Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Introducing STARDIS: An Open and Modular Stellar Spectral Synthesis Code

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stardis matches a reference stellar-spectrum code to a few percent

desk verdict A solid, honest code paper: the open-source STARDIS tool is real and the validation is meaningful, but the abstract overstates the 'few percent' agreement and the 'no other Python code' claim is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17762 v2 pith:J7Y74AXT submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Joshua V. Shields , Wolfgang Kerzendorf , Isaac G. Smith , Tiago M. D. Pereira , Christian Vogl , Ryan Groneck , Andrew Fullard , Jaladh Singhal
show 2 more authors
Jing Lu Christopher J. Fontes
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords stellarspectralsynthesisradiativetransferlocalthermodynamicequilibriumFGKstarsopacitycalculationsatomiclinelistsmolecularPython
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 stardis, a modular, open-source Python code that synthesizes 1D stellar spectra under local thermodynamic equilibrium for FGK-type stars from near-ultraviolet to infrared. The authors validate it by running stardis and the reference code korg on the same MARCS atmospheric models for four stars and comparing four diagnostic wavelength windows. They report agreement to within a few percent or better in red-optical wavelengths, with divergence in the ultraviolet and larger disagreements for cooler, metal-rich stars where molecules form. The point of the exercise is to show that an approachable, extensible code can be trusted for abundance work where it agrees, while flagging where it cannot yet be trusted.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a four-stage pipeline: ingest atmospheric structure and atomic/molecular data, solve LTE plasma populations with the Saha and Boltzmann equations plus diatomic molecular equilibrium constants, sum continuum opacities (Thomson, Rayleigh, bound-free, and free-free) and Voigt-profile line opacities, then trace rays through plane-parallel or spherical geometry with the piecewise formal solver and Gauss-Legendre disk averaging. The load-bearing part is that the same MARCS atmosphere, Kurucz/VALD line lists, and Barklem-Collet molecular data are fed to both stardis and korg, so the comparison isolates the solvers rather than the inputs.

What would settle it

Run both codes on the same MARCS model but with two different high-quality line lists and see whether the few-percent agreement survives; if it does not, the claimed agreement was a property of the shared input data, not of the codes' physics. A second clean test is to compare both codes' synthesized H-alpha and Ca II triplet against a high-resolution observed solar spectrum with well-calibrated continuum, since the paper itself notes that korg predicts weaker H-alpha than observed for HD122563.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a from-scratch Python spectral synthesis pipeline reproduces a modern reference code's spectrum for solar-type stars at the few-percent level in red-optical wavelengths, including the H-alpha line to better than four percent and the Ca II triplet to better than one percent, despite using different broadening prescriptions and different chemical-balance solvers. The same comparison shows systematic gaps: the codes diverge blueward of about 4000 angstroms because stardis lacks high-energy continuum opacities, and stardis over-predicts molecular formation in cool metal-rich stars such as Alpha Centauri B because molecules are not folded into a full equilibrium balance. The claim is therefore conditional: stardis is a working LTE synthesis instrument for FGK stars in the optical and near-IR, with known, stated deficiencies.

Load-bearing premise

The validation rests on the assumption that stardis agreeing with korg on shared inputs means stardis is physically accurate, even though the two codes share large portions of atomic data and atmosphere models, so the agreement may partly reflect shared systematics rather than independent correctness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For solar-type and hotter stars, stardis spectra can be used for abundance measurements from lines redder than about 5000 angstroms at the claimed few-percent precision level.
  • Below about 4000 angstroms the code should be used with caution until metal continuum opacities are implemented; ultraviolet fluxes are not yet reliable.
  • Cool, metal-rich stars will have over-strong molecular bands because of the current single-molecule formation treatment.
  • Because the code is modular and Python-based, new opacity sources and geometry options can be added without rewriting the radiative-transfer core.
  • The H-alpha comparison shows that stardis's broadening prescription is competitive with a specialized Stark broadening treatment for solar-type stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported agreement is driven by shared line lists and equilibrium constants, then an independent validation against observed solar or benchmark-star spectra is needed before claiming accuracy for precision abundances; the paper itself only claims agreement with korg.
  • A natural extension would be to include molecules in the full ionization and excitation equilibrium balance, which would likely remove the C2 over-prediction while slightly changing atomic number densities.
  • A testable milestone is re-running the Sun at 3000 to 4000 angstroms with the missing H- and H2+ continuum opacity sources to see whether the disagreement with korg drops below a few percent.
  • The benchmark table suggests the absolute runtime gap to korg is small, so for teaching and exploratory abundance work the lower Python entry cost may outweigh the slower runtime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents stardis, a new 1D LTE stellar spectral synthesis code written in Python as part of the TARDIS ecosystem. It describes the code architecture: input handling of MARCS/MESA atmospheres and atomic/molecular data from NIST, Kurucz, VALD, and Barklem-Collet; plasma equilibrium calculations via the Saha and Boltzmann equations; molecular equilibrium via equilibrium constants; continuum and line opacities including Voigt profiles with Stark, van der Waals, and radiation broadening; and a piecewise radiative transfer solver with planar and spherical ray tracing. The validation compares stardis to korg for four stars (Sun, α Cen B, HD122563, HD499330) using the same MARCS atmospheres, with qualitative comparisons to PHOENIX and to observed solar irradiance. The central claim is that stardis agrees with korg at the few-percent level for solar models, with divergence in the ultraviolet and more extreme differences for cooler stars.

