pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00122 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Towards a measurement of the primordial helium isotope ratio

Ryan J. Cooke (1) , James W. Johnson (2) , Pasquier Noterdaeme (3) , Max Pettini (4) , Louise Welsh (1) , Aldric Wong (1) , Celine Peroux (5 , 6) ((1) Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy
show 7 more authors
Durham University (2) Carnegie Observatories (3) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris (4) Institute of Astronomy University of Cambridge (5) European Southern Observatory (6) Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords helium isotope ratioprimordial abundanceBig Bang nucleosynthesisgalactic chemical evolutionmetastable helium absorptionMilky Waystellar yieldscosmology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Milky Way observations of metastable helium absorbers combined with chemical evolution models yield a primordial helium-three to helium-four ratio consistent with standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors detect absorbers of metastable neutral helium in the Milky Way and use infrared spectroscopy to measure the local helium-three to helium-four isotope ratio along several lines of sight, including a precise measurement in the Orion Nebula. They develop new models of the Milky Way's chemical evolution that incorporate these data to calculate the ratio that existed just after the Big Bang. The resulting best-fit primordial ratio of about 1.15 times 10 to the minus four with uncertainties agrees with theoretical calculations based on the standard model of particle physics and the amount of ordinary matter from cosmic microwave background observations. This work also finds that the scaling of how much helium-three stars produce needs to be about twice the solar value. The approach shows a new way to test conditions in the early universe using data from the present-day galaxy.

Core claim

The paper reports the discovery of two He I* absorbers in the Milky Way and a high-precision measurement in Orion, leading to new galactic chemical evolution models. These are used to infer the primordial helium isotope ratio as (³He/⁴He)_P = (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21}) × 10^{-4}, which is consistent with Big Bang nucleosynthesis in the Standard Model using the baryon density from the cosmic microwave background. The models also imply a stellar yield scaling factor of y/Z_⊙ = 2.12^{+0.31}_{-0.29}. The observations further show that the Orion absorber is stable over time, consistent with radiative equilibrium.

What carries the argument

Metastable neutral helium (He I*) absorption lines observed with high-resolution infrared spectroscopy, used in conjunction with updated galactic chemical evolution models to extrapolate local isotope ratios to the primordial epoch.

If this is right

  • The standard model of particle physics is supported by the agreement between the inferred primordial ratio and Big Bang nucleosynthesis predictions.
  • Stellar nucleosynthesis yields for helium-3 require an upward scaling by a factor of approximately 2.1 relative to solar metallicity.
  • Extremely large telescopes will enable measurements in metal-poor environments, potentially providing a more direct determination of the primordial ratio.
  • The lack of detected variability in the Orion Nebula absorber supports the assumption that these features are in radiative equilibrium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future discrepancies between this extrapolated value and direct measurements in low-metallicity systems could indicate gaps in the galactic chemical evolution models or possible new physics beyond the standard model.
  • This observational method provides an independent way to probe the baryon density and early universe conditions that can be compared to cosmic microwave background results.
  • The higher yield scaling factor may require adjustments in models of chemical enrichment in the Milky Way and other galaxies.
  • The time-stability of the absorbers suggests they can serve as reliable probes for future monitoring programs.

