Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Properties of Radial Velocities measurement based on LAMOST-II Medium-Resolution Spectroscopic Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LAMOST medium-resolution spectra yield radial velocities accurate to ~0.03 km/s across 1.6 million spectra.

desk verdict Useful first RV catalog for LAMOST MRS, but the headline accuracy claim is circular and needs reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04773 v2 pith:SVEJOSNU submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

R. Wang , A.-L. Luo , J.-J. Chen , Z.-R.Bai , L. Chen , X.-F. Chen , S.-B. Dong , B. Du
show 23 more authors
J.-N. Fu Z.-W. Han J.-L. Hou Y.-H. Hou W. Hou D.-K. Jiang X. Kong L.-F. Li C. Liu J.-M. Liu L. Qin J.-R. Shi H. Tian H. Wu C.-J. Wu J.-W. Xie H.-T. Zhang S. Zhang G. Zhao Y.-H. Zhao J. Zhong W.-K. Zong F. Zuo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords radialvelocitiesLAMOSTmedium-resolutionspectroscopytemplatecross-correlationzero-pointcalibrationRVstandardstarssignal-to-noiseprecisionspectroscopicsurveys
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 reports a uniform radial-velocity (RV) measurement for the 1,594,956 medium-resolution spectra of the LAMOST-II survey. The authors show that a two-step template cross-correlation over 2,194 synthetic spectra, followed by a zero-point correction derived from 983 RV standard stars, removes lamp- and spectrograph-dependent offsets and brings the RV zero point into agreement with external standard-star catalogs at the level of about 0.03 km/s. They further estimate that a single spectrum delivers an intrinsic RV precision of 1.36 km/s at signal-to-noise 10, 1.08 km/s at 20, and 0.91 km/s at 50, improving with S/N and slightly better in the blue band than the red. If these numbers hold, the accompanying catalog gives Galactic-kinematics and time-domain studies a large, consistently calibrated RV sample from an R~7500 survey.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-step cross-correlation search: first match each continuum-normalized spectrum against all 2,194 synthetic templates shifted in coarse 40 km/s steps, then refine in 1 km/s steps and fit a Gaussian to ten points around the correlation peak. The per-band RVs (blue and red) are computed independently, and applying per-exposure, per-spectrograph, per-band zero-point offsets from standard-star observations removes lamp-dependent shifts. Precision is estimated from repeated epochs using the rms scatter of each star's RV measurements about its mean.

What would settle it

Take the paper's repeat-observation sample, discard any star whose RV varies by more than about 3 km/s between epochs or that is flagged as a binary or variable in public catalogs, and recompute the per-S/N rms; if the 1.36/1.08/0.91 km/s values drop noticeably, the quoted precision is contaminated by astrophysical variability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a coarse-to-fine template cross-correlation over a grid of 2,194 synthetic spectra, applied independently to the blue (4900–5400 Å) and red (6300–6800 Å) bands, produces radial velocities for LAMOST-II medium-resolution spectra (R≈7500) whose zero point, after per-exposure, per-spectrograph, per-band correction using 983 standard stars, agrees with the HY18 RV-standard catalog to 0.0227 km/s (0.0277 km/s in the detailed residual table). The same measurement, assessed from repeated observations of the same stars, reaches an intrinsic precision of 1.36 km/s at S/N 10, 1.08 km/s at S/N 20, and 0.91 km/s at S/N 50. The paper also establishes that these properties hold across a catalog of 1,594,956 spectra and that blue-band RVs are systematically more precise than red-band RVs.

