects are the tailored abundances—especially the high oxygen abundance, which raises the effective metallicity and opacity—and the Gaia DR3 parallax of 16.26 mas, which lowers the inferred luminosity and mass relative to older astrometric values near 17.2 mas. The mixing-length parameter $\alpha_\mathrm{MLT}$ is the third lever: reducing it mimics the effect of the tailored composition, which is why the paper frames the composition–convection degeneracy as the central ambiguity.

What would settle it

An independent parallax measurement returning about 17.2 mas, or asteroseismic frequencies matching the lower-density solution (mean density $\approx 0.1049\ \mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$, $\nu_\mathrm{max} \approx 495.7\ \mu\mathrm{Hz}$) rather than the tailored solution ($\approx 0.1077\ \mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$, $\approx 510.8\ \mu\mathrm{Hz}$), would falsify the younger-age claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the apparent age-of-the-Universe tension for HD140283 dissolves when the modeling uses the star's individually measured elemental abundances. Using 3D non-LTE abundances for C, O, and Fe from recent spectroscopic studies, computing dedicated high- and low-temperature opacity tables for that mixture, and combining a Gaia-based parallax with an interferometric radius, the authors' tailored stellar evolution grids give masses near 0.772–0.780 solar masses and ages of 12.60–13.08 Gyr, with their abstract reporting 12.3 Gyr. A solar-scaled mixture with the same physics yields 13.6–14.1 Gyr, reproducing the old tension. The paper stresses that the abundance effect and a reduced mixing-length parameter move the age in the same direction, so the two cannot be distinguished from current data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaia parallax of 16.26 ± 0.026 mas is correct; if the true parallax is the older Hipparcos/Hubble value near 17.2 mas, the star is farther away, more massive, and older, and the age-of-Universe tension returns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the tailored abundances are right, HD140283 sits at roughly 12.6–13.1 Gyr, inside the 13.77 ± 0.06 Gyr age of the Universe, so the star no longer contradicts cosmology.
  • The composition effect is strong enough to shift ages by about 1 Gyr at fixed physics, so solar-scaled mixtures should not be used for metal-poor stars with strong oxygen enhancement.
  • A lower-than-solar mixing-length parameter produces the same age shift as the oxygen-rich mixture; current data cannot tell them apart.
  • Asteroseismic observations of HD140283 would measure its mean density and mass, and the paper predicts distinguishable mean densities (about 0.1049 versus 0.1077 g/cm³) and frequencies of maximum power (about 495.7 versus 510.8 µHz) between the two solutions.
  • Changes from turbulent diffusion, electronic screening, and opacity tables shift the inferred age by only small amounts, so the mass, set by the parallax and convection assumptions, is the main lever on age.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same tailored-abundance treatment could be applied to other nearby Population II stars, and any star with a similar Hipparcos-versus-Gaia parallax offset could shift substantially in inferred age.
  • The unexamined weak point is the Gaia astrometric solution for bright stars: if 16.26 mas carries a systematic offset, the age would move back toward the 14 Gyr estimates, so an independent parallax check would be a decisive follow-up.
  • The predicted asteroseismic signature offers a direct test: with enough photometric time series, one could measure the large frequency separation and decide between the solar-scaled and tailored solutions, effectively breaking the abundance–convection degeneracy.
  • More broadly, the composition–mixing-length degeneracy means that reported ages for old, metal-poor stars should carry a systematic error budget that includes the choice of opacity mixture and convection calibration, not just the statistical MCMC error.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper determines the age of HD 140283 (the Methuselah star) using stellar evolution models with a chemical composition tailored to recent spectroscopic abundances, including 3D non-LTE values for C, O, and Fe. Dedicated OP and AESOPUS opacity tables are computed for this mixture, and grids of CLES models are coupled to the SPInS MCMC package, using L, log g, R, and [M/H] as constraints. The authors compare tailored-mixture models with solar-scaled models, both with solar-calibrated and reduced mixing-length parameters, and test the impact of turbulent diffusion, radiative opacities, and electron screening. They report that the tailored models lower the inferred age from about 14 Gyr to about 13 Gyr, easing the previously claimed conflict with the age of the Universe, and that this effect is degenerate with a reduction of the mixing-length parameter. They also provide predictions for future asteroseismic observations.