pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20614 · v1 · pith:S5I5QNYUnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA

The R-process Alliance: A Bright, Strongly R-process-enhanced Extremely Metal-poor Star Observed with GHOST

Mohammad K. Mardini , Anna Frebel , Vinicius M. Placco , Anirudh Chiti , Manolya Yatman , Timothy C. Beers , Rana Ezzeddine , Terese T. Hansen
show 3 more authors
Erika M. Holmbeck Ian U. Roederer Charli M. Sakari
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 02:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords r-processextremely metal-poor starschemical abundancesneutron star mergersstellar kinematicsPopulation III supernovae
0
0 comments X

The pith

The r-process elements in an extremely metal-poor star align with solar and neutron-star-merger patterns, supporting a universal main r-process.

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

The paper reports high-resolution spectra of a strongly r-process-enhanced extremely metal-poor star and measures abundances for fifteen neutron-capture elements. These abundances are compared directly to the pattern in the Sun, in a reference star, and in theoretical neutron-star-merger yields. The close match, aside from the first abundance peak, leads the authors to conclude that the main r-process produces a consistent pattern across very different astrophysical sites. This result matters because it constrains the sites that could have enriched the earliest stars and shows that light-element patterns in the same stars can be matched to specific supernova progenitor masses. Orbital data further tie one of the stars to an accreted galactic structure.

Core claim

The r-process elements in G256353 align reasonably well with HD 222925, the scaled-Solar pattern except for the first peak, and a recent predicted pattern associated with neutron star mergers. This consistency reinforces the universality of the main r-process across diverse astrophysical environments.

What carries the argument

High-resolution abundance measurements of fifteen neutron-capture elements, compared against scaled solar, reference-star, and neutron-star-merger yield patterns.

If this is right

  • The main r-process operates with the same yield ratios in neutron-star mergers and in whatever site enriched this star.
  • Extremely metal-poor stars can be used as clean probes of early-universe heavy-element production once light elements are matched to supernova models of 20-30 solar-mass progenitors.
  • Kinematic tagging can identify which metal-poor stars arrived via accretion rather than forming in place.
  • Additional stars with similar r-process signatures should show the same abundance pattern if the universality holds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern is truly universal, then any viable r-process site must produce the same second- and third-peak ratios regardless of total yield or metallicity.
  • Finding more such stars with Gaia selection and quick GHOST follow-up could map the spatial distribution of early r-process events.
  • The exception at the first peak may point to a separate, weaker process that operates alongside the main r-process and varies with environment.

Load-bearing premise

The derived chemical abundances are free of significant systematic errors from line formation, model atmospheres, or non-LTE effects.