Load-bearing premise

The precision estimates assume that repeated observations of the same star differ only because of measurement noise, so stars that are actually binaries or pulsators would inflate the quoted scatter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released 1,594,956-spectrum catalog provides a calibrated RV per spectrum for both blue and red bands, enabling kinematic studies of the Milky Way at R≈7500 resolution.
  • Zero-point agreement with RV standards at about 0.03 km/s means time-series users can combine epochs across the lamp change without introducing large velocity jumps, provided they apply the per-spectrograph offsets.
  • The S/N-dependent precision curve gives a ready-made error model: 1.36 km/s at S/N 10, 1.08 at 20, and 0.91 at 50, with blue-band measurements more precise than red-band ones.
  • The full-grid two-step matching is computationally feasible at survey scale, taking about ten days on a 15-PC Spark cluster for the roughly 3.2 million single-band spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper leaves open: recompute the repeat-observation precision after removing known binaries and variable stars; if the scatter shrinks, the quoted 1.36/1.08/0.91 km/s values are upper limits rather than pure measurement error.
  • Because the blue and red bands are measured independently and disagree at the 9.44 km/s level overall, a combined-band RV with flag-aware weighting would likely beat the single-band precision at low S/N; the paper stops at recommending the blue value.
  • The per-spectrograph zero points were derived under two arc-lamp regimes; a reader might expect a separate comparison of Sc-lamp-only and Th-Ar-only subsets to reveal whether the lamp transition itself contributes residual offsets, which the paper does not quantify separately.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper describes the measurement of radial velocities for 1,594,956 LAMOST-II medium-resolution (R≈7500) spectra using template matching against Kurucz model spectra. A zero-point calibration is derived per spectrograph, lamp, and waveband from 7,820 spectra of 983 HY18 RV standard stars, and the calibrated RVs are compared with HY18, Gaia RV-STD, APOGEE DR14, RAVE DR5, and Gaia RVS. The authors report an accuracy of 0.0227 km/s (abstract) or 0.0277 km/s (Table 2) with respect to HY18 standards, and an 'intrinsic precision' of 1.36, 1.08, and 0.91 km/s at S/N 10, 20, and 50 based on repeated observations. A public catalog is provided.

Significance. The work is potentially valuable: it delivers a large, homogeneous RV catalog from LAMOST MRS, with per-spectrograph zero-point corrections and validation against several independent surveys. The external comparisons with APOGEE, RAVE, and Gaia RVS are a genuine strength and give a realistic picture of the systematic floor. However, the headline accuracy number in the abstract is computed on the calibration sample itself and is therefore not an independent accuracy measurement; the independent comparisons show offsets of order 0.2-0.4 km/s. With corrected claims, this would be a useful methods-and-catalog paper for the LAMOST community.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.3, Table 2] The quoted accuracy of 0.0277 km/s (HY18 row of Table 2; abstract 0.0227 km/s) is derived from exactly the same 983 stars and 7,820 spectra used in Section 4.1 to fit the RVZP offsets per spectrograph, lamp, and waveband. After applying the fitted offsets, the mean residual is near zero by construction; this statistic measures internal calibration consistency, not absolute accuracy. The independent comparisons in Table 2 (Gaia RV-STD, APOGEE, RAVE, Gaia RVS) show mean offsets of -0.36 to +0.003 km/s (absolute values 0.22-0.36 km/s except RAVE) with RMS scatters of 1.7-4.1 km/s, which is the more honest statement of external accuracy. The abstract and summary should be revised to state that the zero point is consistent with HY18 at the ~0.03 km/s level on the calibration sample, while independent catalogs indicate systematic offsets at the ~0.2-0.4 km/s level. As written, a reader of the abstract will overestimate the absolute accuracy of the catalog by an order of magnitude.
  2. [§4.4, Eq. (1), Fig. 13] The precision values (1.36, 1.08, 0.91 km/s at S/N 10, 20, 50) are computed from the sample standard deviation of repeated observations of the same stars without any exclusion of known binaries, pulsating variables, or other RV-variable objects. The text says only that the estimate is 'based on the RV measurements of multiple observations in different epoch for the same stars.' If the repeat-observation sample contains a non-negligible fraction of binaries, the reported scatter is an upper limit on single-epoch measurement precision, not the intrinsic precision claimed. The authors should either remove or flag RV-variable stars (e.g., by iterative sigma clipping or by using a subsample of RV standards) or explicitly re-label the statistic as 'repeatability including astrophysical variability.'
  3. [Abstract, §4.3, §5, Table 2] The accuracy numbers are internally inconsistent: the abstract gives 0.0227 km/s, Section 4.3 says 0.028 km/s for HY18 and 0.107 km/s for Gaia RV-STD, Table 2 lists 0.0277 and -0.2797 km/s, and the summary states 0.03 and 0.28 km/s. In addition, Section 4.3 reports a HY18 cross-match of 1,106 stars/8,336 spectra and a Gaia RV-STD cross-match of 52 stars/326 spectra, while Table 2 uses 983/7,820 and 46/261; the selection criteria for the table rows are not explained. These discrepancies must be reconciled before the paper can be accepted, because the central claim concerns the accuracy of the measurements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract has typographical errors: 'km s/1' should be 'km s−1', and there are missing spaces in '1.36 km s−1,1.08 km s−1,0.91 km s−1'.
  2. [§4.1] 'LAMOSR MRS spectra' should be 'LAMOST MRS spectra'.
  3. [Figure 6 and Figure 7 captions] The captions contain 'Sc la p calibrated' and 'Sc lam calibrated'; both should be 'Sc lamp calibrated'.
  4. [§4.3] 'RVAE RVs are inconsistent' should be 'RAVE RVs are inconsistent'.
  5. [§5] The summary states the observations were collected 'till 31st Dec 2017', but Section 2.1 states the sample extends to 31st Dec 2018; please correct the date.
  6. [§4.4, Fig. 13] The provenance of the quoted precision values 1.08 and 0.91 km/s is unclear; please specify whether these are from the blue band, the red band, or the mean of the two, and define the S/N binning used to read the values from Figure 13.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