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the long-standing debate on HD 140283's age, demonstrating that element-by-element abundance tailoring can shift inferred ages by about 1 Gyr relative to solar-scaled mixtures. The work has notable strengths: the use of dedicated opacity tables built from the star's measured composition is a substantive step beyond scaling solar abundances; the systematic tests of turbulent-diffusion efficiency, OPLIB opacities, and electronic screening are concrete and add credibility; and the predicted asteroseismic signatures (mean density, large frequency separation, nu_max) are falsifiable, testable claims. The MCMC setup and the choice of external constraints are standard and the inference is not circular.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The Abstract states 'With our tailored models we find an age of 12.3 Gy', but Table 2 reports tailored-mixture ages of 13.08±0.85, 12.73±0.91, and 12.60±0.88 Gyr for the three mixing-length cases. No model in the paper produces an age of 12.3 Gyr, and the Conclusion says '≈13 Gy'. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the numerical age is the paper's headline result. The abstract must be reconciled with the reported results, or the specific model and parameter set corresponding to 12.3 Gyr must be identified in the text.
  2. [Sections 3 and 5] The younger age is explicitly attributed to the Gaia DR3 parallax (π=16.26±0.026 mas) used via Karovicova et al. (2020), contrasted with Hipparcos and HST values near 17.2 mas. However, the paper does not apply or discuss a Gaia DR3 zero-point correction for this bright star (G≈7.1), nor does it propagate any systematic parallax uncertainty into the age. A systematic offset of ~0.1 mas changes the luminosity by more than 1%, and replacing the Gaia parallax with the HST/Hipparcos value changes it by ~10%, which is precisely the lever arm that would move the age from ~13 Gyr back toward ~14 Gyr. Because the central claim that tailored abundances resolve the tension with the age of the Universe depends on the accuracy of the Gaia parallax at the ~0.1 mas level, the paper should either apply a zero-point correction, quantify its uncertainty, or include a sensitivity test with the alternative parallax value.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'lastest' should be 'latest'.
  2. [Throughout] Multiple instances of 'e ffect' and 'di fference' contain stray spaces; please correct the formatting.
  3. [Section 3, 'First set of three grids'] The sentence 'removed the pre-main sequence evolution has these can be excluded' is ungrammatical; it should read something like 'removed the pre-main sequence evolution, as these phases can be excluded for HD140283'.
  4. [Section 3, comparison with Bond et al.] The phrase 'This can be explained from the difference in the parallax used' should be 'This can be explained by the difference in the parallax used'.
  5. [Section 4, OPLIB test] The OPLIB test reports an age of 13.70 Gyr without an uncertainty; this value should be accompanied by an uncertainty consistent with the other results, and it should be stated explicitly which reference model it is compared to (presumably the AAG21 solar-scaled, alpha_MLT,sun case).
  6. [Section 5, Conclusion] The sentence 'We find no clear evidence of conflict with the age of the Universe when using the Gaia astrometric solutions, CHARA interferometric radius and tailored spectroscopic abundances We also investigated the impact of systematics' is missing a period after 'abundances'.
  7. [Section 5, asteroseismic predictions] The predicted mean densities (0.1049 and 0.1077 g/cm^3) and frequencies of maximum power (495.68 and 510.84 µHz) are given without specifying which value corresponds to which model (solar-scaled versus tailored). Please clarify the assignment.
  8. [Section 3, mixing-length statement] The claim 'we find no direct evidence to favour a lower mixing length parameter value from our modelling' should be phrased more cautiously, since only three discrete values of alpha_MLT were tested rather than treating alpha_MLT as a continuous free parameter in the MCMC; the posteriors are unimodal within each fixed-alpha grid, but this does not rule out intermediate values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inferred age is a fully fitted output of a standard forward-modelling chain against external observables; the tailored-abundance opacity input is not defined in terms of the age being inferred.