KPM: A Flexible and Data-Driven K-Process Model for Nucleosynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The element abundance pattern found in Milky Way disk stars is close to two-dimensional, dominated by production from one prompt process and one delayed process. This simplicity is remarkable, since the elements are produced by a multitude of nucleosynthesis mechanisms operating in stars with a wide range of progenitor masses. We fit the abundances of 14 elements for 48,659 red-giant stars from APOGEE DR17 using a flexible, data-driven K-process model -- dubbed KPM. In our fiducial model, with $K=2$, each abundance in each star is described as the sum of a prompt and a delayed process contribution. We find that KPM with $K=2$ is able to explain the abundances well, recover the observed abundance bimodality, and detect the bimodality over a greater range in metallicity than previously has been possible. We compare to prior work by Weinberg et al. (2022), finding that KPM produces similar results, but that KPM better predicts stellar abundances, especially for elements C+N and Mn and for stars at super-solar metallicities. The model fixes the relative contribution of the prompt and delayed process to two elements to break degeneracies and improve interpretability; we find that some of the nucleosynthetic implications are dependent upon these detailed choices. We find that moving to four processes adds flexibility and improves the model's ability to predict the stellar abundances, but doesn't qualitatively change the story. The results of KPM will help us to interpret and constrain the formation of the Galaxy disk, the relationship between abundances and ages, and the physics of nucleosynthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".