Paper detail

How Many Elements Matter?

Some studies of stars' multi-element abundance distributions suggest at least 5-7 significant dimensions, but others show that many elemental abundances can be predicted to high accuracy from [Fe/H] and [Mg/Fe] (or [Fe/H] and age) alone. We show that both propositions can be, and are, simultaneously true. We adopt a machine learning technique known as normalizing flow to reconstruct the probability distribution of Milky Way disk stars in the space of 15 elemental abundances measured by APOGEE. Conditioning on Teff and log g minimizes the differential systematics. After further conditioning on [Fe/H] and [Mg/Fe], the residual scatter for most abundances is $σ_{[X/{\rm H}]} \lesssim 0.02$ dex, consistent with APOGEE's reported statistical uncertainties of $\sim$0.01-0.015 dex and intrinsic scatter of 0.01-0.02 dex. Despite the small scatter, residual abundances display clear correlations between elements, which we show are too large to be explained by measurement uncertainties or by the finite sampling noise. We must condition on at least seven elements to reduce correlations to a level consistent with observational uncertainties. Our results demonstrate that cross-element correlations are a much more sensitive probe of hidden structure than dispersion, and they can be measured precisely in a large sample even if star-by-star measurement noise is comparable to the intrinsic scatter. We conclude that many elements have an independent story to tell, even for the "mundane" disk stars and elements produced by core-collapse and Type Ia supernovae. The only way to learn these lessons is to measure the abundances directly, and not merely infer them.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.