Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

The Blue Horizontal-Branch Stars From the LAMOST Survey: Atmospheric Parameters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding photometric colors as training features lets a synthetic-spectrum model derive reliable stellar parameters for 5,355 BHB stars.

desk verdict Useful BHB-specific SLAM catalog with real low-S/N gains, but the headline error bars are validated on degraded HRS spectra rather than real LAMOST spectra and the color check is partly circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11250 v1 pith:TDOTEBOV submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Jie Ju , Bo Zhang , Wenyuan Cui , ZhenYan Huo , Chao Liu , Yang Huang , JianRong Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords bluehorizontal-branchstarsstellaratmosphericparametersLAMOSTlow-resolutionspectraLabelMachine(SLAM)supportvectorregressionphotometriccolorindicestheoreticalGalactichalo
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 aims to provide reliable atmospheric parameters (effective temperature $T_\mathrm{eff}$, surface gravity $\log g$, and metallicity [Fe/H]) for 5,355 blue horizontal-branch (BHB) stars observed by LAMOST, using a data-driven method trained on theoretical A-type spectra. The method adds four photometric color indices to the spectral flux as training features. These colors break the temperature degeneracy that arises because Balmer-line strength is non-monotonic with temperature for A-type stars. The authors report that this addition improves precision at low signal-to-noise ratios, and they validate their results against duplicate observations and 12 high-resolution reference stars.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SLAM model (Stellar Label Machine), a support vector regression that predicts stellar labels from normalized spectral flux. Here it is trained on synthetic spectra with four color indices – $(BP-G)$, $(G-RP)$, $(BP-RP)$, $(J-H)$ – appended as additional input features. The color indices provide a monotonic temperature scale that breaks the non-monotonic Balmer-line temperature sensitivity, and they anchor the model when spectral noise is high.

What would settle it

Compare the predicted $T_\mathrm{eff}$ for a large sample of BHB stars with independent high-resolution spectroscopic temperatures covering the full 7000–12000 K range; if the claimed 76 K scatter is real, the differences should follow that scatter, whereas a larger systematic offset at, say, $T_\mathrm{eff} > 10{,}000$ K or a metallicity-dependent trend would falsify the claim that the theoretical grid plus color features is unbiased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a support-vector-regression model, trained on 5,000 theoretical A-type spectra generated from the grid of Allende Prieto et al. (2018) with four photometric color indices ($(BP-G)$, $(G-RP)$, $(BP-RP)$, $(J-H)$) appended as extra input dimensions, can predict $T_\mathrm{eff}$, $\log g$, and [Fe/H] for LAMOST low-resolution spectra of BHB stars. The predicted labels reproduce the color-temperature relation better than training on flux alone, and the scatter against 12 high-resolution reference stars is $\sigma(T_\mathrm{eff}) = 76$ K, $\sigma(\log g) = 0.04$ dex, and $\sigma([Fe/H]) = 0.09$ dex. The paper argues that the color indices act as a stable temperature metric, especially valuable when spectra have low signal-to-noise ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the theoretical A-type spectra, after Gaussian smoothing to $R \sim 1800$ and resampling to 390–580 nm, faithfully represent real LAMOST BHB spectra, and that the synthetic colors used for training are on the same photometric system as the dereddened observed Gaia and 2MASS colors; any bias in the grid or color zero-point transfers directly into every predicted label.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A public catalog of atmospheric parameters for 5,355 BHB stars from LAMOST DR5 becomes available for Galactic halo studies.
  • The color-augmented training strategy could be applied to other surveys and to stars with similar Balmer degeneracy, extending reliable parameter estimation to faint, low-S/N spectra.
  • Because the training set is purely synthetic, the method can be redeployed to new wavelength ranges or resolutions without requiring a large observed calibration sample.
  • The parameter catalog will support distance estimates and kinematic studies of the halo, where BHB stars serve as standard candles.
  • The reported random errors from duplicate observations (about 30 K, 0.1 dex, and 0.12 dex for $T_\mathrm{eff}$, $\log g$, and [Fe/H]) set expectations for the method on repeated low-S/N spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the improvement from adding colors likely saturates once spectra are high signal-to-noise, so the method's chief advantage is for the roughly 40% of the sample with S/N below 40; extending it to even fainter surveys is a natural next step.
  • Editorial inference: the 12-star high-resolution validation is small, so the quoted calibration uncertainties could change with a larger comparison sample; a natural test is to apply the trained model to BHB stars from other surveys with published high-resolution parameters.
  • Editorial inference: reliance on theoretical spectra leaves the method vulnerable to missing physics such as diffusion, rotation, or alpha-element enhancement; stars with such peculiarities may show larger residuals than the quoted scatter.
  • Editorial inference: the same color-feature trick could be tested on synthetic spectra with known diffusion stratification to see whether the model can be extended to hotter BHB stars, where the paper itself notes its metallicity predictions deviate.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Stellar Label Machine (SLAM), an SVR-based data-driven model, to derive Teff, log g, and [Fe/H] for 5,355 blue horizontal-branch (BHB) stars from LAMOST DR5 low-resolution spectra. The training set consists of 5,000 synthetic A-type spectra from Allende Prieto et al. (2018), with four photometric colors ((BP-G), (G-RP), (BP-RP), (J-H)) added as extra input features. Validation includes five-fold cross-validation on noised synthetic spectra, duplicate observations, a comparison with Xiang et al. (2022), a color-consistency check against PARSEC synthetic colors, and a comparison with 12 high-resolution literature spectra. The paper claims that adding colors significantly improves Teff and log g accuracy at low S/N and quotes final uncertainties of 76 K, 0.04 dex, and 0.09 dex.