What would settle it

A new spectrum or re-analysis that shifts the first-peak abundances (Sr, Y, Zr) by more than 0.3 dex relative to the second and third peaks while keeping the overall metallicity fixed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20614 by Anirudh Chiti, Anna Frebel, Charli M. Sakari, Erika M. Holmbeck, Ian U. Roederer, Manolya Yatman, Mohammad K. Mardini, Rana Ezzeddine, Terese T. Hansen, Timothy C. Beers, Vinicius M. Placco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Portions of the spectrum of G256353 used to determine the chemical abundances of key elements. Filled squares denote the spectrum, while gold lines represent the best-fit spectrum syntheses. Green lines indicate syntheses without contribu￾tions from the relevant element. The shaded regions reflect ±0.2 dex uncertainties. Each legend shows the derived abundances for the corresponding lines. ture values coll… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed chemical abundances of our target stars (represented by filled circles) are compared with those of other metal-poor halo stars from the JINAbase (shown as gray points, relevant references are listed in Appendix B.). Overall, the abundances of our stars align well with those of the other metal-poor stars. In the “UFD–halo separation” panel, the dashed line indicates the relation [Sr/Ba] = −[Ba/Fe] … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Orbital histories for our target stars: G256353 (first row), G288733 (second row), G297027 (third row), and G470812 (fourth row). The halo-like kinematics are clearly seen except for G288733 (second row), which exhibits an Atari-like orbital history that keeps the star confined to the disk system (Mardini et al. 2022a). 29.5 M⊙ and explosion energy of 10.0 × 1051 erg. An￾other possible model with slightly … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The left panels show a direct comparison between the observed light-element abundances and the theoretical predictions from Heger & Woosley (2010). The right panels display the median and mean of the residuals, which illustrate the spread of our “best-fit” models. The majority of these models converged around a mass of ∼20 M⊙. which matched 3.5% of the generated patterns. Be￾yond these two models, we ident… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of elemental abundances for G256353 between this study and Li et al. (2022). Differences in log ϵ(X) are plotted against atomic number, with the dashed line indicating zero and shaded bands showing ±0.1 and ±0.2 dex. A Bland–Altman analysis (statistics in legend) yields a mean offset of ∼0.01 dex, indicating no systematic bias. The scatter (SD ∼ 0.16 dex) and limits of agreement (LoA ≈ ±0.2 dex)… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The neutron-capture element abundance pattern of G256353 (black open circles). We over-plot scaled r-process abundances of the Solar System (represented by the blue line) from Burris et al. (2000), neutron-capture element pattern of HD 222925 (shown as a red line) from Roederer et al. (2022a), the predicted yields of the SFHo-135-135 model (shown as a green line) from Fujibayashi et al. (2023), and neutron… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a detailed chemical-abundance and kinematic analysis of four extremely metal-poor (EMP; [Fe/H] $\leq -3.0$) stars identified from \textit{Gaia} BP/RP data in our ongoing search for the most primitive stars. This includes a primary target, \textit{Gaia}~DR3~2563539603865382656 (hereafter G256353), a strongly $r$-process-enhanced star with [Eu/Fe]~$= +1.20$ and [Ba/Eu]~$= -0.64$. Our results are based on high-resolution, high-signal-to-noise GHOST spectra from Gemini-South. For the full sample, we statistically match the light-element abundances with those predicted from Population\,III supernova models. The ``best-fit'' model suggests massive progenitors with stellar masses of M$_{\star}\sim$ 20-30\,M$_\odot$. In addition, we determine orbital histories for all of the stars. We find that Gaia~DR3~2887334237669844480 appears to be kinematically associated with Atari, an accreted structure in the Galactic disk. This star has low abundance ratios of strontium ([Sr/Fe] = $-$1.09) and barium ([Ba/Fe] = $-$0.37), which supports an accretion origin. For G256353, we determine chemical abundances for 15 neutron-capture elements. We compare the observed heavy-element pattern for G256353 with that of the Sun, HD~222925, and two neutron star merger models. The $r$-process elements in G256353 align reasonably well with HD~222925, the scaled-Solar pattern (except for the first peak), and a recent predicted pattern associated with neutron star mergers. This consistency reinforces the universality of the main $r$-process across diverse astrophysical environments.

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 presents a chemical abundance and kinematic analysis of four extremely metal-poor stars observed with the GHOST spectrograph on Gemini-South, identified via Gaia BP/RP photometry. The primary focus is on Gaia DR3 2563539603865382656 (G256353), a strongly r-process-enhanced EMP star with [Eu/Fe] = +1.20 and [Ba/Eu] = -0.64. Light-element abundances for the sample are matched to Population III supernova yields, favoring 20-30 M⊙ progenitors. For G256353, abundances of 15 neutron-capture elements are derived and compared to the Sun, HD 222925, and neutron-star-merger models, with the pattern aligning reasonably well (except the first peak) and supporting universality of the main r-process. Orbital histories are also determined, linking one star to the Atari accreted structure.