0.0227/0.0277 km/s accuracy vs HY18 is the residual after zero-point correction fitted to those same HY18 standards, so it is not an independent accuracy; independent catalogs give 0.2–0.5 km/s offsets.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 4.1 (zero-point calibration); Section 4.3 and Table 2 (accuracy evaluation)]
    "Comparing with reference sets, the accuracy of our measurement can get 0.0227 km s −1 with respect to radial velocities standard stars. ... We pick out 983 RV-STDs from Huang et al. (2018) which have 7820 LAMOST MRS spectra covering all spectrographs and exposures. ... Applying the RVZPs obtained from 7820 spectra of 983 RV-STDs to each exposure, spectrograph, and band, the RVs of all 1,594,956 two-band spectra are recalibrated to remove the offsets. ... Table 2: HY18 RV-STD 0.0277 1.4378 983 7,820"

    Table 2's HY18 row uses exactly the 983 stars and 7,820 spectra that Section 4.1 used to fit the per-spectrograph/lamp/band zero-point offsets. After subtracting a fitted additive offset, the mean residual on the fitting sample is ~0 by construction (μ=0.02 in Fig. 7; 0.0277 in Table 2). Thus the quoted HY18 'accuracy' measures internal calibration closure, not external accuracy. The paper's own independent comparisons in the same table show offsets of -0.28 (Gaia RV-STD), -0.22 (APOGEE), +0.003 (RAVE), and -0.36 (Gaia-RVS) km/s, roughly an order of magnitude larger than the headline value, so the abstract's 0.0227/0.0277 km/s figure is a fitted input presented as a validation result.

full rationale

The central issue is that the zero-point calibration (§4.1) is fitted to 7,820 spectra of 983 HY18 standards, and Table 2 then reports the mean residual against those same 983 stars/7,820 spectra. By construction, after subtracting per-spectrograph/lamp/band offsets, the mean residual must be near zero (observed as 0.0277 km/s in Table 2 and μ≈0.02 in Fig. 7). The abstract elevates this self-closure to a statement of 'accuracy.' However, the paper includes genuinely independent external checks (Gaia RV-STD, APOGEE DR14, RAVE DR5, Gaia-RVS), which show offsets of about 0.17–0.46 km/s and larger scatters. Therefore the HY18-based 'accuracy' figure is partially circular as a headline claim, but the paper is not wholly circular because the independent comparisons and the multi-epoch precision estimates (1.36/1.08/0.91 km/s) are not fitted to those standards. The overall circularity is partial: the headline accuracy measure reduces to a fitted residual, while other results remain independently grounded.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on calibration offsets fitted to the HY18 standard-star set and on the assumption that repeated observations of the same stars isolate measurement noise. No new physical entities are introduced. The template grid and external catalogs are taken as inputs from prior work.