Significance. If the claimed accuracies are reliable, the resulting catalog would be a useful resource for Galactic-halo studies, and the idea of using broad-band colors to break the Balmer-line temperature degeneracy in A-type/BHB stars is sensible and potentially valuable for low-resolution surveys. The paper is transparent about some limitations, explicitly acknowledging the small high-resolution sample (Section 4.5), the 320 stars with unreliable out-of-grid log g and [Fe/H] (Section 4.1), and diffusion effects at Teff > 11,000 K. However, the central accuracy claims are not currently established: the main color-consistency validation is partly circular, and the external validation does not test the model on actual LAMOST spectra with their pipeline systematics. These issues are fixable but require additional analysis and revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.3] Section 4.3, Figure 7(d): The precision comparison used to claim that the flux+color model is more accurate than the flux-only model is not independent for the flux+color model. The observed (BP-RP)_0 colors used in the comparison were also used as input features in the flux+color training, so the small scatter (sigma = 0.020 mag) between these observed colors and the synthetic colors computed from the predicted parameters is largely a consequence of the model having been trained to reproduce those same colors. The flux-only panel (e) is not circular, but it cannot by itself establish the superiority of the flux+color model. The authors should validate the flux+color model on a held-out set, use a color not included as a training feature, or otherwise break the circularity.
  2. [4.5] Section 4.5, Figure 13: The external validation uses 12 stars that were not observed by LAMOST; their high-resolution spectra were downloaded from ESO, degraded to R ~ 1800, and then used for prediction. This tests the model on clean, carefully calibrated and normalized HRS data, not on LAMOST spectra with their own sky subtraction, fiber PSF, flux calibration, blue/red arm splicing, and normalization artifacts. The quoted uncertainties (76 K, 0.04 dex, 0.09 dex) therefore do not measure the accuracy on the 5,355 real LAMOST spectra. In addition, the text says the reference values are from Kinman et al. (2000) while the Figure 13 caption says Wilhelm et al. (1999); this discrepancy must be resolved.
  3. [4.1] Section 4.1: The text states that 320 of the 5,355 catalog stars have predicted labels outside the training parameter range, especially in log g and [Fe/H], and that for these stars "log g and metallicity are unreliable." Nevertheless these 320 stars are included in the final catalog (Table 1) and in the reported parameter distributions and statistics. The catalog claim for 5,355 stars is therefore overstated. The authors should either exclude these stars, flag them clearly in the catalog, or demonstrate that their inclusion does not affect the conclusions; the validation statistics should also be recomputed or reported separately for the reliable subset.
  4. [3.2] Section 3.2: The construction of the four color indexes used in training is not described in sufficient detail. The authors do not specify how the theoretical spectra were converted to Gaia and 2MASS colors (filter transmission curves, zero points, transformations), nor how these synthetic colors were placed on the same system as the dereddened observed colors. Since the colors dominate the temperature estimate at low S/N (Figure 4), any mismatch between the synthetic and observed color systems would bias Teff and, through the Teff-logg coupling, logg as well. A detailed description of the synthetic photometry and a demonstration of color-system consistency are needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo, "precisoin", and the strikethrough markup "\sout{to}" should be removed.
  2. [1] Section 1 contains a typo: "Setion 5" should be "Section 5".
  3. [4.5] Section 4.5 contains a grammatical error: "The LAMOST survey have not observed these stars" should be "The LAMOST survey has not observed these stars".
  4. [4.1] Section 4.1 has several awkward phrasings, including "a small number of 320 stars" and the run-on sentence beginning "there may be other potential parameters that could account for these phenomena, their effects are likely to be secondary."
  5. [9] Figure 9: "around t=8000K" should be "around Teff = 8000 K", and there is a missing space in "abundance(Catelan 2009)".

