Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The DECam MAGIC Survey: Spectroscopic Follow-up of the Most Metal-Poor Stars in the Distant Milky Way Halo

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that narrow-band calcium photometry can reliably pick out extremely and ultra metal-poor stars in the distant Milky Way halo, and that one of them, J0433-5548, carries the chemical signature of a single ~11-solar-mass…

desk verdict A solid, honest spectroscopic follow-up from MAGIC that delivers five new EMP stars and one UMP star, with a real caveat: the photometric validation is at [Fe/H] ~ -3, not yet at the UMP regime the survey targets. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19163 v1 pith:TBIJHH7A submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Vinicius M. Placco , Guilherme Limberg , Anirudh Chiti , Deepthi S. Prabhu , Alexander P. Ji , Fabrícia O. Barbosa , William Cerny , Andrew B. Pace
show 16 more authors
Guy S. Stringfellow David J. Sand Clara E. Martínez-Vázquez Alexander H. Riley Silvia Rossi Noelia E. D. Noël A. Katherina Vivas Gustavo E. Medina Alex Drlica-Wagner Joanna D. Sakowska Burçin Mutlu-Pakdil Pol Massana Julio A. Carballo-Bello Yumi Choi Denija Crnojević Chin Yi Tan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords HighresolutionspectroscopyChemicalabundancesMetallicityCEMPstarsPopulationIIINarrowbandphotometryStellarkinematicsdynamics
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

High-resolution spectra of six stars selected only from narrow-band calcium (CaHK) photometry confirm that the MAGIC survey's photometric metallicities are accurate: five stars land at $[Fe/H]$ between about $-3.0$ and $-3.3$, and the sixth, J0433-5548, is an ultra metal-poor star at $[Fe/H]=-4.12$. The paper argues this validates skipping medium-resolution spectroscopy and going straight to high-resolution follow-up for faint outer-halo targets at 35-55 kpc. The chemically most interesting star, J0433-5548, is carbon-enhanced and its ten measured light-element abundances are best matched by a single metal-free supernova from a progenitor of about 9.6-11.2 times the Sun's mass with a low explosion energy. If the claims hold, wide-field imaging can build statistically useful samples of the most primitive stars in the outer halo, and at least one second-generation star preserves the record of a low-energy first-star explosion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the narrow-band N395 Ca II H and K filter on DECam: its magnitude, combined with DECam $g$ and $i$, maps to a photometric $[Fe/H]$ through a grid of synthetic photometry. The second mechanism is the starfit fitting code, which matches the measured light-element abundances ($Z<30$) of J0433-5548 against a grid of metal-free supernova nucleosynthesis yields with progenitor masses from 9.6 to 100 solar masses, explosion energies from $0.3$ to $10$ in units of $10^{51}$ erg, and a mixing parameter. The first mechanism carries the survey-selection claim; the second carries the single-supernova, roughly 11-solar-mass progenitor claim. Kinematic associations are carried by orbit integrations in an adopted Milky Way potential and in a Milky Way plus first-infall Large Magellanic Cloud potential.

