Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 155 references

The Two-infall Model Revisited: Constraints on Milky Way Bulge Assembly from >30,000 Galactic Chemical Evolution Models and Machine Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's bulge formed in two episodes: an almost instantaneous early collapse that made ~60% of its stars, then a delayed gas infall around 9 Gyr ago that made the rest.

desk verdict A well-executed, honest parameter search, but the claim that a second infall is 'chemically required' rests on a model contrast the paper never actually runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08090 v2 pith:K7Q2URNZ submitted 2025-12-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Niall Miller , Meridith Joyce , Christian I. Johnson , Jamie Tayar , Thomas Trueman , R. Michael Rich This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords MilkyWaybulgetwo-infallmodelgalacticchemicalevolutionmetallicitydistributionfunctionstarformationefficiencyalphaenhancementage–metallicityrelationdegeneracyanalysis
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 tries to establish that the Milky Way's bulge did not form in a single event: it needs two distinct gas-accretion episodes to explain the observed spread of stellar metallicities and alpha-element abundances. The authors fit a two-infall chemical evolution model to a composite metallicity distribution of bulge stars, searching more than 30,000 model variants with a genetic algorithm plus Markov Chain Monte Carlo refinement. Their best scenario has a nearly instantaneous first collapse (starting ~0.1 Gyr after the universe, lasting ~0.09 Gyr) that forms ~60% of the bulge mass with very high star-formation efficiency, followed by a second infall starting ~5.1 Gyr later that contributes ~40% of the mass with reduced efficiency. If right, the bulge is a hybrid object—classical rapid collapse plus later disk/bar or merger-fed gas—and the chemistry favors a revised, older age scale for bulge stars over previously reported younger ages. The authors are explicit that the exact timing and mass split are degenerate; what they argue is robust is that a non-zero second infall is chemically required.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is a one-zone galactic chemical evolution model with a time-dependent star-formation efficiency and a two-component exponential infall history. The first mode, a rapid high-efficiency collapse, builds the old alpha-enhanced population; the second mode, a delayed lower-efficiency inflow, dilutes the interstellar medium and lets Type Ia supernovae add iron, producing the metal-rich, low-alpha sequence. The parameter space—infall onset times and timescales, mass ratio between episodes, star-formation efficiencies, IMF upper mass, and supernova Ia normalization, plus categorical yield and IMF choices—is explored with a hybrid genetic algorithm refined by differential-evolution MCMC

What would settle it

Rebuild the composite MDF target using only one survey at a time, or with a different latitude weighting, and rerun the optimization: if the MAP values for t2, τ2, σ2, and ΔSFE move outside the quoted 68% highest-density intervals, the inferred two-infall history is an artifact of target construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Milky Way bulge's chemical patterns—a bimodal metallicity distribution with peaks near [Fe/H] ≈ −0.3 and +0.3, and an alpha-to-iron decline at high metallicity—are reproduced only when gas falls into the bulge in two episodes governed by a two-exponential infall law. The maximum-a-posteriori solution places the first infall at t1 ≈ 0.1 Gyr with timescale τ1 ≈ 0.09 Gyr and star-formation efficiency ≈ 2.9 Gyr⁻¹, building about 60% of the mass; the second infall begins at t2 ≈ 5.1 Gyr, lasts τ2 ≈ 1.7 Gyr, carries about 40% of the mass, and runs at roughly 28% lower efficiency. The later episode is presented not as an option but as a chemical necessity: with

