Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Data-Driven M Dwarf Model and Detailed Abundances for $\sim$17,000 M Dwarfs in SDSS-V

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 By training a data-driven spectral model on 79 M dwarfs tagged with their FGK companions' abundances, this paper infers $T_{\rm eff}$ and eleven elemental abundances for 16,590 M dwarfs, with median claimed uncertainties of 13 K and…

desk verdict Large, useful M dwarf abundance catalog, but the headline uncertainties are precision, not accuracy; worth refereeing with a required error-budget revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14955 v1 pith:GB5ER4SL submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Aida Behmard , Melissa K. Ness , Andrew R. Casey , Ruth Angus , Katia Cunha , Diogo Souto , Yuxi (Lucy) Lu , Jennifer A. Johnson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA PACS 97.10.Tk
keywords Mdwarfabundancesdata-drivenspectroscopyTheCannonSDSS-VMilkyWayMapperAPOGEEFGK-Mbinariesstellarchemicalhomogeneity
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

The paper aims to show that a data-driven spectral model, trained on only 79 M dwarfs that each have a brighter FGK binary companion of known composition, can measure the temperature and eleven elemental abundances of roughly 17,000 M dwarfs observed by the SDSS-V/Milky Way Mapper survey. If the claim holds, the most common stars in the Galaxy become usable chemical tracers: their abundances sit on the same measurement scale as their FGK counterparts, so they can be read as fossil records of Galactic enrichment and as guides to the material that built their planets. The model's output, validated against benchmark M dwarf samples, open cluster stars, repeat observations, and expected stellar evolution trends, is released as a public catalog. The entire method rests on one premise: that a binary pair formed from the same cloud and started with identical element abundances.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is The Cannon flux model, written $f_{jn} = \mathbf{v}(\boldsymbol{\ell}_n) \cdot \boldsymbol{\theta}_j + e_{jn}$, in which every wavelength pixel $j$ has its own linear coefficients $\boldsymbol{\theta}_j$ and the vectorizer $\mathbf{v}$ expands the label list; the list here is $\boldsymbol{\ell}_n = [1, T_{\rm eff}, [\mathrm{Fe/H}], [\mathrm{Mg/H}], [\mathrm{Al/H}], [\mathrm{Si/H}], [\mathrm{C/H}], [\mathrm{N/H}], [\mathrm{O/H}], [\mathrm{Ca/H}], [\mathrm{Ti/H}], [\mathrm{V/H}], [\mathrm{Cr/H}], [\mathrm{Ni/H}]]$. The labels for the 79 training stars are not measured on the M dwarfs at all: they are the ASPCAP abundances of each M dwarf's FGK companion, transferred under the chemical homogeneity assumption, with $T_{\rm eff}$ taken from an empirical color-temperature relation. Validation is carried by leave-one-out cross-validation, reproduction of Hyades and benchmark M dwarf abundances, and an inflation factor fit to roughly 500 stars with repeated APOGEE visits that sets the reported catalog uncertainties.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure abundances for a sample of M dwarfs independently with a slow but physically complete spectral synthesis pipeline and compare them, star by star, to this catalog's values for stars inside the training metallicity range: systematic offsets that grow with pair age, mass ratio, or separation would show that the FGK-to-M label transfer is biased. A second, sharper test targets the premise itself: spectroscopically compare tight and wide FGK-M binaries of matched metallicity; if the inferred M dwarf abundances differ from the FGK values by more than the quoted 0.018 to 0.029 dex precision whenever ages or separations are large, the homogeneity assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that FGK-M binary pairs provide enough labeled spectra to train a Cannon model that infers M dwarf $T_{\rm eff}$ and abundances for Fe, Mg, Al, Si, C, N, O, Ca, Ti, Cr, and Ni with median uncertainties of 13 K and 0.018–0.029 dex, respectively. The authors demonstrate that the model reproduces the reported abundances of M dwarfs in the Hyades cluster to roughly 0.05 dex and reproduces an independent 21-star benchmark sample's abundances, and that its inferred metallicities trace evolutionary tracks expected from stellar structure while the survey pipeline's own M dwarf metallicities skew unrealistically metal-poor. The delivered catalog contains 16,590 M dwarfs, and the paper argues this is the largest detailed-abundance M dwarf sample to date.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every M dwarf and its FGK companion formed from the same molecular cloud and therefore began with identical elemental abundances, so the FGK star's measured values can serve as the M dwarf's true labels; the paper itself notes that diffusion can shift surface abundances between the two stars by 0.01 to 0.12 dex.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The accompanying catalog supplies 16,590 M dwarfs with $T_{\rm eff}$ and eleven element abundances, the largest detailed-abundance M dwarf sample reported to date, all tied to the FGK abundance scale.
