Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modelling chemical clocks -- Theoretical evidences of the space and time evolution of [s/alpha] in the Galactic disc with Gaia-ESO survey

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the observed rise in barium relative to silicon among young inner-disc stars requires about 50% more barium production in the last 3 billion years than current nucleosynthesis prescriptions supply.

desk verdict Careful negative result on [s/α] clocks: the models fail in the inner disc, and the quantitative 'half more Ba' claim is interesting but hinges on the unquantified inner-disc Si residual. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11844 v1 pith:HMSY6W5B submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Marta Molero , Laura Magrini , Marco Palla , Gabriele Cescutti , Carlos Viscasillas Vázquez , Giada Casali , Emanuele Spitoni , Francesca Matteucci
show 1 more author
Sofia Randich
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords chemicalclockss-processelementsbariumgalacticevolutionopenclustersGaia-ESOsurveyneutron-capturenucleosynthesisMilkyWaydisc
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 [s/alpha]-versus-age relations used to date stars are not universal and that current models of neutron-capture element production cannot explain why young stars in the inner Galactic disc are so rich in barium. The authors build multi-zone chemical evolution models with different gas infall histories and nucleosynthesis prescriptions, then compare the predicted yttrium and barium abundances with open clusters from the Gaia-ESO survey. They find that the models reproduce the observed rise of [s/alpha] with age in the outer disc but fail in the inner disc, and they quantify the shortfall: barium production in the last 3 Gyr would have to increase by slightly more than half to match the data. If this is right, the standard chemical-clock calibration and the current yield sets for neutron-capture elements both need revision, particularly for the inner disc.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a set of multi-zone chemical evolution models with the two-infall and three-infall gas-accretion prescriptions, combined with FRUITY AGB yields and Limongi & Chieffi rotating massive-star yields for neutron-capture elements, and checked against open cluster data from the Gaia-ESO survey. The three-infall model splits the low-$\alpha$ disc into two recent gas infall episodes, which is what lets it reproduce the observed ~2 Gyr dilution in [s/H]. The quantitative headline comes from a residual identity, $X(\mathrm{Ba})_O - X(\mathrm{Ba})_M = X(\mathrm{Si})_M \left(10^{[\mathrm{Ba/Si}]_O + \mathrm{Sun}} - 10^{[\mathrm{Ba/Si}]_M + \mathrm{Sun}}\right)$, which converts the vertical offset between observed and modelled [Ba/Si] at young ages into a surface mass density of missing barium, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{Ba}} = 5.71\times 10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$.

