Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: VIII. Galactic Chemical Gradient and Azimuthal Analysis from SDSS/MWM DR19

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 164 open clusters from SDSS-V/MWM DR19, this paper measures a Milky Way disk iron gradient of -0.075 ± 0.006 dex/kpc and finds the gradient varies with azimuth.

desk verdict Solid radial gradient from the largest OCCAM sample yet; the azimuthal variation claim does not survive their own error bars and the abstract overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07264 v2 pith:N3L64PDH submitted 2025-07-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Jonah M. Otto , Peter M Frinchaboy , Natalie R. Myers , James W. Johnson , John Donor , Ahabar Hossain , Szabolcs Mészáros , Halley Walace
show 11 more authors
Katia Cunha Binod Bhattarai Gail Zasowski Sarah R. Loebman Alessa I. Wiggins Adrian M. Price-Whelan Taylor Spoo Diogo Souto Dmitry Bizyaev Kaike Pan Andrew K. Saydjari
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords openstarclustersGalacticchemicalgradientmetallicityFe/HazimuthalvariationsMilkyWaydiskSDSS-V/MWMAPOGEEabundances
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 uses 164 high-quality open clusters from the SDSS-V/MWM Data Release 19 to measure how the Milky Way's iron abundance falls with distance from the Galactic center. The central result is a linear radial [Fe/H] gradient of $-0.075 \pm 0.006$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ (and $-0.068 \pm 0.005$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ using guiding-center radius), meaning the disk loses about 0.075 dex of iron per kiloparsec. The paper also finds evidence that this gradient is not the same at every azimuth around the Galaxy: the slice containing the solar neighborhood is steeper than the global average, while slices on either side are shallower. A reader should care because the slope and its variation are direct constraints on how the Milky Way's disk formed and evolved. The paper further reports gradients for 15 additional elements and finds no strong age evolution in any of them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the open-cluster sample itself: coeval, chemically homogeneous groups that mark discrete points in the disk. Cluster membership is fixed by requiring greater-than-70% probability in a Gaia-based cluster catalog, then applying a 2$\sigma$ Gaussian cut in radial velocity and in [Fe/H]; the surviving stars' mean abundance becomes the cluster value. Gradients are fitted with linear and bilinear functions using a Markov chain Monte Carlo sampler, with model choice judged by the Akaike information criterion. Galactocentric radii are computed in two ways: the present-day $R_{GC}$ and the guiding-center radius $R_{Guide}$ from a Milky Way potential model, the latter used to reduce orbital-blurring effects. The azimuthal analysis splits clusters into wedges of azimuth angle and annuli of $R_{GC}$ and fits the same linear model within each slice.

What would settle it

Remove all single-star (Qual=1) clusters and re-fit the overall and azimuthal gradients; if the linear slope moves by more than its quoted uncertainty or the 175°–185° wedge stops being steeper than the global slope, the central claims are artifacts of membership noise. Alternatively, an independent sample selected with looser membership cuts but the same abundances should reproduce both gradients within errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that open clusters with astrometric membership from Gaia DR2 plus radial-velocity and metallicity cuts yield a robust sample of 164 clusters whose iron abundances define the Galactic metallicity gradient. The preferred single linear fit to [Fe/H] versus current Galactocentric radius is $-0.075 \pm 0.006$ dex kpc$^{-1}$; using the guiding-center radius, which corrects for orbital eccentricity, gives $-0.068 \pm 0.005$ dex kpc$^{-1}$. The Akaike information criterion prefers the linear fit over a bilinear fit with a free knee. The new azimuthal analysis divides the disk into five wedges between $150^\circ$ and $210^\circ$: the solar wedge ($175^\circ$-$185^\circ$) gives the steepest slope, $-0.093 \pm 0.009$ dex kpc$^{-1}$, while wedges on both sides are shallower ($-0.055$ to $-0.076$). Gradients of [X/Fe] for O, Mg, Si, S, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Na, Al, K, Ce, and Nd are mostly flat, with Ce showing a positive slope and Nd a negative one. The paper interprets the azimuthal differences as tentative evidence that the radial abundance gradient varies with azimuth in the Galactic disk.