What would settle it

Fit J0433-5548's ten measured light-element abundances against yield grids that include rotating massive stars or multiple supernovae with dilution; if a rotating roughly 25-solar-mass progenitor or a two-supernova dilution matches within the same $\pm 0.3$ dex residuals, the claimed unique roughly 11-solar-mass, low-energy single-supernova origin would not be established. Separately, a larger sample of carbon-enhanced candidates can test the photometric bias: if stars with $[C/Fe]$ above +1.5 do not show the about 0.7 dex $[Fe/H]$ overestimate seen in J0433-5548, the carbon-contamination explanation would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MAGIC narrow-band CaHK photometry reliably identifies extremely and ultra metal-poor stars in the distant Milky Way halo. For the five non-carbon-enhanced stars the photometric $[Fe/H]$ agrees with the spectroscopic values to within roughly 0.15-0.30 dex, and even the carbon-enhanced J0433-5548 was still selected as a $[Fe/H]<-3$ candidate, although its photometric metallicity of $-3.36$ overestimates the true $-4.12$ because carbon absorption contaminates the filter band. The paper's secondary claim is that J0433-5548 is a bona fide second-generation star: its abundance pattern for ten elements with $Z<30$ is matched, in about 95% of 10,000 resamples, by metal-free supernova models with progenitor masses between 9.6 and 11.2 solar masses and explosion energy at or below $0.6\times10^{51}$ erg. The six stars all belong to the outer halo at heliocentric distances of 35-55 kpc, with three plausibly linked to Magellanic debris, one to the Sagittarius stream, and two to the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus merger. The authors state that the spectroscopic data confirms the accuracy of the photometric metallicities and that the success rate for identifying $[Fe/H]\leq-3$ stars was nearly perfect.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the only enrichment channels that need to be considered are the non-rotating, single metal-free supernova explosions in the fitting grid; if rotation, mass loss, or multiple supernovae could produce the same abundance pattern in J0433-5548, the inferred roughly 11-solar-mass single-progenitor origin would not be unique.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wide-field CaHK surveys can select $[Fe/H]<-3$ candidates in the outer halo directly from imaging, so high-resolution follow-up can focus on the most promising faint targets without a medium-resolution vetting step.
  • Photometric metallicities are reliable at the 0.1-0.3 dex level for non-carbon-enhanced stars, but carbon-enhanced stars can be overestimated by about 0.7 dex, so CEMP fractions derived from photometric samples will need a carbon-aware correction.
  • The outer-halo EMP/UMP population shows light-element chemistry consistent with the inner halo, supporting a shared early-enrichment history across Galactic components.
  • Under the adopted potentials, three of the six stars have orbits consistent with Magellanic debris, with binding fractions from about 20% to 75%, so some of the most metal-poor stars in the outer halo may have formed outside the Milky Way.
  • If the fits are correct, the UMP star J0433-5548 records a first-generation supernova with a relatively low-mass progenitor and a low explosion energy, adding a concrete point to the inferred mass and energy distribution of Population III stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A systematic carbon bias of the kind seen in J0433-5548 would mean photometric surveys undercount the most carbon-rich, most metal-poor stars, which could flatten the claimed rise in CEMP fraction toward the lowest metallicities.
  • The same CaHK selection could be pushed into the Magellanic Clouds and other dwarf satellites; the survey's validation in Sculptor suggests the technique is portable, and finding UMP stars in a dwarf galaxy would tie the first-star signature to a specific host environment.
  • If rotating or multiple-supernova enrichment grids fit the same abundance pattern equally well, the inferred roughly 11-solar-mass progenitor would become one of several possibilities; comparing [Mg/C] statistics across a larger UMP sample would test whether mono-enriched, single-supernova events are common.
  • The Magellanic association probabilities of 20-75% are too broad to settle membership for individual stars; a decisive test would be searching for a common stream-like orbit among several EMP stars in the same sky region rather than relying on one star per candidate association.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports high-resolution Magellan/MIKE spectroscopy of six very metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] < -3) selected from the DECam MAGIC narrow-band CaHK photometric survey, including one ultra metal-poor star (J0433-5548, [Fe/H] = -4.12) that is carbon-enhanced ([C/Fe] = +1.73). The authors derive stellar parameters and chemical abundances for up to 16 elements, apply NLTE corrections for 12 species, and propagate systematic uncertainties. They validate the MAGIC photometric metallicities against the spectroscopic values, find that the program stars follow normal halo abundance trends, and for J0433-5548 use the starfit code with Heger & Woosley (2010) metal-free supernova yields to suggest a ~11 Msun, low-explosion-energy Pop III progenitor. A kinematic analysis places all stars at 35-55 kpc in the outer halo, with three stars tentatively associated with Magellanic debris, one with the Sagittarius stream, and two with Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper demonstrates that narrow-band CaHK photometry can efficiently select genuine EMP stars in the distant Milky Way halo, which would be valuable for building statistical samples of the earliest stellar populations. The abundance analysis is thorough and reproducible: 683 absorption features, NLTE corrections for 12 species, systematic uncertainty propagation in Table 4, and public tools (linemake, MOOG, SMHr). The identification of a new CEMP UMP star and its comparison with Pop III supernova yields is a useful addition to the small sample of such objects. However, the validation of photometric metallicities rests primarily on five stars near [Fe/H] ~ -3, while the single UMP star shows a large +0.76 dex offset, so the headline claim of photometric-metallicity accuracy at the UMP regime is not yet supported. The kinematic associations are appropriately hedged given the small sample and model-dependent potentials.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The statement that 'the spectroscopic data confirms the accuracy of the photometric metallicities' is overstated. In Section 4.1 and Figure 6, the five EMP stars show a mean residual of -0.07 dex with respect to the MIKE values, which is reassuring, but the sole UMP star J0433-5548 has a residual of +0.76 dex, attributed to carbon enhancement. Figure 7 shows that a star with [Fe/H] = -4.12 and [C/Fe] = +1.7 could be photometrically assigned to [Fe/H] ≈ -3.25, moving it out of the UMP class entirely. Since the survey explicitly targets the UMP regime and carbon-enhanced stars constitute a large fraction of the UMP population, the abstract and conclusions should either restrict the accuracy claim to the EMP regime ([Fe/H] >= -4) or explicitly state that photometric metallicities for CEMP/UMP stars are subject to large carbon-induced biases.
  2. [Section 4.3] The starfit analysis of J0433-5548 uses only the Heger & Woosley (2010) grid of metal-free supernova yields, which the paper itself notes ignore mass loss and rotationally induced mixing. With only 10 elements (Z < 30) included in the fit, the inference of a single ~11 Msun supernova is not shown to be unique. Rotating massive-star models, multiple supernovae, or other enrichment channels could plausibly produce a similar abundance pattern. The paper acknowledges this limitation in a sentence, but the Section 5 conclusion that the pattern 'can be explained by a Pop. III progenitor with ~11 Mo' is presented more firmly than the evidence warrants. I recommend either adding a quantitative discussion of model-grid systematics (e.g., comparing against rotating or multi-supernova yield grids) or softening the language throughout to emphasize the model-dependence.
  3. [Section 4.4 and Table 5] The distances used for the kinematic analysis are derived from isochrone matching that relies on the photometric metallicities. For J0433-5548, the photometric metallicity is overestimated by 0.76 dex, and the corresponding isochrone distance could be systematically biased. The paper accounts for a ~20% distance uncertainty from isochrone metallicity differences between [Fe/H] = -2.5 and -3.5, but J0433-5548's photometric value (-3.36) lies within this range while the spectroscopic value (-4.12) falls outside it. I ask the authors to test whether the derived orbital parameters (eccentricity, total energy, and the proposed GSE-like classification) are robust to recomputing the distance using the spectroscopic metallicity or a metallicity-appropriate isochrone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] For each star, the second data row is labeled 'Ca' but appears to be the corrected carbon abundance (for J0433-5548 the value 6.04 and [X/Fe] = +1.73 match the reported [C/Fe] = +1.73), while a separate Ca I row appears later. Please correct the row label (likely to 'C') to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 5] The phrase 'the success rate on identifying stars with [Fe/H] <= -3.0 was nearly perfect' is imprecise: in the observed sample of six stars the success rate was 6/6 for [Fe/H] <= -3, but this small sample is not a statistically meaningful demonstration for the general population. I suggest rewording to 'all six followed-up stars were confirmed to have [Fe/H] <= -3.0.'
  3. [Abstract and Figure 9] The text uses '~11Mo' in the Abstract and 'M o' in Figure 9 labels instead of the standard 'M⊙'. Please use the solar-mass symbol consistently throughout.
  4. [Section 2 and Figure 1] The color-color diagram in Figure 1 would benefit from a statement in the caption specifying which photometric bands are used for the x-axis (presumably DELVE DR2 g-i) and how the N395 scaled magnitude is defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photometric-metallicity validation uses independent MIKE spectroscopy, and the starfit analysis compares against externally computed model yields.