Significance. If the abundance determinations prove robust, the work adds a new, bright r-process-enhanced EMP star to the sample and provides additional observational evidence that the main r-process pattern is largely universal across different astrophysical sites. The kinematic association with Atari and the Pop III supernova matching for the light elements are also useful contributions to Galactic archaeology. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or fully reproducible code, but the high-resolution spectra and multi-element comparisons constitute falsifiable observational tests of r-process models.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and §5] §4 (abundance analysis) and §5 (pattern comparison): The central claim that the r-process pattern in G256353 aligns with HD 222925, the scaled-Solar r-process (except first peak), and NSM yields rests on the assumption that the derived abundances are accurate to ≲0.1–0.2 dex differentially. No quantitative assessment of non-LTE corrections for key species (Ba II, Eu II, Sr II) or sensitivity to 1D vs. 3D model atmospheres is presented; standard LTE analyses of EMP stars can produce element-specific shifts of 0.2–0.3 dex that would alter first-to-second peak ratios and weaken the universality inference.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 or equivalent (abundance table for G256353): Error bars, line lists, adopted model-atmosphere parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], microturbulence), and whether non-LTE or 3D corrections were applied are not shown or referenced in sufficient detail to allow independent verification of the 15 neutron-capture abundances. Without these, the claimed consistency with external patterns cannot be evaluated at the precision needed for the universality conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and §3 mention 'high-resolution, high-signal-to-noise GHOST spectra' but do not quote the actual resolving power or S/N per pixel; these numbers should be stated explicitly for context.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent pattern plot): The visual comparison would benefit from explicit overlay of the error bars on the observed points and a quantitative metric (e.g., reduced χ²) for the match to each reference pattern.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting important points regarding the robustness of our abundance analysis. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will implement to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (abundance analysis) and §5 (pattern comparison): The central claim that the r-process pattern in G256353 aligns with HD 222925, the scaled-Solar r-process (except first peak), and NSM yields rests on the assumption that the derived abundances are accurate to ≲0.1–0.2 dex differentially. No quantitative assessment of non-LTE corrections for key species (Ba II, Eu II, Sr II) or sensitivity to 1D vs. 3D model atmospheres is presented; standard LTE analyses of EMP stars can produce element-specific shifts of 0.2–0.3 dex that would alter first-to-second peak ratios and weaken the universality inference.

    Authors: We agree that non-LTE and 3D effects warrant explicit discussion for a claim of pattern universality at the 0.1–0.2 dex level. Our analysis employs standard 1D LTE spectral synthesis, consistent with the majority of high-resolution studies of EMP stars and with the analysis of the comparison star HD 222925. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in §4 that (i) cites published non-LTE corrections for Ba II, Eu II, and Sr II at [Fe/H] ≈ −3 (typically +0.1 to +0.3 dex for the first-peak species and smaller for Eu), (ii) notes that differential comparisons to HD 222925 largely cancel these corrections, and (iii) provides a brief sensitivity estimate for 3D effects drawn from the literature. We will also qualify the universality statement to reflect the remaining systematic uncertainty while preserving the overall conclusion that the main r-process pattern is consistent within the quoted precision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Table 2] Table 2 or equivalent (abundance table for G256353): Error bars, line lists, adopted model-atmosphere parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], microturbulence), and whether non-LTE or 3D corrections were applied are not shown or referenced in sufficient detail to allow independent verification of the 15 neutron-capture abundances. Without these, the claimed consistency with external patterns cannot be evaluated at the precision needed for the universality conclusion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current Table 2 lacks the level of detail required for full reproducibility. In the revised version we will expand the table (or add an appendix table) to report: (a) the adopted stellar parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], microturbulence) with their uncertainties, (b) the complete line list with wavelengths, excitation potentials, and log gf values for each of the 15 neutron-capture species, (c) individual line abundances together with the final mean and standard deviation, and (d) an explicit statement that all abundances were derived under 1D LTE assumptions with no non-LTE or 3D corrections applied. We will also cite the model-atmosphere grid and the spectral synthesis code used. These additions will allow independent verification of the reported abundances and the pattern comparisons. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in observational abundance analysis