Load-bearing premise

The cluster mean [Fe/H] values that feed the gradient fits assume the membership selection is clean: every cluster's abundance comes from stars passing a 70% Gaia membership probability plus a 2$\sigma$ cut in radial velocity and [Fe/H], and for one-star clusters the entire measurement rests on a single star being a true member.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The overall slope implies the Milky Way's iron abundance falls by roughly 0.75 dex over 10 kpc, so chemical evolution models must reproduce a steep present-day gradient.
  • The steeper solar-azimuth wedge implies the disk's abundance gradient is not axisymmetric, meaning single radial profiles average over regions with different enrichment histories.
  • Flat azimuthal gradients inside radius annuli imply [Fe/H] changes little with angle at fixed radius, so the azimuthal signal lives in the slope rather than the mean abundance.
  • Age-binned gradients that are similar for the youngest and oldest clusters weaken the expectation of monotonic gradient steepening over time.
  • Discrepancies with literature element gradients indicate that sample membership and abundance-pipeline choices, not just the underlying cluster abundances, shape the recovered gradients.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A robustness check the paper does not run would remove every single-star cluster and refit; if the slope or the solar-wedge steepening shifts outside the reported uncertainties, the central claims are membership-limited.
  • The azimuthal pattern could be tested against spiral-arm tracers such as H II regions and masers to see whether the steepest wedge tracks a spiral passage, a connection the paper leaves open.
  • The reported Mg offset between data releases (attributed to NLTE corrections) suggests flat [Mg/Fe] gradients may be pipeline-dependent; re-deriving them with an independent abundance code would test that.
  • With more spectra from future data releases, the same wedge analysis could map how the azimuthal structure of the gradient changes with cluster age, linking spiral structure to chemical enrichment over time.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. Drawing on SDSS-V/MWM DR19 and Gaia astrometry, the authors construct an OCCAM sample of 164 open clusters with 1083 member stars, derive bulk [Fe/H] and 15 additional element abundances, fit linear and bilinear radial gradients in both R_GC and R_Guide, compare the fits with AIC, analyze age-binned gradients for all elements, and investigate azimuthal variations using five azimuth wedges and four Galactocentric-radius annuli. They report an overall linear [Fe/H] gradient of -0.075 ± 0.006 dex/kpc in R_GC and -0.068 ± 0.005 dex/kpc in R_Guide, find no strong age evolution of the element gradients, and state in the abstract that they find evidence of azimuthal variations in the radial abundance gradient.