Significance. If the central claim holds, stardis is a useful open-source, modular alternative for 1D LTE stellar spectral synthesis, particularly for FGK stars in the red-optical regime. The paper's strengths include the open, documented code, the use of standardized atomic and molecular data, the direct code-to-code comparison on identical MARCS atmospheres, and the honest inventory of missing physics (UV continuum opacity sources, incomplete molecular equilibrium). The benchmarks in Appendix A are a useful practical contribution. However, the quantitative validation claim in the abstract is not backed by a defined residual metric, and the comparison is between two codes that share substantial inputs, so the evidence currently demonstrates code-to-code consistency rather than independent physical accuracy. The paper is a reasonable methods/code contribution that would benefit from tightened quantitative claims and a clearer statement of validation scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 3.1; Sec. 3.6] The abstract's claim of 'few percent level or better' agreement with korg is not supported by a defined global residual metric. The quantitative statements in Sec. 3.1 are limited to specific wavelength windows (Hα better than 4%, Ca II triplet better than 1%, Mg I about 3%) and to spectra smoothed to R≈2000, while Sec. 3.6 explicitly states that individual 0.1 Å pixels can have large residuals that vanish with convolution. As written, the headline claim is ambiguous and potentially misleading at native resolution or over the full 3000–9000 Å range. The authors should compute a well-defined statistic (e.g., median or percentile of |ΔF|/F over a stated wavelength range and binning) and rephrase the abstract to specify the resolution and wavelength range for which the few-percent statement holds.
  2. [Table 1; Sec. 3.1] Only a single solar model (Teff=5777, logg=4.44, [M/H]=0.0) is compared in the validation, yet the abstract states 'solar models' in the plural. If the claim is intended to generalize to multiple solar-metallicity models, the current data do not support it. The authors should either phrase the claim in the singular (e.g., 'for the solar model') or add additional solar-metallicity models to the comparison.
  3. [Sec. 3; Sec. 3.3; Sec. 4] The validation is a code-to-code comparison in which stardis and korg share MARCS atmospheres and largely overlapping atomic and molecular data (Kurucz, VALD, Barklem-Collet equilibrium constants). The paper itself notes in Sec. 3.3 that korg predicts a weaker Hα line than observed for HD122563. The few-percent agreement in red wavelengths may therefore partly reflect shared inputs and systematics rather than independent physical accuracy. The authors should explicitly state in Sec. 3 or Sec. 4 that the comparison demonstrates consistency between the codes, not absolute accuracy, and should discuss the implications for using stardis in abundance-measurement applications.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1; Appendix A] The statement 'To date, no other stellar spectral synthesis Python code exists' (and its variant in Appendix A, 'the only other recently developed stellar spectral synthesis code') is overbroad; for example, Pyrat Bay is a Python radiative transfer code for atmospheric spectra, and pymoog provides a Python interface to MOOG. The claim should be removed or carefully qualified.
  2. [Sec. 2.3.2; Sec. 2.4.3] In the paragraph following Eq. (24), the symbol χ is defined twice; the second occurrence should be ϵ (the excitation energy). Also, please define Δτ1,2 and Δτ2,3 when they first appear in Eq. (29), and clarify the meaning of the subscripts 1, 2, and 3 in Eqs. (30)–(31).
  3. [Sec. 3.1; Fig. 2] The text 'we synthesize spectra using with as similar metallicities to korg as possible' contains a typo ('using with' should be 'using'). In addition, Figure 2's caption says 'R ≈ 2000' while the text says 'R = 2000'; please make this consistent.
  4. [Table 1] The column header '[ M H ]' should be '[M/H]' for readability, and the note 'nearest models available' should be clarified for the Sun, which appears to be an exact match to the listed parameters.
  5. [Sec. 3.6] The sentence 'A comparison between korg and phoenix shows strong agreement' is not supported by any residual plot or statistic; since the authors explicitly declined to show residuals to phoenix, this statement should be softened or substantiated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the validation claim rests on external code-to-code and observed-spectrum comparisons, not on an assumption of the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that 'stardis generally agrees well with korg for solar models on the few percent level or better,' is supported by direct spectral comparisons against korg, a qualitative comparison to phoenix, and an observed solar irradiance spectrum. The physics chain in Section 2 (Saha and Boltzmann populations, molecular equilibrium constants, Voigt profiles, opacity summation, and the van Noort et al. radiative-transfer solver) is presented as standard first-principles calculation with inputs from external databases such as NIST, Kurucz, VALD, and Barklem & Collet. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the microturbulence value is a fixed, stated choice for comparison, and no quantity used in the validation is derived from korg's output. Shared MARCS atmospheres and overlapping atomic data mean part of the agreement reflects common inputs, but this is a limitation on the strength of the cross-check, not a circular reduction: stardis still performs its own plasma, opacity, and radiative-transfer calculations. The paper explicitly documents remaining disagreements (UV continuum, molecular formation in cool stars) and states that determining which code is more physically accurate is beyond scope, which is the opposite of a self-confirming argument. Self-citations to tardis and carsus concern code infrastructure and are not load-bearing evidence for the validation; the relevant equations are reproduced in the text. The overbroad sentence 'no other stellar spectral synthesis Python code exists' is not load-bearing for any derived result and would be a correctness or scope issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