  • The inferred metallicities trace the evolutionary tracks expected from stellar structure, whereas the survey pipeline's own M dwarf [Fe/H] values skew unrealistically metal-poor, making the catalog an improvement for M dwarf science within SDSS-V/MWM.
  • Within the training range $-0.56 < [\mathrm{Fe/H}] < 0.31$ dex, the model reproduces Hyades cluster M dwarf abundances to about 0.05 dex and an independent 21-star benchmark to 0.1–0.17 dex, which the authors read as evidence the abundances are reliable.
  • The one element that fails is vanadium, which shows 0.33 dex rms scatter and no convincing 1-to-1 trend; it is deliberately excluded from the catalog even though it is retained in training to sharpen the other abundances.
  • Each additional FGK-M binary identified in SDSS-V/MWM can extend the model's metallicity range and improve its precision, and the model can be adapted to M dwarf spectra from other H-band surveys if resolution and wavelength coverage are matched.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the binary homogeneity premise survives scrutiny, this catalog effectively calibrates M dwarf spectra onto the FGK abundance system, so Galactic chemical evolution gradients can be traced continuously across spectral types from a single survey dataset.
  • My inference: the narrow metallicity window of the training set ($-0.56$ to $0.31$ dex) is the model's sharpest constraint, and a targeted campaign to find metal-poor FGK-M pairs would directly reveal whether the model extrapolates or silently fails.
  • My inference: comparing inferred M dwarf abundances between wide and tight binaries, or between young and old pairs, would test the diffusion caveat empirically; a systematic offset would yield a correction term rather than an unverified assumption.
  • My inference: the same companion-calibration recipe could be reused for other cool star classes or other wavelength bands wherever binary pairs with reliably measured primaries exist, effectively lending FGK abundance scales to spectral regimes where synthetic models are slow.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper trains a Cannon model on 79 M dwarfs with FGK binary companions in SDSS-V/MWM, using ASPCAP abundances of the FGK primaries as labels, to infer Teff and abundances of Fe, Mg, Al, Si, C, N, O, Ca, Ti, Cr, and Ni for 16,590 M dwarfs. The authors validate the model through leave-one-out cross-validation, comparison with Hyades M dwarfs and the Souto et al. (2022) sample, and consistency checks such as Kiel-diagram metallicity sequences. The central quantitative claim is that the model infers these labels with median uncertainties of 13 K in Teff and 0.018-0.029 dex in abundances, as stated in the abstract and in Section 6.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainties are understood as precision rather than total accuracy, this is a valuable resource: it is the largest M dwarf sample with detailed data-driven abundances, the training/validation setup is sensible, and the external benchmarks partially break the circularity that would otherwise be a concern. The paper also contains useful honesty about limitations, notably the metallicity range of the training set and the FGK-M chemical homogeneity assumption. The main scientific value is the catalog; the main barrier to publication is the framing of the uncertainties, which currently conflates repeatability with accuracy.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6, Eq. (11); abstract] The headline uncertainties of 13 K and 0.018-0.029 dex are calibrated by fitting sigma_inflate to the scatter between repeat APOGEE visit spectra, so they measure reproducibility of the Cannon inference on the same star. They do not include label-transfer systematics from the FGK-M homogeneity assumption, ASPCAP zero-point offsets, diffusion differences, or model approximation error. The paper's own accuracy checks are substantially larger: LOOCV in §5.1 gives rms scatter of 68 K and 0.09-0.17 dex for abundances, the Hyades validation in §5.2 reaches only ~0.05 dex for [M/H] and A(O), and the Souto et al. (2022) comparison in §5.2 and Figure 6 shows rms 0.1-0.17 dex for Fe, Mg, Al, C, O, and Ca. As written, the abstract's 'median uncertainties' phrasing is misleading because the quoted error bars understate the expected deviation from true abundances. I request that the authors either add a systematic error term and report total uncertainties, or clearly relabel the quoted values as repeat-visit precisions and revise the abstract and catalog documentation accordingly.
  2. [§5.2, Fig. 6; Appendix A.3] For four of the eleven reported elements (N, Ti, Cr, Ni) there is no external abundance benchmark. The only evidence for these elements is coefficient amplitude coincidences at known line positions and the four-star flux-model residual test in Figure A.5, which demonstrates that the model distinguishes some elements but does not quantify accuracy. The claimed median uncertainties for these elements are therefore unsupported by any direct accuracy test. The authors should either supply external validation for these species (e.g., independent abundance measurements of some stars) or explicitly state in the abstract, catalog, and Section 6 that N, Ti, Cr, and Ni abundances are unvalidated by external benchmarks and carry only precision estimates.