Significance. The sample and the associated Value-Added Catalogs (Tables 1–3) are valuable community products, and the cross-survey abundance comparisons (Section 6.1) usefully validate the cluster metallicities. The radial-gradient measurement is on reasonably firm ground: it is based on 164 clusters, includes errors in both x and y, and the R_GC slope is stable when the membership catalog is changed from Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) to Hunt & Reffert (2023) (Appendix B). The AIC comparison of linear versus bilinear fits is a sensible model-selection step. The main novel claim, however—azimuthal variations in the radial gradient—is not supported by the statistics presented in Table 6 and Figures 9–10, and the text contains internal numerical inconsistencies that need to be resolved before the result can be used as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3.1, Table 6, abstract] The abstract and Section 7 claim evidence for azimuthal variations, but the five azimuth-wedge gradients in Table 6 are statistically consistent with the global R_GC gradient. The steepest wedge (175–185°, -0.093 ± 0.009 dex/kpc) differs from -0.075 ± 0.006 by 0.018 dex/kpc, which is only about 1.7σ when the quoted uncertainties are added in quadrature, and the other four wedges are within 1σ. Moreover, the azimuthal gradients in fixed radius annuli (Section 5.3.2, Table 6) are all consistent with zero. A formal test of slope differences, or an explicit statement that this is only a tentative hint, is required before the abstract can assert that azimuthal variations are found.
  2. [Section 5.4.1 / Section 6.4.1 vs Table 4] The text quotes the overall R_Guide slope as -0.074 ± 0.010 dex/kpc (and once as -0.074 ± 0.005), whereas Table 4 reports -0.068 ± 0.005 dex/kpc. Because the age-bin comparisons in these sections are made relative to the overall slope, this inconsistency must be corrected and the affected statements re-evaluated.
  3. [Table 6 vs Figure 9(a)] Table 6 lists N=33 for the 150–165° azimuth wedge, while Figure 9(a) reports N=13. The wedge fits are based on small samples, so this discrepancy directly affects the quoted uncertainty of that slope and must be reconciled.
  4. [Appendix B.2, Table 4] The R_Guide linear gradient, which the paper identifies as its primary radius, changes from -0.068 ± 0.005 dex/kpc with Cantat-Gaudin membership to -0.091 ± 0.006 dex/kpc with Hunt & Reffert membership, a difference of roughly 2.9σ. The abstract and conclusions quote the Cantat-Gaudin value without noting this sensitivity; the R_Guide result should be presented with this caveat, or the source of the discrepancy should be investigated.
  5. [Section 3 / Section 4, Table 1] A substantial number of clusters in the sample have only one member star (Qual=1), and for those clusters the bulk abundance is set by a single star after the 2σ RV and [Fe/H] cuts. The paper does not test how the fitted radial or azimuthal gradients change when Qual=1 clusters are excluded. Given that one mis-assigned or outlier star directly shifts a cluster's abundance, a robustness test that removes these clusters is needed to establish that the headline gradients are not driven by a small number of such systems.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The abstract refers to the 164 clusters as 'high quality,' while Section 3 defines Qual=1 clusters as 'good clusters with only one star'; this terminology should be harmonized to avoid overstating the quality of the full sample.
  2. [Throughout] Typographical errors such as 'preform,' 'descrepancy,' 'mojng,' 'chnages,' 'constrast,' and 'choral dot-dashed line' should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix A] The text cites 'T. Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2018)' when describing the membership catalog used in the main analysis, whereas the main text uses the 2020 catalog; the citation should be made consistent.
  4. [Section 5.2.3] The potassium gradient changes from +0.011 ± 0.006 dex/kpc in R_GC to -0.006 ± 0.006 dex/kpc in R_Guide; the text notes the contrast but does not comment on its plausibility, and a brief interpretation or caveat would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gradient measurements are direct fits to independent spectroscopic abundances, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central results are linear and bilinear fits of cluster [Fe/H] abundances versus Galactocentric radius and guiding-center radius (Section 5.1, Table 4). These are empirical measurements from ASPCAP abundances and Gaia-based membership, not quantities defined in terms of the fitted parameters. The guiding-center radius is computed with the gala potential (Price-Whelan 2017), a co-author's software, but the gradient does not reduce to that potential; it is only a coordinate choice, and the R_GC gradient is presented independently. The OCCAM membership pipeline is inherited from prior OCCAM papers (Donor et al. 2018, 2020; Myers et al. 2022), but the abundances and gradients are independently remeasured from DR19 data, and Appendix B shows the main R_GC gradient is robust to an independent membership catalog. The azimuthal analysis in Section 5.3 fits separate wedge and annulus slopes; these are outputs of the fits, not imposed inputs, and the paper itself describes the azimuthal result as tentative in Section 6.3. The abstract's stronger 'evidence of azimuthal variations' language is an inferential overstatement relative to the flat azimuthal slopes and mutually consistent wedge slopes, but that is a statistical-support problem, not circularity. No equation in the paper equates a prediction with a fit parameter by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained: the gradient values are measurements of the data, and the cited prior work provides methods and context rather than the content of the claims.

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

The measurement rests on external catalogs and pipelines (Gaia/CG2020 membership, ASPCAP abundances, gala potential) rather than invented entities. The main analysis choices are binning schemes and the scatter cut, listed as free parameters above. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Knee location k in bilinear fit = 10.0±1.7 kpc (R_GC); 12.0±2.7 kpc (R_Guide)
    Free parameter in the two-component fit, though the AIC comparison ultimately prefers the linear fit, making the knee a non-central but fitted quantity.
  • Azimuth slice boundaries = 150-210 deg, five bins (e.g., 150-165, 165-175, 175-185, 185-195, 195-210)
    Hand-chosen binning for the azimuthal analysis; the choice of boundaries affects the derived 'variations' in the radial gradient.
  • Radius slice boundaries for azimuthal gradients = 5-8, 8-10, 10-12, 12-14 kpc
    Hand-chosen bins for measuring azimuthal gradients in constant-radius slices; the inner bin was extended to 5 kpc to gain clusters.
  • Age bin boundaries = <=0.4, 0.4-0.8, 0.8-2.0, >2.0 Gyr
    Adopted from previous OCCAM works and Netopil et al. (2022); these boundaries affect the age-gradient evolution analysis.
  • Scatter exclusion threshold = 0.2 dex per element
    Clusters with 1σ scatter >0.2 dex in a given element are excluded from that element's gradient fit, a hand-chosen post-hoc cut that can bias slopes for high-scatter species.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) Gaia DR2 membership probabilities (>70%) correctly identify cluster members
    The sample is built on this membership catalog; incorrect memberships would directly bias cluster mean abundances and the fitted gradients (Section 3, 3.1).
  • domain assumption ASPCAP DR19 abundances are accurate representations of cluster chemistry
    The analysis relies on MWM/DR19 ASPCAP abundances as-is; systematic errors in the pipeline would propagate into all gradients (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The 2022 Milky Way potential model used in gala provides correct guiding-center radii
    R_Guide is computed from this assumed potential; an incorrect rotation curve would shift R_Guide and alter the R_Guide-based gradients (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Solar Galactocentric radius R_sun = 8.34 kpc and a 5% distance uncertainty
    Adopted from Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) for R_GC and R_Guide computations; the 5% error is an adopted value for the fit (Table 1 footnote, Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) cluster ages are reliable for age binning
    The age-evolution analysis uses these ages, while the authors explicitly reject Hunt & Reffert (2023) ages as systematically too young; the gradient evolution results depend on this choice (Section 3 footnote, Section 5.4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: VIII. Galactic Chemical Gradient and Azimuthal Analysis from SDSS/MWM DR19." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3L64PDH