stardis does not introduce new physical entities. The core assumptions are LTE, 1D atmospheres, accuracy of external atomic data, and a simplified molecular equilibrium. The only hand-set parameter used in the comparisons is microturbulence. These are standard domain assumptions for this kind of code, not ad hoc inventions.

free parameters (1)
  • microturbulent velocity xi = 1.0 km/s for all models
    Chosen by hand to make comparisons with korg under identical assumptions, as described in Section 3. It is an empirical broadening parameter and the paper notes its physical validity is debated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium holds: Saha and Boltzmann equations set populations and the source function is the blackbody function.
    Invoked in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.5.2. This is standard for 1D stellar spectral synthesis but is an assumption, not a derived result.
  • domain assumption MARCS and MESA 1D atmospheric structures adequately represent the stars being modeled.
    Section 2.2 ingests these models as inputs and the comparisons in Section 3 depend on their accuracy.
  • domain assumption External atomic and molecular data from NIST, Kurucz, VALD, and Barklem and Collet are accurate enough for synthesis.
    Section 2.1.1 describes how line lists and equilibrium constants are ingested. Systematic errors in these data would affect both stardis and korg in similar ways.
  • domain assumption Neglecting the consumption of reactants when molecules form is acceptable for the modeled stars.
    Section 3.2 states that stardis over-predicts molecular formation for cool, metal-rich stars because reactants can be counted multiple times. This limits the validation for such stars.
  • standard math The van Noort formal solver and the Humlicek Voigt approximation are accurate numerical methods.
    Used in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.5.2. These are established numerical algorithms from the cited literature, verified internally against SciPy to 0.01 percent for the Voigt profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Introducing STARDIS: An Open and Modular Stellar Spectral Synthesis Code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7Y74AXT

@misc{pith2026250417762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Introducing STARDIS: An Open and Modular Stellar Spectral Synthesis Code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7Y74AXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17762}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a new 1D stellar spectral synthesis Python code called stardis. stardis is a modular, open-source radiative transfer code that is capable of spectral synthesis from near-UV to IR for FGK stars. We describe the structure, inputs, features, underlying physics, and assumptions of stardis as well as the radiative transfer scheme implemented. To validate our code, we show spectral comparisons between stardis and korg with the same input atmospheric structure models, and also compare qualitatively to phoenix for solar models. We find that stardis generally agrees well with korg for solar models on the few percent level or better, that the codes can diverge in the ultraviolet, with more extreme differences in cooler stars. stardis can be found at https://github.com/tardis-sn/stardis, and documentation can be found at https://tardis-sn.github.io/stardis/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A graphic flowchart showing the operation of stardis. All inputs are parsed in the input (I/O) stage. The code then creates a Stellar Model that sets up the physical grid at which all future parameters will be evaluated. On this grid, the Stellar Plasma determines the state of the plasma in the atmosphere with the specified quantities, which is then used to calculate the opacity of the plasma. Finally, the simulatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison to medium resolution (R ≈ 2000) spectral observations of the Sun. The very blue and UV spectra show poor agreement, often disagreeing above 10%, but the raw flux of the spectrum beyond 5000 ˚A shows strong agreement on typical instrumental resolutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A spectral comparison between stardis and korg for a solar analog, with stellar parameters Teff = 5777 K, log g = 4.44, [ M H ] = 0.0, ξ = 1.0 km s−1 . The top left shows a focus on the Hα line. The top right shows the Ca II triplet. The bottom left shows the Ca II K line. The bottom right shows a strong Mg I line. All spectra here are continuum normalized except the Ca II K line to show discrepancies in UV continuu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Migration and Evolution of giant ExoPlanets (MEEP) II: Super-Jupiters and Lithium-rich Host Stars