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-built composite metallicity distribution—equal-weight averaging of two surveys with different selection effects and a fitted latitude scaling—faithfully represents the bulge's true MDF; if that target is biased, every inferred infall parameter shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the old alpha-enhanced bulge population formed within roughly the first 0.2 Gyr of cosmic history—an extreme early starburst that set the chemical baseline.
  • The second infall adds a younger, roughly 40%-mass component around 8–9 Gyr ago; its reduced efficiency is what creates the metal-rich peak and the downturn in alpha/Fe.
  • The bulge's age–metallicity relation implied by reproducing the MDF favors a revised, older age scale for super-solar-metallicity bulge dwarfs over the original younger ages.
  • Because infall timing, mass ratio, and efficiency are strongly covariant, current MDF data constrain only combinations of parameters, not each individually; the existence of a second episode is the robust part.
  • The second infall epoch overlaps both the last major merger and the era of bar formation, so bulge chemistry alone cannot yet distinguish merger-fed from bar-driven late gas supply.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the composite target MDF is an equal 50/50 blend of two surveys with different selection functions; re-running the fit under alternative weightings could shift the MAP values for t2, τ2, and ΔSFE substantially, since no sensitivity analysis is presented.
  • Editorial extension: if reduced second-infall efficiency is the real cause of the low-alpha metal-rich population, spatially resolved multi-zone models should predict a correlation between alpha and vertical metallicity gradients—something the single-zone approach cannot capture.
  • Editorial extension: upcoming large asteroseismic samples in the bulge could test the age-scale choice directly; if the younger ages for metal-rich bulge stars survive, the model's preferred age–metallicity relation would be overturned.
  • Editorial extension: the degeneracy analysis suggests a single observable, such as the height of the super-solar MDF peak or the position of the alpha knee, may be nearly sufficient to certify a second infall; a simple test is to fit single-infall models to each [alpha/Fe] sequence and check whether any can reproduce the downturn.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-infall galactic chemical evolution model of the Milky Way bulge, implemented in an extension of OMEGA+ ("OMEGA++"), and constrains its parameters by fitting a composite MDF assembled from APOGEE DR16 and BDBS data. The optimization uses a hybrid genetic algorithm with DEMC refinement over a 15-dimensional space (10 continuous, 5 categorical), and the resulting weighted ensemble is treated as a pseudo-posterior. The headline results are an early rapid first infall (t1≈0.1 Gyr, τ1≈0.09 Gyr, SFE≈2.9 Gyr−1) that forms ~60% of the bulge mass, followed by a delayed second infall (t2≈5.1 Gyr, τ2≈1.7 Gyr, σ2≈0.69) with reduced SFE, which the authors claim is chemically required to reproduce the metal-rich MDF peak and low-[α/Fe] population. The model's AMR is then compared to observations, favoring the Joyce et al. (2023) age scale over Bensby et al. (2017). Independent MCMC runs for each categorical combination (Appendix A) are used to validate the GA sampler. The manuscript is honest about its pseudo-posterior nature and lists several modeling limitations, but it does not perform a nested single-infall comparison and the composite MDF target is constructed without sensitivity analysis.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a quantitative, observationally constrained picture of bulge assembly with an early rapid collapse and a delayed, sub-dominant second gas infall—relevant to classical versus secular bulge formation debates. The work's main strengths are the unusually wide parameter search, the explicit cross-validation of the GA+DEMC sampler against 288 independent MCMC runs (Appendix A), the transparent treatment of degeneracies via PCA and mutual information, and the out-of-sample use of the AMR rather than fitting it directly. However, the central qualitative claim that a second infall is 'chemically required' is not supported by a nested model test, and the quantitative MAP/HDI values rest entirely on a hand-assembled composite MDF target whose construction is not stress-tested. These issues currently limit the paper's conclusions to conditional on unexamined assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4.2 / §6] The headline claim that a non-zero second infall is 'chemically required' is not demonstrated by any nested model comparison. Table 1 samples σ2 only over 0.1–10.0, so σ2 = 0 is outside the explored prior. The statement in §5.4.2 that 'models with strictly negligible second infall fail' is unsupported by a figure, loss comparison, or likelihood-ratio test. Moreover, the time-dependent ΔSFE parameter can produce late-time SN Ia enrichment and a declining [α/Fe] track even with zero second infall gas (A2=0 in Eq. 2). Thus the data may require two star-formation phases, but not necessarily two gas infalls. Please add a single-infall (or σ2→0) control model and compare its best ensemble loss and MDF/AMR residuals; if such a model cannot fit, show that explicitly. Otherwise, soften the claim to 'two enrichment phases' rather than 'two infalls.'
  2. [§2, Eq. (1)] The composite MDF target is the only optimization target, yet its construction is not tested for robustness. The latitude scaling N/N0 = 1.029 e^{0.476 b} is fitted to Zoccali et al. (2018) and applied to APOGEE latitude fits, then combined 50/50 by equal weight with the BDBS red-clump MDF. The paper itself notes that BDBS appears less bimodal than APOGEE, so the equal-weight choice is substantive. The MAP/HDI values in Table 2 (σ2≈0.69, t2≈5.15 Gyr, ΔSFE≈0.72) are all derived from this specific target. Please provide a sensitivity analysis: re-run the optimization (or re-weight the existing model ensemble) under alternative weightings (e.g., 30/70, 70/30) or with the BDBS-only and APOGEE-only targets. If t2, σ2, and ΔSFE are stable, report this; if they shift, quantify the shift and adjust the conclusions accordingly.
  3. [§3.5 / §4] The pseudo-posterior weights are computed from an uncalibrated ensemble loss L_ensemble = 0.7 L_WRMSE + 0.2 L_cosine + 0.1 L_Huber, with no noise model for the MDF bins. Consequently, the 68% HDI values in Table 2 are not calibrated posterior intervals in a statistical sense—they depend on arbitrary loss weights and bin choices. Since the paper repeatedly uses these intervals to assert constraints (e.g., 't1 is notably more constrained,' 'σ2 is not well constrained'), the absence of a noise model is load-bearing. Please either (a) formulate a likelihood (e.g., Poisson or Gaussian per bin with the published/estimated uncertainties) and re-derive the posterior, or (b) at minimum, demonstrate that the MAP/HDI conclusions are stable under sensible variations of the loss weights and binning (e.g., 0.6/0.3/0.1, 0.8/0.1/0.1, and varied bin widths). This would also make the 'cannot fit' statemen
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Notation is inconsistent: the onset of the second infall is called t2 in Table 1 and the text, but tmax,2 in Eq. (2). Please unify. Also, the parameter ΔSFE is written as both 'ΔSFE' and 'δ SFE' in §5.3 and §5.4.4; pick one.
  2. [Abstract / §5.1] The abstract states '>30,000 GCE models', but Table 5 in Appendix A reports 262,144 GA+DEMC model evaluations (and 9,437,184 MCMC evaluations). The count in the abstract appears inconsistent with the total; please clarify what the 30,000 refers to (e.g., unique posterior-weighted models after filtering).
  3. [References] Reference typos: 'Truemam et al. 2025' in §5.2 should be 'Trueman', and the reference list contains both 'Truemam' and 'Trueman' entries; similarly, 'Cˆot´e et al.' appears with inconsistent accents. Also, the software list includes 'ChatGPT, Gemini'—if these were used in manuscript preparation, this is acceptable, but (i) for reproducibility, specify their role (e.g., text editing vs code generation), and (ii) consider whether journal policy requires this disclosure.
  4. [Figure 11 caption] The caption says 'one for each unique choice of categorical model ingredients Table 1)'—a closing parenthesis is missing. Also, the HDI annotations in Figures 3 and 11 are hard to read at the plotted scale; consider enlarging or tabulating the values.
  5. [§5.2 / Fig. 8] The Ti panel shows a systematic underprediction, which the paper attributes to yield uncertainties. Given that Ti is a known problem, it would help to state explicitly whether the model residuals for Ti are included in any quantitative goodness-of-fit metric, or whether the fit is driven entirely by the MDF (as implied by Eq. 7).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the central inference is an independent parameter fit with an out-of-sample AMR by-product.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative core is a fit of a two-infall GCE model to an observational composite MDF using an explicit ensemble loss (Eq. 7). The MAP/HDI values for t1, tau1, t2, tau2, sigma2, SFE, DeltaSFE, etc. are outputs of that fit, not inputs to it. The AMR comparison is explicitly stated to be a post-optimization by-product and is not used as an optimization target, so the preference for the Joyce et al. (2023) ages is an out-of-sample model output rather than a fitted quantity. The Johnson et al. (2022) MDF and Joyce et al. (2023) AMR are externally anchored observational/age data sets even though they share authors; self-citation overlap of this kind is bias evidence, not circularity. The main scientific caveat is that the claim that a second infall is 'chemically required' is not supported by a fitted single-infall baseline: Eq. 2 imposes a two-infall form and Table 1 samples sigma2 only over 0.1-10.0, so sigma2=0 is outside the explored prior, and no nested model comparison is shown. That is a model-comparison and inference-calibration gap, not a circular reduction of the kind where a prediction equals its input by construction. The paper also transparently acknowledges that its one-zone model cannot uniquely identify the number of infall episodes. Because no derivation step reduces to its own input or to an unverified self-citation, no circularity is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced; OMEGA++ is a software extension, not a physical postulate. The load-bearing ledger is otherwise substantial: 10 continuous parameters plus loss weights are fitted to one constructed histogram (the composite MDF), and the claimed two-infall history is conditioned on the imposed functional form (Eq. 2), the one-zone inflow-only geometry, the pre-enriched STELLAB gas initialization, and the hand-assembled MDF target. The yield, IMF, and SN Ia grids are honest inputs from prior literature, with the Ti tension indicating residual input error.

