Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Sequencing Silicates in the IRS Debris Disk Catalog I: Methodology for Unsupervised Clustering

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CLUES, a fully non-parametric clustering workflow, sorts debris disk spectra by mineral content without fitting any spectral model.

desk verdict CLUES is a useful, honestly assembled clustering pipeline whose benchmark results validate the clustering stack but not the underlying continuum preprocessing; the P1 sensitivity is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01484 v1 pith:75WPIECD submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMcs.LG

Cicero X. Lu , Tushar Mittal , Christine H. Chen , Alexis Y. Li , Kadin Worthen , B. A. Sargent , Carey M. Lisse , G. C. Sloan
show 5 more authors
Dean C. Hines Dan M. Watson Isabel Rebollido Bin B. Ren Joel D. Green
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMcs.LG
keywords DebrisdisksSilicategrainsMid-infraredspectroscopyUnsupervisedclusteringSequenceralgorithmEarthMover'sDistanceHierarchicalMinimumspanningtree
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 introduces CLUES, an unsupervised machine-learning workflow that classifies mid-infrared spectra of debris disks without assuming a spectral model or fitting parameters. The authors aim to replace the traditional handful of spectral band ratios with a full-spectrum, multi-scale distance measurement, so that hundreds of Spitzer IRS disk spectra can be sorted by mineralogical similarity rather than by a few hand-picked features. They validate the method on three test cases: a pure mineral library, a well-studied debris disk (HD 113766), and a set of 59 meteorite spectra. In each case the unsupervised groupings recover known compositional structure, including the forsterite iron-magnesium ordering and the Fe-rich forsterite content of HD 113766. If this works on the full catalog, it would give a data-driven demographic map of silicate mineralogy across several hundred debris disks without human bias.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'average emissivity' spectrum, defined in Eq. (3) as the disk flux divided by a fitted continuum; this is the quantity CLUES compares. The load-bearing mechanism is the Sequencer-based distance matrix: the spectrum is divided into chunks of width set by a 'distance scale' $l$, and each chunk pair is compared with the Earth Mover's Distance, which measures how much 'work' is needed to reshape one spectral chunk into another. A scale list $[1,2,5,10,20,50]$ is combined into an elongation-weighted matrix, so both narrow and broad features contribute. Ward-linkage hierarchical clustering then groups spectra by minimizing within-cluster variance, the silhouette score chooses the cluster count, and the minimum spanning tree plus metric multi-dimensional scaling provide the 1D and low-dimensional views. This combination is what carries the argument: it lets the full 7–33 micron wavelength range, including the broad 20 and 30 micron complexes, inform the classification without any parametric assumption about line-to-continuum ratios.

What would settle it

Rerun CLUES on a well-modeled disk such as HD 113766 after deliberately changing the continuum fit—for example, adding a cold blackbody component or moving the anchor regions—and check whether the disk still clusters with Fe-rich forsterite; if the cluster membership or recovered Fo-number ranking shifts with the continuum choice, the mineralogical readout is dominated by the normalization the paper itself flags as unreliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully non-parametric pipeline—Sequencer's multi-scale Earth Mover's Distance distance matrix, Ward-linkage hierarchical clustering, and silhouette-score cluster selection—recovers physically meaningful mineral groupings from mid-infrared spectra, without any parametric spectral fitting. The strongest demonstration is the forsterite library experiment: with the library spectra shuffled, CLUES orders them along a minimum spanning tree by increasing Fo number (the Mg/(Mg+Fe) ratio in olivine), pairs clean and noisy copies of each composition, and clusters high-Fe from high-Mg endmembers. In the HD 113766 experiment, the disk spectrum is grouped with Fe-rich forsterite, matching the result of previous detailed parametric modeling, and the method independently flags anorthite as a previously unconsidered candidate component. The same workflow cleanly separates achondritic, carbonaceous, and ordinary chondrite meteorite spectra. The paper presents CLUES not as a replacement for detailed modeling but as a first-pass, bias-reducing engine for narrowing a vast compositional parameter space down to exemplar spectra and candidate minerals.