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central validation of the color-index improvement is circular: the same Gaia/2MASS colors used as SLAM input features are reused as the validation metric, so the small scatter in Figure 7(d) largely reflects the model's own input; the duplicate-observation error estimate is also anchored by constant photometric inputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Figure 7 panel (d); cf. Section 3.2]
    "In Section 3.2: 'we adopt these four color indexes as four pixels to be added to the training sample along with the flux'; Section 4.3: 'We have calculated the theoretical color indices (BP − RP) based on the atmospheric parameters estimated with color index (Figure 7 panel(d)) ... We compared these with the observed color indices ... The results show that σ(flux+color) = 0.020 ... indicating that SLAM training with color index provides more accurate temperature predictions.'"

    The observed (BP−RP)_0 values used as the validation target in Figure 7(d) were included as four color-index features in the SLAM training set (Section 3.2). The model therefore learns a direct mapping from these colors to Teff; comparing the synthetic color of the predicted Teff with the same observed color measures only the internal consistency of that learned mapping, not independent accuracy. The test is not a prediction of a held-out quantity: the input color is reused as the output metric, so small scatter (0.020 mag) is expected by construction. The comparison with the flux-only model shows the feature's influence, but the claim that this demonstrates 'more accurate temperature predictions' is circular because the validation data were part of the input.

  2. other [Section 4.2, Figure 10]
    "Section 4.2: 'It is due to the color index does not change between different spectra of the same star.' Also: 'The error of the training set with the color index included is significantly smaller than that of the training set without the color index considered.'"

    The duplicate-observation scatter is presented as the random error of the pipeline, but the four color-index features are photometric quantities that are identical for every repeated spectrum of a given star. The paper explicitly attributes the improved precision to this constancy. Because the same input color is reused for all epochs, the Teff scatter across repeats is artificially anchored and no longer measures the full random error that would be present if the color input itself were re-measured or if the LAMOST spectrum were the only data. The quoted 'precision' thus indirectly re-imports the input feature as the error estimate.

full rationale

The core derivation is not wholly self-referential: SLAM is trained on external theoretical spectra (Allende Prieto et al. 2018), the catalog is an original prediction, and the 12-star HRS comparison is an independent external check, even though it degrades clean HRS data rather than testing actual LAMOST spectra. No load-bearing self-citation circularity is present; the citation of Ju et al. (2024) supplies the input sample, not the target atmospheric parameters. However, the paper's strongest validation of the claimed low-S/N improvement and the headline precision figures rests on a circular reuse of the same colors: the observed (BP−RP)_0 fed as a training feature is later used as the yardstick for the temperature accuracy, so the 0.020 mag scatter is largely a self-consistency measure. The duplicate-observation error estimate is similarly anchored by photometric colors that are constant across repeats. These issues make the central accuracy claims partially circular, warranting a score of 6 rather than a lower score; the catalog labels are not literally equal to the color inputs, and the HRS/PARSEC comparisons supply some independent content, so the paper is not fully circular.

