Chemical Cartography with APOGEE: Mapping Disk Populations with a Two-Process Model and Residual Abundances
AI-generated Key Points
- Statistical analysis of elemental abundances in Milky Way disk stars using data from APOGEE-2 DR17
- Focus on 16 elemental abundances measured in 34,410 stars
- Two-process model used to decompose abundance patterns into "prompt" and "delayed" components
- Residuals (\Delta[X/H]) computed for each star based on fit, ranging from ~0.01-0.03 dex to ~0.1 dex
- Correlations of residuals reveal complex underlying structure with two distinct correlated element groups
- Identification of physical outliers and potential measurement errors by selecting poorly fit stars
- Use of residual abundances to compare populations while controlling for differences in metallicity and [\alpha/Fe]
- Nearly identical abundance patterns in outer disk compared to main disk region (R=3-13 kpc; |Z|<2 kpc)
- Slight depressions in multiple elements for LMC and Gaia Sausage/Enceladus stars (0.05-0.2 dex)
- Significant deviations in multiple elements for \omega Cen (0.4-1 dex)
- Opportunities for discovering chemically distinctive stars and stellar populations, constraining nucleosynthetic yields, and testing chemical evolution models
- Introduction to the 2-process model provides a good starting point for readers seeking a broad overview
- Figures 4–7 illustrate median trends, Figures 12 & 15 depict distributions & covariance of residual abundances, Figure 20 showcases examples of high–χ² stars, and Figure 22 displays residual patterns of selected populations
Authors: David H. Weinberg, Jon A. Holtzman, Jennifer A. Johnson, Christian Hayes, Sten Hasselquist, Matthew Shetrone, Yuan-Sen Ting, Rachael L. Beaton, Timothy C. Beers, Jonathan C. Bird, Dmitry Bizyaev, Michael R. Blanton, Katia Cunha, Jose G. Fernandez-Trincado, Peter M. Frinchaboy, D. A. Garcia-Hernandez, Emily Griffith, James W. Johnson, Henrik Jonsson, Richard R. Lane, Henry W. Leung, J. Ted Mackereth, Steven R. Majewski, Szabolcz Meszaros, Christian Nitschelm, Kaike Pan, Ricardo P. Schiavon, Donald P. Schneider, Mathias Schultheis, Verne Smith, Jennifer S. Sobeck, Keivan G. Stassun, Guy S. Stringfellow, Fiorenzo Vincenzo, John C. Wilson, Gail Zasowski
Abstract: We apply a novel statistical analysis to measurements of 16 elemental abundances in 34,410 Milky Way disk stars from the final data release (DR17) of APOGEE-2. Building on recent work, we fit median abundance ratio trends [X/Mg] vs. [Mg/H] with a 2-process model, which decomposes abundance patterns into a "prompt" component tracing core collapse supernovae and a "delayed" component tracing Type Ia supernovae. For each sample star, we fit the amplitudes of these two components, then compute the residuals \Delta[X/H] from this two-parameter fit. The rms residuals range from ~0.01-0.03 dex for the most precisely measured APOGEE abundances to ~0.1 dex for Na, V, and Ce. The correlations of residuals reveal a complex underlying structure, including a correlated element group comprised of Ca, Na, Al, K, Cr, and Ce and a separate group comprised of Ni, V, Mn, and Co. Selecting stars poorly fit by the 2-process model reveals a rich variety of physical outliers and sometimes subtle measurement errors. Residual abundances allow comparison of populations controlled for differences in metallicity and [\alpha/Fe]. Relative to the main disk (R=3-13 kpc, |Z|<2 kpc), we find nearly identical abundance patterns in the outer disk (R=15-17 kpc), 0.05-0.2 dex depressions of multiple elements in LMC and Gaia Sausage/Enceladus stars, and wild deviations (0.4-1 dex) of multiple elements in \omega Cen. Residual abundance analysis opens new opportunities for discovering chemically distinctive stars and stellar populations, for empirically constraining nucleosynthetic yields, and for testing chemical evolution models that include stochasticity in the production and redistribution of elements.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.