free parameters (2)
  • RV zero-point offsets per spectrograph, lamp, and waveband = Not tabulated exactly; shown in Figure 6, roughly -6 to +2 km/s
    Derived from 7820 LAMOST MRS spectra of 983 HY18 RV standard stars and applied to recalibrate all RVs. The same HY18 comparison is later used to claim accuracy, making the headline accuracy a fitted value.
  • Outlier cut threshold |RV_blue - RV_red| > 25 km/s = 25 km/s
    Chosen as approximately 3 sigma of the observed blue-red difference distribution (sigma = 9.44 km/s). This hand-picked threshold removes about 63,000 spectra and affects the sample composition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The wavelength calibration of LAMOST MRS spectra is accurate after Th-Ar or Sc lamp calibration.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and Section 4.1; all RV measurements depend on the wavelength scale being correct to well below a km/s.
  • domain assumption The Kurucz synthetic template grid covers the stellar parameter space of the observed stars.
    Section 3 and Table 1; the template-matching RV is only as good as the templates, and stars outside the grid (for example, very metal-poor or very hot stars) could yield biased RVs.
  • domain assumption The HY18 RV standard stars have stable radial velocities within about 100 m/s.
    Section 4.1 states this requirement; if the standards drift, the zero-point correction inherits that drift.
  • domain assumption Scatter among repeated observations of the same star represents measurement precision rather than intrinsic stellar variability.
    Section 4.4, Equation (1); no exclusion of binaries or variable stars is described, so this assumption is load-bearing for the precision values.
  • domain assumption The reference catalogs (Gaia RV-STD, APOGEE DR14, RAVE DR5, Gaia-RVS DR2) provide accurate radial velocities for validation.
    Section 4.3; the accuracy and offset comparisons assume the external RVs are reliable and on a consistent zero point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of Radial Velocities measurement based on LAMOST-II Medium-Resolution Spectroscopic Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVEJOSNU

@misc{pith2026190804773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of Radial Velocities measurement based on LAMOST-II Medium-Resolution Spectroscopic Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVEJOSNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04773}
}
read the original abstract