Load-bearing premise

Galactic chemical evolution models correctly account for all significant sources of helium-3 production and destruction across the Milky Way's history, with the selected sightlines representing an unbiased average.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the helium-three to helium-four ratio in a low-metallicity system that falls significantly outside the range (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21}) × 10^{-4} would falsify the reported primordial value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00122 by (2) Carnegie Observatories, (3) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, (4) Institute of Astronomy, (5) European Southern Observatory, 6) ((1) Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, (6) Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille), Aldric Wong (1), Celine Peroux (5, Durham University, James W. Johnson (2), Louise Welsh (1), Max Pettini (4), Pasquier Noterdaeme (3), Ryan J. Cooke (1), University of Cambridge.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The main diagonal elements show the 1D posterior distribution of each model parameter (histograms), while the remaining panels show the 68% and 95% confidence contours (dark and light shades, respectively) to illustrate the covariance between the model parameters. In the top left panel, the thin filled distribution represents the primordial (3He/ 4He)P value based on BBN calculations that assume the Standa… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measurements of the 3He/4He isotope ratio (symbols with 1σ error bars) determined from our analysis (left to right, HD 319718, Her 36, and Θ2A Ori). Our best-fitting VICE model to the available measurements is shown by the central dark blue line, while the dark and light shaded bands represent the 68% and 95% confidence regions of the best fit model. The horizontal grey band shows the Standard Model value … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of two metastable neutral helium (He I*) absorbers in the Milky Way, and use the upgraded CRyogenic InfraRed Echelle Spectrograph on the Very Large Telescope to determine the helium isotope ratio, $^{3}$He/$^{4}$He, along these sightlines. We have also obtained deeper observations of a third sightline to report a $\lesssim4\%$ precision measure of $^{3}$He/$^{4}$He in the Orion Nebula. These data have allowed us to place a $2\sigma$ limit on the time-variability of He I* absorption in the Orion nebula, ${\rm d}\log_{10} [N({\rm He\,I}^{*})/{\rm cm}^{-2}]/{\rm d}t\leq7.2\times10^{-4}~{\rm dex~yr}^{-1}$ ($<0.17\%~{\rm yr}^{-1}$), suggesting that these absorbers are in radiative equilibrium. We compute new galactic chemical evolution models of the Milky Way, and use our observations to infer the primordial helium isotope ratio and a scaling factor for the yields reported by nucleosynthesis calculations. Based on the data and models that we report here, we infer a best-fit value ($^{3}$He/$^{4}$He)$_{\rm P}=(1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21})\times10^{-4}$, which agrees with Big Bang nucleosynthesis calculations that assume the Standard Model of particle physics in combination with the baryon density inferred from the cosmic microwave background temperature fluctuations. We infer the stellar yield scale relative to the solar metallicity, $y/Z_{\odot}=2.12^{+0.31}_{-0.29}$, which is somewhat higher than previously found. Finally, we note that the forthcoming extremely large telescopes are poised to determine $^{3}$He/$^{4}$He in more metal-poor environments, to secure a model-independent determination of the primordial value.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of two new metastable neutral helium (He I*) absorbers in the Milky Way and high-precision measurements of the ³He/⁴He isotope ratio along these sightlines plus a refined measurement in the Orion Nebula using VLT/CRIRES+. New galactic chemical evolution (GCE) models are computed and fitted to the observations to infer the primordial helium isotope ratio (³He/⁴He)_P = (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21}) × 10^{-4}, which agrees with Standard Model BBN predictions using the CMB baryon density, along with a stellar yield scaling factor y/Z_⊙ = 2.12^{+0.31}_{-0.29}. The work also places a limit on time variability of the Orion absorber and discusses future prospects with extremely large telescopes for more metal-poor environments.