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

No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are hand-chosen pipeline settings, and the axioms are about fidelity of the synthetic grid, color system consistency, and extinction correction.

free parameters (3)
  • SLAM hyperparameters (C, epsilon, gamma) = C in {0.1,1,10}, epsilon=0.05, gamma in {0.1,1}
    Taken as defaults from Zhang et al. (2020a) rather than optimized; they shape the SVR fit and are not fitted to external BHB labels.
  • Training set size = 5,000 randomly selected theoretical spectra
    Chosen 'according to Guo et al. (2021)' without a data-driven justification; larger sets would change precision.
  • Wavelength fitting window = 390 to 580 nm
    Cutoff at 580 nm chosen to save calculation time; discards red-arm information that might constrain log g and metallicity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Allende Prieto et al. (2018) A-type synthetic grid is an unbiased representation of real BHB spectra after degradation and resampling.
    Section 3.2; if the synthetic lines or continua are inaccurate, all SLAM predictions are biased.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation between grid points produces valid intermediate spectra.
    Section 3.2 uses linear interpolation to enlarge the grid; it assumes smooth spectral variation over the parameter steps.
  • domain assumption Theoretical color indexes and observed dereddened Gaia/2MASS colors are on the same system.
    The four colors are treated as identical features in training and prediction; any zero-point or system mismatch directly shifts Teff.
  • domain assumption The Wang & Chen (2019) extinction law and Green et al. (2019) reddening map correctly deredden the observed colors.
    Section 4 applies these to compute color inputs; reddening errors become temperature errors.
  • domain assumption SVR with default hyperparameters generalizes from synthetic to observed spectra.
    The only generalization tests are synthetic cross-validation, duplicates, and 12 high-resolution stars; no test against a large independent benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Blue Horizontal-Branch Stars From the LAMOST Survey: Atmospheric Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDOTEBOV

@misc{pith2026241111250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Blue Horizontal-Branch Stars From the LAMOST Survey: Atmospheric Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDOTEBOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11250}
}
abstract