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements of chemical abundances from high-resolution GHOST spectra of EMP stars, followed by statistical matching of light-element patterns to external Population III supernova yield models and comparison of the heavy-element pattern in G256353 to independent references (HD 222925, scaled Solar r-process, and published NSM predictions). No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive the reported alignment; the consistency claim follows from the measured abundances themselves rather than reducing to an input by construction. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions in stellar spectroscopy (LTE or 1D model atmospheres) and on external theoretical yield grids for Pop III supernovae and neutron-star mergers; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) or standard 1D model atmospheres suffice for abundance derivation from GHOST spectra
    Implicit in all high-resolution abundance work; required for the reported [Eu/Fe], [Ba/Eu], and 15-element pattern to be directly comparable to models.
  • domain assumption The Population III supernova yield grids used for statistical matching are accurate representations of first-star explosions
    Invoked when claiming best-fit masses of 20-30 solar masses for the light-element abundances.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5951 in / 1521 out tokens · 27837 ms · 2026-05-21T02:49:25.552347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The r-process elements in G256353 align reasonably well with HD 222925, the scaled-Solar pattern (except for the first peak), and a recent predicted pattern associated with neutron star mergers. This consistency reinforces the universality of the main r-process across diverse astrophysical environments.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

207 extracted references · 207 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2041

  2. [2]

    2018, ApJS, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9

    Abohalima, A., & Frebel, A. 2018, ApJS, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 2018

  3. [3]

    S., Allende Prieto, C., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J

    Aguado, D. S., Allende Prieto, C., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., & Rebolo, R. 2018, ApJL, 854, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaadb8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaadb8 2018

  4. [4]

    S., Allende Prieto, C., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J

    Aguado, D. S., Allende Prieto, C., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Rebolo, R., & Caffau, E. 2017a, A&A, 604, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731320

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731320

  5. [5]

    S., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J

    Aguado, D. S., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Allende Prieto, C., & Rebolo, R. 2017b, A&A, 605, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730654

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730654

  6. [6]

    S., Myeong, G

    Aguado, D. S., Myeong, G. C., Belokurov, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3250

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3250 2021

  7. [7]

    A., Taani, A., ¨Ozdemir, S., et al

    Almusleh, N. A., Taani, A., ¨Ozdemir, S., et al. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 625, doi: 10.1002/asna.202113867

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.202113867 2021

  8. [8]

    K., & Frebel, A

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae670 2024

  9. [9]

    C., Christlieb, N., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1086/509817 2007

  10. [10]

    C., Lee, Y

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/13 2013

  11. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6515

    Aoki, W., Li, H., Matsuno, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6515

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6515 2022

  12. [12]

    C., Honda, S., et al

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Honda, S., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, 502, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf017

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf017 2025

  13. [13]

    2023, A&A Rv, 31, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00146-x

    Arcones, A., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2023, A&A Rv, 31, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00146-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00146-x 2023

  14. [14]

    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    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

  15. [15]

    Bandyopadhyay, A., & Beers, T. C. 2025, Universe, 11, 229, doi: 10.3390/universe11070229

    work page doi:10.3390/universe11070229 2025

  16. [16]

    2024, ApJS, 274, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f

    Bandyopadhyay, A., Ezzeddine, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f 2024

  17. [17]

    S., Christlieb, N., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052967 2005

  18. [18]

    C., & Christlieb, N

    Beers, T. C., & Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057 2005

  19. [19]

    T., Bonifacio, P., Ludwig, H

    Behara, N. T., Bonifacio, P., Ludwig, H. G., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913213

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913213 2010

  20. [20]

    T., Pickering, J

    Belmonte, M. T., Pickering, J. C., Ruffoni, M. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8cd3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8cd3 2017

  21. [21]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 692, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451837

    Berczik, P., Ishchenko, M., Sobodar, O., & Mardini, M. 2024, A&A, 692, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451837

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451837 2024

  23. [23]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21738.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..690B 426, 690

    Bergemann, M., Lind, K., Collet, R., Magic, Z., & Asplund, M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 27, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21687.x Bi´ emont,´E., Blagoev, K., Engstr¨ om, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3350, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18637.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21687.x 2012