free parameters (11)
  • t1 (first infall onset) = 0.098 Gyr
    Fitted to the composite MDF; drives the early starburst timing.
  • tau1 (first infall timescale) = 0.093 Gyr
    Fitted to the MDF; sets rapidity of early enrichment.
  • t2 (second infall onset) = 5.145 Gyr (HDI 3.25–8.45)
    Fitted; only weakly constrained, anchors the GSE/bar inflow discussion.
  • tau2 (second infall timescale) = 1.74 Gyr (HDI 0.5–3.7)
    Fitted to the MDF; controls late-time dilution and the metal-rich tail.
  • sigma2 (second/first infall mass ratio) = 0.69 (HDI 0.11–3.1)
    Fitted; the paper concedes this is weakly constrained, with almost order-of-magnitude HDI.
  • SFE (first-phase star formation efficiency) = 2.93 Gyr^-1 (bimodal; secondary peak ~25)
    Fitted to the MDF; posterior is bimodal and the HDI is misleadingly broad.
  • dSFE (multiplicative SFE drop at t2) = 0.72 (HDI 0.39–0.85)
    Fitted; controls low-alpha late population.
  • Mmax (IMF upper mass cutoff) = 108.4 Msun
    Fitted to the MDF; weakly constrained with substantial mutual information with sigma2.
  • MBulge (final stellar mass normalization) = 1.01e10 Msun
    Fitted; acts as a normalization on integrated gas inflow.
  • NIa/Msun (SN Ia normalization) = 5.8e-4
    Fitted to the MDF; controls the [alpha/Fe] knee and late iron enrichment.
  • Loss weight coefficients (0.7/0.2/0.1) = 0.7, 0.2, 0.1
    Hand-chosen in Eq. 7; they define the pseudo-posterior and hence all MAP/HDI numbers.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Bulge is a single well-mixed gas reservoir with instantaneous mixing
    Section 3.1; precludes spatial gradients and migration; authors note it likely underestimates the metal-poor tail by 10–20% and overestimates tau2 by ~0.5–1 Gyr (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Inflow-only evolution, no outflows
    Section 3.1; justified by the bulge's deep potential, but excludes wind and feedback scenarios included in some previous GCE studies.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas infall rate has the two-exponential form of Eq. 2
    Section 3.1; the paper acknowledges that any additional minor or closely spaced inflows are absorbed into the effective second episode (Section 4.1), so the form is imposed, not derived.
  • domain assumption Infalling and initial gas is pre-enriched according to the STELLAB library
    Section 3.1; non-zero initial metallicity for gas and inflows shapes the entire early enrichment path and the metal-poor tail, independent of the fitted parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Composite MDF target defined by Eq. 1 latitude scaling and 50/50 equal weighting of APOGEE and BDBS
    Section 2; both the fitted scaling (to Zoccali et al. 2018) and the equal-weight choice are hand-set, and no sensitivity analysis is presented.
  • domain assumption Nucleosynthetic yield grids (LC18, Karakas, Nomoto, Shen, Gronow) and SN Ia delay-time distributions are correct
    Section 3.1; treated as external categorical inputs; the systematic Ti underproduction (Section 5.2) shows residual yield-model error.
  • ad hoc to paper Final-mass window 5e9 < Mfinal < 3e10 Msun used as a model filter
    Section 3.5; the 'physical plausibility constraint' truncates the ensemble and therefore shapes the pseudo-posterior.
  • domain assumption IMF family spans the true bulge IMF
    Section 3.2, Table 1; posterior fractions stay broad (Chabrier 0.58, Kroupa 0.40, Salpeter 0.02), so the data do not validate the IMF choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Two-infall Model Revisited: Constraints on Milky Way Bulge Assembly from >30,000 Galactic Chemical Evolution Models and Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7Q2URNZ

@misc{pith2026251208090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Two-infall Model Revisited: Constraints on Milky Way Bulge Assembly from >30,000 Galactic Chemical Evolution Models and Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7Q2URNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08090}
}
abstract