Blue horizontal-branch (BHB) stars are crucial for studying the structure of the Galactic halo. Accurate atmospheric parameters of BHB stars are essential for investigating the formation and evolution of the Galaxy. In this work, a data-driven technique named stellar label machine (SLAM) is used to estimate the atmospheric parameters of Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope low-resolution spectra (LAMOST-LRS) for BHB stars with a set of A-type theoretical spectra as the training dataset. We add color indexes ($(BP-G), (G-RP), (BP-RP), (J-H)$) during the training process to constrain the stellar temperature further. Finally, we derive the atmospheric parameters ($T_\mathrm{eff}$, log\, $g$, [Fe/H]) for 5,355 BHB stars. Compared to existing literature results, our results are more robust, after taking the color index into account, the resulted precisoin of $T_\mathrm{eff}$, log\, $g$ is significantly improved, especially for the spectrum with low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). Based on the duplicate observations with a S/N difference $< 20\%$, the random errors are around 30\,K, 0.1~dex, and 0.12~dex for $T_\mathrm{eff}$, log\,$g$, [Fe/H], respectively. The stellar labels provided by SLAM are also compared to those from the high-resolution spectra in literature. The standard deviation between the predicted star labels and the published values from the high-resolution spectra is adopted as \sout{to} the statistical uncertainty of our results. They are $\sigma$($T_\mathrm{eff}$) = 76\,K, $\sigma$(log\,$g$) = 0.04~dex, and $\sigma$([Fe/H]) = 0.09~dex, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spatial distribution of BHB stars identified from LAMOST-LRS observations by Ju et al. (2024) 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 Teff [K] 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 lo g g Allende Prieto+2018 Our grid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The crosses in the (Teff log g) plane represents the model grids for A-type stars, while the grey-shaded area represents the linearly interpolated model grids that are em￾ployed for the training set. The signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of input spectra affects the scatter value. To evaluate SLAM’s performance on the spectra of different S/N, we apply a Gaussian func￾tion (mean = 0, σ = flux/(S/N) ) to add a range of S/N… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distributions of Teff vs. theoretical color indexes ((BP − G),(G − RP),(BP − RP),(J − H)) plane. The color bar on the right represents log g. 25 50 75 100 125 S/N 0 200 400 600 800 Scatter Teff [K] flux flux+color 25 50 75 100 125 S/N 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 logg flux flux+color 25 50 75 100 125 S/N 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 [Fe/H] flux flux+color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of Scatter values for predicted atmospheric parameter of Teff log g, and [Fe/H] as a function of S/N values. Blue represents training flux only, and red represents training flux and color index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The upper figure shows the LAMOST low-resolution spectrum, the bottom shows the normalized and radial velocity corrected spectrum (blue line) and the theoretical spectrum (orange line) obtained based on the atmospheric parameters (Teff = 7783 K, log g = 3.23, and [Fe/H…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of BHB stars in Teff (left panel), log g (middle panel) and [Fe/H] (right panel). 4.2. Multiple observations Numerous stars have had multiple visits during the LAMOST survey, providing valuable insights into the random errors of atmospheric parameters.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of BHB stars in the Teff vs. (BP − RP)0 plane from panel (a) to panel (c). Teff is estimated by training flux and color index(panel (a)), by training flux(panel (b)), by Xiang(panel (c)). The dashed line represents the theoretical results predicted by …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of BHB stars in the Teff vs. log g plane. The lines represent PARSEC, the theoretical isochrone tracks, with metallicity values of [Fe/H] = −2.5,−1.5, and −0.5, respectively. The tracks with ages of 1 Gyr are included in the figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The upper panels compare average BHB spectra with large and small log g around t=8000K. The bottom panels show the normalized residuals between these two average spectra, the blue dots represent outliers exceeding three standard deviations. The black dashed lines repre…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The random errors of stellar parameters for duplicate as functions of S/N. The blue line represents train￾ing flux only, and the red line represents training flux and color index. impact. Surface gravities are also affected by the S/N of spectra, possibly due to the d…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the stellar parameter between the SLAM estimates and Xiang’s results for the BHB stars. tra (black) and theoretical spectra for these two stars (red represents the atmospheric parameters predicted by SLAM, and blue is by Xiang et al. (2022)). It can be s…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The normalized spectrum of two stars. The black lines show the observed spectrum of the star. The red dashed line shows the theoretical spectra. 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 HRS:Teff [K] 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 S L A M:Te f f [ K ] 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 HRS:logg 2.…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparisons of predicted stellar labels (Teff , log g, [Fe/H]) of 12 BHB stars obtained from the SLAM to the prelabeled values as given by Wilhelm et al. (1999) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Posterior distributions of predicted Teff , log g and [Fe/H]. The contours from the inside out enclose the 68th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of the total probability in the three off-diagonal panels. The two vertical dashed lines in the three diagonal panels represent …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, A&A, 618, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732484

    Allende Prieto, C., Koesterke, L., Hubeny, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732484

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732484 2018

  2. [2]

    C., Preston, G

    Beers, T. C., Preston, G. W., Shectman, S. A., Doinidis, S. P., & Griffin, K. E. 1992, AJ, 103, 267, doi: 10.1086/116060

    doi:10.1086/116060 1992

  3. [3]

    Behr, B. B. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 149, 67

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Behr, B. B. 2003, ApJS, 149, 67, doi: 10.1086/377509

    doi:10.1086/377509 2003

  5. [5]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-9987-8

    Catelan, M. 2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-9987-8

    doi:10.1007/s10509-009-9987-8 2009

  7. [7]

    2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936612 2019

  8. [8]