What would settle it

Measure [Si/H] and [Ba/H] in a sample of inner-disc open clusters younger than 1 Gyr with independent asteroseismic ages. If the model's silicon prediction is systematically higher than observed, the required barium increase shrinks; if barium is still underproduced when silicon is correct, then the nucleosynthesis yields are the culprit. A stellar-evolution calculation that produces substantially larger barium yields from ~1.1 to 1.3 solar-mass AGB stars at supersolar metallicity would directly support the proposed fix.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no single [s/alpha]-age relation holds across the Galactic disc, and that the steep observed increase of [Ba/Si] toward young ages in the inner disc cannot be produced by the tested model variations. Starting from a two-infall and a three-infall chemical evolution model, the paper shows that the three-infall scenario captures the recent dilution in [s/H] at about 2 Gyr and the rise in the outer regions, but all configurations fail in the inner region, where the predicted trend is flat or inverted. The authors compute the missing barium abundance from the residual between the observed logarithmic fit and the model, assuming the model's silicon prediction is correct, and find that the inner disc would need roughly 1.5 times the currently produced barium over the last 3 Gyr. They also rule out simple fixes: reducing AGB yields at supersolar metallicity, adding an enhanced contribution from ~1.1 solar-mass AGB stars, or switching to metallicity-dependent rotational velocity distributions for massive stars either improves one element while worsening another or leaves the trend unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The headline number—that inner-disc barium production must rise by about half—assumes the model's predicted silicon abundance in the inner disc is correct; if the model overproduces silicon there, the missing-barium estimate is too large, and the paper only demonstrates good silicon agreement in the solar and outer regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar ages derived from [s/alpha] ratios calibrated on solar-neighbourhood clusters will be systematically biased when applied to inner-disc populations, because the slope of the relation changes with Galactocentric radius.
  • Current AGB and massive-star yield prescriptions underproduce second s-process peak elements at high metallicity and young ages, so yield sets need revision, for example through mass- and metallicity-dependent s-process production or effects such as magnetic buoyancy.
  • The rise in [Ba/Si] at young ages in the inner disc is a diagnostic of recent s-process enrichment that no tested combination of infall history and massive-star rotation can generate, implying an additional or enhanced low-mass AGB source.
  • Yield-scaling factors cannot be treated as constant across the disc: the paper reports that matching the solar region requires an s-process reduction of about 1.8, the outer region about 0.4, and the inner region about 2.8.
  • If the missing barium is real, chemical clocks based on barium carry a strong imprint of the recent star formation history of the inner disc, not just of stellar age.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing-barium signal is genuine, it suggests that barium production in the inner disc tracks recent star formation episodes more tightly than current stellar yields imply, so [Ba/alpha] may be better read as a star-formation-history indicator than as a pure age indicator.
  • The same residual method could be applied to other s-process elements, such as lanthanum and cerium, and to other alpha elements such as magnesium or calcium, to map where the yield prescriptions break down and to identify a metallicity threshold for the discrepancy.
  • A direct test would be high-resolution barium abundances in inner-disc open clusters younger than 1 Gyr with independent asteroseismic ages; if the apparent rise vanishes with better ages, the discrepancy is partly an age-dating artifact rather than a nucleosynthesis failure.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-zone chemical evolution models of the Milky Way disc using two-infall and three-infall gas accretion scenarios, with nucleosynthesis prescriptions for AGB stars, rotating massive stars, neutron-star mergers, and magneto-rotational supernovae. It compares the predicted [Y/Si] and [Ba/Si] versus age relations with Gaia-ESO open clusters in three Galactocentric regions. The authors find that the three-infall model reproduces the [s/H] dilution near 2 Gyr but fails to reproduce the observed young-age increase in [s/alpha], especially for Ba in the inner disc. They explore modifications of AGB yields and massive-star rotation distributions, none of which resolves the discrepancy. They quantify the missing Ba in the inner disc over the last 3 Gyr as roughly half of the model's current production, based on Eq. (7), and conclude that current neutron-capture yield prescriptions cannot capture the chemical-clock evolution in the inner disc.