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) external observables (L, log g, Teff, R, [M/H]) from Karovicova et al. (2020) plus literature spectroscopic abundances (Amarsi et al. 2019, 2022; Siqueira-Mello et al. 2015; Nissen et al. 2007); (2) dedicated OP/AESOPUS opacity tables computed for that composition; (3) CLES grids sampled by SPInS MCMC; (4) age as the fitted output. The abstract's 12.3 Gy and Table 2's 12.60-13.08 Gy are outputs, never inputs: the abundance compilation, opacity tables, and constraints are all externally measured or computed before the age is inferred. Computing the opacities with the same mixture that fixes the fitted [M/H] constraint is forward-modelling self-consistency, not circularity; the tailored composition shifts the tracks so the same observational box is reproduced at higher mass and lower age (Fig. 2), an effect the paper explicitly states is degenerate with the mixing-length parameter, which all six grids bracket with unimodal posteriors. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Self-citations (Scuflaire et al. 2008 for CLES; Buldgen et al. 2019a,b, 2024) support the computational infrastructure and auxiliary physics (3He burning, OPLIB/OPAL differences, turbulent transport), not the central age claim; the load-bearing abundance inputs from co-author Amarsi's papers are independent spectroscopic determinations, externally falsifiable and not derived from this paper's fitted values. Two non-circular flaws are flagged for the correctness pass per the reviewing rule: the Abstract's '12.3 Gy' does not appear in Table 2, whose lowest age is 12.60±0.88 Gy, and the younger solution is conditioned on the Gaia DR3 parallax (Section 3: 'the Gaia DR3 parallax is pi = 16.26±0.026 mas, much lower than both the Hipparcos value and Hubble Fine Guidance Sensor'), whose bright-star systematics are not discussed; a Hipparcos/HST-level parallax would shift the age back toward ~14 Gyr. Neither flaw is a self-referential reduction, so no circular step can be exhibited with a quote-plus-reduction, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are the MCMC-fitted initial Z0, the hand-chosen alpha_MLT grid values, and the solar-tuned turbulent diffusion coefficients. The axioms are the standard stellar evolution inputs (primordial Y0, code fidelity, adopted abundances, Gaia parallax accuracy, applicability of the Magic et al. corrections, and neglect of radiative accelerations). The paper invents no new entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial metal mass fraction Z0 = 1.09e-4 to 3.32e-4 depending on grid (Table 2)
    Z0 is a fitted parameter in the SPInS MCMC runs; the posterior distributions are shown in Appendix A.
  • Mixing-length parameter alpha_MLT = Solar-calibrated value plus two reduced variants (-6.5% and -9%) from Magic et al.
    The paper fixes alpha_MLT per grid and does not fit it; the age is sensitive to this choice, which is central to the claimed degeneracy with chemical composition.
  • Turbulent diffusion parameters D and n (Eq. 1) = D=1200, n=1.3, taken from Eggenberger et al. (2022) solar-tuned values
    These control extra mixing at the base of the convective envelope and are needed to reproduce surface abundances; they are adopted from solar models rather than fitted to HD140283, and only n is varied in the systematics tests.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Initial helium mass fraction Y0 fixed at 0.251 (primordial value)
    Set as in VandenBerg et al. (2014); the paper notes that varying Y0 within the primordial range would change the inferred mass and age slightly, but it is not part of the main MCMC inference.
  • domain assumption Adopted literature abundances are accurate, especially the 3D non-LTE O, C, and Fe abundances from Amarsi et al. (2019, 2022)
    The tailored mixture drives the age shift and O is stated to be the most important element; systematic errors of the underlying abundance analyses are not re-assessed in this paper.
  • domain assumption CLES stellar evolution code and implemented physics (microscopic diffusion, turbulence, opacities) faithfully describe the star
    The inference is only as good as the code; the paper cites the code papers but provides no independent validation of the code's accuracy for this star.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax (16.26 plus or minus 0.026 mas) is accurate with no unaccounted systematics
    The younger age relative to Bond et al. (2013) and VandenBerg et al. (2014) is attributed to this parallax; bright-star Gaia systematics are not discussed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Magic et al. (2015) analytical alpha_MLT corrections apply to a metal-poor subgiant like HD140283
    The reduced alpha values (-6.5% and -9%) are applied without direct calibration for HD140283; the paper explicitly states it finds no evidence to prefer them.
  • domain assumption Radiative accelerations can be neglected in the envelope
    The paper omits radiative levitation and cites VandenBerg et al. (2014) for the conclusion that radiative accelerations are unlikely to prevent metal settling in this star.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The age of the Methuselah star in light of stellar evolution models with tailored abundances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNQG2NVL