  3. [§5, binary homogeneity assumption] The training labels are inherited from FGK companions under the assumption of chemical homogeneity, with the paper itself noting that diffusion can produce 0.01-0.12 dex surface abundance differences (Choi et al. 2016). This systematic is not included in the repeat-visit uncertainty budget of Eq. (11), and it affects all 16,590 catalog stars in a correlated way. The LOOCV and external benchmarks partially test this, but only for [M/H] and A(O) in Hyades and for six elements in the Souto sample; the 0.1-0.17 dex scatter seen there is roughly an order of magnitude larger than the quoted per-star abundance uncertainties. The authors should quantify or bound this systematic and add it to the reported uncertainties, or clearly separate 'precision' from 'accuracy' in all catalog-related statements.
  4. [Table 2 caption vs. §6] The Table 2 note states that the quoted errors on Teff and abundances are 'the scatter in labels from resampling from flux errors 10 times for each M dwarf,' whereas Section 6 describes the uncertainties as derived from the covariance matrix combined with sigma_inflate calibrated from repeat APOGEE visits. These are different procedures, and the discrepancy is important for users of the catalog. The table note and Section 6 must be reconciled, and the actual calculation for the published per-star uncertainties should be described consistently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7) vs. Eq. (10)] The label vector in Eq. (7) includes K for the Souto et al. (2022) LOOCV, while the FGK-M model in Eq. (10) replaces K with V and does not list K; the paper should state explicitly which elements are in the final model and why K is dropped.
  2. [§5.1, Fig. 2] The paper says V is not included in Figure 2 because of poor 1-to-1 recovery, but V remains in the training label vector and is said to improve other abundances; please clarify whether V is ultimately included in the catalog and, if so, with what caveats.
  3. [§6, catalog flags] The text refers to a 'temp agree' flag while Table 2 lists 'teff agree'; the naming should be made consistent in the machine-readable catalog.
  4. [§3, continuum normalization] The choice of L = 10 Å in Eq. (6) is justified only by a reference to typical absorption feature sizes; a brief test of sensitivity to L would strengthen confidence that the continuum-normalization step does not imprint label-dependent systematics.
  5. [§1, opening text] There is a typo in the first sentence of the operating description of The Cannon ('the The Cannon'); it should read 'The Cannon'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model's labels are externally anchored, its abundance validations use independent benchmark datasets, and the quoted uncertainties are calibrated repeat-visit precisions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Cannon model is trained on 79 FGK-M binaries using ASPCAP abundances of the FGK primaries as labels for the M dwarf secondaries, under the explicitly stated and physically motivated assumption of chemical homogeneity. The central abundance claims are validated against independent external benchmarks: the Hyades cluster abundances from Wanderley et al. (2023) and the synthetic-spectrum abundances of the Souto et al. (2022) sample, neither of which is used in training. LOOCV on the FGK-M training set is a standard internal consistency check, not a prediction of an independent quantity, and the paper does not present its rms scatter as the headline uncertainty. The reported median uncertainties of 13 K and 0.018-0.029 dex are derived from repeat APOGEE visit spectra via a fitted sigma_inflate term (Eq. 11). This is a calibration of label precision, not a disguised prediction: the sigma_inflate parameter adjusts noise estimates rather than the inferred abundances themselves, and it is not used to generate the abundance values. The paper's self-citations to The Cannon (Ness et al. 2015; Casey et al. 2016) and to prior M dwarf applications are method citations, not load-bearing premises. The only mildly self-referential check is the comparison of Cannon-inferred Teff to the Curtis et al. (2020) photometric Teff that was also used to create the training labels; the paper explicitly labels this a sanity check, and the abundance conclusions do not depend on it. No equation or fitted parameter reduces to the claimed output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities or forces; all inputs are empirical relations and abundances from external pipelines. The main 'imported' content is the binary homogeneity assumption and the external ASPCAP, color-temperature, and log g calibrations.