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream assumes that the continuum-subtracted, 8–13 micron normalized 'average emissivity' spectrum carries the mineralogical information, even though the authors state that this normalization cannot reliably fix the amplitudes of the 20 and 30 micron features because the underlying continuum is not a single blackbody.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full 571-disk Spitzer IRS catalog can be processed through CLUES to yield a global, data-driven taxonomy of debris disk silicate mineralogy; Paper II is set up to do exactly this.
  • Because CLUES recovered the Fo-number ordering in forsterite without any parametric fitting, the same distance matrix can be used to rank any library spectrum (mineral, grain size, temperature) against a disk spectrum and narrow the parameter space for detailed fitting.
  • The HD 113766 grouping with Fe-rich forsterite reproduces prior modeling, so CLUES can serve as a consistency check for detailed spectral fits of individual disks.
  • The meteorite experiment shows that CLUES can separate mixed-composition samples (achondrites, carbonaceous chondrites, ordinary chondrites), so the tool generalizes beyond debris disks to any spectral library with a common wavelength grid.
  • CLUES is designed to scale to thousands of spectra and data cubes such as JWST MIRI IFU observations, where traditional parametric component fitting becomes computationally prohibitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not explored in the paper is to embed theoretical or laboratory spectra of amorphous silicates, carbonaceous grains, and ices into the library; the distance matrix would then double as a quantitative mineralogical-similarity scale for ranking candidates before MCMC fitting.
  • The anorthite flag for HD 113766 could be tested with JWST MIRI spectroscopy, which extends to shorter wavelengths; if the 10 micron match disappears when the 5–7 micron region is included, the flag is an artifact of the truncated wavelength range rather than a real composition.
  • The paper's noise experiment implies a practical screening rule: spectra with SNR below about 5 in the 10 micron complex will likely produce unreliable clusters, so the follow-up catalog analysis should report cluster membership uncertainties marginalized over the SNR distribution rather than point assignments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper introduces CLUES, an unsupervised machine-learning workflow for classifying mid-infrared spectra, built on the Sequencer algorithm. The workflow computes multi-scale distance matrices (using a distance scale and EMD-like metric), then combines a minimum spanning tree, Ward hierarchical clustering, silhouette-score cluster selection, and MDS visualization. It is validated on three benchmark tasks: a forsterite emissivity library with known Fo numbers, a mixed mineral library into which the well-studied debris disk HD 113766 is embedded, and a set of 59 meteorite reflectance spectra. The paper's central claim is that CLUES non-parametrically and interpretably recovers known mineralogical groupings and can therefore be applied to Spitzer IRS debris disk spectra, with a full demographic analysis deferred to Paper II.