We constrain the formation history of the Milky Way bulge using a two-infall galactic chemical evolution (GCE) algorithm implemented in the N'OMEGA+ code. We recover a best-fit scenario in which the bulge forms through an early, rapid starburst ($t_1 \sim 0.1$ Gyr, $\tau_1 \sim 0.09$ Gyr, and star formation efficiency (SFE) $\sim 3~\mathrm{Gyr}^{-1}$), followed by a delayed, lower-mass second infall ($t_2 \sim 5.1$ Gyr, $\tau_2 \sim 1.7$ Gyr, and $\sigma_2 \sim 0.69$). Our model adopts mass- and metallicity-dependent nucleosynthetic yields from modern stellar grids and explores a wide GCE parameter space in infall timing, SFE, mass partitioning, initial mass function upper mass, and type Ia supernova normalization, optimized via a hybrid genetic algorithm with Markov Chain Monte Carlo refinement. The later infall features a reduced SFE ($\Delta\mathrm{SFE} \sim 0.72$), reproducing the metal-rich peak of the bulge metallicity distribution function (MDF) and the decline in [$\alpha$/Fe] at high [Fe/H]. Our model naturally favors the M. Joyce et al. age--metallicity relation over the ages in T. Bensby et al. Degeneracy and principal component analyses show that the infall history, SFE, and mass partitioning are strongly covariant---the bulge's observed MDF, abundance trends, and age distribution constrain only their combinations, not each parameter independently. The results support a composite bulge origin---an early, rapid collapse builds the majority of the mass, while a younger component is required to match the late-stage enrichment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the two–infall framework used in this work. Left: Face-on (looking down the Galaxys rotation axis) view of the early bulge depicting the first infall (Shown by the blue arrows), represented as a rapid, centrally directed collapse that builds the classical bulge (Orange circle) in the absence of a bar or extended disk. Right: Diagonal view of the later galactic bulge during the second infall… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure shows the [Fe/H] distribution for the Milky Way bulge. Dashed lines indicate individual MDF fits from APOGEE DR16 across various Galactic latitude bands ‘|b|’. The APOGEE Composite (thick black line) is the lat￾itude-weighted average of the APOGEE fits. The BDBS MDF (blue line) is derived from red clump stars Johnson et al. (2022). The composite MDF (thick red line) represents the final, equally-weighted … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Corner plot of posterior showing 1D histograms (diagonals) and 2D density (off–diagonals) continuous parameter groups. The black cross indicates the maximum a posteriori (MAP). The red square highlights the Highest Density Interval (HDI) preserve a viable MDF. A similar negative correlation is seen between the onset time of the second infall (t2) and SFE (ρw ≃ −0.20), while τ2 is negatively correlated with the first… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter dependency analysis. Left: Fitness-weighted Pearson correlation matrix. Right: Mutual information matrix which highlights both linear and nonlinear dependencies. Parameter pairs with high mutual information but low corre￾lation indicate strong nonlinear coupl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Principal component analysis of the top-performing models. Left: Parameter loadings on the first six principal components, showing which parameters contribute most strongly to each mode of variation. Right: The variance explained by each principal component. The first …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior corner plot for the continuous model parameters. Diagonal panels show 1D marginalized distributions with MAP (solid line) and 68% highest–density intervals (dashed lines). Lower–triangle panels show the MDF–weighted model ensemble as a background point cloud …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Metallicity distribution function (MDF) of the bulge for the best-fit two-infall model compared to the observed MDF. In the upper panel, the blue shading shows the posterior predictive distribution of model MDFs as a function of [Fe/H], the red curve marks the single b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] relations for individual bulge α-elements Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti for the best-fit two-infall model. In each panel, blue shading shows the posterior predictive distribution of the model abundance ratios, the red curve traces the median (best-fit) mod…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior age–metallicity relation (AMR) for the bulge. The blue density field shows the weighted posterior ensemble of chemically acceptable models; the solid red line traces the MAP model. Individual stellar measurements are overplotted for comparison: Joyce et al. (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior age–abundance relations obtained by mapping each model’s [α/Fe]–[Fe/H] track through the median posterior age–metallicity relation. Blue shading indicates the weighted posterior density, and the solid red curve shows the best model. Observed bulge abundances…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Corner plot of the joint posterior distribution in the continuous two–infall parameters obtained by combining 288 independent MCMC runs, one for each unique choice of categorical model ingredients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Convergence of the GA posterior. Solid lines show the evolution of the 68% HPD ellipse size for several parameter pairs as a function of generation for a single GA run. Dotted lines show the corresponding HPD sizes measured from the combined pseudo–posterior used in t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Uncertainties in Galactic Chemical Evolution Models

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    G., Navarro , J

    Abadi , M. G., Navarro , J. F., Steinmetz , M., & Eke , V. R. 2003 a , , 591, 499, 10.1086/375512

    doi:10.1086/375512 2003

  5. [5]

    2003 b , , 597, 21, 10.1086/378316

    ---. 2003 b , , 597, 21, 10.1086/378316

    doi:10.1086/378316 2003

  6. [6]

    F., et al

    Arentsen , A., Starkenburg , E., Martin , N. F., et al. 2020, , 491, L11, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz156

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz156 2020

  7. [8]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 519, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014353

    Babusiaux , C., G \'o mez , A., Hill , V., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 519, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014353 2010

  8. [9]

    K., Matteucci , F., Origlia , L., & Rich , R

    Ballero , S. K., Matteucci , F., Origlia , L., & Rich , R. M. 2007, , 467, 123, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066596

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066596 2007

Show all 155 references
  1. [11]

    2018 b , , 56, 223, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826

    ---. 2018 b , , 56, 223, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051826

    2018 doi

  2. [12]

    2019, , 489, 1082, 10.1093/mnras/stz2158

    Battino , U., Tattersall , A., Lederer-Woods , C., et al. 2019, , 489, 1082, 10.1093/mnras/stz2158

    2019 doi

  3. [13]

    M., Cole , S., & Frenk , C

    Baugh , C. M., Cole , S., & Frenk , C. S. 1996, , 283, 1361, 10.1093/mnras/283.4.1361

    1996 doi

  4. [14]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 611, 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    2018 doi

  5. [15]