free parameters (3)
  • sigma_inflate (13 values, one per label) = 0.016-0.025 dex
    Fitted so that Z_A,B distributions from ~500 repeat APOGEE visit pairs are standard normal (Section 6, Eq. 11); added in quadrature to derive quoted Teff and abundance uncertainties.
  • Flux uncertainty floor = 0.005
    Hand-set minimum normalized flux uncertainty to account for APOGEE underestimating errors at SNR above about 200 (Section 3).
  • Continuum smoothing width L = 10 Å
    Hand-chosen Gaussian smoothing scale for continuum normalization, slightly larger than typical absorption features (Section 3, Eq. 6).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption FGK and M dwarf binary companions formed from the same molecular cloud and have identical initial abundances.
    Load-bearing for transferring ASPCAP abundances from primary to M dwarf; stated in Section 5 with a caveat about diffusion differences of 0.01-0.12 dex.
  • domain assumption ASPCAP abundances are reliable for FGK dwarf primaries in the ranges used.
    The training labels are ASPCAP abundances of the FGK companions (Section 5); if ASPCAP has systematic biases, the M dwarf model inherits them.
  • domain assumption The Cannon's spectral model assumptions hold: identical labels produce identical spectra and flux varies continuously with labels.
    These are the foundational assumptions of The Cannon, invoked in Section 2; they are standard for data-driven spectral models.
  • domain assumption The Curtis et al. (2020) color-temperature relation gives accurate Teff for M dwarfs.
    Used to set training Teff labels and to define the Teff boundaries of the test sample (Sections 5 and 6).
  • domain assumption The Mann et al. (2019) empirical relation provides reliable M dwarf log g.
    Used for the log g cut (4-5.5 dex) and for the Kiel diagram interpretation (Section 6).
  • domain assumption M dwarf log g varies little over main-sequence lifetimes and can be omitted as a label.
    Justifies dropping log g from the label vector because it is redundant with metallicity for M dwarfs (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption The Pecaut and Mamajek (2013) type-color sequence relations identify M dwarfs in the SDSS-V sample.
    Used to select training and test M dwarfs (Sections 5 and 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Data-Driven M Dwarf Model and Detailed Abundances for $\sim$17,000 M Dwarfs in SDSS-V." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GB5ER4SL