The radial velocity (RV) is a basic physical quantity which can be determined through Doppler shift of the spectrum of a star. The precision of RV measurement depends on the resolution of the spectrum we used and the accuracy of wavelength calibration. In this work, radial velocities of LAMOST-II medium resolution (R ~ 7500) spectra are measured for 1,594,956 spectra (each spectrum has two wavebands) through matching with templates. A set of RV standard stars are used to recalibrate the zero point of the measurement, and some reference sets with RVs derived from medium/high-resolution observations are used to evaluate the accuracy of the measurement. Comparing with reference sets, the accuracy of our measurement can get 0.0227 km s/1 with respect to radial velocities standard stars. The intrinsic precision is estimated with the multiple observations of single stars, which can achieve to 1.36 km s/1,1.08 km s/1, 0.91 km s/1 for the spectra at signal-to-noise levels of 10, 20, 50, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04773 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The “footprints” of LAMOST-II MRS observa￾tions. The projection is in Galactic Coordinates. NP and SP in the figure refer to the North Pole and the South Pole of celestial coordinates. Averagely, spectra in each blue circle are around 3,000 targets. The date of the observation is from 30th Jun 2017 to 31st Dec 2018. 2.2. Data Reduction The MRS spectra are extracted from raw data (CCD images) with the LAMOST reductio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of the G magnitude and signal-to￾noise (S/N) of LAMOST-II MRS test observations are shown at the top panel and bottom two panels respectively. The date of the observation is from 30th Jun 2017 to 31st Dec 2018. continuum. For the spectra with S/N higher than 10, basic stellar parameters have been calculated using the LAMOST Stellar Parameter pipeline (LASP; Luo et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2011). An example o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of a LAMOST MRS spectrum: relative flux (top) and continua normalized flux (bottom) for blue (left) and red (right) waveband. The red solid curves in the top panels are the pseudo-continuum and the red dotted lines in the bottom panels are plotted as a reference. −  −  −     −  [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The statistical difference of MRS RVs between blue and red waveband. The left panel shows the distribution of RVs derived from blue (in blue color) or red (in red color). The right panel is the difference between two RVs of blue and red. as Crifo et al. (2007, 2010) es…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between radial velocities (km s−1 ) of LAMOST MRS observations and RV-STDs from Huang et al. (2018, hereafter, HY18). For LAMOST blue wave￾band, the comparison is shown in the left panels and for red waveband, it is shown in the right panels. Top panels show…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differences between radial velocities (km s−1 ) of LAMOST MRS observations and HY18 RV-STDs for individual spectrographs (spids), two wavelength coverages (blue in the top and red part in the bottom panel) and two kinds of arc lamps (brown for Th-Ar and blue for Sc lam…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the differences between calibrated RVs of LAMOST MRS and RVs of HY18 RV-STDs for blue part spectra in the left panel and red part spectra in the right panel. The unit of RV is km s−1 . by APOGEE as having large RV errors and finally a total of 89,741 spec…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the effective temperatures (top panel), surface gravities (middle), and metallicities(bottom) of the templates radial velocities catalogue has 152,734 stars in common with the LAMOST MRS RV catalogue corresponding to 868,663 spectra. For each case, we u…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Median radial velocity residuals of LAMOST MRS and reference sets as a function of the signal-to-noise S/N. Brown for comparison with HY18 RV-STD, green for Gaia RV-STD, red for APOGEE, purple for RAVE, and blue for Gaia-RVS. The top panel is for LAMOST RV derived from…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar with Fig.9, median radial velocity residuals as a function of GRVS magnitude. Error-bars represent 1-σ uncertainties. The step of GRVS bins is 1 mag. − −   [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar with Fig.9, median radial velocity residuals as a function of color index bp-rp. Error-bars represent 1-σ uncertainties. The step of bp-rp bins is 0.3 mag.                                             …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the numbers of repeated LAMOST MRS observations with measurable radial velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The precision of RV derived from repeated observations as a function of S/N. The top panel shows the precision for RV derived from blue part RVblue, the middle panel shows the precision from the red part (RVred) and the bottom shows the mean value of RVblue and RVred.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    䒒 Ch<`cS3I H JU2XM20t d_ Y 4<

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    2001, , 374, 733, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010730

    Bouchy , F., Pepe , F., & Queloz , D. 2001, , 374, 733, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010730

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010730 2001

  6. [6]

    2018, , 474, 3344, 10.1093/mnras/stx2944

    Britavskiy , N., Pancino , E., Tsymbal , V., Romano , D., & Fossati , L. 2018, , 474, 3344, 10.1093/mnras/stx2944

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2944 2018

  7. [7]

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

    2004

  8. [8]

    2010, , 524, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015315

    Crifo , F., Jasniewicz , G., Soubiran , C., et al. 2010, , 524, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015315

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015315 2010

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2007, in SF2A-2007: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Crifo , F., Jasniewicz , G., Soubiran , C., et al. 2007, in SF2A-2007: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. J. Bouvier , A. Chalabaev , & C. Charbonnel , 459

    2007

  2. [10]

    2018, , 616, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832763

    Cropper , M., Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., Prusti , T., & others. 2018, , 616, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832763

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui , X.-Q., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., Li , G.-P., & others. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Freeman , K