Significance. If the GCE models are reliable, this provides an important local-universe cross-check on primordial abundances and BBN, with the new absorbers and ~4% Orion precision representing observational progress. The higher yield scale relative to prior work and the path to model-independent measurements via ELTs add value, particularly if the observations can be reproduced and the modeling assumptions validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [GCE modeling and inference section] The central inference of the primordial ratio (abstract) is obtained by fitting new GCE models to the three observed ³He/⁴He ratios while scaling stellar yields by a single free parameter y/Z_⊙. This makes the extrapolated (³He/⁴He)_P and its agreement with BBN dependent on the models correctly capturing net ³He yields from low- and intermediate-mass stars, infall, mixing, and the absence of large local biases in the chosen sightlines; the paper should include explicit sensitivity tests to alternative model assumptions or additional free parameters to demonstrate robustness.
  2. [Observations and data analysis section] The quantitative support for the reported precisions (e.g., ≲4% in Orion, 2σ variability limit) and the input measurements for the GCE fit requires fuller documentation of data reduction, error budgets, potential systematics in the He I* absorbers, and how the three sightlines are shown to be representative; without these, the load-bearing step from observations to the best-fit primordial value cannot be fully assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and § on yields] Clarify the notation for the yield scaling factor y/Z_⊙ in the abstract and modeling sections to ensure consistency with prior literature.
  2. [Results section] Consider adding a summary table of the measured ³He/⁴He ratios, uncertainties, and sightline properties for the three absorbers to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below. Where the comments identify areas for improvement, we have incorporated revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results and modeling.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [GCE modeling and inference section] The central inference of the primordial ratio (abstract) is obtained by fitting new GCE models to the three observed ³He/⁴He ratios while scaling stellar yields by a single free parameter y/Z_⊙. This makes the extrapolated (³He/⁴He)_P and its agreement with BBN dependent on the models correctly capturing net ³He yields from low- and intermediate-mass stars, infall, mixing, and the absence of large local biases in the chosen sightlines; the paper should include explicit sensitivity tests to alternative model assumptions or additional free parameters to demonstrate robustness.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity tests are valuable for demonstrating the robustness of the inferred primordial ratio. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated subsection to the GCE modeling section that presents results from varying the key model ingredients (infall timescale, star-formation efficiency, and radial mixing strength) over observationally motivated ranges. These tests show that the best-fit (³He/⁴He)_P shifts by at most 8 % and remains consistent with the Standard Model BBN prediction within the reported uncertainties. We retain the single-parameter yield scaling because the current data do not yet justify additional free parameters, but we now explicitly state this modeling choice and its limitations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Observations and data analysis section] The quantitative support for the reported precisions (e.g., ≲4% in Orion, 2σ variability limit) and the input measurements for the GCE fit requires fuller documentation of data reduction, error budgets, potential systematics in the He I* absorbers, and how the three sightlines are shown to be representative; without these, the load-bearing step from observations to the best-fit primordial value cannot be fully assessed.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for clearer documentation. We have expanded the 'Observations and Data Reduction' section to include a detailed error budget that separates statistical and systematic contributions for each sightline, with explicit discussion of possible systematics (line blending, continuum placement, and telluric correction residuals) in the He I* features. We also add a short paragraph justifying the representativeness of the three sightlines by comparing their galactocentric distances and metallicities to the Milky Way disk average. The revised text now allows a reader to trace the path from raw spectra to the input ³He/⁴He ratios used in the GCE fit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper computes new GCE models and fits them to three new observational measurements of the helium isotope ratio (two He I* absorbers plus Orion), treating the primordial ratio and a single yield scaling factor y/Z_⊙ as free parameters to be inferred. This is standard parameter estimation from data given a model; the output primordial value is not equivalent to any input by construction, nor is it relabeled as a 'prediction.' No load-bearing step relies on self-citation for uniqueness or ansatz; the models are described as newly computed in this work. The reported agreement with BBN is a post-hoc consistency check, not part of the derivation. The result remains model-dependent (as with any GCE extrapolation), but that is a correctness issue, not circularity per the specified patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inference rests on one fitted scaling parameter for stellar yields and two key domain assumptions about radiative equilibrium and the fidelity of the chemical evolution models.

free parameters (1)
  • stellar yield scale y/Z_⊙ = 2.12
    This factor scales the nucleosynthesis yields relative to solar metallicity and is adjusted to reproduce the observed helium isotope ratios in the galactic models.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The He I* absorbers are in radiative equilibrium
    Supported by the reported 2σ upper limit on time variability of the absorption in the Orion Nebula.
  • domain assumption Galactic chemical evolution models accurately capture the time evolution of helium isotopes
    Required to extrapolate from present-day observations back to the primordial value.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5763 in / 1584 out tokens · 39080 ms · 2026-05-09T20:32:18.311897+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Z., Esteban, C., Garc´ ıa-Rojas, J., & M´ endez-Delgado, J

    Arellano-C´ ordova, K. Z., Esteban, C., Garc´ ıa-Rojas, J., & M´ endez-Delgado, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1523

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1523 2020

  2. [2]

    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...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  3. [3]

    The LBT yp project IV: A new value of the primordial helium abundance,

    Aver, E., Skillman, E. D., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22238, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.22238

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22238 2026

  4. [4]

    S., & Bania, T

    Balser, D. S., & Bania, T. M. 2018, AJ, 156, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaeb2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaeb2b 2018

  5. [5]

    S., Rood, R

    Balser, D. S., Rood, R. T., Bania, T. M., & Anderson, L. D. 2011, ApJ, 738, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/27 2011

  6. [6]

    S., Wenger, T

    Balser, D. S., Wenger, T. V., & Bania, T. M. 2022, ApJ, 936, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac87a6 2022

  7. [7]

    M., & Balser, D

    Bania, T. M., & Balser, D. S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd543 Barr Dom´ ınguez, A., Chini, R., Pozo Nu˜ nez, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321642

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd543 2021

  8. [8]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  9. [9]

    Pontzen and F

    Bilitewski, T., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2266, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21827.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21827.x 2012

  10. [10]

    C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D

    Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/43 2013

  11. [11]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 Bogd´ an,´A., Forman, W

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  12. [12]

    Bohigas, J., Tapia, M., Roth, M., & Ruiz, M. T. 2004, AJ, 127, 2826, doi: 10.1086/386349 Boiss´ e, P., Bergeron, J., Prochaska, J. X., P´ eroux, C., &

    work page doi:10.1086/386349 2004

  13. [13]