@misc{pith2026250114955,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Data-Driven M Dwarf Model and Detailed Abundances for $\sim$17,000 M Dwarfs in SDSS-V},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GB5ER4SL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14955}
}
abstract

The cool temperatures of M dwarf atmospheres enable complex molecular chemistry, making robust characterization of M dwarf compositions a long-standing challenge. Recent modifications to spectral synthesis pipelines have enabled more accurate modeling of M dwarf atmospheres, but these methods are too slow for characterizing more than a handful of stars at a time. Data-driven methods such as The Cannon are viable alternatives, and can harness the information content of many M dwarfs from large spectroscopic surveys. Here, we train The Cannon on M dwarfs with FGK binary companions from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey-V/Milky Way Mapper (SDSS-V/MWM), with spectra from the Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE). The FGK-M pairs are assumed to be chemically homogeneous and span $-$0.56 $<$ [Fe/H] $<$ 0.31 dex. The resulting model is capable of inferring M dwarf $T_{\textrm{eff}}$ and elemental abundances for Fe, Mg, Al, Si, C, N, O, Ca, Ti, Cr, and Ni with median uncertainties of 13 K and 0.018$-$0.029 dex, respectively. We test the model by verifying that it reproduces reported abundance values of M dwarfs in open clusters and benchmark M dwarf datasets, as well as expected metallicity trends from stellar evolution. We apply the model to 16,590 M dwarfs in SDSS-V/MWM and provide their detailed abundances in our accompanying catalog.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14955 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1-to-1 plots of our inferred versus the reported labels for the Souto et al. (2022) sample from our LOOCV scheme with The Cannon. The points are colored by the χ 2 of the flux model fit. We report the rms scatter between the inferred and Souto et al. (2022) labels in the top left of each plot, and the scatter of the Souto et al. (2022)-reported values for that label below. The former values are smaller than the latt… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1-to-1 plots of our inferred versus the reported labels for our FGK-M training set after applying LOOCV with The Cannon. The points are colored by the χ 2 of the flux model spectral fit. We report the rms scatter between the inferred M dwarf and FGK companion labels in the top left of each plot, and the scatter of the FGK companion labels below. The former values are smaller than the latter for every label, indicati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1-to-1 plots of our inferred abundances vs. the reported abundances of M dwarfs from the Hyades cluster using either our FGK-M sample (top row) or the Souto et al. (2022) sample (bottom row) as the training set. The points are colored by the χ 2 of the flux model spectral fit. We report the rms scatter between the inferred and reported abundance values from Wanderley et al. (2023) in the top left of each plot, and t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The A(O) and [M/H]/[Fe/H] parameter space spanned by the Hyades M dwarfs from Wanderley et al. (2023) (red), the training set of 21 Souto et al. (2022) M dwarfs (blue), and our FGK-M training set (black). Because the Souto et al. (2022) sample is small, its abundance p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of flux model fits to the spectrum of an example M dwarf from the Hyades cluster (SDSS ID = 77382206). The left panel displays the fit resulting from training on the Souto et al. (2022) sample, and the right panel displays the fit from training on the FGK-M sampl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 1-to-1 plots of the inferred versus reported abundances for M dwarfs from Souto et al. (2022) using our FGK-M training set. The points are colored by the χ 2 of the flux model spectral fits. We report the rms scatter between the inferred and reported abundance values f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Teff inferred from The Cannon vs. Teff calculated from the Curtis et al. (2020) relation for all ∼17,000 M dwarfs in our test set. The points are colored by the χ 2 of the flux model spectral fits. The two dashed lines on either side of the 1-to-1 line mark the 2-σ bou…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kiel diagrams of the M dwarfs in our test set (log g from Mann et al. (2019) versus the inferred Teff from our Cannon model), colored by their [Fe/H] from the ASPCAP pipeline (not those of any potential FGK companions) (left), and inferred [Fe/H] from our Cannon model …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Twentieth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First All-Sky BOSS Spectra, eROSITA-SDSS-V Mapper Coordinated Observations, and a Preview of the Local Volume Mapper

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    DR20 releases over three million BOSS spectra (first southern-hemisphere SDSS-V optical data), 169 LVM integral-field tiles over six targets, and eighteen value-added catalogs.

  2. BOSS-CLAM: Utilizing a Constrained Linear Absorption Model to Infer Stellar Parameters from BOSS Spectra

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new generative pipeline, BOSS-CLAM, infers temperature, gravity, metallicity, and alpha-abundance for 1,708,214 SDSS-V BOSS spectra and releases a validated clean catalog of 915,514 stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    1997, ARA&A, 35, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.137

    Starrfield, S. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.137

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.137 1997

  3. [3]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  4. [4]

    1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710157

    Alvarez, R., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710157

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9710157 1998

  5. [5]

    A Data-driven Spectral Model of Main Sequence Stars in Gaia DR3

    Angelo, I., Bedell, M., Petigura, E., & Ness, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19016, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.19016 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.19016 2024

  6. [6]

    A., & Howard, A

    Behmard, A., Petigura, E. A., & Howard, A. W. 2019, ApJ, 876, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e0 2019

  7. [7]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  8. [8]

    W., Mann, A

    Birky, J., Hogg, D. W., Mann, A. W., & Burgasser, A. 2020, ApJ, 892, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7004

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7004 2020

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    R., & Freeman, K

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Krumholz, M. R., & Freeman, K. 2010, ApJ, 713, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/166

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Hawley, S

    Bochanski, J. J., Hawley, S. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2679, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2679 17

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., & Fischer, D. A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad501

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 585, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13573.x

    Casagrande, L., Flynn, C., & Bessell, M. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 585, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13573.x

    2008

  6. [14]

    R., Hogg, D

    Casey, A. R., Hogg, D. W., Ness, M., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03040

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 1983, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2008.01.010

    Clampin, M. 2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 1983, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2008.01.010

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Hasselquist, S., et al

    Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7beb

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2018, A&A, 614, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732327 De Silva, G

    Danielski, C., Babusiaux, C., Ruiz-Dern, L., Sartoretti, P., & Arenou, F. 2018, A&A, 614, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732327 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Asplund, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1161, doi: 10.1086/511182 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2...