Significance. If the method holds up, it would fill a practical gap: a systematic, reproducible, and interpretable way to classify the large Spitzer IRS debris disk sample and similar MIR datasets. The strongest concrete evidence is the forsterite experiment (Figure 6/7), where the MST and hierarchical clustering recover the Fo-number ordering and pair clean/noisy copies of the same composition, and the HD 113766 experiment (Figure 14), where the disk is grouped with Fe-rich forsterite, consistent with earlier detailed modeling. The meteorite experiment (Figure 16) additionally shows that broad compositional classes separate cleanly. These benchmarks use external, pre-existing libraries and are therefore meaningful validation of the clustering stack, not circular demonstrations. The main weakness is that the preprocessing step P1, specifically the continuum normalization used for real IRS spectra, is not validated end-to-end and is acknowledged by the authors to be unreliable in parts of the wavelength range used.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.3, 3.5, Eq. (3), 5.1.2] The P1 continuum normalization is load-bearing for the real-disk demonstration but is not validated by the benchmark experiments. The average emissivity in Eq. (3) is Fdisk/Fcont, where Fcont is a third-order polynomial anchored at 5.61–7.94, 13.02–13.50, 14.32–14.83, 30.16–32.19, and 35.07–35.92 µm, and Section 3.5 concedes that this treatment is unreliable for the 20/30 µm complexes because the broad features cannot be represented by a single blackbody-like continuum. Because the polynomial is global, errors at the 30–35 µm anchors can change the polynomial level under the 10 µm region and therefore alter the 10 µm line-to-continuum ratios that drive the HD 113766 grouping in Fig. 14(d). The forsterite, mineral-library, and meteorite experiments use laboratory emissivity/reflectance inputs and thus validate the clustering stack rather than the P1 preprocessing of IRS spectra. I request a sensitivity analysis (anchor-set choice, polynomial degree, offset procedure, binning factor, and wavelength truncation) on at least HD 113766 and a few representative disk spectra, or an explicit narrowing of the real-disk claims to Paper II.
  2. [4.3, Table 1, Table 3] The distance scale and metric are tuned on the same data used for the reported demonstrations, and no stability check is shown. The scale l=5 is selected because it maximizes MST elongation for the forsterite library (Table 1: elongation 21.49 versus 15.11 at l=1), while the mineral library, HD 113766 experiment, and meteorite experiment use l=10, l=15, and l=1, respectively (Table 3). The 'non-parametric' label therefore needs qualification: the workflow has hyperparameters whose optimal values differ by dataset, and the resulting clusters (e.g., the optimal cluster number 9 and the grouping of HD 113766 with Fe-rich forsterite) may depend on these choices. I ask for a sensitivity test over l and metric for at least the forsterite and HD 113766 experiments, reporting cluster memberships or silhouette stability, so that the reader can see whether the qualitative conclusions are robust rather than selected.
  3. [6.2] The robustness claim that 'SNR > 5' is needed for reasonable clustering results is based solely on uncorrelated Gaussian noise added to library spectra. This does not cover the correlated artifacts (fringing, point-to-point calibration residuals) that motivate the binning step in Section 3.4, nor does it cover continuum-fitting errors from P1. The 20%-noise degradation test is useful, but as written the SNR>5 statement is likely too strong for real IRS disk spectra. I recommend either extending the simulations to include correlated/fringe-like noise and a small set of continuum-mismatch scenarios, or restricting the robustness statement to the ideal-library case.
minor comments (6)
  1. [4.2] The distance measure called EMD in Section 4.2 appears to be the energy distance used in Baron & Ménard (2021), not the standard Earth Mover's/Wasserstein distance; please align the terminology and citation with the original implementation.
  2. [4.5, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has a zero denominator on the diagonal of the distance matrix; please state explicitly that diagonal entries are excluded from the percentage-difference histogram in Figure 10, or redefine the statistic for those entries.
  3. [6.3] The statement that CLUES can distinguish grain sizes for HD 113766 and places its spectrum among library spectra with a 2–5 µm grain size distribution is presented without a figure, table, or quantitative criterion; since this is a nontrivial claim, it should be documented or removed.
  4. [4.4, Eq. (4)] The Ward linkage update in Eq. (4) is written as a distance between pairwise distances, which is not the usual Ward criterion; please provide a reference or clarify how this recursion defines the increase in within-cluster variance.
  5. [7 and elsewhere] A code/data availability statement is missing. Since the paper introduces a named tool (CLUES) and a methodology is the primary deliverable, providing a public repository would substantially improve reproducibility and practical uptake.