full rationale

The central claimed validation, that MAGIC narrow-band CaHK photometry identifies EMP/UMP stars, is checked against high-resolution MIKE spectroscopy in Section 4.1 and Figure 6. The spectroscopic [Fe/H] values come from an independent pipeline (MOOG/SMHr with Kurucz model atmospheres) rather than from the MAGIC photometry, so the comparison is a genuine external benchmark rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The photometric metallicities themselves are generated from synthetic photometry following Chiti et al. (2020, 2021), and no parameter in that calibration was fit to the six program stars. The one UMP star, J0433-5548, shows a +0.76 dex offset that the paper attributes to carbon enhancement and quantifies in Section 4.1 and Figure 7; that is an accuracy limitation, acknowledged by the authors, not a circular step. The starfit inference for J0433-5548 fits the observed abundance pattern against the Heger & Woosley (2010) metal-free supernova yield grid, which is external to this paper; the 'single supernova' language is explicitly conditional on that grid, which the authors state provides only one possible progenitor type. Self-citations to linemake, carbon evolutionary corrections, and earlier starfit applications are methodological citations to independently published work, and none of them carries the load-bearing argument, which rests on MIKE abundances and published supernova yields. No equation or claimed prediction in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard stellar atmosphere models, isochrones, NLTE grids, theoretical supernova yield sets, and published Milky Way and LMC potentials. The only hand-chosen numeric input that affects an inference is the 0.2 dex resampling sigma in the starfit exercise.

free parameters (1)
  • starfit resampling sigma = 0.2 dex
    Fixed Gaussian width used to re-sample J0433-5548 abundances 10,000 times in Section 4.3; affects the spread of inferred progenitor masses but not the central identification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The synthetic photometry grid and Dartmouth/YY isochrones (12 Gyr, [Fe/H] around -2.5 to -3.5) are valid for deriving distances and log g for these stars.
    Used in Section 2 for distance moduli and Section 3.1 for surface gravities; an incorrect isochrone metallicity or age would shift distances and log g values, affecting both kinematics and abundances.
  • ad hoc to paper The metal-free supernova yields of Heger & Woosley (2010), which ignore rotation and mass loss, span the plausible enrichment channels for J0433-5548.
    Section 4.3 uses starfit with these yields to infer an ~11 M_sun progenitor; the models explicitly ignore rotational mixing and mass loss, so the inferred progenitor mass is conditional on this grid being representative.
  • domain assumption The NLTE corrections from INSPECT, Nordlander & Lind (2017), and MPIA databases are appropriate for these stellar parameters.
    Section 3.3 applies corrections up to +1.00 dex (Al I); errors in these corrections propagate directly into the [X/Fe] ratios used for the starfit comparison.
  • domain assumption The McMillan 2017 axisymmetric Milky Way potential, plus the first-infall LMC model of Vasiliev et al. (2021), adequately describes the gravitational field for orbit integration.
    Section 4.4 uses these potentials to compute total energies, eccentricities, and LMC-binding fractions; a different halo shape or LMC mass would change the inferred associations.
  • domain assumption The carbon depletion corrections from Placco et al. (2014a) apply to these giants.
    Section 3.2 applies evolutionary corrections from +0.03 to +0.76 dex to the measured carbon abundances; the [C/Fe] values and the CEMP classification depend on these corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The DECam MAGIC Survey: Spectroscopic Follow-up of the Most Metal-Poor Stars in the Distant Milky Way Halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBIJHH7A