Significance. If the results hold, the qualitative conclusion that current s-process yield prescriptions cannot reproduce the young-age rise in [Ba/Si] in the inner disc is an important constraint for nucleosynthesis and Galactic chemical evolution modeling. The paper has notable strengths: the sample selection with the log g and microturbulence cuts and the exclusion of NGC 6709 are carefully described and well motivated; the model variations are explicitly labeled as exploratory; and the central comparison uses external Gaia-ESO data as benchmarks rather than fitting the model to the age-abundance trends. The quantitative missing-Ba estimate is potentially falsifiable, but its numerical value rests on an unquantified inner-disc Si normalization and on an interpretation of an ISM abundance deficit as a required yield increase, so the quantitative headline is conditional on those assumptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (7) and Appendix A] The claim that Ba production in the inner disc must increase by approximately half in the last 3 Gyr is computed from X(Ba)_O - X(Ba)_M = X(Si)_M x (10^{[Ba/Si]_O+Sun} - 10^{[Ba/Si]_M+Sun}), which is directly proportional to the model's absolute Si abundance X(Si)_M. Appendix A verifies the [Si/H] vs. age agreement for Model 2 mainly in the solar and outer zones and quotes the solar Si abundance, but it does not quantify the inner-zone residual, which is exactly the zone where the 'half more' claim is made. A 0.1 dex model overproduction of Si in the inner disc changes the inferred Ba increase by roughly 26%, and 0.2 dex by roughly 58%. Please quantify the inner-disc [Si/H] offset over the relevant age range and propagate it into the missing-Ba estimate, or present the numerical factor as conditional on the Si normalization.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (7) and final bullet] Equation (7) estimates a deficit in the ISM mass fraction X(Ba), and the paper subsequently converts this to a surface mass density Sigma_Ba. The conclusion, however, is phrased as 'the production of Ba ... should be approximately half more of the current one.' An ISM abundance deficit does not translate one-to-one into a required yield increase, because the ISM abundance at a given age is an integral over past production convolved with stellar lifetimes and astration. To support the yield-increase statement, the authors should either rephrase the conclusion as an ISM abundance deficit that would need to be filled, or run a modified model with enhanced Ba yields to derive the required yield change.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 8] The reported reduction factors (2.8, 1.8, 0.4) and the corresponding overproduction percentages (64%, 44%, 28%) are mutually inconsistent as written: a divisor of 1.8 removes about 44% of the model's Ba, a divisor of 2.8 about 64%, and the outer-region value should be near 1.4, not 0.4, to give about 28%. Please define whether the factors are multiplicative divisors or residual fractions and correct the apparent typo.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Figure 2] The text states that the reduction of FRUITY AGB yields is relaxed in this work, while the Figure 2 caption says the prescriptions are identical to Molero et al. (2023) 'with reduced s-process AGB production.' Please clarify which AGB yield set is used in Figure 2 and in Models 1-7, since this affects the sanity check of the Ba predictions.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 2] For Models 4 and 5, the construction of the artificial 1.1 Msun yields should be described more explicitly: how exactly are the yields of the 1.3 Msun star scaled, and are all elements scaled by the same factor or only the s-process elements?
  4. [Throughout] There are several repeated typos, including 'regions of interested' in the Figure 3-7 captions, 'fist s-process peak' in the conclusions, and 'km−1' instead of 'km s−1' in Section 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the [s/alpha] vs age trends are external Gaia-ESO benchmarks, and the missing-Ba figure is an explicitly labeled diagnostic residual, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparisons are self-contained against external data: the [s/H], [s/Fe], and [s/Si] vs age relations come from the Gaia-ESO open-cluster sample, while the two- and three-infall models are constructed from prior work (Palla et al. 2020; Spitoni et al. 2023; Palla et al. 2024) calibrated to surface densities, star formation rates, Fe/alpha abundances, and the age-metallicity dilution. None of those calibration targets encodes the rising [s/alpha] slope, so the model's failure to reproduce that slope is a genuine external test rather than a restatement of an input. The headline missing-Ba estimate is not a fitted input called a prediction: Eq. (7) is an explicit bookkeeping identity, X(Ba)_O - X(Ba)_M = X(Si)_M (10^([Ba/Si]_O+Sun) - 10^([Ba/Si]_M+Sun)), evaluated under the openly stated assumption that the model's Si predictions are correct. The per-region reduction factors (2.8, 1.8, 0.4) are admittedly tuned normalizations used to isolate the residual shape; the paper labels the resulting quantity as a 'discrepancy' to be quantified, not as a first-principles prediction. Self-citations to Molero et al. (2023) and Palla et al. (2024) establish model provenance and prior calibration but do not smuggle in the [Ba/Si] trend being explained. The main weakness, acknowledged in Appendix A, is that the inner-region [Si/H] agreement is asserted as 'generally good' but not quantified; this is a sensitivity or assumption concern that would directly rescale the numerical 'half more' figure if the inner-disc Si prediction is off, but it is not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Most of the model's free parameters (infall timescales, star formation efficiencies, yield grids) are imported from the authors' prior work and from the literature; the parameters listed here are the ones newly chosen or fit in this paper to test hypotheses. The central claim of model failure does not require these to be tuned; it is robust across the explored variations.