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Four new super-Jupiters are confirmed and the subgiant TOI-4138 shows a 4.5-sigma lithium excess attributed to planetary engulfment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    ']r k_r ˹Je\ Y1s).ƮY.֋#Ҋ+ax - ,Rl;ncNW Qr ٻ|E×<bg Ngb!). > |Q ɫZ _r6Se^U[]G[[; 3b jo6

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

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Kramida , Yu

    A. Kramida , Yu. Ralchenko , J. Reader , & and NIST ASD Team . 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    D., & O'Mara, B

    Anstee, S. D., & O'Mara, B. J. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 276, 859, 10.1093/mnras/276.3.859

    doi:10.1093/mnras/276.3.859 1995

  6. [6]

    S., Nagendra, K

    Anusha, L. S., Nagendra, K. N., Paletou, F., & Léger, L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, 661, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/661

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/1/661 2009

  7. [7]

    2005, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 43, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134001

    Asplund, M. 2005, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 43, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134001

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 653, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    P., Tollerud, E

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

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 296, 1057, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01484.x

    Barklem, P., O'Mara, B., & Ross, J. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 296, 1057, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01484.x

    1998

  5. [13]

    S., & Collet, R

    Barklem, P. S., & Collet, R. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 588, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526961

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    S., & Piskunov, N

    Barklem, P. S., & Piskunov, N. 2003, 210, E28. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IAUS..210P.E28B

    2003

  7. [15]

    Baron, E., Chen, B., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1010.056. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ascl.soft10056B

    2010

  8. [16]

    L., & Berrington, K

    Bell, K. L., & Berrington, K. A. 1987, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 20, 801, 10.1088/0022-3700/20/4/019

    1987 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 569, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofré, P. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 569, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Magee, N

    Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 116, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/116

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    1954, Nature, 173, 680, 10.1038/173680b0

    de Jager, C. 1954, Nature, 173, 680, 10.1038/173680b0

    1954 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Landi, E., Mason, H

    Dere, K. P., Landi, E., Mason, H. E., Fossi, B. C. M., & Young, P. R. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 125, 149, 10.1051/aas:1997368

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Zanna, G

    Dere, K. P., Zanna, G. D., Young, P. R., Landi, E., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab05cf

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaec3

    Do, T., Kerzendorf, W., Konopacky, Q., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaec3

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Gray, D. F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres , 3rd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 10.1017/CBO9781316036570

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    O., & Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, C. J. 1994, The Astronomical Journal, 107, 742, 10.1086/116893

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    2011, 442, 425

    Greenfield, P. 2011, 442, 425. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ASPC..442..425G

    2011

  18. [26]

    Gueymard, C. A. 2018, Solar Energy, 169, 434, 10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.067

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 486, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 486, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 1992, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 47, 433, 10.1016/0022-4073(92)90105-D

    1992 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Miller, D

    Hillier, D. J., & Miller, D. L. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 496, 407, 10.1086/305350

    1998 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1109.022

    Hubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1109.022. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ascl.soft09022H

    2011

  24. [32]

    2014, Theory of Stellar Atmospheres

    Hubeny, I., & Mihalas, D. 2014, Theory of Stellar Atmospheres . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014tsa..book.....H

    2014

  25. [33]

    1982, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 27, 437, 10.1016/0022-4073(82)90078-4

    Humlíček, J. 1982, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 27, 437, 10.1016/0022-4073(82)90078-4

    1982 doi

  26. [34]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, 265, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, tardis-sn/tardis: TARDIS v2024.08.25, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13370472