@misc{pith2026250619163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The DECam MAGIC Survey: Spectroscopic Follow-up of the Most Metal-Poor Stars in the Distant Milky Way Halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBIJHH7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19163}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we present high-resolution spectroscopic observations for six metal-poor stars with [Fe/H]<-3 (including one with [Fe/H]<-4), selected using narrow-band Ca II HK photometry from the DECam MAGIC Survey. The spectroscopic data confirms the accuracy of the photometric metallicities and allows for the determination of chemical abundances for 16 elements, from carbon to barium. The program stars have chemical abundances consistent with this metallicity range. A kinematic/dynamical analysis suggests that all program stars belong to the distant Milky Way halo population (heliocentric distances 35 < dhelio/kpc < 55), including three with high-energy orbits that might have been associated with the Magellanic system and one, J0026-5445, having parameters consistent with being a member of the Sagittarius stream. The remaining two stars show kinematics consistent with the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus dwarf galaxy merger. J0433-5548, with [Fe/H]=-4.12, is a carbon-enhanced ultra metal-poor star, with [C/Fe]=+1.73. This star is believed to be a bona fide second-generation star, and its chemical abundance pattern was compared with yields from metal-free supernova models. Results suggest that J0433-5548 could have been formed from a gas cloud enriched by a single supernova explosion from a ~11Mo star in the early universe. The successful identification of such objects demonstrates the reliability of photometric metallicity estimates, which can be used for target selection and statistical studies of faint targets in the Milky Way and its satellite population. These discoveries illustrate the power of measuring chemical abundances of metal-poor Milky Way halo stars to learn more about early galaxy formation and evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the metallicity-sensitive color-color di￾agram for the program stars (symbols). The colored solid lines represent constant metallicity for three dif￾ferent log g values (line thickness) and were calculated by convolving a grid of synthetic spectra with filter transmission curves (see A. Chiti et al. 2021, for fur￾ther details). Note that the program stars are located in the region embedded within the [Fe/H]=−3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Selected regions of the MIKE spectra for the program stars, sorted by effective temperature. Absorption features of interest are labeled. The shaded area in blue on the top panel is the scaled transmission curve of the DECam N395 filter. code28 (V. M. Placco et al. 2021a). Logarithmic num￾ber abundances (log ϵ(X)) and abundance ratios ([X/H] and [X/Fe]) adopt the solar photospheric abundances (log ϵ⊙ (X)) from M. As… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface gravity vs. temperature diagram for the program stars, using the parameters listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Abundance determination via spectral synthesis for two sections of the Carbon CH G-band for J0433−5548. The filled squares connected by the black line represent the MIKE spectrum, the red line is the best fit, and the shaded regions represent ±0.1 and ±0.2 dex from the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Residual between the photometric and spectroscopic metallicity determinations as a function of [Fe/H]MIKE (left), log g (middle), and [C/Fe] (right). The shaded areas represent ±0.15 and ±0.30 dex for reference. The symbols are the same as previous figures. The residua…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Carbon abundances as a function of scaled N395 magnitudes for different metallicity values (solid lines) for stars with Teff=5000 K and log g=2.0 (top left panel), Teff=4500 K and log g=1.0 star (top right panel), and Teff=4750 K and log g=1.5 (lower panel). The progra…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Selected LTE [X/Fe] abundance ratios and Teff as a function of the metallicity for the program stars (symbols), compared with the JINAbase (A. Abohalima & A. Frebel 2018) literature compilation (density map). est version34 of the JINAbase literature compilation (A. Abo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper left panel: light-element chemical abundance pattern of J0433−5548, (open triangles) compared with yields from metal-free supernova models (solid lines). The progenitor mass and explosion energy of the models and their percentage occurrence among the abundance pa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Absolute carbon abundances as a function of the metallicity for stars in the literature where starfit results are available, including J0433−5548 (blue filled circle with a black outline). The point sizes and colors reflect the pro￾genitor mass and explosion energies,…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: (LZ , Etot). Stars with LZ < 0 are on prograde motion while those exhibiting LZ > 0 are retrograde. The gray band at Etot > 0 highlights the threshold for unbound stars under the P. J. McMillan (2017) Milky Way model potential. Middle: (LZ , LY ). The orange pol…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbits of J0711−5513 (left), J0712−5422 (middle), and J0717−6019 (right) in a model potential that includes both the Milky Way and the LMC on first infall (E. Vasiliev et al. 2021). The panels show the different star’s distance to the LMC (rLMC) as a function of lookb…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The DECam MAGIC Survey: Uncovering the Tidal Tails of the Crater II Dwarf Galaxy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Calcium-strength photometry identifies 37 candidate stars in Crater II's tidal tails, implying the dwarf has lost at least 25% of its initial stellar mass.