    2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 533, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117059

    Bensby , T., Ad \'e n , D., Mel \'e ndez , J., et al. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 533, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117059

    2011 doi

  6. [16]

    2017, , 605, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730560

    Bensby , T., Feltzing , S., Gould , A., et al. 2017, , 605, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730560

    2017 doi

  7. [17]

    2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    2008 doi

  8. [18]

    E., Stark, A

    Binney, J., Gerhard, O. E., Stark, A. A., Bally, J., & Uchida, K. I. 1991, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 252, 210, 10.1093/mnras/252.2.210

    1991 doi

  9. [19]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 591, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05116.x

    Bissantz, N., & Gerhard, O. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 591, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05116.x

    2002

  10. [20]

    Braak, C. J. T. 2006, Statistics and Computing, 16, 239

    2006

  11. [21]

    C., Casertano , S., et al

    Calamida , A., Sahu , K. C., Casertano , S., et al. 2015, , 810, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/8

    2015 doi

  12. [22]

    2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Cescutti , G., Chiappini , C., & Hirschi , R. 2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 334, Rediscovering Our Galaxy, ed. C. Chiappini , I. Minchev , E. Starkenburg , & M. Valentini , 94--97, 10.1017/S1743921317008183

    2018 doi

  13. [23]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  14. [24]

    J., Serenelli , A

    Chaplin , W. J., Serenelli , A. M., Miglio , A., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 382, 10.1038/s41550-019-0975-9

    2020 doi

  15. [25]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795c

    Chen, B.-H., & Li, Z.-Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac795c

    2022 doi

  16. [26]

    2001, , 554, 1044, 10.1086/321427

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

    2001 doi

  17. [27]

    2003, , 339, 63, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06154.x

    Chiappini , C., Romano , D., & Matteucci , F. 2003, , 339, 63, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06154.x

    2003

  18. [28]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/21

    Chieffi, A., & Limongi, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/21

    2013 doi

  19. [29]

    C., Fragkoudi , F., Khoperskov , S., Di Matteo , P., & Combes , F

    Ciambur , B. C., Fragkoudi , F., Khoperskov , S., Di Matteo , P., & Combes , F. 2021, , 503, 2203, 10.1093/mnras/staa3814

    2021 doi

  20. [30]

    1990, , 233, 82

    Combes , F., Debbasch , F., Friedli , D., & Pfenniger , D. 1990, , 233, 82

    1990

  21. [31]

    W., et al

    C \^o t \'e , B., Ritter , C., O'Shea , B. W., et al. 2016, , 824, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/82

    2016 doi

  22. [32]

    W., O’Shea, B

    Côté, B., Silvia, D. W., O’Shea, B. W., Smith, B., & Wise, J. H. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe8f

    2018 doi

  23. [33]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 213, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5a88

    Côté, B., Yagüe, A., Világos, B., & Lugaro, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 213, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5a88

    2019 doi

  24. [34]

    O., Johnson , J

    Dubay , L. O., Johnson , J. A., Johnson , J. W., & Roberts , J. D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.00988, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00988

    2025 doi

  25. [36]

    1999 b , , 517, 103, 10.1086/307200

    ---. 1999 b , , 517, 103, 10.1086/307200

    1999 doi

  26. [37]

    2015, , 454, 3641, 10.1093/mnras/stv2247

    Fanali , R., Dotti , M., Fiacconi , D., & Haardt , F. 2015, , 454, 3641, 10.1093/mnras/stv2247

    2015 doi

  27. [38]

    K., Sahlholdt , C

    Feuillet , D. K., Sahlholdt , C. L., Feltzing , S., & Casagrande , L. 2021, , 508, 1489, 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    2021 doi

  28. [39]

    Figer , D. F. 2005, , 434, 192, 10.1038/nature03293

    2005 doi

  29. [40]

    2012, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13, 2171

    Fortin, F.-A., De Rainville , F.-M., Gardner, M.-A., Parizeau, M., & Gagn\'e, C. 2012, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13, 2171

    2012

  30. [41]

    Fragkoudi , F., Grand , R. J. J., Pakmor , R., et al. 2020, , 494, 5936, 10.1093/mnras/staa1104

    2020 doi

  31. [42]

    2020, , 499, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/staa2866

    Fraser-McKelvie , A., Merrifield , M., Arag \'o n-Salamanca , A., et al. 2020, , 499, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/staa2866

    2020 doi

  32. [43]

    1998, , 338, 161

    Fuhrmann , K. 1998, , 338, 161

    1998

  33. [44]

    Gaudi , B. S. 2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 54, 102.146

    2022

  34. [45]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Ghosh-Coutinho , I., Dorn-Wallenstein , T., Levesque , E., & Davenport , J. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 241, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#241, 401.31

    2023

  35. [46]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

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

    2012

  36. [47]

    A., Rejkuba , M., Zoccali , M., et al

    Gonzalez , O. A., Rejkuba , M., Zoccali , M., et al. 2013, , 552, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220842

    2013 doi

  37. [48]

    2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 530, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116548

    ---. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 530, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116548

    2011 doi

  38. [49]

    A., Clarkson , W., Debattista , V

    Gonzalez , O. A., Clarkson , W., Debattista , V. P., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.08670, 10.48550/arXiv.1812.08670

    2018 doi arXiv

  39. [50]

    Green, P. J. 1995, Biometrika, 82, 711. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2337340

    1995

  40. [51]

    2005, , 441, 1055, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052926

    Greggio , L. 2005, , 441, 1055, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052926

    2005 doi

  41. [52]

    2012, , 548, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219761

    Grieco , V., Matteucci , F., Pipino , A., & Cescutti , G. 2012, , 548, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219761

    2012 doi

  42. [53]

    H., Johnson , J

    Griffith , E., Weinberg , D. H., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2021, , 909, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6be

    2021 doi

  43. [54]