  6. [6.1 and byline] There are small typographical errors, including 'over scalesl' in Section 6.1 and a stray space in 'Dan M. W atson' in the author list; these should be corrected in proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CLUES is validated on external mineral/meteorite libraries and independent prior modeling; parameter choices are internal tuning, not reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is P1 (photosphere subtraction, Eq. 1; average emissivity, Eq. 3; continuum fit with anchored polynomial; binning; normalization) followed by P2 (Sequencer EMD distance matrix, Ward hierarchical clustering, MST, silhouette scoring) applied to three external test sets. No step defines an output in terms of the target answer. The forsterite experiment uses library spectra whose Fo labels are never fed to the algorithm; EMD/Ward operate only on spectral shapes, and the recovery of Fo ordering is checked against laboratory systematics (Fabian et al. 2001; Kuebler et al. 2006), not against labels used in fitting. The choice of EMD with scale l=5 is made by maximizing MST elongation (Table 1), an internal projection-quality measure; the final clustering uses elongation-weighted multi-scale matrices, and the Fo ordering is not the objective being optimized, so this is tuning, not a reduction. The HD 113766 result is compared to independent prior modeling (Olofsson et al. 2012; Lisse et al. 2008), and the anorthite suggestion is a new, falsifiable output rather than a restatement of the input. The meteorite experiment likewise tests against a known external taxonomy. Self-citations (Chen et al. 2014; Mittal et al. 2015) provide the input catalog and stellar parameters, not the clustering conclusions, so they are data provenance rather than load-bearing circular support. The paper itself flags the 20/30 micron continuum normalization as unreliable (Section 3.5) and defers sensitivity tests to Paper II; that is an acknowledged limitation of the real-disk preprocessing, but it is a robustness/correctness caveat, not a self-referential derivation. The derivation's internal logic is therefore self-contained, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by preprocessing choices (continuum anchors, offset, binning, truncation, normalization) that are fitted per spectrum or selected by hand, plus the distance scale choices. These are not new physical entities, but they are free parameters that directly shape the distance matrix. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Distance scale l (and metric selection) = l=10 for mineral library, l=15 for IRS+Lab, l=1 for meteorites; EMD metric
    The scale is selected empirically to maximize MST elongation in Table 1, and differs per dataset. This is a hand-chosen, data-dependent tuning parameter that directly controls the distance matrix and all downstream clustering.
  • Continuum anchor point wavelengths and polynomial degree = Anchor regions 5.61-7.94, 13.02-13.50, 14.32-14.83, 30.16-32.19, 35.07-35.92 um; 3rd order polynomial
    The disk continuum model is fitted to selected anchor regions for each disk (Section 3.3). The choice of anchor windows and polynomial order shapes the emissivity spectrum Eq. 3 that feeds all clustering.
  • Continuum offset = Chosen per spectrum so that continuum-subtracted flux is non-negative
    Section 3.3: an offset is applied using the largest absolute negative value after continuum subtraction. This is a per-spectrum fitted adjustment with no physical basis stated, and it alters relative feature amplitudes.
  • Binning factor N = N=4
    Chosen by experimenting as the value that optimizes fringe reduction while doubling SNR (Section 3.4). Different N changes the effective resolution of all spectra.
  • Wavelength truncation limits = 7-33 um for IRS data; 7.1-24.36 um for library comparison
    Truncation points are justified by data quality but are still manual choices that exclude potentially useful spectral regions. The 5-7 um region and beyond 33 um are excluded.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The average emissivity (Eq. 3) computed as disk flux divided by fitted continuum approximates the intrinsic grain emissivity of the small-grain population.
    Section 3.2 and 3.3 assume the continuum is dominated by large grains/planetesimals and that dividing it out isolates the small-grain emissivity. The authors themselves note this breaks down for the 20-30 um features.
  • domain assumption Spectral similarity in EMD over the 7-33 um range maps onto mineralogical composition similarity.
    The entire CLUES method relies on the premise that the dominant variance in the spectra is compositional, not due to temperature, grain size, viewing geometry, or noise. Section 6.2 shows that beyond 20% noise this fails.
  • domain assumption The stellar photosphere parameters from Chen et al. (2014) are correct.
    Section 3.1: they reuse best-fit stellar parameters without new V-band measurements. Errors in photosphere subtraction propagate into disk flux and emissivity.
  • ad hoc to paper The MST elongation criterion selects a meaningful distance scale.
    Table 1 and Section 4.3 choose the scale that maximizes elongation of the 1D sequence for forsterite. This is a heuristic with no demonstrated guarantee that it preserves mineralogical information, though the benchmark results support it empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequencing Silicates in the IRS Debris Disk Catalog I: Methodology for Unsupervised Clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75WPIECD