  2. Discovery of an $\rm[Fe/H] \sim -4.8$ Star in $Gaia$ XP Spectra

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GDR3_526285 is a red giant with [Fe/H] = -4.82 +/- 0.25, one of the most iron-poor stars known, whose carbon upper limit leaves open a rare non-carbon-enhanced origin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

179 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9

    Abohalima, A., & Frebel, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 2018

  2. [2]

    V., Kernighan, B

    Aho, A. V., Kernighan, B. W., & Weinberger, P. J. 1987, The A WK Programming Language (Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.)

    1987

  3. [3]

    Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b0d 2022

  4. [4]

    K., & Frebel, A

    Mardini, M. K., & Frebel, A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4712, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae670

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae670 2024

  5. [5]

    C., Christlieb, N., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Christlieb, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 492, doi: 10.1086/509817

    doi:10.1086/509817 2007

  6. [6]

    M., Lee, Y

    Arentsen, A., Placco, V. M., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2062

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2062 2022

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f...

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    O., Chiti, A., Limberg, G., et al

    Barbosa, F. O., Chiti, A., Limberg, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03593, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03593

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03593 2025

Show all 179 references
  1. [9]

    S., Christlieb, N., Beers, T

    Barklem, P. S., Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052967

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, A&A, 608, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731879

    Battaglia, G., North, P., Jablonka, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731879

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Irwin, M

    Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 337, doi: 10.1086/511302

    2007 doi

  5. [14]

    2010, A&A, 522, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014250

    Bergemann, M., & Cescutti, G. 2010, A&A, 522, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014250

    2010 doi

  6. [15]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/113

    Plez, B. 2015, ApJ, 804, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/113

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/115

    Bergemann, M., Kudritzki, R.-P., W¨ url, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/115

    2013 doi

  8. [18]

    C., & Gehren, T

    Bergemann, M., Pickering, J. C., & Gehren, T. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1334, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15736.x

    2010

  9. [19]

    J., Eitner, P., et al

    Bergemann, M., Gallagher, A. J., Eitner, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935811

    2019 doi

  10. [20]

    A., Gunnels, S

    Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moo...

    2003 doi

  11. [21]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 949, doi: 10.1086/521385

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 949, doi: 10.1086/521385

    2007 doi

  12. [22]

    2011, PASP, 123, 789, doi: 10.1086/660849

    Bessell, M., Bloxham, G., Schmidt, B., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 789, doi: 10.1086/660849

    2011 doi

  13. [23]

    S., Collet, R., Keller, S

    Bessell, M. S., Collet, R., Keller, S. C., et al. 2015, ApJL, 806, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L16

    2015 doi

  14. [24]

    Bidelman, W. P. 1956, Vistas in Astronomy, 2, 1428, doi: 10.1016/0083-6656(56)90071-X

    1956 doi

  15. [25]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  16. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06335

    Bonifacio, P., Caffau, E., Fran¸ cois, P., & Spite, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06335

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [27]

    2021, A&A, 653, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038841

    Bonoli, S., Mar´ ın-Franch, A., Varela, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038841

    2021 doi

  18. [28]

    D., Ji, A

    Brauer, K., Andales, H. D., Ji, A. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b9

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    P., Frebel, A., et al

    Brauer, K., Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafafb

    2019 doi

  20. [30]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    Bromm, V. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    2013 doi

  21. [31]

    J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

    Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3274

    2024 doi

  22. [32]

    Casey, A. R. 2014, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5968

    2014 arXiv

  23. [33]

    R., Hawkins, K., Hogg, D

    Casey, A. R., Hawkins, K., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa69c2

    2017 doi

  24. [34]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

    2004

  25. [35]

    J., Moles, M., Crist´ obal-Hornillos, D., et al

    Cenarro, A. J., Moles, M., Crist´ obal-Hornillos, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833036

    2019 doi

  26. [36]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 956, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bf 20

    doi

  27. [37]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 951, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf13

    doi

  28. [38]

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Jerjen, H., Kim, D., & Norris, J. E. 2020, ApJ, 891, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d72

    2020 doi

  29. [39]

    K., et al

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Mardini, M. K., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf73d

    2021 doi

  30. [40]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  31. [41]

    J., Wisotzki, L., & Reimers, D

    Christlieb, N., Green, P. J., Wisotzki, L., & Reimers, D. 2001a, A&A, 375, 366, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010814

    doi

  32. [42]

    2008, A&A, 484, 721, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748

    Christlieb, N., Sch¨ orck, T., Frebel, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 721, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748

    2008 doi

  33. [43]

    2001b, A&A, 366, 898, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000269

    Christlieb, N., Wisotzki, L., Reimers, D., et al. 2001b, A&A, 366, 898, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000269

    doi

  34. [44]

    S., Beers, T

    Christlieb, N., Bessell, M. S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 904, doi: 10.1038/nature01142

    2002 doi

  35. [45]

    Cioni, M. R. L., van der Marel, R. P., Loup, C., & Habing, H. J. 2000, A&A, 359, 601, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003223