    2021, , 656, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140881

    Gronow , S., C \^o t \'e , B., Lach , F., et al. 2021, , 656, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140881

    2021 doi

  44. [55]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 132, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132

    2015 doi

  45. [56]

    2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 534, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913757

    Hill , V., Lecureur , A., G \'o mez , A., et al. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 534, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913757

    2011 doi

  46. [57]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.03237, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.03237

    Huber , D., Pinsonneault , M., Beck , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.03237, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.03237

    2023 doi arXiv

  47. [58]

    Jacquier , V., Cirillo , E. N. M., & Spitoni , C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09198, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09198

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [59]

    I., Rich , R

    Johnson , C. I., Rich , R. M., Kobayashi , C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 157, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/157

    2013 doi

  49. [60]

    I., Rich , R

    Johnson , C. I., Rich , R. M., Simion , I. T., et al. 2022, , 515, 1469, 10.1093/mnras/stac1840

    2022 doi

  50. [61]

    I., Marchetti, T., et al

    Joyce, M., Johnson, C. I., Marchetti, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb692

    2023 doi

  51. [63]

    D., Pignatari, M., Stancliffe, R

    Keegans, J. D., Pignatari, M., Stancliffe, R. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 268, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/ace102

    2023 doi

  52. [64]

    C., & De Los Reyes , M

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C., & De Los Reyes , M. A. C. 2021, , 908, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a2

    2021 doi

  53. [65]

    K., Lee , Y

    Kim , Y. K., Lee , Y. S., Beers , T. C., & Koo , J.-R. 2021, , 911, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf35e

    2021 doi

  54. [66]

    I., & Lugaro , M

    Kobayashi , C., Karakas , A. I., & Lugaro , M. 2020, , 900, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  55. [67]

    I., & Umeda , H

    Kobayashi , C., Karakas , A. I., & Umeda , H. 2011, , 414, 3231, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18621.x

    2011

  56. [68]

    2020, , 643, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038686

    Kordopatis , G., Recio-Blanco , A., Schultheis , M., & Hill , V. 2020, , 643, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038686

    2020 doi

  57. [69]

    2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  58. [70]

    2015, , 580, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424171

    Kubryk , M., Prantzos , N., & Athanassoula , E. 2015, , 580, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424171

    2015 doi

  59. [71]

    M., et al

    Kunder , A., Koch , A., Rich , R. M., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 57, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/57

    2012 doi

  60. [72]

    M., Koch , A., et al

    Kunder , A., Rich , R. M., Koch , A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, L25, 10.3847/2041-8205/821/2/L25

    2016 doi

  61. [73]

    Lane , J. M. M., Bovy , J., & Mackereth , J. T. 2023, , 526, 1209, 10.1093/mnras/stad2834

    2023 doi

  62. [74]

    K., Walter , F., Sandstrom , K., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Sandstrom , K., et al. 2013, , 146, 19, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19

    2013 doi

  63. [75]

    2020, , 497, 3557, 10.1093/mnras/staa2205

    Lian , J., Zasowski , G., Hasselquist , S., et al. 2020, , 497, 3557, 10.1093/mnras/staa2205

    2020 doi

  64. [76]

    C., & Newman , J

    Licquia , T. C., & Newman , J. A. 2015, , 806, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  65. [77]

    2018, , 237, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2018, , 237, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    2018 doi

  66. [78]

    2024, , 976, 161, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8352

    Liu , H., Du , C., Ye , D., Zhang , J., & Deng , M. 2024, , 976, 161, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8352

    2024 doi

  67. [79]

    L \'o pez-Corredoira , M., Cabrera-Lavers , A., & Gerhard , O. E. 2005, , 439, 107, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053075

    2005 doi

  68. [80]

    E., Horta, D., et al

    Lucey, M., Sanderson, R. E., Horta, D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb9e8

    2025 doi

  69. [81]

    R., Schiavon , R

    Majewski , S. R., Schiavon , R. P., Frinchaboy , P. M., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 94, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  70. [82]

    2014, , 52, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz , D., Mannucci , F., & Nelemans , G. 2014, , 52, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    2014 doi

  71. [83]

    I., et al

    Marchetti , T., Joyce , M., Johnson , C. I., et al. 2024, , 682, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347570

    2024 doi

  72. [84]

    2001, The chemical evolution of the Galaxy , Vol

    Matteucci , F. 2001, The chemical evolution of the Galaxy , Vol. 253, 10.1007/978-94-010-0967-6

    2001 doi

  73. [85]

    2021, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 29, 5, 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    Matteucci, F. 2021, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 29, 5, 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    2021 doi

  74. [86]

    1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 365, 539, 10.1086/169508

    Matteucci , F., & Brocato , E. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 365, 539, 10.1086/169508

    1990 doi

  75. [87]

    1986, , 154, 279

    Matteucci , F., & Greggio , L. 1986, , 154, 279

    1986

  76. [88]

    2019, , 487, 5363, 10.1093/mnras/stz1647

    Matteucci , F., Grisoni , V., Spitoni , E., et al. 2019, , 487, 5363, 10.1093/mnras/stz1647

    2019 doi

  77. [89]

    2009, , 501, 531, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911869

    Matteucci , F., Spitoni , E., Recchi , S., & Valiante , R. 2009, , 501, 531, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911869

    2009 doi

  78. [90]

    D., Beckman, R

    McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., & Conover, W. J. 1979, Technometrics, 21, 239. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1268522

    1979

  79. [91]

    McWilliam , A., & Rich , R. M. 1994, , 91, 749, 10.1086/191954

    1994 doi

  80. [92]

    M., & Smecker-Hane , T

    McWilliam , A., Rich , R. M., & Smecker-Hane , T. A. 2003, , 592, L21, 10.1086/377441

    2003 doi

  81. [93]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 1491, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1491

    McWilliam , A., & Zoccali , M. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 1491, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1491

    2010 doi

  82. [94]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18367, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18367