    De Silva , G. M., Freeman , K. C., Bland-Hawthorn , J., & others. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604, 10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Liu , C., et al

    Deng , L.-C., Newberg , H. J., Liu , C., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 735, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/003

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Latham , D

    Geller , A. M., Latham , D. W., & Mathieu , R. D. 2015, , 150, 97, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/97

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    Gilmore , G., Randich , S., Asplund , M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    2012

  9. [17]

    G., Tokovinin , A., Niemczura , E., et al

    He miniak , K. G., Tokovinin , A., Niemczura , E., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints. 1812.04319

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A., Shetrone , M., Johnson , J

    Holtzman , J. A., Shetrone , M., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 148, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/148

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Hasselquist , S., Shetrone , M., et al

    Holtzman , J. A., Hasselquist , S., Shetrone , M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, , 156, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacda5

    Huang , Y., Liu , X.-W., Chen , B.-Q., et al. 2018, , 156, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacda5

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    Hunter, J. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  15. [23]

    2004, MNRAS, 354, 1223, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08282.x

    Katz , D., Munari , U., Cropper , M., Zwitter , T., & others. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1223, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08282.x

    2004

  16. [24]

    2019, , 622, A205, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833273

    Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., Cropper , M., et al. 2019, , 622, A205, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833273

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, , 146, 134, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/134

    Kordopatis , G., Gilmore , G., Steinmetz , M., Boeche , C., & others. 2013, , 146, 134, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/134

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, , 153, 75, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75

    Kunder , A., Kordopatis , G., Steinmetz , M., Zwitter , T., & others. 2017, , 153, 75, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Beers , T

    Lee , Y. S., Beers , T. C., Sivarani , T., et al. 2008, , 136, 2022, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2022

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, arXiv e-prints

    Liu , N., Fu , J.-N., Zong , W., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints. 1901.00619

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    Luo , A.-L., Zhao , Y.-H., Zhao , G., Deng , L.-C., & others. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Schiavon , R

    Majewski , S. R., Schiavon , R. P., Frinchaboy , P. M., & others. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    V., Triaud , A

    Martin , D. V., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Udry , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints. 1901.01627

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2011, pandas : powerful Python data analysis toolkit

    McKinney, W. 2011, pandas : powerful Python data analysis toolkit. http://pandas.sourceforge.net/

    2011

  25. [33]

    2006, Guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing)

    Oliphant, T. 2006, Guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing). http://www.tramy.us/numpybook.pdf

    2006

  26. [34]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2014, in , Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 914320

    2014

  27. [35]

    2018, , 616, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832836

    Sartoretti , P., Katz , D., Cropper , M., Panuzzo , P., & others. 2018, , 616, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832836

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Siebert , A., Williams , M. E. K., Siviero , A., & others. 2011, , 141, 187, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/187

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, , 552, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220927

    Soubiran , C., Jasniewicz , G., Chemin , L., et al. 2013, , 552, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220927

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, , 616, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832795

    Soubiran , C., Jasniewicz , G., Chemin , L., Zurbach , C., et al. 2018, , 616, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832795

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    G., & others

    Steinmetz , M., Zwitter , T., Siebert , A., Watson , F. G., & others. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645, 10.1086/506564

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    2011, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11, 924, 10.1088/1674-4527/11/8/006

    Wu , Y., Luo , A.-L., Li , H.-N., et al. 2011, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11, 924, 10.1088/1674-4527/11/8/006

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Knapp , G

    Yanny , B., Rockosi , C., Newberg , H. J., Knapp , G. R., & others. 2009, AJ, 137, 4377, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4377

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Wendell, P., et al

    Zaharia, M., Xin, R. S., Wendell, P., et al. 2016, Commun. ACM, 59, 56, 10.1145/2934664

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao , G., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., Jing , Y.-P., & Deng , L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    C., & others

    Zwitter , T., Siebert , A., Munari , U., Freeman , K. C., & others. 2008, , 136, 421, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/421

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.