@misc{pith2026250101484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequencing Silicates in the IRS Debris Disk Catalog I: Methodology for Unsupervised Clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75WPIECD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01484}
}
abstract

Debris disks, which consist of dust, planetesimals, planets, and gas, offer a unique window into the mineralogical composition of their parent bodies, especially during the critical phase of terrestrial planet formation spanning 10 to a few hundred million years. Observations from the $\textit{Spitzer}$ Space Telescope have unveiled thousands of debris disks, yet systematic studies remain scarce, let alone those with unsupervised clustering techniques. This study introduces $\texttt{CLUES}$ (CLustering UnsupErvised with Sequencer), a novel, non-parametric, fully-interpretable machine-learning spectral analysis tool designed to analyze and classify the spectral data of debris disks. $\texttt{CLUES}$ combines multiple unsupervised clustering methods with multi-scale distance measures to discern new groupings and trends, offering insights into compositional diversity and geophysical processes within these disks. Our analysis allows us to explore a vast parameter space in debris disk mineralogy and also offers broader applications in fields such as protoplanetary disks and solar system objects. This paper details the methodology, implementation, and initial results of $\texttt{CLUES}$, setting the stage for more detailed follow-up studies focusing on debris disk mineralogy and demographics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral Indices Band Locations with an example Spitzer IRS spectrum. The band positions of the strongest 10µm band is plotted against the emissivity of band A (8.9 – 9.6 µm), B (9.8 – 10.2 µm), C (10.8 – 11.4 µm) and D (12.2 – 12.7 µm). The x-axis is wavelength in microns and y-axis is emissivity which is usually defined to be disk flux divided by fitted continuum flux from 8–13 µm (Morlok et al. 2014). However, it… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Flowchart of Data Processing Steps (P1): Each rectangular box represents a data processing step (in black fonts) and its corresponding subsections (in gray fonts) in the next section. 3. PREPROCESSING STAGE 1 We then describe our photosphere fitting procedure to isolate the disk emission from the stellar emission. Next, we define the concept of “average emissivity” for de￾bris disk spectra. Thereafter, we describe… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A Flowchart of Data Analyses Steps - CLUES: Each rectangular box represents a data processing step (in black fonts) and its corresponding subsections (in gray fonts). The top rectangular box displays our input forsterite library emissivity spectra. The subsequent step involves calculating the distance matrices using Sequencer. This distance matrix enables us to perform two separate analyses, as indicated by the bifu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Forsterite Emissivity Library. Left: Forsterite Emissivity plotted as a function of Fo number from Jena Database (Chihara et al. 2002). Right: Forsterite Emissivity with 5% random Gaussian noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Input data versus output sequenced spectra with the best elongation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A Distance Matrix with EMD metric, sorted with Hierarchical Clustering. Every row and column represents a unique spectra. The right and bottom axes show the Fo number of each spectrum. The color denotes a distance score, where a darker color means the two spectra are m…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A histogram of the percentage difference be￾tween the MDS-based distance matrix and the original se￾quencer distance matrix. The percentage difference for each entry is calculated using equation 6. The y-axis shows the cumulative number for each bin and the x-axis sho…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The comparison between Sequencer distance ma￾trix and the MDS distance matrix. We quantify the differ￾ence between the two methods. Left: the original output of Sequencer distance matrix. Middle: The 2D MDS Euclidean Distance Matrix. Right: The difference between the t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: CLUES Output for a subset of ECOSTRESS Spectral library spectra. (a).Minimum Spanning Trees (MST) computed using Sequencer. (b). Using 3D-MDS to visualize distance matrix. (c). Silhouette Score for Determining the optimal number of clusters. (d). Dendrogram visualizat…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 1D Sequence from the MST of the Emissivity Library using a distance scale of 10. The left-hand side shows the input spectra while the right-hand panel shows the ordered spectra. sequence omits information such as elongation and clus￾ter information that are originally…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 1D Sequence of MST including a debris disk spectra with a distance scale of 15. ber of groupings is 9 groups (with each group having a distinct color) - this clearly separates the high vs low Mg/Fe forsterite and enstatite, feldspars, and carbonate groups. We can comp…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: CLUES Output for a debris disk spectrum mixed amongst a subset of ECOSTRESS Spectral library spectra. (a). Minimum Spanning Trees (MST) computed using Sequencer. (b). Using 3D-MDS to visualize distance matrix. (c). Silhouette Score for Determining the optimal number o…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison between HD 113766 Average Emissivity spectra and Anorthite Fine Grain Emissivity Spectrum 6.1. Sequencer vs CLUES and Limitations to Our Methodology The CLUES workflow is directly built upon the Sequencer algorithm, though we add a significant amount of add…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: CLUES Output for 59 meteorite spectra from ECOSTRESS Spectral library. (a).Minimum Spanning Trees (MST) computed using Sequencer. The annotations serve as visual guides to various groups of meteorite spectra according to the hierarchical clustering results. (b). Using…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Bl¨ omer, J., & Sohler, C

    Ackermann, M. R., Bl¨ omer, J., & Sohler, C. 2010, ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG), 6, 1

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    P., Su, K

    Ballering, N. P., Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., & G´ asp´ ar, A. 2016, ApJ, 823, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/108

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/108 2016

  3. [3]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 91

    Baron, D., & M´ enard, B. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 91

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Best, M. G. 2013, Igneous and metamorphic petrology (John Wiley & Sons)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    P., Reddy, V., & Dunn, T

    Binzel, R. P., Reddy, V., & Dunn, T. 2015, Asteroids IV, 1, 243

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    1998, Icarus, 136, 304

    Chambers, J., & Wetherill, G. 1998, Icarus, 136, 304

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Chambers, J. E. 2013, Icarus, 224, 43, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.015