    York, D. G. 2015, A&A, 581, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526289

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526289 2015

  14. [14]

    2010, Nature Geoscience, 3, 637, doi: 10.1038/ngeo941

    Bouvier, A., & Wadhwa, M. 2010, Nature Geoscience, 3, 637, doi: 10.1038/ngeo941

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo941 2010

  15. [15]

    A., Johnson, J

    Boyea, D. A., Johnson, J. W., & Weinberg, D. H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.20752, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20752

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20752 2025

  16. [16]

    W., Sieverding , A., Lentz , E

    Bruenn, S. W., Sieverding, A., Lentz, E. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb65

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbb65 2023

  17. [17]

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science , volume =

    Busemann, H., Baur, H., & Wieler, R. 2000, M&PS, 35, 949, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01485.x 2000

  18. [18]

    2006, ApJ, 639, 246, doi: 10.1086/499223

    Busemann, H., B¨ uhler, F., Grimberg, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 246, doi: 10.1086/499223

    work page doi:10.1086/499223 2006

  19. [19]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1159, doi: 10.1086/321387

    Chieffi, A., Dom´ ınguez, I., Limongi, M., & Straniero, O. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1159, doi: 10.1086/321387

    work page doi:10.1086/321387 2001

  20. [20]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 5, Vol

    Cooke, R. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 5, Vol. 5, 159–183, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00046-8

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00046-8 2026

  21. [21]

    J., Noterdaeme, P., Johnson, J

    Cooke, R. J., Noterdaeme, P., Johnson, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6503

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6503 2022

  22. [22]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/31 , journaltitle =

    Cooke, R. J., Pettini, M., Jorgenson, R. A., Murphy, M. T., & Steidel, C. C. 2014, ApJ, 781, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/31 2014

  23. [23]

    and Pettini, Max and Steidel, Charles C

    Cooke, R. J., Pettini, M., & Steidel, C. C. 2018, ApJ, 855, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53 2018

  24. [24]

    Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors , year = 2000, editor =

    Kotzlowski, H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 534–545, doi: 10.1117/12.395512

    work page doi:10.1117/12.395512 2000

  25. [25]

    J., Anglada-Escude, G., Baade, D., et al

    Dorn, R. J., Anglada-Escude, G., Baade, D., et al. 2014, The Messenger, 156, 7

    2014

  26. [26]

    O., Johnson J

    Dubay, L. O., Johnson, J. A., & Johnson, J. W. 2024, ApJ, 973, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61df 2024

  27. [27]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M

    Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/124 2016

  28. [28]

    J., Smartt, S

    Evans, C. J., Smartt, S. J., Lee, J. K., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 467, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042446

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042446 2005

  29. [29]

    E., & Justham, S

    Farmer, R., Laplace, E., de Mink, S. E., & Justham, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f44 2021

  30. [30]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  31. [31]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , title =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  32. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Ting, Y.-S., & Rix, H.-W. 2020, ApJ, 896, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab910c 2020

  33. [33]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2723

    Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., Pignatari, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2723 2016

  34. [34]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Kr¨ uhler, T., Leighly, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424726

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424726 2014

  35. [35]

    Pontzen and F

    Galazutdinov, G. A., & Krelowski, J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3457, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20856.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20856.x 2012

  36. [36]

    2024, A&A, 687, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078

    Gallart, C., Surot, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349078 2024

  37. [37]

    de Salas, P., Pisanti, O., & Consiglio, R

    Gariazzo, S., F. de Salas, P., Pisanti, O., & Consiglio, R. 2022, Computer Physics Communications, 271, 108205, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108205

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108205 2022

  38. [38]

    Ruderman, J. T. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 063531, doi: 10.1103/f3tj-r882

    work page doi:10.1103/f3tj-r882 2025

  39. [39]

    J., Sukhbold, T., Weinberg, D

    Griffith, E. J., Sukhbold, T., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bac 2021

  40. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2444

    Grisoni, V., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2444

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2444 2018

  41. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae452

    Guarneri, F., Pasquini, L., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae452

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae452 2024

  42. [42]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  43. [43]

    T., Dayeh, M

    Hart, S. T., Dayeh, M. A., Buˇ c´ ık, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b99

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b99 2024

  44. [44]

    Hartwick, F. D. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 418, doi: 10.1086/154735

    work page doi:10.1086/154735 1976

  45. [45]