    Kerzendorf, W., Sim, S., Vogl, C., et al. 2024, tardis-sn/tardis: TARDIS v2024.08.25, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13370472

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    E., & Sim, S

    Kerzendorf, W. E., & Sim, S. A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 387, 10.1093/mnras/stu055

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Stempels, H

    Kupka, F., Piskunov, N., Ryabchikova, T. A., Stempels, H. C., & Weiss, W. W. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 138, 119, 10.1051/aas:1999267

    1999 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Ryabchikova, T

    Kupka, F. G., Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Stempels, H. C., & Weiss, W. W. 2000, Baltic Astronomy, 9, 590, 10.1515/astro-2000-0420

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 18

    Kurucz, R. 1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 18. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993KurCD..18.....K

    1993

  33. [41]

    1995, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 23

    Kurucz, R., & Bell, B. 1995, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 23. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995KurCD..23.....K

    1995

  34. [42]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2017, Canadian Journal of Physics, 95, 825, 10.1139/cjp-2016-0794

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC , LLVM '15 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 1--6, 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  36. [44]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015814

    Mucciarelli, A. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015814

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, Productivity, Portability , Performance : Data - Centric Python , 10.48550/arXiv.2107.00555

    Nikolaos Ziogas, A., Schneider, T., Ben-Nun, T., et al. 2021, Productivity, Portability , Performance : Data - Centric Python , 10.48550/arXiv.2107.00555

    2021 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    V., & Ryabchikova, T

    Pakhomov, Y. V., & Ryabchikova, T. A. 2019, INASAN Science Reports, 4, 79, 10.26087/INASAN.2019.4.2.014

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2011, 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2015, 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, 234, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T

    Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S. 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 112, 525. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&AS..112..525P

    1995

  45. [53]

    2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1205.004. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ascl.soft05004P

    2012

  46. [54]

    A., E., K

    Pássaro, E. A., E., K. W., A., F., & C., V. 2020, An open source framework for atomic data, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4062427

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, Physica Scripta, 90, 054005, 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Piskunov, N

    Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., & Weiss, W. W. 1997, Baltic Astronomy, 6, 244, 10.1515/astro-1997-0216

    1997 doi

  49. [57]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986rpa..book.....R

    1986

  50. [58]

    Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 5, 93, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406268

    2004 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2021, Numerical Python in Astronomy and Astrophysics ; A Practical Guide to Astrophysical Problem Solving , 10.1007/978-3-030-70347-9

    Schmidt, W., & Völschow, M. 2021, Numerical Python in Astronomy and Astrophysics ; A Practical Guide to Astrophysical Problem Solving , 10.1007/978-3-030-70347-9

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    1973, The Astrophysical Journal, 184, 839, 10.1086/152374

    Sneden, C. 1973, The Astrophysical Journal, 184, 839, 10.1086/152374

    1973 doi

  53. [61]

    2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1202.009

    Sneden, C., Bean, J., Ivans, I., Lucatello, S., & Sobeck, J. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1202.009. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ascl.soft02009S

    2012

  54. [62]

    Stancil, P. C. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 430, 360, 10.1086/174411

    1994 doi

  55. [63]

    1978, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 20, 333, 10.1016/0022-4073(78)90102-4

    Sutton, K. 1978, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 20, 333, 10.1016/0022-4073(78)90102-4

    1978 doi

  56. [64]

    team, T. p. d. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    1960, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 49, 231

    Traving, G. 1960, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 49, 231. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960ZA.....49..231T

    1960

  58. [66]

    A., & Piskunov, N

    Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 118, 595. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..118..595V

    1996

  59. [67]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 1066, 10.1086/338949

    van Noort, M., Hubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 1066, 10.1086/338949

    2002 doi

  60. [68]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    1912, Sitzungsberichte, Vol

    Voigt, W. 1912, Sitzungsberichte, Vol. 1912,25, Über das Gesetz der Intensitätsverteilung innerhalb der Linien eines Gasspektrums (München). https://publikationen.badw.de/de/003395768

    1912

  62. [70]

    1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 381, 10.1093/mnras/136.4.381

    Warner, B. 1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 381, 10.1093/mnras/136.4.381

    1967 doi

  63. [71]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , ed

    Wes, M. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Abruzzo, M

    Wheeler, A. J., Abruzzo, M. W., Casey, A. R., & Ness, M. K. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 68, 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaad

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Wishart, A. W. 1979, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics, 12, 3511, 10.1088/0022-3700/12/21/009

    1979 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.