    Minchev , I., Attard , K., Ratcliffe , B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18367, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18367

    2025 doi

  83. [95]

    1996, , 459, 175, 10.1086/176879

    Minniti , D. 1996, , 459, 175, 10.1086/176879

    1996 doi

  84. [96]

    Molero , M., Matteucci , F., Spitoni , E., Rojas-Arriagada , A., & Rich , R. M. 2024, , 687, A268, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450418

    2024 doi

  85. [97]

    2015, in The Milky Way and its Stars: Stellar Astrophysics, Galactic Archaeology, and Stellar Populations, 1

    Morossi , C., Di Marcantonio , P., Franchini , M., et al. 2015, in The Milky Way and its Stars: Stellar Astrophysics, Galactic Archaeology, and Stellar Populations, 1

    2015

  86. [98]

    C., Evans , N

    Myeong , G. C., Evans , N. W., Belokurov , V., Sanders , J. L., & Koposov , S. E. 2018, , 863, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7f7

    2018 doi

  87. [99]

    J., van Dokkum , P

    Nelson , E. J., van Dokkum , P. G., F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., et al. 2016, , 828, 27, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/27

    2016 doi

  88. [100]

    2016, , 33, e022, 10.1017/pasa.2015.51

    Ness , M., & Freeman , K. 2016, , 33, e022, 10.1017/pasa.2015.51

    2016 doi

  89. [101]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 14, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/14

    Ness , M., & Lang , D. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 14, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/14

    2016 doi

  90. [102]

    2020, , 637, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037604

    Neumann , J., Fragkoudi , F., P \'e rez , I., et al. 2020, , 637, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037604

    2020 doi

  91. [103]

    L., Gilbert , K., Tollerud , E., et al

    Nidever , D. L., Gilbert , K., Tollerud , E., et al. 2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 377, Early Disk-Galaxy Formation from JWST to the Milky Way, ed. F. Tabatabaei , B. Barbuy , & Y.-S. Ting , 115--122, 10.1017/S1743921323002016

    2024 doi

  92. [104]

    2023, , 671, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245374

    Nieuwmunster , N., Nandakumar , G., Spitoni , E., et al. 2023, , 671, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245374

    2023 doi

  93. [105]

    2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  94. [106]

    2018, , 214, 67, 10.1007/s11214-018-0499-0

    Nomoto , K., & Leung , S.-C. 2018, , 214, 67, 10.1007/s11214-018-0499-0

    2018 doi

  95. [107]

    K., & Dubinski , J

    O'Neill , J. K., & Dubinski , J. 2003, , 346, 251, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07085.x

    2003

  96. [108]

    1995, Nature, 377, 701, 10.1038/377701a0

    Ortolani , S., Renzini , A., Gilmozzi , R., et al. 1995, Nature, 377, 701, 10.1038/377701a0

    1995 doi

  97. [109]

    A., Recio-Blanco , A., Poggio , E., et al

    Palicio , P. A., Recio-Blanco , A., Poggio , E., et al. 2023, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 orbital parameters and actions (Palicio+, 2023) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/670/L7. Originally published in: 2023A&A...670L...7P

    2023

  98. [110]

    2024, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Restricted sample of Gaia-ESO open clusters (Palla+, 2024) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/690/A334

    Palla , M., Magrini , L., Spitoni , E., et al. 2024, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Restricted sample of Gaia-ESO open clusters (Palla+, 2024) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/690/A334. Originally published in: 2024A&A...690A.334P

    2024

  99. [111]

    2008, , 687, L95, 10.1086/593350

    Pignatari , M., Gallino , R., Meynet , G., et al. 2008, , 687, L95, 10.1086/593350

    2008 doi

  100. [112]

    2016, , 225, 24, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/24

    Pignatari , M., Herwig , F., Hirschi , R., et al. 2016, , 225, 24, 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/24

    2016 doi

  101. [113]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1233, 10.1093/mnras/stx1293

    Portail , M., Wegg , C., Gerhard , O., & Ness , M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1233, 10.1093/mnras/stx1293

    2017 doi

  102. [114]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/sty316

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., & Cristallo, S. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/sty316

    2018 doi

  103. [115]

    Queiroz , A. B. A., Chiappini , C., Perez-Villegas , A., et al. 2021, , 656, A156, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039030

    2021 doi

  104. [116]

    A., James , R

    Raha , N., Sellwood , J. A., James , R. A., & Kahn , F. D. 1991, , 352, 411, 10.1038/352411a0

    1991 doi

  105. [117]

    Rich , R. M. 1990 a , , 362, 604, 10.1086/169299

    1990 doi

  106. [118]

    Rich , R. M. 1990 b , in European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 35, European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, ed. B. J. Jarvis & D. M. Terndrup , 65

    1990

  107. [119]

    2018, , 480, 538, 10.1093/mnras/sty1729

    Ritter , C., Herwig , F., Jones , S., et al. 2018, , 480, 538, 10.1093/mnras/sty1729

    2018 doi

  108. [120]

    2020, , 499, 1037, 10.1093/mnras/staa2807

    Rojas-Arriagada , A., Zasowski , G., Schultheis , M., et al. 2020, , 499, 1037, 10.1093/mnras/staa2807

    2020 doi

  109. [121]

    2018, , 609, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731572

    Ruiz-Dern , L., Babusiaux , C., Arenou , F., Turon , C., & Lallement , R. 2018, , 609, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731572

    2018 doi

  110. [122]

    2025, , 699, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554791

    Ryde , N., Nandakumar , G., Albarrac \' n , R., et al. 2025, , 699, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554791

    2025 doi

  111. [123]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  112. [124]

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

    Sanders, J. L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 2972, 10.1093/mnras/stae711

    2024 doi

  113. [125]

    R., Chaboyer , B., et al

    Sarajedini , A., Bedin , L. R., Chaboyer , B., et al. 2007, , 133, 1658, 10.1086/511979