free parameters (3)
  • Regional s-process reduction factors = 2.8 (inner), 1.8 (solar), 0.4 (outer)
    In Fig. 8, the baseline model's s-process production is reduced by these factors to match the observed [Ba/Si] vs age in each region; the residual after this fit defines the missing Ba. These are diagnostic fit factors, not physical parameters.
  • 1.1 Msun AGB yield enhancement factor = 10x (Model 4) and 20x (Model 5)
    An artificial 1.1 Msun AGB star with yields 10-20 times those of the 1.3 Msun FRUITY model is added to test whether low-mass AGB stars can explain the young-age Ba rise. The factor is chosen by hand and the authors state such an increase is not supported by nucleosynthesis calculations.
  • Super-solar AGB yield reduction = factor 0.1 for Z >= 1.4e-2 (Model 3)
    Following Casali et al. (2020), AGB yields at super-solar metallicity are reduced by a factor of 10; this is a literature-suggested prescription, not derived here.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Milky Way disc formed through two or three distinct gas infall episodes with the adopted timescales (tau1=1 Gyr, tmax=3.25 Gyr for second infall, third infall starting at 11 Gyr with tau3=1 Gyr).
    This is the backbone of the chemical evolution model (Section 3.1, Eqs. 3 and 5). If the true accretion history differs, the age-abundance predictions shift. The three-infall scenario is motivated by Gaia DR3 and recent SFR enhancements, but remains a parameterization.
  • domain assumption The s-process fractions of Y and Ba at solar metallicity (78% and 89%, Prantzos et al. 2020) and the adopted r-process contributions from MNS and MR-SNe are applicable across the disc and metallicity range.
    Used to compute the total Y and Ba from their s- and r-process channels. The model's r-process prescriptions for MR-SNe are explicitly uncertain (Section 3.2), with a single mass yield interpolated over the whole mass range.
  • domain assumption FRUITY AGB yields (with masses down to 1.3 Msun and metallicities down to Z=4.8e-5) and Limongi and Chieffi (2018) rotating massive star yields are the correct nucleosynthesis inputs.
    The central claim is about these prescriptions failing; the paper explores variations but does not independently derive any yield set. The usual factor-of-two reduction of FRUITY yields is relaxed here, which affects the absolute levels.
  • ad hoc to paper MR-SNe contribute only r-process material and no Fe or alpha elements.
    Stated in Section 3.2 as a simplification because MR-SNe yields for a single 35 Msun model are interpolated to all masses. This could affect the Fe and alpha budget, and thus the [s/alpha] and [s/Fe] ratios.
  • domain assumption Open cluster ages from isochrone fitting and Gaia-ESO abundances are accurate after the membership cuts (log g > 2.5, xi < 1.8).
    The observational comparison relies entirely on the Gaia-ESO sample, ages, and distances from Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020). Systematic errors in cluster ages would propagate into the age-abundance trends.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling chemical clocks -- Theoretical evidences of the space and time evolution of [s/alpha] in the Galactic disc with Gaia-ESO survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMSY6W5B

@misc{pith2026241211844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling chemical clocks -- Theoretical evidences of the space and time evolution of [s/alpha] in the Galactic disc with Gaia-ESO survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMSY6W5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11844}
}
read the original abstract

Chemical clocks based on [s-process elements/alpha-elements] ratios are widely used to estimate ages of Galactic stellar populations. However, the [s/alpha] vs. age relations are not universal, varying with metallicity, location in the Galactic disc, and specific s-process elements. Current Galactic chemical evolution models struggle to reproduce the observed [s/alpha] increase at young ages. We provide chemical evolution models for the Milky Way disc to identify the conditions required to reproduce the observed [s/H], [s/Fe], and [s/alpha] vs. age relations. We adopt a multi-zone chemical evolution model including state-of-the-art nucleosynthesis prescriptions for neutron-capture elements (AGB stars, rotating massive stars, neutron star mergers, magneto-driven supernovae). We explore variations in gas infall, AGB yield dependencies on progenitor stars, and rotational velocity distributions for massive stars. Results are compared with open cluster data from the Gaia-ESO survey. A three-infall scenario for disc formation captures the rise of [s/alpha] with age in the outer regions but fails in the inner ones, especially for second s-process peak elements. Ba production in the last 3 Gyr of chemical evolution would need to increase by half to match observations. S-process contributions from low-mass AGB stars improve predictions but require increases not supported by nucleosynthesis calculations, even with potential i-process contribution. Variations in the metallicity dependence of AGB yields show inconsistent effects across elements. Distributions of massive star rotational velocities fail to improve results due to balanced effects on elements. We confirm that there is no single relationship [s/alpha] vs. age, but that it varies along the MW disc. Current prescriptions for neutron-capture element yields cannot fully capture the complexity of evolution, particularly in the inner disc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the rate of Type Ia SNe, Type II SNe, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [X/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] abundance patterns for Si, Y, Ba and Eu as predicted by the three-infall model at RGC = 6, 8, 12 kpc compared to the sample of OCs (colored dots) and field (grey dots) stars in the inner, solar and outer regions, respectively. Results of the synthetic model as well as OCs are plotted only for Age ≤ 3Gyr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [s/Fe] vs Age observed trends for Y (upper panel) and Ba (lower panel) divided in the three Galactocentric regions of interested. The logarithmic fits of the OC samples in the three regions are shown as blue (inner region), green (solar region) and magenta (outer region) curves. Predictions of the chemical evolution model in the case of a two- (dashed lines) and of a three-infall (solid lines) scenario are compared … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [s/Si] vs age observed trends for Y (upper panel) and Ba (lower panel) divided in the three Galactocentric regions of interested. The logarithmic fits of the OC samples in the three re￾gions are shown as blue (inner region), green (solar region) and magenta (outer regi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: [s/Si] vs age observed trends for Y (upper panel) and Ba (lower panel) divided in the three Galactocentric regions of interested. The logarithmic fits of the OC samples in the three regions are shown as blue (inner region), green (solar region) and magenta (outer regio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [s/Si] vs Age observed trends for Y (upper panel) and Ba (lower panel) divided in the three Galactocentric regions of interested. The logarithmic fits of the OC samples in the three regions are shown as blue (inner region), green (solar region) and magenta (outer regio…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper panels: [Ba/Si] vs. Age trend in the inner, solar and outer regions. The observational data trend is represented by the logarithmic fit with the associated 1σ error bar curve. Result of Model 2 is shown by the black line. The dashed black and yellow lines represe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Tracing the early Milky Way thin disc with the Gaia-ESO Survey