    2000 doi arXiv

  36. [46]

    Cooke, R., Pettini, M., & Murphy, M. T. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 347, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21470.x

    2012

  37. [47]

    Nissen, P. E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1534, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19365.x

    2011

  38. [48]

    J., & Madau, P

    Cooke, R. J., & Madau, P. 2014, ApJ, 791, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/116 da Silva, A. R., & Smiljanic, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04926, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04926

    2014 doi arXiv

  39. [49]

    J., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Koposov, S. E., Fattahi, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad535

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R

    Deason, A. J., Mao, Y.-Y., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 821, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/5

    2016 doi

  41. [51]

    Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., & Yi, S. K. 2004, ApJS, 155, 667, doi: 10.1086/424966

    2004 doi

  42. [52]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  43. [53]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    2008 doi

  44. [54]

    A., Sestito, F., et al

    Dovgal, A., Venn, K. A., Sestito, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3673

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    L., Nidever, D

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Carlin, J. L., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac079d

    2021 doi

  46. [56]

    S., Adam´ ow, M., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Ferguson, P. S., Adam´ ow, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac78eb D’Souza, R., & Bell, E. F. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5300, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3081

    2022 doi

  47. [57]

    Duner, N. C. 1899, ApJ, 9, 119, doi: 10.1086/140561

    doi

  48. [58]

    Ezer, D., & Cameron, A. G. W. 1971, Ap&SS, 14, 399, doi: 10.1007/BF00653327

    1971 doi

  49. [59]

    U., et al

    Ezzeddine, R., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    J., Frenk, C

    Fattahi, A., Deason, A. J., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2221

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    K., Feltzing, S., Sahlholdt, C

    Feuillet, D. K., Feltzing, S., Sahlholdt, C. L., & Casagrande, L. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1888

    2020 doi

  52. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01982, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.01982

    Fitzpatrick, M., Placco, V., Bolton, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01982, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.01982

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [63]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  54. [64]

    R., Gilmore, G., Heger, A., & Chan, C

    Fraser, M., Casey, A. R., Gilmore, G., Heger, A., & Chan, C. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx480

    2017 doi

  55. [65]

    P., Jacobson, H

    Frebel, A., Chiti, A., Ji, A. P., Jacobson, H. R., & Placco, V. M. 2015, ApJL, 810, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L27

    2015 doi

  56. [66]

    P., Ezzeddine, R., et al

    Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., Ezzeddine, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae848

    2019 doi

  57. [67]

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

    2015 doi

  58. [68]

    2005, Nature, 434, 871, doi: 10.1038/nature03455

    Frebel, A., Aoki, W., Christlieb, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 871, doi: 10.1038/nature03455

    2005 doi

  59. [69]

    E., et al

    Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., Norris, J. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1585, doi: 10.1086/508506 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 6...

    2006 doi arXiv

  60. [70]

    A., Daflon, S., Placco, V

    Galarza, C. A., Daflon, S., Placco, V. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141717

    2022 doi

  61. [71]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  62. [72]

    L., & Keenan, P

    Greenstein, J. L., & Keenan, P. C. 1958, ApJ, 127, 172, doi: 10.1086/146449

    1958 doi

  63. [73]

    Hale, G. E. 1898, ApJ, 8, 237, doi: 10.1086/140526

    doi

  64. [74]

    J., Koch, A., Mashonkina, L., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Koch, A., Mashonkina, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038805

    2020 doi

  65. [75]

    J., Christlieb, N., et al

    Hansen, T., Hansen, C. J., Christlieb, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/162

    2014 doi

  66. [76]

    2006, AJ, 131, 2514, doi: 10.1086/500974

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2006, AJ, 131, 2514, doi: 10.1086/500974

    2006 doi

  67. [77]

    Hartwig, T., Lipatova, V., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2318

    2024 doi

  68. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1176

    Hartwig, T., Yoshida, N., Magg, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1176

    2018 doi

  69. [79]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 21

    2018 doi

  70. [80]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    2002 doi

  71. [81]

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

    2010 doi

  72. [82]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    2018 doi

  73. [83]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158

    2018 doi

  74. [84]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  75. [85]

    A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M

    Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194, doi: 10.1038/370194a0

    1994 doi

  76. [86]

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

    Ishigaki, M. N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 857, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3de

    2018 doi

  77. [87]

    S., Beers, T

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

    2023 doi

  78. [88]

    P., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Simon, J. D., Frebel, A., Venn, K. A., & Hansen, T. T. 2019, ApJ, 870, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bb

    2019 doi

  79. [89]

    P., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Simon, J. D., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acad84

    2023 doi

  80. [90]

    D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R

    Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab08

    2020 doi

  81. [91]

    P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/161

    2013 doi

  82. [92]

    Keenan, P. C. 1942, ApJ, 96, 101, doi: 10.1086/144435

    1942 doi

  83. [93]

    Kelson, D. D. 2003, PASP, 115, 688, doi: 10.1086/375502

    2003 doi

  84. [94]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    2023 doi

  85. [95]