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.015 2013

  8. [8]

    H., Mittal, T., Kuchner, M., et al

    Chen, C. H., Mittal, T., Kuchner, M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/25

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/25 2014

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    H., Su, K

    Chen, C. H., Su, K. Y. L., & Xu, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 328, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1067-6

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    H., Li, A., Bohac, C., et al

    Chen, C. H., Li, A., Bohac, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 466, doi: 10.1086/519989

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    2002, A&A, 391, 267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020791

    Sakamoto, D. 2002, A&A, 391, 267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020791

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    N., Swayze, G

    Clark, R. N., Swayze, G. A., Livo, K. E., et al. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 108 D’Amore, M., & Padovan, S. 2022, in Machine Learning for Planetary Science (Elsevier), 131–149 de Vries, B. L., Acke, B., Blommaert, J. A. D. L., et al. 2012, Nature, 490, 74, ...

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    2001, A&A, 378, 228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011196

    Fabian, D., Henning, T., J¨ ager, C., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011196

    2001 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Kremer, C., Telus, M., & Trang, D

    First, E. C., Kremer, C., Telus, M., & Trang, D. 2023, Elements, 19, 173

    2023

  7. [15]

    Flower, P. J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 355, doi: 10.1086/177785

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    S., & Cambioni, S

    Gabriel, T. S., & Cambioni, S. 2023, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 51, 671

    2023

  9. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/136

    Genda, H., Kobayashi, H., & Kokubo, E. 2015, ApJ, 810, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/136

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Thompson, D

    Gilmore, M. S., Thompson, D. R., Anderson, L. J., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 116

    2011

  11. [19]

    T., Kubalak, D

    Gorman, E. T., Kubalak, D. A., Patel, D., et al. 2019, in

    2019

  12. [20]

    O., Mahowald, N., Ung, C., et al

    Green, R. O., Mahowald, N., Ung, C., et al. 2020, in 2020 IEEE aerospace conference, IEEE, 1–15

    2020

  13. [21]

    2020, in Hyperspectral Remote Sensing (Elsevier), 293–318

    Guha, A. 2020, in Hyperspectral Remote Sensing (Elsevier), 293–318

    2020

  14. [22]

    2022, Expert Systems with Applications, 201, 117016

    Habib, A., Akram, M., & Kahraman, C. 2022, Expert Systems with Applications, 201, 117016

    2022

  15. [23]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Morrison, S

    Hazen, R. M., Morrison, S. M., & Prabhu, A. 2023, in Celebrating the International Year of Mineralogy: Progress and Landmark Discoveries of the Last Decades (Springer), 15–37

    2023

  17. [25]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 136, 405 Hern´ andez, J., Calvet, N., Brice˜ no, C., et al

    Voshchinnikov, N. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 136, 405 Hern´ andez, J., Calvet, N., Brice˜ no, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1784, doi: 10.1086/522882

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    Higdon, S. J. U., Devost, D., Higdon, J. L., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 975, doi: 10.1086/425083

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 328, 221

    Hirschmann, M. 2022, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 328, 221

    2022

  20. [28]

    M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B

    Hughes, A. M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 541, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035 J¨ ager, C., Il’in, V. B., Henning, T., et al. 2003, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 79, 765

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    J., & Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2006, AJ, 131, 1837, doi: 10.1086/499807

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00675-w

    Kleine, T., Budde, G., Burkhardt, C., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00675-w

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2003, A&A, 399, 1101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021831

    Koike, C., Chihara, H., Tsuchiyama, A., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 1101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021831

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    Y., Besse, S., Nettles, J., et al

    Kramer, G. Y., Besse, S., Nettles, J., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 116

    2011

  25. [33]

    E., Jolliff, B

    Kuebler, K. E., Jolliff, B. L., Wang, A., & Haskin, L. A. 2006, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 70, 6201

    2006

  26. [34]

    Kumari, P., Soor, S., Shetty, A., & Koolagudi, S. G. 2023, Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 17, 041501

    2023

  27. [35]

    J., Spoon, H

    Lebouteiller, V., Barry, D. J., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/8

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    C., & Barry, D

    Lebouteiller, V., Bernard-Salas, J., Sloan, G. C., & Barry, D. J. 2010, PASP, 122, 231, doi: 10.1086/650426

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 1106

    Lisse, C., Chen, C., Wyatt, M., & Morlok, A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 1106