  24. [24]

    F., & Kereˇ s, D

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., & Kereˇ s, D. 2017, ApJ, 845, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d0c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d0c 2017

  25. [25]

    2012, A&A, 542, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219004

    Bonifacio, P., Sbordone, L., Caffau, E., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219004

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219004 2012

  26. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d83

    Brethauer, D., Kasen, D., Margutti, R., & Chornock, R. 2024, ApJ, 975, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d83 2024

  27. [27]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , year = 1957, volume = 29, pages =

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547 1957

  28. [28]

    L., Pilachowski, C

    Burris, D. L., Pilachowski, C. A., Armandroff, T. E., et al. 2000, ApJ, 544, 302

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    2011a, A&A, 534, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117530 —

    Caffau, E., Bonifacio, P., Fran¸ cois, P., et al. 2011a, A&A, 534, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117530 —. 2011b, Nature, 477, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature10377 —. 2013, A&A, 560, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322213

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117530 2013

  30. [30]

    P., et al

    Cain, M., Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab97ba 2020

  31. [31]

    Cameron, A. G. W. 1957, PASP, 69, 201, doi: 10.1086/127051

    work page doi:10.1086/127051 1957

  32. [32]

    C., Bovy, J., et al

    Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Bovy, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 195, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/195 G256353: A Bright R-process-enhanced Star Observed with Gemini-S/GHOST 19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/195 2012

  33. [33]

    2002, AJ, 124, 481, doi: 10.1086/340955

    Christlieb, N. 2002, AJ, 124, 481, doi: 10.1086/340955

    work page doi:10.1086/340955 2002

  34. [34]

    Casagrande, L., & VandenBerg, D. A. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 5023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty149 —. 2018b, MNRAS, 479, L102, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly104

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty149

  35. [35]

    Casey, A. R. 2014, PhD thesis, Australian National

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    R., & Schlaufman, K

    Casey, A. R., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/110 2015

  37. [37]

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

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034074 2004

  39. [39]

    K., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf73d 2021

  40. [40]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 637, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02223-w

    Chiti, A., Mardini, M., Limberg, G., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 637, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02223-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02223-w 2024

  41. [41]

    S., Beers, T

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01142 2002

  42. [42]

    G., Christlieb, N., Thompson, I., et al

    Cohen, J. G., Christlieb, N., Thompson, I., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/56

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/56 2013

  43. [43]

    G., Christlieb, N., McWilliam, A., et al

    Cohen, J. G., Christlieb, N., McWilliam, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1107, doi: 10.1086/422576 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    work page doi:10.1086/422576 2004

  44. [44]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015002 2021

  45. [45]

    G., & Barzakh, A

    Kozlov, M. G., & Barzakh, A. E. 2021, PhRvA, 103, 032824, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032824 Den Hartog, E. A., Herd, M. T., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 639, doi: 10.1086/426381 Den Hartog, E. A., Lawler, J. E., & Roederer, I. U. 2020, ApJS, 248, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab84f5 —. 2021a, ApJS, 254, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe861 Den Hartog, E....

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.032824 2021

  46. [46]

    Abundance analysis of two extremely metal-poor stars from the Hamburg/ESO Survey

    Depagne, E., Hill, V., Christlieb, N., & Primas, F. 2000, A&A, 364, L6. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008384

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf358

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Wanajo, S., & Kawaguchi, K. 2021, ApJ, 913, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf358

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf358 2021

  48. [48]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , 358, 1570

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  49. [49]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  50. [50]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8875

    Ezzeddine, R., Frebel, A., & Plez, B. 2017, ApJ, 847, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8875

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8875 2017

  51. [51]

    U., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7 2019

  52. [52]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1a

    Ezzeddine, R., Rasmussen, K., Frebel, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1a 2020

  53. [53]

    2010, ApJ, 712, 1359, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1359

    Farouqi, K., Kratz, K.-L., Pfeiffer, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1359, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1359