    M., Rodr´ ıguez D´ ıaz, L

    Lagae, C., Amarsi, A. M., Rodr´ ıguez D´ ıaz, L. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245786

    2023 doi

  86. [96]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3198

    Lee, T., Jeon, M., & Bromm, V. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3198

    2024 doi

  87. [97]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2008a, AJ, 136, 2022, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2022

    2022 doi

  88. [98]

    S., Beers, T

    Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2008b, AJ, 136, 2050, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2050

    doi

  89. [99]

    S., Beers, T

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

    2013 doi

  90. [100]

    O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159

    2022 doi

  91. [101]

    C., et al

    Limberg, G., Rossi, S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb87

    2021 doi

  92. [102]

    Limberg, G., Queiroz, A. B. A., Perottoni, H. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb694

    2023 doi

  93. [103]

    S., & Belyaev, A

    Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Belyaev, A. K. 2011, A&A, 528, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016095

    2011 doi

  94. [104]

    Patterson, R. J. 2000, AJ, 120, 2550, doi: 10.1086/316836

    2000 doi

  95. [105]

    K., Frebel, A., & Chiti, A

    Mardini, M. K., Frebel, A., & Chiti, A. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad197

    2024 doi

  96. [106]

    K., Placco, V

    Mardini, M. K., Placco, V. M., Taani, A., Li, H., & Zhao, G. 2019, ApJ, 882, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3047

    2019 doi

  97. [107]

    K., Placco, V

    Mardini, M. K., Placco, V. M., Meiron, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc13

    2020 doi

  98. [108]

    K., Frebel, A., Ezzeddine, R., et al

    Mardini, M. K., Frebel, A., Ezzeddine, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2783

    2022 doi

  99. [109]

    J., & Przybilla, N

    Mashonkina, L., Korn, A. J., & Przybilla, N. 2007, A&A, 461, 261, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065999

    2007 doi

  100. [110]

    McCall, M. L. 2004, AJ, 128, 2144, doi: 10.1086/424933

    2004 doi

  101. [111]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  102. [112]

    Mcmahon, L. E. 1979, in UNIX Programmer’s Manual - 7th Edition, volume 2, Bell Telephone Laboratories (Murray Hill)

    1979

  103. [113]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    2017 doi

  104. [114]

    E., Hansen, C

    Medina, G. E., Hansen, C. J., Mu˜ noz, R. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3800 Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    2023 doi

  105. [115]

    2010, A&A, 521, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913377

    Meynet, G., Hirschi, R., Ekstrom, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 521, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913377

    2010 doi

  106. [116]

    A., Grand, R

    Monachesi, A., G´ omez, F. A., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz538

    2019 doi

  107. [117]

    2021, A&A, 653, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140979

    Mucciarelli, A., Bellazzini, M., & Massari, D. 2021, A&A, 653, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140979

    2021 doi

  108. [118]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d

    2021 doi

  109. [119]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.09057, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.09057

    2022 doi arXiv

  110. [120]

    J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B

    Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B. A. 2009, ApJL, 700, L61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L61

    2009 doi

  111. [121]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

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

    2013 doi

  112. [122]

    1999, Ap&SS, 265, 37, doi: 10.1023/A:1002136016979

    Nomoto, K., Nakamura, T., & Kobayashi, C. 1999, Ap&SS, 265, 37, doi: 10.1023/A:1002136016979

    1999 doi

  113. [123]

    2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    Maeda, K. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    2006 doi

  114. [124]

    2017, A&A, 607, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730427

    Nordlander, T., & Lind, K. 2017, A&A, 607, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730427

    2017 doi

  115. [125]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy, Vol. 1 (Trelgol Publishing USA) O’Shea, B. W., & Norman, M. L. 2008, ApJ, 673, 14, doi: 10.1086/524006 22

    2006 doi

  116. [126]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14061

    Ou, X., Yelland, A., Chiti, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14061

    2025 doi arXiv

  117. [127]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424

    2024 doi

  118. [128]

    B., & Peebles, P

    Partridge, R. B., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 148, 377, doi: 10.1086/149161

    1967 doi

  119. [129]

    D., Placco, V

    Perottoni, H. D., Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348801

    2024 doi

  120. [130]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al

    Pietrinferni, A., Hidalgo, S., Cassisi, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    2021 doi

  121. [131]

    M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Arentsen, A., et al

    Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Arentsen, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7ab0

    2022 doi

  122. [132]

    M., Beers, T

    Placco, V. M., Beers, T. C., Reggiani, H., & Mel´ endez, J. 2016a, ApJL, 829, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/2/L24

    doi

  123. [133]

    M., Frebel, A., Beers, T

    Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Beers, T. C., & Stancliffe, R. J. 2014a, ApJ, 797, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/21

    doi

  124. [134]

    M., Frebel, A., Lee, Y

    Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/136

    2015 doi

  125. [135]

    M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2021a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 92, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abf651

    doi

  126. [136]

    M., Kennedy, C

    Placco, V. M., Kennedy, C. R., Rossi, S., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1051, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/1051