@misc{pith2026241112343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The age of the Methuselah star in light of stellar evolution models with tailored abundances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNQG2NVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12343}
}
abstract

Context. HD140283, or the Methuselah star, is a well-known reference object in stellar evolution. Its peculiar chemical composition, proximity and absence of reddening makes it an interesting case-study of Pop II stars. Thanks to recent observational efforts, we now have precise interferometric and spectroscopic constraints, as well as revised astrometric parallaxes from the Gaia mission. Aims. We aim at determining the age of HD140283 with these lastest constraints, as well as quantifying the impact of systematics from physical inaccuracies in the stellar evolution models. Methods. Using recent spectroscopic abundances from the literature, including 3D non-LTE values for C, O, and Fe, we compute opacity tables specific to HD140283. We then use them in grids of stellar evolution models coupled to a Markov Chain Monte Carlo tool to determine the age of HD140283. Results. With our tailored models we find an age of 12.3Gy. Using a solar-scaled mixture instead results in an age value of 14Gy, in tension with the age of the universe ($13.77\pm0.06$Gy). We also find that reducing the mixing length parameter from its solar calibrated value will lead to an even lower age, in agreement with other recent studies. However, we find no direct evidence to favour a lower mixing length parameter value from our modelling. Conclusions. Taking into account the specific elemental abundances is crucial for the modelling of HD140283, as it leads to significant differences in the inferred age. However, this effect is degenerate with a lowering of the mixing length parameter. In this respect, asteroseismic constraints might play a key role in accurately deriving the mass of HD140283, therefore strongly constraining its age.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Abundances of the main contributors to metal mass and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: HR diagram of our grid for the solar-scaled mixture with a solar-calibrated mixing-length parameter. Right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HR diagram of the models including variations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

    2022

  2. [2]

    M., Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Nissen, P. E., & Skúladóttir, Á. 2019, A&A, 630, A104

    2019

  3. [3]

    M., & Grevesse, N

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    R., Bautista, M

    Badnell, N. R., Bautista, M. A., Butler, K., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 458

    2005

  5. [5]

    N., Huebner, W

    Bahcall, J. N., Huebner, W. F., Lubow, S. H., Parker, P. D., & Ulrich, R. K. 1982, Reviews of Modern Physics, 54, 767

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 10

    Blancard, C., Cossé, P., & Faussurier, G. 2012, ApJ, 745, 10

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    E., Nelan, E

    Bond, H. E., Nelan, E. P., VandenBerg, D. A., Schaefer, G. H., & Harmer, D. 2013, ApJ, 765, L12

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 686, A108

    Buldgen, G., Noels, A., Scuflaire, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A108

    work page 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2007, A&A, 463, 755

    Castro, M., Vauclair, S., & Richard, O. 2007, A&A, 463, 755

    2007

  2. [10]

    P., Magee, N

    Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 116

    2016

  3. [11]

    L., Thévenin, F., Berio, P., et al

    Creevey, O. L., Thévenin, F., Berio, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A26

    2015

  4. [12]

    S., Roxburgh, I

    Cunha, M. S., Roxburgh, I. W., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5864