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A single metal-poor, alpha-enhanced star with thin-disc-like kinematics is identified as a candidate relic of the early Milky Way disc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, L7

    2021

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 653, A67

    Baratella, M., D’Orazi, V ., Sheminova, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A67

    2021

  4. [4]

    2019, The Messenger, 175, 35

    Bensby, T., Bergemann, M., Rybizki, J., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 35

    2019

  5. [5]

    A., van Saders, J

    Berger, T. A., van Saders, J. L., Huber, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 100

    2022

  6. [6]

    2024, A&A, 685, A66

    Boulet, T. 2024, A&A, 685, A66

    2024

  7. [7]

    J., Flaccomio, E., et al

    Bragaglia, A., Alfaro, E. J., Flaccomio, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A200

    2022

  8. [8]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 55

    Busso, M., Vescovi, D., Palmerini, S., Cristallo, S., & Antonuccio-Delogu, V . 2021, ApJ, 908, 55

    2021

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1

    2020

  2. [10]

    1999, A&A, 351, 459

    Cappellaro, E., Evans, R., & Turatto, M. 1999, A&A, 351, 459

    1999

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 677, A60

    Casali, G., Grisoni, V ., Miglio, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A60

    2023

  4. [12]

    2019, A&A, 629, A62

    Casali, G., Magrini, L., Tognelli, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A62

    2019

  5. [13]

    2020, A&A, 639, A127

    Casali, G., Spina, L., Magrini, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A127

    2020

  6. [14]

    & Matteucci, F

    Cescutti, G. & Matteucci, F. 2022, Universe, 8, 173

    2022

  7. [15]

    Chaplin, W. J. & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2013

  8. [16]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 765

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Gratton, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 765

    1997

  9. [17]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1044

    Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1044

    2001

  10. [18]

    2021, A&A, 648, A119

    Choplin, A., Siess, L., & Goriely, S. 2021, A&A, 648, A119

    2021

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 667, A155

    Choplin, A., Siess, L., & Goriely, S. 2022, A&A, 667, A155

    2022

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 684, A206

    Choplin, A., Siess, L., Goriely, S., & Martinet, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A206

    2024

  13. [21]

    2011, ApJS, 197, 17

    Cristallo, S., Piersanti, L., Straniero, O., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 17

    2011

  14. [22]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 797

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Gallino, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 797

    2009

  15. [23]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 40 Delgado Mena, E., Moya, A., Adibekyan, V ., et al

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Piersanti, L., & Gobrecht, D. 2015, ApJS, 219, 40 Delgado Mena, E., Moya, A., Adibekyan, V ., et al. 2019a, A&A, 624, A78 Delgado Mena, E., Moya, A., Adibekyan, V ., et al. 2019b, A&A, 624, A78 D’Orazi, V ., De Silva, G. M., & Melo, C. F. H. 2017,...