@misc{pith2026250707264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping Survey: VIII. Galactic Chemical Gradient and Azimuthal Analysis from SDSS/MWM DR19},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3L64PDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07264}
}
abstract

The Open Cluster Chemical Abundances and Mapping (OCCAM) survey seeks to curate a large, comprehensive, uniform dataset of open clusters and member stars to constrain key Galactic parameters. This eighth entry from the OCCAM survey, based on the newly released SDSS-V/MWM Data Release 19 (DR19), has established a sample of 164 high quality open clusters that are used to constrain the radial and azimuthal gradients of the Milky Way. The DR19 cluster sample [Fe/H] abundances are roughly consistent with measurements from other large-scale spectroscopic surveys. However, the gradients we calculate deviate considerably for some elements. We find an overall linear Galactic radial [Fe/H] gradient of $-0.075 \pm 0.006$ dex kpc$^{-1}$ using the cluster's current Galactocentric Radius ($R_{GC}$) and a gradient of $-0.068 \pm 0.005$ dex kpc$^-1$ with respect to the cluster's guiding center radius. We do not find strong evidence for significant evolution of the differential element gradients ([X/Fe]) investigated here (O, Mg, Si, S, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Na, Al, K, Ce, Nd). For the first time using the OCCAM sample we have sufficient numbers of clusters to investigate Galactic azimuthal variations. In this work, we do find evidence of azimuthal variations in the measured radial abundance gradient in the Galactic disk using our open cluster sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A selection of example ESA Gaia color-magnitude diagrams (BP − RP, G) from each of the 4 quality categories. APOGEE/MWM calibration clusters (Qual = 4) are shown in the first row, high quality clusters (Qual = 3) with more than 5 stars in the second, high quality clusters (Qual = 2) with 2-4 stars in the third, and good clusters (Qual = 1) with only 1 star in the bottom row. T. Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) ESA Gaia -… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The OCCAM DR19 sample based on T. Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) membership plotted in the Galactic plane, color-coded by [Fe/H]. Diamond points are clusters that were in the OCCAM DR17 sample, and triangle points are clusters that are new in the DR19 sample. The concentric circles show RGC = 5, 8.34 (the solar circle), 12, and 17 kpc. OCCAM papers, we used stars that are within 2σ of the cluster mean in proper motion,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Galactic metallicity ([Fe/H]) gradients using the full sample of reliable clusters (shown as triangles), as a function of current Galactocentric radius (RGC ; top panel (a)) and guiding center radius (RGuide; bottom panel (b)). The bilinear fit (blue lines) and linear fit (coral dot-dashed line), are shown. Fit parameters and knee locations are indicated within each panel. The color bar indicates the number of O… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The [X/Fe] versus RGuide trend for the α-elements (O, Mg, Si, S, Ca, Ti). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same plot as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Metallicity gradients ([Fe/H]) as a function of Galactocentric radius (RGC ) for five slices in azimuth an￾gle (ϕ): (a) 150◦ ≤ ϕ ≤ 165◦ , (b) 165◦ < ϕ ≤ 175◦ , (c) 175◦ < ϕ ≤ 185◦ , (d) 185◦ < ϕ ≤ 195◦ , and (e) 195◦ < ϕ ≤ 210◦ . Points are colored by the cluster age i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The Galactic [Fe/H] versus radius trend in four age bins: (a) age ≤ 0.4 Gyr, (b) 0.4 ≤ age ≤ 0.8 Gyr, (c) 0.8 ≤ age ≤ 2.0 Gyr, and (d) age > 2.0 Gyr. Points colored by the number of stars in each cluster saturating at 10 stars. The derived linear gradient (solid blue …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The slopes of each elemental gradient (d[X/Fe]/dRGuide or d[Fe/H]/dRGuide) in four age bins (age bins defined as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A comparison of the OCCAM cluster radial metallicity profiles with GCE models from J. W. Johnson et al. (2024) and Johnson et al. (2025, in prep.). The top panels show [O/H] versus Galactocentric radius (R), and bottom panels show [Fe/H] versus R. The OCCAM data are s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparing the MWM/DR19 (this work) and APOGEE/DR17 (N. Myers et al. (2022)) bulk cluster [Fe/H] abundances. The measured median offset (+0.010 ± 0.037 dex) is indicated by the solid blue line, while the grey dashed line shows the zero-difference point. A median charac…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Scatter of raw abundances using 526 member stars in common between the OCCAM sample from DR17 (blue dots) with the DR19 ones (red dots). Ngl and Cgl are [N/M] and [C/M] values derived from the global fit of spectra,Nw and Cw are derived from spectral windows centered …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of bulk cluster abundance ratios ([X/Fe]) between MWM/DR19 (this work) and APOGE/DR17 (N. Myers et al. 2022) comparison for 14 elements, plotted against the DR19 [Fe/H] abundance of the clusters. The median offset is indicated by the solid blue line, while …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The OCCAM DR19 sample based on E. L. Hunt & S. Reffert (2023) membership plotted in the Galactic plane. Black triangles are clusters that are present in the both the T. Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) and E. L. Hunt & S. Reffert (2023) based samples of open clusters, whil…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The Galactic metallicity ([Fe/H]) gradients using the full sample of reliable clusters from the E. L. Hunt & S. Reffert (2023) analysis (shown as triangles), as a function of current Galactocentric radius (RGC ; top panel (a)) and guiding center radius (RGuide; bottom…