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

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A134

    Culpan, R., Dorsch, M., Geier, S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A134

    2024

  2. [10]

    2021, A&A, 654, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040074

    Culpan, R., Pelisoli, I., & Geier, S. 2021, A&A, 654, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040074

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2903, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19237.x Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, C3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657e

    2011

  4. [12]

    O., & Corbally, Christopher, J

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, Christopher, J. 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    2009

  5. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    L., & Sargent, A

    Greenstein, J. L., & Sargent, A. I. 1974, ApJS, 28, 157, doi: 10.1086/190315 Guo , Y., Zhang, B., Liu, C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2ded

    1974 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJS, 226, 1, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/1

    Ji, W., Cui, W., Liu, C., et al. 2016, ApJS, 226, 1, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/1

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0df9

    Ju, J., Cui, W., Huo, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0df9

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2000, A&A, 364, 102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006179

    Kinman, T., Castelli, F., Cacciari, C., et al. 2000, A&A, 364, 102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006179

    2000 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    S., Beers, T

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

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe1c1

    Li, J., Liu, C., Zhang, B., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe1c1

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Du, C.-D., et al

    Li, Y.-B., Luo, A. L., Du, C.-D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa415

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0a0d

    Liu, Z., Cui, W., Liu, C., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0a0d

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 995

    Liu, Z., Cui, W., Zhao, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 995

    2023

  16. [24]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/16

    Zasowski, G. 2015, ApJ, 808, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/16

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    W., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2010, ApJ, 712, 516, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/516

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & Hawkins, M

    Norris, J. E., & Hawkins, M. R. S. 1991, ApJ, 380, 104, doi: 10.1086/170566 BHB stars 15

    1991 doi

  19. [27]

    2009, Permutation Tests for Studying Classifier Performance

    Ojala, M., & Garriga, G. 2009, Permutation Tests for Studying Classifier Performance. 2009 Ninth IEEE Int Conf Data Min, IEEE

    2009

  20. [28]

    2015, Optics letters, 40, 882

    Short, N., Hu, S., Gurram, P., Gurton, K., & Chan, A. 2015, Optics letters, 40, 882

    2015

  21. [29]

    R., et al

    Sirko, E., Goodman, J., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 899, doi: 10.1086/381483

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    J., & Sch¨ olkopf, B

    Smola, A. J., & Sch¨ olkopf, B. 2004, Statistics and computing, 14, 199 Soszy´ nski, I., Pawlak, M., Pietrukowicz, P., et al. 2016, AcA, 66, 405, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1701.03105

    2004 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 5757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2935

    Starkenburg, E., Youakim, K., Martin, N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2935

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Li, Z.-Y., Smith, M

    Vickers, J. J., Li, Z.-Y., Smith, M. C., & Shen, J. 2021, ApJ, 912, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe4d0

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & Gray, R

    Wilhelm, R., Beers, T. C., & Gray, R. O. 1999, AJ, 117, 2308, doi: 10.1086/300824

    1999 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd6ba —

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd6ba —. 2022, A&A, 662, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141570

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    X., Rix, H

    Xue, X. X., Rix, H. W., Zhao, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1143, doi: 10.1086/589500

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    2011, ApJ, 738, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/79

    Xue, X.-X., Rix, H.-W., Yanny, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/79

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Kent, S., et al

    Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Kent, S., et al. 2000, ApJ, 540, 825, doi: 10.1086/309386

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Johnson, J

    Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1282, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1282

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, ApJS, 232, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa88a9

    Yao, Y., Liu, C., Deng, L., de Grijs, R., & Matsunaga, N. 2017, ApJS, 232, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa88a9

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  35. [43]

    2020a, ApJS, 246, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ef

    Zhang, B., Liu, C., & Deng, L.-C. 2020a, ApJS, 246, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ef

    doi

  36. [44]

    2020b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 051, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/4/51

    Zhang, B., Liu, C., Li, C.-Q., et al. 2020b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 051, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/4/51

    doi

  37. [45]

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

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.