    2015

  16. [24]

    M., McMillan, P

    Feltzing, S., Howes, L. M., McMillan, P. J., & Stonkut˙e, E. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L109

    2017

  17. [25]

    2019, A&A, 632, A16

    Frasca, A., Alonso-Santiago, J., Catanzaro, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A16

    2019

  18. [26]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803

    Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., Pignatari, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803

    2016

  19. [27]

    Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., & Thielemann, F. K. 2012, A&A, 538, L2 Gaia Collaboration, Recio-Blanco, A., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A38

    2012

  20. [28]

    1998, ApJ, 497, 388

    Gallino, R., Arlandini, C., Busso, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388

    1998

  21. [29]

    S., Pescalli, A., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Pescalli, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A84

    2016

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Worley, C. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A120

    2022

  23. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 1755

    Greggio, L., Simonetti, P., & Matteucci, F. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1755

    2021

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570

    Grisoni, V ., Spitoni, E., & Matteucci, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2570

    2018

  25. [33]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132

    2015

  26. [34]

    R., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Holtzman, J. A., Bovy, J., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 116

    2014

  27. [35]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    1999

  28. [36]

    Jacobson, H. R. & Friel, E. D. 2013, AJ, 145, 107

    2013

  29. [37]

    D., Jackson, R

    Jeffries, R. D., Jackson, R. J., Wright, N. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 802

    2023

  30. [38]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688 Jofré, P., Jackson, H., & Tucci Maia, M. 2020, A&A, 633, L9

    2024

  31. [39]

    P., Molero, M., Navó, G., et al

    Jost, F. P., Molero, M., Navó, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14319

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R., et al

    Kalogera, V ., Kim, C., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, L179

    2004

  33. [41]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lugaro, M. 2016, ApJ, 825, 26

    2016

  34. [42]

    & Chiappini, C

    Kawata, D. & Chiappini, C. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 976

    2016

  35. [43]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    1998

  36. [44]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

    2012

  37. [45]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    2018

  38. [46]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 112

    Liu, N., Gallino, R., Cristallo, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 112

    2018

  39. [47]

    C., Gallino, R., & Straniero, O

    Lugaro, M., Herwig, F., Lattanzio, J. C., Gallino, R., & Straniero, O. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1305

    2003

  40. [48]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.08270

    Magrini, L., Bensby, T., Brucalassi, A., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.08270

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    2018, A&A, 617, A106

    Magrini, L., Spina, L., Randich, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A106

    2018

  42. [50]

    2021, A&A, 646, L2

    Magrini, L., Vescovi, D., Casali, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, L2

    2021

  43. [51]

    I., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Mainieri, V ., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 53

    Maiorca, E., Magrini, L., Busso, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 53

    2012

  45. [53]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 120

    Maiorca, E., Randich, S., Busso, M., Magrini, L., & Palmerini, S. 2011, ApJ, 736, 120

    2011

  46. [54]

    K., et al

    Manea, C., Hawkins, K., Ness, M. K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15257

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    & Gilmore, G

    Masseron, T. & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1855

    2015

  48. [56]

    2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    Matteucci, F. 2012, Chemical Evolution of Galaxies

    2012

  49. [57]

    & Francois, P

    Matteucci, F. & Francois, P. 1989, MNRAS, 239, 885

    1989

  50. [58]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 2177

    Matteucci, F., Romano, D., Arcones, A., Korobkin, O., & Rosswog, S. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2177

    2014

  51. [59]

    F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D

    McKee, C. F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D. J. 2015, ApJ, 814, 13

    2015

  52. [60]

    T., et al

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A85 Mikolaitis, Š., de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A22

    2021

  53. [61]

    & Hekker, S

    Mints, A. & Hekker, S. 2018, A&A, 618, A54

    2018

  54. [62]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3651

    Mishenina, T., Pignatari, M., Carraro, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3651

    2015

  55. [63]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2974

    Molero, M., Magrini, L., Matteucci, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2974

    2023

  56. [64]

    Molero, M., Matteucci, F., Spitoni, E., Rojas-Arriagada, A., & Rich, R. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12585

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2913 Montalbán, J., Mackereth, J

    Molero, M., Romano, D., Reichert, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2913 Montalbán, J., Mackereth, J. T., Miglio, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 640

    2021

  58. [66]

    C., Figueras, F., Roca-Fàbrega, S., & Luri, X

    Mor, R., Robin, A. C., Figueras, F., Roca-Fàbrega, S., & Luri, X. 2019, A&A, 624, L1

    2019

  59. [67]

    M., Delgado-Mena, E., et al

    Moya, A., Sarro, L. M., Delgado-Mena, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A15

    2022

  60. [68]