    2007 doi

  114. [126]

    Schneider , F. R. N., Sana , H., Evans , C. J., et al. 2018, Science, 359, 69, 10.1126/science.aan0106

    2018 doi

  115. [127]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 396, 203, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14750.x

    Schönrich, R., & Binney, J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 396, 203, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14750.x

    2009

  116. [128]

    K., Falcón-Barroso, J., Martínez-Valpuesta, I., et al

    Seidel, M. K., Falcón-Barroso, J., Martínez-Valpuesta, I., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 3784, 10.1093/mnras/stw1209

    2016 doi

  117. [129]

    R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Sharma, S., Hayden, M. R., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5882, 10.1093/mnras/stab2015

    2021 doi

  118. [130]

    M., Kormendy , J., et al

    Shen , J., Rich , R. M., Kormendy , J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, L72, 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L72

    2010 doi

  119. [131]

    J., Kasen , D., Miles , B

    Shen , K. J., Kasen , D., Miles , B. J., & Townsley , D. M. 2018, , 854, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8de

    2018 doi

  120. [132]

    2018, , 475, 5487, 10.1093/mnras/sty150

    Silva Aguirre , V., Bojsen-Hansen , M., Slumstrup , D., et al. 2018, , 475, 5487, 10.1093/mnras/sty150

    2018 doi

  121. [133]

    2011, , 531, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015749

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

    2011 doi

  122. [134]

    2009, , 504, 87, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911768

    Spitoni , E., Matteucci , F., Recchi , S., Cescutti , G., & Pipino , A. 2009, , 504, 87, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911768

    2009 doi

  123. [135]

    2019, , 623, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188

    Spitoni , E., Silva Aguirre , V., Matteucci , F., Calura , F., & Grisoni , V. 2019, , 623, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834188

    2019 doi

  124. [136]

    2020, , 635, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937275

    Spitoni , E., Verma , K., Silva Aguirre , V., & Calura , F. 2020, , 635, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937275

    2020 doi

  125. [137]

    A., Lund , M

    Street , R. A., Lund , M. B., Khakpash , S., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.03137, 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03137

    2018 doi arXiv

  126. [138]

    G., Dahlen , T., et al

    Strolger , L.-G., Riess , A. G., Dahlen , T., et al. 2004, , 613, 200, 10.1086/422901

    2004 doi

  127. [139]

    G., Dahlen, T., et al

    Strolger, L.-G., Riess, A. G., Dahlen, T., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 1370, 10.1086/497534

    2005 doi

  128. [140]

    M., Renzini , A., et al

    Tacchella , S., Carollo , C. M., Renzini , A., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 314, 10.1126/science.1261094

    2015 doi

  129. [141]

    1996, , 460, 408, 10.1086/176980

    Thielemann , F.-K., Nomoto , K., & Hashimoto , M.-A. 1996, , 460, 408, 10.1086/176980

    1996 doi

  130. [142]

    X., Woosley , S

    Timmes , F. X., Woosley , S. E., & Weaver , T. A. 1995, , 98, 617, 10.1086/192172

    1995 doi

  131. [143]

    Tinsley , B. M. 1979, , 229, 1046, 10.1086/157039

    1979 doi

  132. [144]

    Truemam , T. C. L., Yag \"u e L \'o pez , A., Lugaro , M., & Pignatari , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20956, 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20956

    2025 doi

  133. [145]

    Trueman , T. C. L., Pignatari , M., Cseh , B., et al. 2025, , 696, A164, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348255

    2025 doi

  134. [146]

    2012, , 747, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/125

    Tsujimoto , T., & Bekki , K. 2012, , 747, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/125

    2012 doi

  135. [147]

    M., et al

    Uttenthaler , S., Schultheis , M., Nataf , D. M., et al. 2012, , 546, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219055

    2012 doi

  136. [148]

    Valenti , E., Origlia , L., & Ferraro , F. R. 2005, , 361, 272, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09173.x

    2005

  137. [149]

    A., et al

    Valenti , E., Zoccali , M., Gonzalez , O. A., et al. 2016, , 587, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527500

    2016 doi

  138. [150]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 1874, 10.1093/mnras/stt1376

    Wegg , C., & Gerhard , O. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 1874, 10.1093/mnras/stt1376

    2013 doi

  139. [151]

    2013, , 434, 84, 10.1093/mnras/stt1002

    Weidner , C., Kroupa , P., & Pflamm-Altenburg , J. 2013, , 434, 84, 10.1093/mnras/stt1002

    2013 doi

  140. [152]

    1994, JOM - Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 46, 37, 10.1007/BF03222581

    Weiland , H. 1994, JOM - Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 46, 37, 10.1007/BF03222581

    1994 doi

  141. [153]

    J., Downing , N

    Weiss , T. J., Downing , N. J., Pinsonneault , M. H., et al. 2025, , 987, 181, 10.3847/1538-4357/adde5b

    2025 doi

  142. [154]

    1994, Statistics and Computing, 4, 65, 10.1007/BF00175354

    Whitley, D. 1994, Statistics and Computing, 4, 65, 10.1007/BF00175354

    1994 doi

  143. [155]

    2021, , 506, 3330, 10.1093/mnras/stab1943

    Wiseman , P., Sullivan , M., Smith , M., et al. 2021, , 506, 3330, 10.1093/mnras/stab1943

    2021 doi

  144. [156]

    E., & Weaver , T

    Woosley , S. E., & Weaver , T. A. 1995, , 101, 181, 10.1086/192237

    1995 doi

  145. [157]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599, 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    2022 doi

  146. [158]

    2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 486, 177, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809394

    Zoccali , M., Hill , V., Lecureur , A., et al. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 486, 177, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809394

    2008 doi

  147. [159]

    Zoccali , M., Valenti , E., & Gonzalez , O. A. 2018, , 618, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833147

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.