    2010 doi

  127. [137]

    M., Kennedy, C

    Placco, V. M., Kennedy, C. R., Beers, T. C., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 188, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/188

    2011 doi

  128. [138]

    M., Beers, T

    Placco, V. M., Beers, T. C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2014b, ApJ, 790, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/34

    doi

  129. [139]

    M., Frebel, A., Beers, T

    Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Beers, T. C., et al. 2016b, ApJ, 833, 21, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/21

    doi

  130. [140]

    M., Santucci, R

    Placco, V. M., Santucci, R. M., Yuan, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab99c6

    2020 doi

  131. [141]

    M., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Roederer, I. U., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2021c, ApJL, 912, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf93d

    doi

  132. [142]

    M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E

    Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad077e

    2023 doi

  133. [143]

    M., Gupta, A

    Placco, V. M., Gupta, A. F., Almeida-Fernandes, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8646

    2024 doi

  134. [144]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty330

    2018 doi

  135. [145]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245399

    2023 doi

  136. [146]

    1997, The Messenger, 88, 14

    Reimers, D., & Wisotzki, L. 1997, The Messenger, 88, 14

    1997

  137. [147]

    M., Lee, Y

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

    2022 doi

  138. [148]

    Roederer, I. U. 2017, ApJ, 835, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/23

    2017 doi

  139. [149]

    U., Placco, V

    Roederer, I. U., Placco, V. M., & Beers, T. C. 2016, ApJL, 824, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L19

    2016 doi

  140. [150]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  141. [151]

    C., & Sneden, C

    Rossi, S., Beers, T. C., & Sneden, C. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 165, The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, ed. B. K

    1999

  142. [152]

    X., Brauer, D

    Santiago, B. X., Brauer, D. E., Anders, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323177

    2016 doi

  143. [153]

    1963, ApJ, 137, 758, doi: 10.1086/147553 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W

    Schmidt, M. 1963, ApJ, 137, 758, doi: 10.1086/147553 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    1963

  144. [154]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  145. [155]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708 Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., Vanni, I., Salvadori, S., & Lucchesi, R. 2024, A&A, 681, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346231 Sk´ ulad´ ottir,´A., Salvadori, S., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ...

    2006 doi

  146. [156]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207

    2008

  147. [157]

    Sneden, C. A. 1973, PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin

    1973

  148. [158]

    S., Kraft, R

    Sobeck, J. S., Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 175, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/175

    2011 doi

  149. [159]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 2587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1068

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

    2017 doi

  150. [160]

    Taylor, M. B. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 666

    2006

  151. [161]

    1986, in Proc

    Tody, D. 1986, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  152. [162]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  153. [163]

    2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    2007 doi

  154. [164]

    W., & Arnett, W

    Truran, J. W., & Arnett, W. D. 1971, Ap&SS, 11, 430, doi: 10.1007/BF00649636

    1971 doi

  155. [165]

    W., & Cameron, A

    Truran, J. W., & Cameron, A. G. W. 1971, Ap&SS, 14, 179, doi: 10.1007/BF00649203 23

    1971 doi

  156. [166]

    2005, ApJ, 619, 427, doi: 10.1086/426097 van der Marel, R

    Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2005, ApJ, 619, 427, doi: 10.1086/426097 van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2002, AJ, 124, 2639, doi: 10.1086/343775

    2005 doi

  157. [167]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    2019 doi

  158. [168]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    Vasiliev, E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    2023 doi

  159. [169]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

    Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3673

    2021 doi

  160. [170]

    L., Parker, R., Helfer, H

    Wallerstein, G., Greenstein, J. L., Parker, R., Helfer, H. L., & Aller, L. H. 1963, ApJ, 137, 280, doi: 10.1086/147501

    1963 doi

  161. [171]

    B., Hansen, T

    Webber, K. B., Hansen, T. T., Marshall, J. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0385

    2023 doi

  162. [172]

    D., Placco, V

    Whitten, D. D., Placco, V. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833368

    2019 doi

  163. [173]

    D., Placco, V

    Whitten, D. D., Placco, V. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abee7e

    2021 doi

  164. [174]

    2015,, http://www.gnuplot.info/

    Williams, T., & Kelley, C. 2015,, http://www.gnuplot.info/

    2015

  165. [175]

    J., et al

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

    2009 doi

  166. [176]

    C., Placco, V

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

    2016 doi

  167. [177]

    B., Yang, L., Cruz, P., et al

    Yuan, H. B., Yang, L., Cruz, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3155

    2023 doi

  168. [178]

    C., Beers, T

    Yuan, Z., Myeong, G. C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6ef7

    2020 doi

  169. [179]

    R., et al

    Zaremba, D., Venn, K., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05927, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05927

    2025 doi arXiv

  170. [180]

    P., et al

    Zivick, P., Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4b0 24 APPENDIX A. ATOMIC LINE LIST T able A1. Atomic Data and Derived Abundances J0026−5445 J0433 −5548 J0711 −5513 J0712 −5422 J0717 −6019 J2336 −5400 Ion λ χ log gf EW l...

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.