    2008

  30. [38]

    2007, Icarus, 187, 69, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.019

    Joswiak, D. 2007, Icarus, 187, 69, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.019

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Wyatt, M

    Lisse, C. M., Wyatt, M. C., Chen, C. H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/93

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Meng, H

    Lisse, C. M., Meng, H. Y. A., Sitko, M. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b80

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    X., Chen, C

    Lu, C. X., Chen, C. H., Sargent, B. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70d1

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Mead, J. M. 1992, Highlights of Astronomy, 9, 737 26 Lu et al

    1992

  35. [43]

    K., Hook, S

    Meerdink, S. K., Hook, S. J., Roberts, D. A., & Abbott, E. A. 2019, Remote Sensing of Environment, 230, 111196

    2019

  36. [44]

    Small Bodies in the Solar System and their Interactions with the Planets

    Menichella, M., Paolicchi, P., & Farinella, P. 1996, in Worlds in Interaction: Small Bodies and Planets of the Solar System: Proceedings of the Meeting “Small Bodies in the Solar System and their Interactions with the Planets” held in Mariehamn, Finland, August 8–12, 1994, Spr...

    1996

  37. [45]

    H., Jang-Condell, H., et al

    Mittal, T., Chen, C. H., Jang-Condell, H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/87

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Anand, M., et al

    Morlok, A., Mason, A. B., Anand, M., et al. 2014, Icarus, 239, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.05.024

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Willman, M., Burbine, T

    Moskovitz, N. A., Willman, M., Burbine, T. H., Binzel, R. P., & Bus, S. J. 2010, Icarus, 208, 773

    2010

  40. [48]

    L., Klima, R

    Murchie, S. L., Klima, R. L., Denevi, B. W., et al. 2015, Icarus, 254, 287

    2015

  41. [49]

    2016, Introduction to HPC with MPI for Data Science, 195

    Nielsen, F., & Nielsen, F. 2016, Introduction to HPC with MPI for Data Science, 195

    2016

  42. [50]

    2012, A&A, 542, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118735

    Olofsson, J., Juh´ asz, A., Henning, T., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118735

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, International journal of research in computer science, 2, 29

    Pandit, S., Gupta, S., et al. 2011, International journal of research in computer science, 2, 29

    2011

  44. [52]

    Dundar, M. M. 2022, Icarus, 376, 114849

    2022

  45. [53]

    2021, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 14, 7032

    Qian, S.-E. 2021, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 14, 7032

    2021

  46. [54]

    V., Barclay, T., Borucki, W

    Quintana, E. V., Barclay, T., Borucki, W. J., Rowe, J. F., & Chambers, J. E. 2016, ApJ, 821, 126, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/126

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    P., Seelos, K

    Seelos, F. P., Seelos, K. D., Murchie, S. L., et al. 2023, Icarus, 115612

    2023

  48. [56]

    R., & Nicholas, C

    Shahapure, K. R., & Nicholas, C. 2020, in 2020 IEEE 7th international conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA), IEEE, 747–748

    2020

  49. [57]

    2023, Remote Sensing, 15, 2295 Sz´ ekely, G

    Sousa, D., & Small, C. 2023, Remote Sensing, 15, 2295 Sz´ ekely, G. J., & Rizzo, M. L. 2013, Journal of statistical planning and inference, 143, 1249

    2023

  50. [58]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Leisenring, J

    Watson, D. M., Leisenring, J. M., Furlan, E., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 84, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/84

    2009 doi

  52. [60]

    P., & Elkins-Tanton, L

    Weiss, B. P., & Elkins-Tanton, L. T. 2013, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41, 529

    2013

  53. [61]

    L., Nilsson, R., Chen, C

    Wilson, T. L., Nilsson, R., Chen, C. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 165, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/165

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110525

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H

    Young, E. D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2023, Nature, 616, 306

    2023

  56. [64]

    2015, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 25

    Yu, M., Hillebrand, A., Tewarie, P., et al. 2015, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 25

    2015

  57. [65]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/125 Z´ u˜ niga-Fern´ andez, S., Olofsson, J., Bayo, A., et al

    Zeidler, S., Mutschke, H., & Posch, T. 2015, ApJ, 798, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/125 Z´ u˜ niga-Fern´ andez, S., Olofsson, J., Bayo, A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 655, A15

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.