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Caballero, J. A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae076

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7f37 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A

    Galgano, B., Stassun, K., & Rojas-Ayala, B. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7f37 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Green, G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2209

    Grilo, V., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2209

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/81

    Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., Cunha, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/81

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al

    Hayes, C. R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac839f

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e16

    Hejazi, N., L´ epine, S., & Nordlander, T. 2022, ApJ, 927, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e16

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Hejazi, N., Crossfield, I. J. M., Souto, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61dc

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac262

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Ness, M. K., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/5

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 J¨ onsson, H., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba592

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, A&A, 627, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935306

    Liu, F., Asplund, M., Yong, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935306

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    Maldonado, J., Micela, G., Baratella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Hilton, E. J. 2013a, AJ, 145, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/52

    doi

  33. [41]

    W., Deacon, N

    Mann, A. W., Deacon, N. R., Gaidos, E., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/160

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Gaidos, E., & Ansdell, M

    Mann, A. W., Gaidos, E., & Ansdell, M. 2013b, ApJ, 779, 188, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/188

    doi

  35. [43]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    McDonough, W. F. 2003, Treatise on Geochemistry, 2, 568, doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043751-6/02015-6

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004

    Melo, E., Souto, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5004

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    E., & Scalo, J

    Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS, 41, 513, doi: 10.1086/190629

    1979 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    Moedas, N., Deal, M., Bossini, D., & Campilho, B. 2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Dressing, C

    Muirhead, P. S., Dressing, C. D., Mann, A. W., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab710

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al

    Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/20

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    2008, PASP, 120, 317, doi: 10.1086/533420 18 Behmard et al

    Nutzman, P., & Charbonneau, D. 2008, PASP, 120, 317, doi: 10.1086/533420 18 Behmard et al

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  47. [55]

    2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004

    2012

  48. [56]

    D., Nordlander, T., Monty, S., et al

    Rains, A. D., Nordlander, T., Monty, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae560

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Allard, F., Rajpurohit, S., et al

    Rajpurohit, A. S., Allard, F., Rajpurohit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833500

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ac8

    Rampalli, R., Ness, M., & Wylie, S. 2021, ApJ, 921, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ac8

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    K., Edwards, G

    Rampalli, R., Ness, M. K., Edwards, G. H., Newton, E. R., & Bedell, M. 2024, ApJ, 965, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad303e

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    Rice, M., & Brewer, J. M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f96

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    R., Muirhead, P

    Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/93

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    2021, A&A, 654, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141530

    Shan, Y., Reiners, A., Fabbian, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141530

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    V., Cunha, K., Shetrone, M

    Smith, V. V., Cunha, K., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/16

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al

    Smith, V. V., Bizyaev, D., Cunha, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abefdc

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    A., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/239

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43

    Souto, D., Allende Prieto, C., Cunha, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b43

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    V., et al

    Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d07 —. 2022, ApJ, 927, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4891 Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Rebolo, R., & Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I. 2016, A&A, 595, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628586

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2018, A&A, 609, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731442

    Trifonov, T., K¨ urster, M., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731442

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    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

  63. [71]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd4bd Wes McKinney

    Wanderley, F., Cunha, K., Souto, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd4bd Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    M., & Wallerstein, G

    Woolf, V. M., & Wallerstein, G. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa878

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    M., & West, A

    Woolf, V. M., & West, A. A. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1489, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20722.x 19 APPENDIX 20 Behmard et al. 0.8 1.0 0 2 1 0 1 1/|max( 1)| 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 2/|max( 2)| Fe I 15200 15300 15400 15500 15600 15700 Wavelength [Å] 1 0 1 3/|max( 3)| Mg I 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 ...

    2012

Pith tools

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