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 Twentieth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First All-Sky BOSS Spectra, eROSITA-SDSS-V Mapper Coordinated Observations, and a Preview of the Local Volume Mapper

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    DR20 releases over three million BOSS spectra (first southern-hemisphere SDSS-V optical data), 169 LVM integral-field tiles over six targets, and eighteen value-added catalogs.

  2. BOSS-CLAM: Utilizing a Constrained Linear Absorption Model to Infer Stellar Parameters from BOSS Spectra

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new generative pipeline, BOSS-CLAM, infers temperature, gravity, metallicity, and alpha-abundance for 1,708,214 SDSS-V BOSS spectra and releases a validated clean catalog of 915,514 stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.02026

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.02026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.02026

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  3. [3]

    L., Oelkers, R

    Beaton, R. L., Oelkers, R. J., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.11907. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.11907

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    R., Ness, M

    Bhattarai, B., Loebman, S. R., Ness, M. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bac

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bac 2024

  5. [6]

    1999, MNRAS, 307, 857, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02699.x

    Boissier, S., & Prantzos, N. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 857, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02699.x

    arXiv 1999

  6. [7]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/49

    Bovy, J. 2016, ApJ, 817, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/49

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/49 2016

  7. [8]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, ApOpt, 12, 1430, doi: 10.1364/AO.12.001430

    doi:10.1364/ao.12.001430 1973

  8. [9]

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x OCCAM VIII.: Abundance Gradients from SDSS-V/MWM DR1927 0.5 0.0 0.5 [Fe/H] (a) bilinear linear EH RGC RGC < 9.9 -0.111±0.030 dex/kpc RGC > 9.9 -0.039±0.090 dex/kpc Linear: -0.081±0.007 dex/kpc N=150 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 R (kpc) 0.5 0.0 0.5 [Fe/H] ...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [10]

    2018, A&A, 618, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Jordi, C., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    2024, A&A, 687, A239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347648

    Carbajo-Hijarrubia, J., Casamiquela, L., Carrera, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347648

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 3150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw518

    Casamiquela, L., Carrera, R., Jordi, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw518

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Chiappini, C. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 254, The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, ed. J. Andersen, Nordstr¨ oara, B. m, & J. Bland -Hawthorn, 191–196, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308027580