    Nishimura, N., Sawai, H., Takiwaki, T., Yamada, S., & Thielemann, F. K. 2017, ApJ, 836, L21

    2017

  61. [69]

    E., Silva Aguirre, V ., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al

    Nissen, P. E., Silva Aguirre, V ., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A112

    2017

  62. [70]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17395

    Palla, M., Magrini, L., Spitoni, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17395

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1710

    Palla, M., Matteucci, F., Spitoni, E., Vincenzo, F., & Grisoni, V . 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1710

    2020

  64. [72]

    2022, A&A, 663, A125

    Palla, M., Santos-Peral, P., Recio-Blanco, A., & Matteucci, F. 2022, A&A, 663, A125

    2022

  65. [73]

    2017, A&A, 598, A5

    Pancino, E., Lardo, C., Altavilla, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A5

    2017

  66. [74]

    2010, ApJ, 710, 1557

    Pignatari, M., Gallino, R., Heil, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1557

    2010

  67. [75]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    2020

  68. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., & Cristallo, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    2018

  69. [77]

    2022, A&A, 666, A121

    Randich, S., Gilmore, G., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A121

    2022

  70. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3464

    Ratcliffe, B., Minchev, I., Cescutti, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3464

    2024

  71. [79]

    2014, A&A, 567, A5

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A5

    2014

  72. [80]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5244

    Rizzuti, F., Cescutti, G., Matteucci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5244

    2019

  73. [81]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2495

    Rizzuti, F., Cescutti, G., Matteucci, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2495

    2021

  74. [82]

    I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F

    Romano, D., Karakas, A. I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F. 2010, A&A, 522, A32

    2010

  75. [83]

    2000, ApJ, 539, 235

    Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Salucci, P., & Chiappini, C. 2000, ApJ, 539, 235

    2000

  76. [84]

    J., & Ventura, P

    Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Zhang, Z.-Y ., Ivison, R. J., & Ventura, P. 2019, MN- RAS, 490, 2838

    2019

  77. [85]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 965

    2020

  78. [86]

    2024, A&A, 690, A107

    Shejeelammal, J., Meléndez, J., Rathsam, A., & Martos, G. 2024, A&A, 690, A107

    2024

  79. [87]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14808

    Sheminova, V ., Baratella, M., & D’Orazi, V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14808

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2896

    Simonetti, P., Matteucci, F., Greggio, L., & Cescutti, G. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2896

    2019

  81. [89]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581

    2010

  82. [90]

    I., et al

    Spina, L., Meléndez, J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2580

    2018

  83. [91]

    2017, A&A, 601, A70

    Spina, L., Randich, S., Magrini, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A70

    2017

  84. [92]

    2024, A&A, 690, A208

    Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., Gratton, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A208

    2024

  85. [93]

    2023, A&A, 670, A109

    Spitoni, E., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A109

    2023

  86. [94]

    2019, A&A, 623, A60

    Spitoni, E., Silva Aguirre, V ., Matteucci, F., Calura, F., & Grisoni, V . 2019, A&A, 623, A60

    2019

  87. [95]

    2021, A&A, 647, A73

    Spitoni, E., Verma, K., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A73

    2021

  88. [96]

    M., et al

    Spoo, T., Tayar, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 229 Tautvaišien˙e, G., Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Mikolaitis, Š., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A126 Tucci Maia, M., Ramírez, I., Meléndez, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A32

    2022

  89. [97]

    2021, Universe, 8, 16

    Vescovi, D. 2021, Universe, 8, 16

    2021

  90. [98]

    2023, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol

    Vescovi, D. 2023, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 279, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 06001

    2023

  91. [99]

    2021, A&A, 652, A100 Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Magrini, L., Casali, G., et al

    Vescovi, D., Cristallo, S., Palmerini, S., Abia, C., & Busso, M. 2021, A&A, 652, A100 Viscasillas Vázquez, C., Magrini, L., Casali, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A135

    2021

  92. [100]

    2019, Nature, 574, 497

    Watson, D., Hansen, C., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497

    2019

  93. [101]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17358

    Weeks, A., Van Eylen, V ., Huber, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17358

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    W., & Friel, E

    Yong, D., Carney, B. W., & Friel, E. D. 2012, AJ, 144, 95

    2012

  95. [103]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Zhang, K., Zhou, Y ., Tang, Z., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107027W Article number, page 14 of ...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.