    2021

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Michel, E., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A31

    2010

  6. [14]

    Eggenberger, P., Buldgen, G., Salmon, S. J. A. J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 788

    2022

  7. [15]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

    2005

  8. [16]

    & Norris, J

    Frebel, A. & Norris, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631

    2015

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17566

    Huber, D., Slumstrup, D., Hon, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17566

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943 Jørgensen, A. C. S. & Weiss, A. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3463

    1996

  11. [19]

    & Chaboyer, B

    Joyce, M. & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 10

    2018

  12. [20]

    R., Nordlander, T., et al

    Karovicova, I., White, T. R., Nordlander, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A25

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Reese, D

    Lebreton, Y . & Reese, D. R. 2020, A&A, 642, A88

    2020

  14. [22]

    2015, A&A, 573, A89

    Magic, Z., Weiss, A., & Asplund, M. 2015, A&A, 573, A89

    2015

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Manchon, L., Deal, M., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A146

    2024

  16. [24]

    & Aringer, B

    Marigo, P. & Aringer, B. 2009, A&A, 508, 1539

    2009

  17. [25]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 129

    Marigo, P., Aringer, B., Girardi, L., & Bressan, A. 2022, ApJ, 940, 129

    2022

  18. [26]

    2011, Ap&SS, 336, 111

    Mussack, K. 2011, Ap&SS, 336, 111

    2011

  19. [27]

    & Däppen, W

    Mussack, K. & Däppen, W. 2011, ApJ, 729, 96

    2011

  20. [28]

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

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

    2007

  21. [29]

    Nordlander, T., Gruyters, P., Richard, O., & Korn, A. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12120

    2024

  22. [30]

    1986, ApJS, 61, 177

    Paquette, C., Pelletier, C., Fontaine, G., & Michaud, G. 1986, ApJS, 61, 177

    1986

  23. [31]

    2018, Phys

    Pitrou, C., Coc, A., Uzan, J.-P., & Vangioni, E. 2018, Phys. Rep., 754, 1 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, C4 Article number, page 5 of 6 A&A proofs: manuscript no. ...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Proffitt, C. R. & Michaud, G. 1991, ApJ, 380, 238

    1991

  25. [33]

    R., Chaplin, W

    Reese, D. R., Chaplin, W. J., Davies, G. R., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A14

    2016

  26. [34]

    2008, ApSS, 316, 83 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M

    Scuflaire, R., Théado, S., Montalbán, J., et al. 2008, ApSS, 316, 83 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173

    2008

  27. [35]

    M., Barbuy, B., et al

    Siqueira-Mello, C., Andrievsky, S. M., Barbuy, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A86

    2015

  28. [36]

    & Spite, M

    Spite, F. & Spite, M. 1982, A&A, 115, 357

    1982

  29. [37]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 634

    Talon, S., Richard, O., & Michaud, G. 2006, ApJ, 645, 634

    2006

  30. [38]

    & Joyce, M

    Tang, J. & Joyce, M. 2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 117

    2021

  31. [39]

    A., Bahcall, J

    Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828

    1994

  32. [40]

    A., Bond, H

    VandenBerg, D. A., Bond, H. E., Nelan, E. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 110

    2014

  33. [41]

    E., Avrett, E

    Vernazza, J. E., Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 1981, ApJS, 45, 635

    1981

  34. [42]

    2013, A&A, 552, A131

    Vick, M., Michaud, G., Richer, J., & Richard, O. 2013, A&A, 552, A131

    2013

  35. [43]

    & Rix, H.-W

    Xiang, M. & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599

    2022

  36. [44]

    M., Chaboyer, B., Boudreaux, E

    Ying, J. M., Chaboyer, B., Boudreaux, E. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 18 Appendix A: Posterior distributions for the MCMC runs Posterior distributions for the SPInS runs using both the solar scaled abundances, in Fig. A.2 and Fig. A.1 the detailed spec- troscopic abundances of HD...

    2023

Pith tools

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