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/1359 2010

  54. [54]

    A., & Lawler, J

    Fedchak, J. A., & Lawler, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 523, 734, doi: 10.1086/307763

    work page doi:10.1086/307763 1999

  55. [55]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b0

    Fischer, T., Wu, M.-R., Wehmeyer, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b0 2020

  56. [56]

    2025, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Fitzpatrick, M., Placco, V., Bolton, A., et al. 2025, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 541, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXXIII, ed. A. Jacques, R. Seaman, N. Gandilo, & T. Linder, 461, doi: 10.26624/CETF5821

    work page doi:10.26624/cetf5821 2025

  57. [57]

    2010, AJ, 140, 1694, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1694

    For, B.-Q., & Sneden, C. 2010, AJ, 140, 1694, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1694

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1694 2010

  58. [58]

    2007, A&A, 476, 935, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077706

    Francois, P., Depagne, E., Hill, V., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 935, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077706

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077706 2007

  59. [59]

    2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68, 237, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021141

    Frebel, A. 2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68, 237, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021141

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021141 2018

  60. [60]

    R., & Placco, V

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/l27 2015

  61. [61]

    E., et al

    Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., Norris, J. E., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L117, doi: 10.1086/518122

    work page doi:10.1086/518122 2007

  62. [62]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 588, doi: 10.1086/590327

    Frebel, A., Collet, R., Eriksson, K., Christlieb, N., & Aoki, W. 2008, ApJ, 684, 588, doi: 10.1086/590327

    work page doi:10.1086/590327 2008

  63. [63]

    P., Ezzeddine, R., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae848 2019

  64. [64]

    D., Geha, M., & Willman, B

    Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010, ApJ, 708, 560, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/560

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/560 2010

  65. [65]

    2005, Nature, 434, 871, doi: 10.1038/nature03455 Fr¨ ohlich, C., Hauser, P., Liebend¨ orfer, M., et al

    Frebel, A., Aoki, W., Christlieb, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 871, doi: 10.1038/nature03455 Fr¨ ohlich, C., Hauser, P., Liebend¨ orfer, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637, 415, doi: 10.1086/498224

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03455 2005

  66. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0 20 Mardini et al

    Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., Wanajo, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0 20 Mardini et al. Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00211

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0 2023

  67. [67]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d20

    Ghosh, S., Wolfe, N., & Fr¨ ohlich, C. 2022, ApJ, 929, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d20 2022

  68. [68]

    G., et al

    Gull, M., Frebel, A., Cain, M. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc3 2018

  69. [69]

    2010, A&A, 511, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913672

    Gurell, J., Nilsson, H., Engstr¨ om, L., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913672

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913672 2010

  70. [70]

    L., & Lowe, R

    Hannaford, P., Larkins, P. L., & Lowe, R. M. 1981, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 14, 2321, doi: 10.1088/0022-3700/14/14/004

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3700/14/14/004 1981

  71. [71]

    J., Christlieb, N., et al

    Hansen, T., Hansen, C. J., Christlieb, N., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/173

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/173 2015

  72. [72]

    T., Holmbeck, E

    Hansen, T. T., Holmbeck, E. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacc

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

  73. [73]

    T., Roederer, I

    Hansen, T. T., Roederer, I. U., Shah, S. P., et al. 2025a, A&A, 697, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554123 —. 2025b, A&A, 697, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554123

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554123

  74. [74]

    Harris, 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

  75. [75]

    R., Venn, K

    Hayes, C. R., Venn, K. A., Waller, F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.04804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.04804

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.04804 2023

  76. [76]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/341 2010

  77. [77]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917 2020

  78. [78]

    H., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  79. [79]

    2002, A&A, 387, 560, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020434

    Hill, V., Plez, B., Cayrel, R., et al. 2002, A&A, 387, 560, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020434

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020434 2002

  80. [80]

    K., Frebel, A., Roederer, I

    Hollek, J. K., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/54 2011

Showing first 80 references.