    2009 doi

  6. [15]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 765, doi: 10.1086/303726

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Gratton, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 765, doi: 10.1086/303726

    1997 doi

  7. [16]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1044, doi: 10.1086/321427

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1044, doi: 10.1086/321427

    2001 doi

  8. [17]

    M., Souto, D., et al

    Cunha, K., Frinchaboy, P. M., Souto, D., et al. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 922, doi: 10.1002/asna.201612398

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    V., Hasselquist, S., et al

    Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7beb da Silva, R., D’Orazi, V., Palla, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346982

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Liu, C., et al

    Deng, L.-C., Newberg, H. J., Liu, C., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 735, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/003

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad635

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab77bc

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    Friel, E. D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 381, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.002121 28J. M. Otto, et al

    1995

  15. [24]

    M., Thompson, B., Jackson, K

    Frinchaboy, P. M., Thompson, B., Jackson, K. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L1 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Recio-Blanco, A., Kordopatis, G., ...

    2013 doi

  16. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.09399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09399 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A

    Gallart, C., Surot, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.09399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09399 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    2012

  18. [27]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  19. [28]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad900e

    Hackshaw, Z., Hawkins, K., Filion, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad900e

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/81

    Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., Cunha, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/81

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1244

    Hawkins, K. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1244

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

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

    Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Janes, K. A. 1979, ApJS, 39, 135, doi: 10.1086/190568

    1979 doi

  25. [34]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Vincenzo, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2718

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13256, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13256 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    2017, A&A, 603, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630294

    Magrini, L., Randich, S., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630294

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    2023, A&A, 669, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244957

    Magrini, L., Viscasillas V´ azquez, C., Spina, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244957

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al

    Martell, S. L., Sharma, S., Buder, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2835

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8 M´ esz´ aros, S., Jofr´ e, P., Johnson, J

    Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8 M´ esz´ aros, S., Jofr´ e, P., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.07845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.07845

    2021 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    2013, A&A, 558, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220189

    Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., & Martig, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220189

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2014, A&A, 572, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423487

    Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., & Martig, M. 2014, A&A, 572, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423487

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    2022, AJ, 164, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5

    Myers, N., Donor, J., Spoo, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    A., C ¸ akmak, H., Michel, R., & Karata¸ s, Y

    Netopil, M., Oralhan, ˙I. A., C ¸ akmak, H., Michel, R., & Karata¸ s, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2961

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173

    2015 doi

  37. [47]

    Nielsen, M. T. B., Nelemans, G., Voss, R., & Toonen, S. 2014, A&A, 563, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321722

    2014 doi

  38. [48]

    A., et al

    Poggio, E., Recio-Blanco, A., Palicio, P. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244361

    2022 doi

  39. [49]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, doi: 10.21105/joss.00388 Rodr ´ ıguez,´O., Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2023, ApJ, 955, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2bd

    2017 doi

  40. [50]

    A., Beaton, R

    Santana, F. A., Beaton, R. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.11908. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.11908

    2021

  41. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1

    Sinha, A., Zasowski, G., Frinchaboy, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1

    2024 doi

  42. [52]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43

    Souto, D., Allende Prieto, C., Cunha, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    2022, Universe, 8, 87, doi: 10.3390/universe8020087

    Spina, L., Magrini, L., & Cunha, K. 2022, Universe, 8, 87, doi: 10.3390/universe8020087

    2022 doi

  44. [54]

    S., De Silva, G

    Spina, L., Ting, Y. S., De Silva, G. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab471

    2021 doi

  45. [55]

    2011, A&A, 531, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015749

    Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2011, A&A, 531, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015749

    2011 doi

  46. [56]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1980, FCPh, 5, 287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.02041

    1980 doi arXiv

  47. [57]

    Thompson, T. A. 2024, ApJ, 973, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6313

    2024 doi

  48. [58]

    T., et al

    Willett, E., Miglio, A., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2374

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    2025, AJ, 169, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adba45

    Yang, G., Zhao, J., Yang, Y., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adba45

    2025 doi

  51. [61]

    A., Frinchaboy, P

    Zasowski, G., Johnson, J. A., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/81

    2013 doi

  52. [62]

    E., Chojnowski, S

    Zasowski, G., Cohen, R. E., Chojnowski, S. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9

    2017 doi

  53. [63]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e92

    Zhang, H., Chen, Y., & Zhao, G. 2021, ApJ, 919, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e92

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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