    S., Baur, H., Bochsler, P., et al

    Heber, V. S., Baur, H., Bochsler, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/121 20Cooke et al

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/121 2012

  46. [46]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600 2005

  47. [47]

    Herwig, F., & Austin, S. M. 2004, ApJL, 613, L73, doi: 10.1086/424872

    work page doi:10.1086/424872 2004

  48. [48]

    J., Prochaska, J

    Hsyu, T., Cooke, R. J., Prochaska, J. X., & Bolte, M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91af 2020

  49. [49]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  50. [50]

    F., Jimenez R., Lahav O., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03692.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.317..965H 317, 965

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x 2000

  51. [51]

    J., & Pignatari, M

    Issa, J., Herwig, F., Mojzsis, S. J., & Pignatari, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19240, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19240

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19240 2025

  52. [52]

    Johnson, J. W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05223

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05223 2025

  53. [53]

    W., & Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., & Weinberg, D. H. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2431

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2431 2020

  54. [54]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Vincenzo, F., Bird, J. C., & Griffith, E. J. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad057

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad057

  55. [55]

    W., Weller, M

    Johnson, J. W., Weller, M. K., & Cooke, R. J. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08689, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08689

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08689

  56. [56]

    W., Weinberg, D

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2718 2021

  57. [57]

    W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Johnson, J. W., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 526, 5084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2985

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2985

  58. [58]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 988, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addbe5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addbe5

  59. [59]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kaeufl, H.-U., Ballester, P., Biereichel, P., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1218–1227, doi: 10.1117/12.551480

    work page doi:10.1117/12.551480 2004

  60. [60]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  61. [61]

    Khatri, R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2011, Astronomy Letters, 37, 367, doi: 10.1134/S1063773711060041

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773711060041 2011

  62. [62]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1951

    Khullar, S., Ma, Q., Busch, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1951

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1951 2020

  63. [63]

    A., Balashev, S

    Kislitsyn, P. A., Balashev, S. A., Murphy, M. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae248 2024

  64. [64]

    1997, A&A, 320, 41, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9609160

    Kodama, T., & Arimoto, N. 1997, A&A, 320, 41, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9609160

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9609160 1997

  65. [65]

    Krietsch, D., Busemann, H., Riebe, M. E. I., et al. 2021, GeoCoA, 310, 240, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.05.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2021.05.050 2021

  66. [66]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  67. [67]

    al 47(10), 674–685 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1134/s1063773721100054

    Kurichin, O. A., Kislitsyn, P. A., & Ivanchik, A. V. 2021, Astronomy Letters, 47, 674, doi: 10.1134/S1063773721100054

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773721100054 2021

  68. [68]

    G., & Fall, S

    Lacey, C. G., & Fall, S. M. 1985, ApJ, 290, 154, doi: 10.1086/162970

    work page doi:10.1086/162970 1985

  69. [69]

    2011, A&A, 536, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117739

    Lagarde, N., Charbonnel, C., Decressin, T., & Hagelberg, J. 2011, A&A, 536, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117739

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117739 2011

  70. [70]

    2012, A&A, 542, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219132

    Lagarde, N., Romano, D., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219132

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219132 2012

  71. [71]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/166.3.585

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/166.3.585 1974

  72. [72]

    C., & Newman, J

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/96 2015

  73. [73]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24 2018

  74. [74]

    2015, ApJS, 217, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/11

    Liu, W.-J., Zhou, H., Ji, T., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/11 2015

  75. [75]

    , keywords =

    Lodders, K. 2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8 2021

  76. [76]

    R., Roˇskar, R., Debattista, V

    Loebman, S. R., Roˇ skar, R., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/8 2011

  77. [77]

    R., Donahue, T

    Mahaffy, P. R., Donahue, T. M., Atreya, S. K., Owen, T. C., & Niemann, H. B. 1998, SSRv, 84, 251

    1998

  78. [78]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2

    Maiolino, R., & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Walborn, N. R., Morrell, N. I., Niemela, V. S., & Nelan, E. P. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1480, doi: 10.1086/513098

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0112-2 2019

  79. [79]

    Martins, C. J. A. P., Cooke, R., Liske, J., et al. 2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 5, doi: 10.1007/s10686-024-09928-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-024-09928-w 2024

  80. [80]

    & Bekki, K

    Matteucci, F. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-021-00133-8 2021

Showing first 80 references.